Chris

Matt Palmer is the captain and the best passer of the ball, thanks to his skill in retaining possession. David McGoldrick when he's in form it's hard not to include him, and it's a credit to his work rate, especially at his age. Alex Bass is the most valuable player in our team, we finally have a keeper who is solid and able to grow with us. Jodi Jones always believe in... George Abbott even if he's on loan, it's hard for me to name a team which wouldn't include him.

He could be a bit of a k**b, but I did think he made a good assistant. It's just his tendency to act like him and Kevin Nolan were to be worshipped. I had no issues with him, and the times I spoke with him, he sounded very knowledgable, but I did see him reacting unprofessionally. Weather a good or bad thing, he wouldn't hear anyone bad mouth Nolan's tactics etc to the point he would just go off on one. Pairing him with Jamie Fullarton would create an explosive combination! Get that TNT ready.

There's always vary levels of 'rumours', and it's something I have never got involved with. JJ (a former admin) used to like sharing them if they seemed of interest, but it just leads to people second guessing. When reports from reputable sources like the BBC or other trusted journalists indicate that we are about to welcome new players. I am fine with speculating, and seeing how the discussion grows. It's not something I am all that inclined to do on social media, as I really want the Pride of Nottingham to be a trusted source and something fans can rely on for common sense. I know some supporters in the past have expressed they miss the fan element of the social side, I still pride myself on reporting facts and things of value. There's no issue discussing or informing the community of what's known or might have been heard. It will likely tend to show how genuine people are, so I am not bothered about that. I don't like when people are intentionally dishonest and make up stories for clout. Those people get caught out time and time again, but some will always look for the false information instead of ignoring it. It's usually better to take things with a pinch of salt, as it can be annoying when negative.

His Wikipedia isn't much to go on, so I won't read much into that. I have faith in the scouting, and our ability to develop players. If he's quick, he should get plenty of chances (if this is true). It would push Junior Morias more out of the picture, but the likelihood of him getting minutes again seemed slim. Interesting potential signing though, I hope it is true because the firepower could be a vital part of our promotion push.

The momentum we are in right now, will be extremely crucial when it comes to the end of the season. Victories like this, even if we did concede late on, shows why we are in the mist of promotion and nicely positioned within the automatic places. Keeping our feet firmly on the ground, focus on each game as they come is the right way for us to approach game. Notts performed exceptionally well in the first half, it was a good start and the two goals shows how focused we are when we break with that focus. Quite a few goals for us tend to come within spells of each other. It's a good result, Gillingham will have had their plans and for us to start so brightly is a huge positive. David McGoldrick's goal is a class effort, just the way he took the shot and made it look so effortless. There were no signs he was going to lob the keeper, but he does it very gracefully. It's an excellent outcome on the road. We need to continue to add to the morale the players have right now, with returning players etc, it could add more fire.

It was a good performance by Notts, gritty at times but David McGoldrick's dink goal was just class. His whole performance was exceptional, and I think he deserves my support in the vote here.

Interesting that it states the medical is happening over the weekend, with the game today, it leaves this to be carried out tomorrow (Sunday). I know there were rumours about him failing, plus that we wouldn't be signing him due to other interested parties. Tomorrow could be a day to keep an eye on the official channels. Then again, it could end up being announced on Monday... Or not.

Having heard stories from my grandfather Ray and Granny Pie about Tony Hateley, I can certainly see why Notts fans took to him. In all the research I have done, I know he's loved by clubs like Liverpool too. His legacy inspired his son and grandson to take up the game too. All three were very good players, but Big Tony Hateley no doubt deserves the title of legend, not just at Notts but within football.

In my passing time, I tend to watch YouTube videos. I have it on usually in the background when I am working on the Pride of Nottingham, plus other things I do online. So, whilst the videos loop to a new one - unless I choose what to watch, leaving the videos to play brings up videos it deems of interest to me. One of the videos, it made me feel like déjà vu, but I tried shrugging it off as just being due to the content being the same subject. But it kept bugging me, and near to the end it almost became word for word in memory on a video I had watched 2 years ago. I found it incredibly intriguing. I watched both videos - stopping and pausing as the script to the video seemed too familiar. And yes, to me, I could identify that the video script did clash in most parts with the original video that I had watched earlier. With this information, I went to the YouTube channel's Discord and posted about it. I got warned for sharing the link. Okay, they don't allow links, but the warning came across very heavy-handed. I reposted the same message, remitting the URL. A new member joined amongst this and asked a genuine question, which I answered. Both the question and my response were deleted almost instantly. Now, the question just asked why the channel joked about not being able to mention a certain subject, and my response was the take on it. Basically, it seemed a nod at a political family's links to conspiracies and scandals. Nothing OTT, just my thoughts. I asked about why the messages had been deleted, I then received another warning. So, I politely asked why I kept receiving warnings. To which, I had another warning about not publicly arguing with moderators. A moderator sarcastically referred to my message original and told me to speak with them privately. Now the rules are not to message people privately without being requested to do so, so how do you ask questions? Upon the moderator opening up a private conversation with me, I realised I had been banned. Confused and frustrated, I did become somewhat argumentative after the moderator listed the channels rules. I asked him if free speech meant anything, and how a simple message from the start could have avoided much of my responses. I was trying to be fair, but I felt like I were being handled by the nazi's. I received another warning, and were told that I would be removed from the channel if I kept arguing. Trying to calm down, I took a step back and wrote how this whole interaction came across to me in a fair and polite way. Pointing out that I had posted to help them, and that the moderation seemed very heavy and unfriendly. I stated I wasn't trying to argue, but I had questions, and with them, you will get points that they might not like. The moderator began responding with brief three-letter replies. This was a grown adult, acting like a child, it felt. I took a step back, and thought about how strange this situation was. So, I carefully explained and mentioned that I felt my points were failed and asked if he understood my point. He claimed he did, and said if I agreed to the rules I would be allowed access again. I thanked him, and reaffirmed my points that I had not intentionally broken the rules but that again, the moderation was very heavy without any consideration. I took the rules, quoted them and explained why I didn't believe I was breaking them. Sometimes, rules do need to be mentioned. If I blocked every URL it would be very excessive, but I do understand that it's restricted. I gave my advice on moderation fairly, explaining that I have been around popular forums since the 00s. The moderator said I had my access restored, whilst typing a response he closed the communication between the two of us. You might think, I am being difficult, but I'm not. I went with good intentions to point out a video was ripping them off. Due to the heavy moderation, you cannot speak or do anything without being warned. It's not helpful, it's not reasonable, and thirdly where's the transparency? I guess, I am too old-fashioned. So, at this stage I still have had several warnings for things which break their strict rules but in a way where it wasn't intentional. I was trying to be helpful, as I say I understand the rules, but it was very unpleasant. In the main channel, I asked if I could speak to another mod, mentioning two other names. The same moderator replied saying that the discussion was over and that they don't speak to people unless it's needed. So, I replied that I wanted to give them a link to the video and that I was done with trying to plead my innocence because clearly they don't care what people say. They're disinterested, noncommunicative and very aggressive. I left the channel, then I had another senior moderator try to speak with me. I declined, then an admin popped up trying to do it. I declined, then I had this warning message about that I was banned due to being confrontational and unwilling to discuss the issue. It's really put me off watching the YouTube channel, as I don't wish to support this behaviour. All the years I have used forums, chat rooms etc. I have never once had an experience like this. I might not compare to their size with any of the sites I have done or owned, but I would never treat someone like this.

Everyone is fighting for points, and Gillingham won't be happy where they are in the league table. People will take false positions, but I think they should be doing much better than they are. Similarly, Gillingham is closely positioned in the league standings alongside Swindon Town and Colchester United. It just shows how open the league is this season, and the importance of maintaining your form. Notts has done well in January to bring in players. I agree that Will Jarvis looks like a good player and I look forward to seeing more from him. There's a lot more depth for us on the bench, and we can manage David McGoldrick by either resting him on the bench or starting to be replaced later on in games if we can afford to take him off. So, I don't worry about that so much now, what with the cover and depth now in the squad. Gillingham's pitch is a funny one too, it's similar to Meadow Lane's size but is slightly narrower. This can result in a more compact game, with less space for wingers and full-backs to exploit the wide areas. It might lead to more central play and could benefit teams that are strong in the middle of the park. Notts will need to be mindful of these differences and adapt their tactics accordingly. They might need to focus on quick, precise passing and maintaining possession to counteract the slightly narrower pitch. So, Stuart Maynard might need to rethink how our inverted wing backs play part in the game and how we can move forward where the play might be tighter.

No issues from my checks have been caused by the latest patch. The upgrade was very smooth (as it should be). The most significant update to mention is the introduction of BlueSky embeds.

George Abbott really ran away with this one, I wasn't at the game and I haven't seen the highlights yet. I do re-watch the full games, even those to which I have seen live. So, I am looking forward to seeing Abbott's magic and Jatta's goal.

I will be performing a site update tonight at 11:35 PM London time. It's just a routine patch. (I say routine, but there shouldn't be any extended downtime - I just hope there are no complications. (Most of the time patches are fine.)

Fixed this earlier, but then I had to adjust the CSS slightly so that it didn't cause issues to mobile devices. Fixed: Amended the fix to Liam's reported issue, which has resolved this. Thanks for reporting the problems, sorry about the issue(s) too.

After reading and replying to Fan of Big Tone's discussion about Stuart Maynard having been in his role for a year, I thought further about my response and whilst I don't want this to come across as ripping into Maynard's ability, I do think there's room to talk about how he can improve further. I do feel it's important that we acknowledge where he has come from, what he's achieved so far with us and that he will still be learning his role in a much bigger environment than he has previously held. I have listed some general areas where I believe he can, and at times is showing a better understanding. I do wonder what the community thinks, especially from more Maynard out supporters. Player Rotation: Maynard could focus on better rotation of players to avoid over-reliance on key players like David McGoldrick. This would give other players, more opportunities to contribute and develop, while also managing their fitness and health. Consistency in Selection: It’s important for Maynard to avoid frequently switching back to previous players and disregarding current form. Giving consistent playing time to in-form players can help maintain their performance levels and confidence. Adaptability in Substitutions: Maynard should work on the timing and manner of making substitutions. Avoiding late and all-at-once changes, and making more gradual and strategic substitutions during the game can help maintain the team's momentum and better manage player fitness. Maximizing Player Potential: Maynard needs to focus on understanding each player's strengths and positioning them where they can perform best. For example, Cedwyn Scott [whilst he was here] may perform better as a striker rather than an attacking midfielder, which should be considered in team selection. Handling Underperforming Players: Rather than sidelining underperforming players like Kellan Gordon, Maynard could work on ways to help them regain their form and confidence, possibly through tailored coaching and support. In-game Decision Making: Improving in-game decision-making, especially against teams like Salford, by utilising strategies that counter the opponent's strengths. This might include leveraging speed and a more direct approach when necessary. Learning from Mistakes: It’s crucial for Maynard to continue learning and adapting from his experiences. Recognizing when bold changes are needed versus when they may be detrimental to the team’s performance is key. If we can rationalise and be fair, perhaps we can further see just how much Maynard has done better than we might feel, along with fair points about how he can improve.

I don't think anyone could say that Stuart Maynard hasn't been a good appointment because he has done well enough after taking on the role after Luke Williams left us at the worst time. The beginning was very unfortunate for Maynard, and I don't fault him for the downward fall that happened when we seemed to start losing every other week. I think from the coaching point of view, that is where his strengths are. He knows the squad now and who to start. There was a period especially last season when good performing players were dropped unexpectedly, and I still would say he's learning on the job. The issue for me is he has a tendency of still impacting how players perform by instantly switching back to previous players and disregarding form. We started with a fair squad, but certain players were overplayed and this left us with much of an issue. Such as relying on David McGoldrick without giving someone like Cedwyn Scott more of a rotational role. Obviously, Scott then got injured and then needed time off for his mental health. I think experienced managers would have been able to see some of these issues coming. Scott was probably wanting to play as a striker but would often be pushed into an attacking midfield role. He was okay in that position, but you have to wonder when we needed someone to ease Jatta and McGoldrick, why Scott never really got that chance. I mean, there was a point Scott had more of a chance, but he quickly fell back to being someone on the bench. Leaving changes late, or making them all in one go. The FA Cup match is the only time I feel justified in defending that decision, as we really needed to manage the players' fitness. Did he have to make them all in one go? No, but Peterborough had made changes long before all our subs came on that helped them come into the game. It just became an excuse, to the frustration that he does tend to make bold changes when it's not really needed. On the other hand, he has done well with changes and again, it comes down to management. I just don't think Maynard sees how to get the best out of players' performances and sees the squad as being acceptable for being subpar. Whereas I think the old fashioned approach of handling players in form yields better results on the pitch. I don't think it's a case of him having favourites, but he seems to rate players more highly over others and prefers to risk them at the expense of maintaining form. Kellan Gordon burst into the team when we needed someone to pick up after the loss of Jodi Jones, but the way Maynard played him I believe impacted Gordon's form. Now, I don't think Gordon is the most consistent player but he's a totally different player when in form. Maynard is still clearly learning. He's gone from the nervous selections to knowing which players are best, but it does come at the cost of maintaining form. His decisions in-game are a sign that he's sometimes out of his depth. Salford, for example, we desperately needed speed to counter how Salford passed the ball around. They enjoyed sitting off us, allowing the pace and the lack of direct approach from Notts meant that at 1-0, we were only going to lose that game. I still have my reservations about if he's good enough. I want him to succeed, and as I say, he will get my support, but certain parts of his ability are an eye-opener.

Absolutely, Jim O'Brien would be a great assistant, I feel. Michael Doyle, no. Doyle wants to be a manager, and he showed his true colours jumping with Ian Burchnall when they left for Forest Green Rovers. It wasn't a move that made sense for him, but we have benefitted from him leaving. As a person, Doyle is a great guy, but both his roles held us back. At the time, I thought Doyle was a sensible decision to support Ian burchnall but over time I realised just how better Ryan Harley and a more experienced assistant makes. I actually have always felt Stuart Maynard would have been better supported if the Saunders brothers were just coaches. Allowing for someone with EFL experience to come in and offer the guidance Maynard could thrive with.

Viva the Pineapple pizza! ✌

I think both players in hindsight arrived in a similar situation, requiring game time and confidence. If the results had gone our way earlier on during their loan spell, we might have seen more from them, especially Josh Martins. His early cameos, I didn't see anything special, and it wasn't positive at all as to how we could get the most out of him. Stark contrasts to his time nearer the end of his deal at Notts. Both Martins and Jevani Brown had something which we do quite lack within our squad, something which at times we should have injected, but Stuart Maynard seemed hesitant to play them. That was his decision, and I am not criticising that. I actually understand why, in some cases they did tend to be overlooked. But, I would like to make the point that in games - especially against Salford we lacked energy and pace. Martins did well when he came on, he looked a bright spark and I had been calling his presence sooner. Some fans instantly spouted negative stuff when he arrived at the field, shouting that he was $**t, one of which left saying his performance was embarrassing and how he shouldn't have come on. In my opinion, I challenge him by asking him who else looked like they could break Salford's defence. Salford looked ropey when we ran at them, David McGoldrick caused them problems when he tried to be direct. However, naturally he doesn't have the pace and relies on his skill. This is why I felt Martins and Brown could have made a bigger impact, especially in that game. It shows the complexity and gamble of giving players more time, as it could have hindered us picking up points. I wish them both all the best; I can understand Brown going back. Yet, I do think we should have given Martins another 6 months or to the end of this current season.

From what I have seen and heard (commentary) it would have to be David McGoldrick. Yet it did sound like an excellent team performance, where everyone played their part in securing the three points and clean sheet. It didn't sound like Accrington were all that much of a threat.

Has the club announced who the new vice captain is? I would assume it's a safe bet that David McGoldrick would be the next in line. The only other two candidates for me would be Jodi Jones, and then Curtis Edwards, but the latter hasn't been here long enough to warrant it IMO.

Is Steve Bloomer, the player you have a book on @super_ram? About him being Football's first superstar?? This exact book here - Steve Bloomer: The Story of Football's First Superstar by Peter J. Seddon (Hardcover, 1999) for sale online | eBay WWW.EBAY.CO.UK Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Steve Bloomer: The Story of Football's First Superstar by Peter J. Seddon (Hardcover, 1999) at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for...

I'm aware of him, I've seen highlights and I know roughly his background, but he's one of those players my generation might not have appreciated - unless they supported a team in which he played for. I'll look up if there are any documentaries about him. Rest in Peace, Dennis Law.

A simple and secure Google form has been created to enable me to gather emails. Important: Potential Downtime Notifications FORMS.GLE We hope this message finds you well. We are reaching out to inform you about potential downtime or issues that may affect our services. To ensure you are promptly notified, we kindly request you to add the... Please don't confuse this with newsletters; that will be a separate thing and this is solely to let you know of issues. Primarily concerning downtime, site complications, or equally significant matters.

I am going to start compiling permission from members who would like to be notified if a major situation occurs, such as significant downtime. I require authorisation in accordance with GDPR regulations. I will be sending the updates via the email [email protected] - if you agree, please ensure you add the email as a contact. There is the possibility that I might send such messages via my own personal account: [email protected] as if our server goes down, so will our mailing handler. In addition to the email, I will be setting up a Discord server. Further news of that will come at a later time; it will not be a replacement for our community forums. A service page will also be created, which will highlight if we are running as per normal with information where news can be sourced to any potential issues. New members are already placed in a group, where they need to post x amount of times to access regular membership. Once those requirements have been reached, they are automatically moved into the next group with the ability to perform functions previously limited. A review of this within the next major update may see a few more restrictions applied to guests, and various levels of benefits to early members as they rank up. I generally favour communication and motivation that stem from tangible effort and results. Yet sometimes people need pushes, and a different type of encouragement.