owler5

If the club have lied on their statement then I don't see why Wednesdayite, Armed Forces owls etc have an issue? The Trust only said that they didn't sign it off which, if true, was the right thing to tell the fans. Why the other groups are trying to help keep things hush hush is beyond me.

By my reckoning we only have 22 spots of the 25 filled do we not? The rules are: - Goalkeepers don't count towards the 25, unless they're loans - Under 21s (born after 01/01/2003) don't count unless they're loans - We need 8 homegrown players in there I'm by no means an expert so happy to be corrected on this but I believe the current players who would need to be registered are: Beadle: Yes (loan) Hamer: No (GK) Charles: No (GK, u21) Bernard: Yes Famewo: Yes Diaby: Yes Iorfa: Yes Ihiekwe: Yes Lowe: Yes Valery: Yes Valentin: Yes Palmer: Yes Chalobah: Yes Bannan: Yes Johnson: Yes Ingelsson: Yes Windass: Yes Gassama: No (u21) Kobacki: Yes Musaba: Yes Wilks: Yes Lowe: Yes Paterson: Yes Cadamarteri: No (u21) Smith: Yes McNeil: No (u21) Ugbo: Yes I don't think any of the u21s (Shipston, Fusire etc) are born before 2003.

Yep, and at that point, we had every expectation to be in league one for the coming season.

What I don't understand is why these conversations have to wait until after the season has ended. Shouldn't we already have two separate plans for if we go down or stay up? Waiting until the post-season is why we ended up hastily appointing an awful manager in July last year.

There are 552 games in a championship season (excluding playoffs) and they're broadcasting at least 328 championship games so it's at least 59% assuming equal coverage per team. Realistically, 'bigger' teams competing at the top of the table are likely to have an even higher % of televised games

If we've turned down £1m for a 33 year old then that's crazy

Yeah this is fair enough. I think I was just irked by something being stated as fact when it isn't. Thanks for actually discussing in good faith.

I'm confused at why you think I'm saying you're speaking on their behalf? I've not said that at any point and I'm fully aware that that's not the case. Apologies if that's what you've taken from that. Anyway, we'd all do better to not be contributing to misinformation by labelling a spurious claim (your second point) as fact.

Absolutely not the fault of the 1867 group. But if their cause has mistruths/inaccurate statements being said by the admin of the biggest (I think) online forum/discussion place for Sheffield Wednesday then that could be harmful, even if not done intentionally. Though saying that, mistruths and inaccuracies massively help political parties so I may be talking out of my arse.

I'm well aware. I just thought I'd make the point that blind rhetoric could be unhelpful to the protest's cause.

On what basis is what I said incorrect? Correlation doesn't imply causation. Facts: We have 25% of our points this season from games where we've protested. Inference from a fact: protests don't make our performances worse. Who knows if the inference is actually true? You certainly can't know from two games. You probably can't know for certain from a thousand games (but it would give the claim a stronger backing).

Re the second point, it's not a fact and that's not how statistics works. You could equally infer (incorrectly) that we would have won both games 5-0 but due to the protests we performed worse (while still winning). 2 games isn't a big enough sample and football likely has too many variables to ever be confident of inferring cause and effect with any level of confidence. In fatc, inferring cause and effect with certainty is extremely difficult in circumstances like this. It's entirely possible that morale could be dampened by large protests and to pretend that that's not possible is silly. However, it's also possible that the team could be galvanised by a passionate fan base who want what's best for their club and could actually perform better, as you claim. We won't ever really know unless the players come out and discuss it. I believe the protest group need to stay clear of claiming things are fact and using blind rhetoric when they aren't (like a certain SWFC owner might) as doing so may actually hurt the cause by putting other supporters off. Ultimately, it's a risk that the team may well perform worse but I believe it's a risk worth taking as prioritising results it short-term gains while ignoring the long-term implications of having Chansiri as an owner. Other supporters won't agree and that's okay - it should be up for discussion.

I genuinely can't fathom the hate that this protest march has got from fellow owls fans. It's quite disheartening to see... especially after such an amazing come back. Well done everyone who attended today, small but positive steps.

Cadamateri is contracted to June 2025 according to the star (https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/sheffield-wednesday-in-for-long-haul-as-bailey-cadamarteri-contract-details-revealed-3742969 )

Seems the 1867 group twitter account has been deleted...wonder what's gone on there. Reverend said he was getting death threats when people thought it was him leading it so wouldn't surprise me if the organisers were getting the same response.