All of the PL pundits?! Neville and Carragher are good, Keane is always box office (think he was spot on about Pickford yesterday) and Souness will be a big miss. But Jamie Redknapp? An absolute drip with nothing worthwhile to say and spends half of his time on air being an agent for his family members, and Micah Richards both on Sky and BBC is the most irritating pundit you could possibly find, plus he knows nothing. If this weird assumption is true that Tyler is struggling to adapt regarding VAR, then perhaps that is a sign that he is best left in the past. Undoubtedly a good commentator in his time but lacks enthusiasm nowadays and some of the weird shit he comes out with now is baffling. Amazing how people are just ok with more and more games being moved. Rodgers is a shit manager and an absolute bell end, yet constantly linked with big clubs for some reason.

Is there absolutely part of Sky coverage that you think is anything other than perfect? Any pundits you dont rate, any teams overshown, silly kick offs, disregard to fans, anything?

Seen lots of justified criticism about Martin Tyler today. 100% agree, has to go.

None of the 3 likely remaining play off clubs should be a threat to any play off aspirations. So Bolton away please. Peterborough was a horrid day last time.

Doubt he would say otherwise in public to be fair.

*Brighton!

The only way that move would make sense to him is if he got offered a double your money contract. Otherwise he is better off staying at Brentford.

If that is the case, then I would lose a lot of faith in Tomasson's judgement considering that Kaminski is far superior. But as I said, assuming it plays out as expected, I will put it down to budgetary reasons. My opinion.

I have renewed yet I don't really see it as value for money. I think it says a lot about the current pricing that even you @chaddyrovers are calling the club out for it and fair play for doing so.

Not totally, unless it is the unlikely scenario that the new keeper is a top Championship keeper like Kaminski. I want Kaminski as number 1, Pears as number 2. If neither are happy as number 2, get rid of Pears. My opinion will remain IF Kaminski goes that it must be for budgetary reasons. The only way that opinion would change is if he goes purely for family reasons AND is replaced by a new and experienced number 1 with Pears as back up. If Pears starts the season as first choice, IMO that must be budgetary. Even moreso if the back up is one of the kids.

I have bought at the early bird price but also answered yes, I suspect there is a bit of a misunderstanding from those who have renewed and not also selected yes, unless a price reduction would put them off?!

Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised and Kaminski will be in net as the season starts. But my prediction is Pears in net, a kid on the bench and the budget cuts continuing to rob us of any experience and quality.

Fuck off, ****, hate, odious gremlin, makes me sick, preparing a curse, gurner, Teeside Curmudgeon. Would have loved to see an experiment on the blood pressure on some of the posters on here as they for some reason all sat and watched a game in which a manager they hate so much stood on the touchline!

Problem is, ideally we would get some experience to compliment the best of what we have. As it is, we will lose our experienced and best keeper, our top scorer (scored double the 2nd top scorer) and then our most experienced defender and our most experienced attacking midfielder. And due to budgetary reasons, I suspect those coming in will not be experienced or leaders.

I think the writing is on the wall, Pears keeps saying he wants to play (obviously anyone will say that but he seems to have developed a taste so must have had assurances to sign a long term deal) and kept the shirt despite Kaminski's return. All I know is, if Pears starts as number 1, we start with a much weaker goalkeeper than we did this season. So we are without our top scorer and our best keeper straight away.

Again, you aren't grasping that their judgement could be wrong and/or influenced by financial limitations. JDT must want Pears so it must be right.

He certainly lives rent free in many peoples heads.

Pears isnt good enough to be number 1, thats what I keep saying. If Kaminski is so intent on leaving for family reasons, which I am not convinced by and think that you are assuming that to absolve the club of any potential criticism. Then sign a new number 1 to replace him. We definitely should not have Hilton or Eastham as sub keeper either way. I don't understand why Tomasson has potentially decided that, although according to you, he hasn't decided that, Kaminski has decided that so make your mind up. I couldn't possibly understand why anyone would prefer a far inferior keeper to play. I think it must be for budgetary reasons. If it was a judgement by Tomasson, then his judgement is terrible. If it is Kaminski's decision purely for family reasons, then sign a new number 1. My expection is Pears with one of the kids backing up, which would further make me assume that it is a financial decision.

Hard to look past a Luton win considering the defensive injuries that Sunderland have. Barely a defender available.

Kaminski is a top Championship keeper. Many of the points picked up in the first half of the season were down to him keeping us in games. It is baffling, I know that Tomasson stuck with Pears, I said before that Kaminski needed to come in, I felt at the time and feel justified looking back that Tomasson made the wrong choice after the international break to stick with an inferior keeper. If Tomasson says that he wanted Pears as number 1, again, I would find that baffling because he is nowhere near as good! I would think exactly the same because MY opinion is that Kaminski is miles better, like most people seemingly, and I wouldn't adapt my opinion to agree with what the manager thinks. I have my own mind and my own opinions. Why would I try and "understand" it from Tomasson's point of view when in my opinion, it is clearly the wrong choice? What understanding is there to be done, the poorer keeper is preferred? If Kaminski has made the decision solely to move back to Belgium and it has nothing to do with potentially (and for the last bit of this season) not being first choice, then yes, we should bring in a new number 1. Not to compete, but to be number 1. Pears is a good number 2, never a number 1 for a promotion chaser. My gut feeling is that the decision is financially driven, Kaminski is a better keeper who rightfully will be on more money. I now sadly expect Pears to be number 1 and one of the kids to be back up which would leave me very worried.

Some of his saves this season were even better. The ones posted of Pears in the main were straightforward. Take the award winning double save in the cup at Leicester, the first was an easy save that was telegraphed by the forward, yet he patted it straight into the danger zone.

Equally, if you knocked some off that season ticket, say £350-400 even considering it is in the most expensive area, would you be much more likely too even without a flexible alternative, just because that price would make you less bothered about missing games because the price isn't so steep in the first place. The prices being so high will surely deter those (and there will be many, especially with Sky's disregard towards fans) who can't attend every game being able to justify a season ticket. One way around not giving flexible tickets could be offer to a scheme similar to something Burnley are trailing, whereby if you can't attend, you exchange a ticket for a game and get money back if someone else buys it.

You can't judge someone positively based on targets they didn't actually get into the building. What a signing Lewandowski was by the way. (Well, would have been)

The worrying thing is, as incompetent and tone deaf as Waggott is, and as much as I would be overjoyed by his resignation. This is all stems from the owners. When he goes, someone equally responsible for passing down the wishes of the owners will be equally as disruptive in reducing our attendances further.

He is considerably worse than Kaminski, so yes, I believe that it will cost us points. Pears is not a keeper that will win us many points, Kaminski wins loads because he is a top Championship keeper. There were numerous games in the first half of the season when Kaminski did just that. A mixture of recency bias obsessing over that couple of games when Kaminski dipped whilst carrying an injury, and you trying to defend every decision the club makes will make you remember him as error prone rather than a very good Championship keepr. I am just giving my thoughts on what I perceive to be the potential explanations to downgrade our keeper. If it is purely a choice from the manager, then it is a truly baffling one, and a huge error of judgement from Tomasson. If it is budget cuts, it makes more sense in that it isn't a straight choice, but it would cause general worries about the direction of the club. They would never come out and say we are promoting Pears because we can't afford to keep Kaminski, but I will assume that is the case if Pears is number 1 and one of the kids are his back up, or even to be honest if we got a cheap back up externally. If Kaminski wants out, then I would berate the decision not to reinstate him towards the end of the season, and that run of games saw us repeatedly fail to win with Pears in goal, so it didn't turn out well. But if that was the case, then I would expect him to be properly replaced, not just replaced within, if it wasn't financially driven. I don't think you can fathom that a decision could be made to the detriment of the football club, whether that be financially driven or for football reasons. It must be right in your head, because that is the decision made.