inckley fox

I'm in the same boat. If anyone has a stream, I'd be grateful for a PM.

You've got to be kidding me. 'Real Love', as fond as I am of it, was certainly not one of the strongest songs in either The Beatles' or Lennon's back catalogues. As for the production of 'Real Love', well, the guitar part is a bit gimmicky (e.g. the flourishes which follow 'from this moment on I know' and 'exactly where my life will go'), and the voice carries the piano from the demo whenever it appears, meaning there are two pianos incongruously pitched against each other whenever Lennon opens his mouth. The drums are proper son-of-a-bricklayer stuff. The source material was strong and had potential, but they didn't do it justice at the time. Some of this could be fixed now, but 'Now and Then' is, as it stands, a more carefully rendered, and way better-produced cut. In its final state, it's a league or two above those 90s offerings. Its reception, starkly contrasted with the reviews for the 1995/6 tracks, reflects that fairly faithfully in my opinion (without wanting to go down the 'everyone says it's better so they must be right!' path). I'm hard to please when it comes to music, but they've totally nailed the epilogue to the most incredible body of work that popular music has ever seen.

'Real Love' in its original demo form was, if you take the version used in the 'Imagine' docufilm, a better, more complete song than the scratchy demos of 'Free As A Bird' or 'Now and Then'. In fact, I'd have been more interested to see what someone (though not necessarily The Beatles) could have done with his edgier, cleaner-sounding demos like 'She's A Friend of Dorothy's' or 'Serve Yourself'. But the final Beatles versions of both 'Free As A Bird' and 'Real Love' were vastly inferior, surely, to 'Now and Then'. I was ready to be bitterly disappointed, as I was in 1995 and have been by countless other comeback songs, but I think they've made a fine record, even if you strip away the backstory. It's a personal response, obviously, but I reckon it's hard not to let expectations run wild with such a high-profile release. When they, and all the fanfare, fall away, you're left with something very decent.

I rate him! But come on, he wasn't especially effective in that game. Let's not kid ourselves.

I don't think he had a great game at all to be truthful.

There's no question, it's an extremely poor service. The club should be doing more.

I'm not sure Faes is the issue. I think, in spite of the goal, that the four wide players have been poor. Choudhury and Mavididi asleep for the goal. Fatawu totally contained by their FB. I was moaning about the four of them when we were 1-0 up. We also seem way more interested in taking risks in front of our own box than when we're in promising positions.

I've had to silence it. Shocking again. This isn't hard to get right.

I've not been convinced by Hamza or Fatawu on the left today. Neither is having a stinker, but they're not at their best.

Yes, it's a split-second ahead, definitely.

Rowley looks pretty robust. Chandler looks like an old man. That's my rule!

And isn't Kramaric in there? (Edit) beaten to it!

I can see Rowley, but not Chandler. Maybe I'm missing someone.

I mean, there has to actually be some reason for you to believe that a contact injury incurred in a match was provoked by something which happened on the training ground - and there's literally no reason at all to think that - otherwise I'm not sure how your point could stand. And in response to another post, yes, if you go back you'll see that many were very worried about our injuries before we moved to Seagrave, and felt sure that the move would put the problem to bed. Under Rodgers, we had genuine reasons to believe that something had occurred between the previous eras, when injuries weren't much of an issue, and his. But I don't see how Seagrave comes into this, other than that it didn't provide a solution to the problem.

Unless I've misread something, a fan on the Bristol City forum who had a season-long subscription - and has experienced similar issues - claims to have received a full reimbursement without their subscription being cancelled. Is that my error, their error, someone else's error, or a lawyer's advice?

So you get a refund if you pay for one game. But if you make a bigger commitment to the club's products, no refund and - in my case - not even a polite message. To me, it's shocking treatment. And, to be honest, my expectations of the club weren't at all high. Years ago I'd have felt let down, but after what I've seen in recent years I really should have known better. I've never made much of an effort with social media. But I'm going to go out of my way to let people know that they're not going to get what they paid for if they make the same mistake I did.

I just wish they'd got in touch, one way or another. I'd be fairly patient if they had. I always tried to avoid illegal streaming, but, having moved abroad, it's proven very reliable over the past week, as opposed to the legal means that I paid for in good faith. So I've learnt a lot from that. The outrageously wealthy people who sue poor people for illegally streaming should learn something too. If you toe the line, as I did, the one clear upshot is that breaking the law is way more effective, and that the supposedly moral way of paying for a product is inferior to the free one. If you want to get rich off selling these products, do it properly. Or at least send me a bloody message when you screw up.

I think a lot of people on here were saying that the midweek game was unavailable. It certainly was for me. Similarly, some - like me - definitely had a problem for the first half on Saturday. I've sent a couple of moans their way, neither of which has yet been responded to.