BrightCiderLife

On the release clause and whether it’s odd that it may (or may not) have been exceeded. Obviously all clauses can vary for one contract to another but I’d expect it to be worded along the lines of the club not being able to refuse an offer in excess of or equal to £X. Obviously the club can only accept one offer. If another club comes along and offer £X, the selling club may wait to see if anyone else will come in, if they doing, there’s no reason they wouldn’t offer £X+1 etc (until one of them gets to a number no one else is willing to pay).

Whichever is higher. With any normal club you’d think they’d have sold more tickets than there are people in the ‘stadium’, but don’t forget the friendly turnstile operator who’ll let you in for a tenner. I’m led to believe he made most of his money by charging £20 to be let back out!

Inbreds 1 - 3 Inbreds

Whilst I have every sympathy for Miah, this is absolutely peak tinpottery from them. We always point out they never sell out, yet they claim to have fans locked out. We have to give them some credit, they have finally sold out the Mem and will have to 2,000 season ticket holders locked out! You couldn’t make it up. There’s a very tough call now for the board. Do they cancel the tickets they’ve sold and let the STs have them (which won’t be popular with those less regular fans who the club needs to attract) or leave it as it is (and annoy the STs who are the ones keeping the club going and who the club can’t afford to lose)?

His Twitter account might actually be worth subscribing to now. Imagine having his ego and getting sacked by that lot..!!

They’ve spent more on this latest gift than any player in their history ?

Let’s get your whataboutery back to some sort of context. Can you see any link between that and why some alleged victims of alleged domestic violence decline to give evidence against their alleged abusers? I think that’s what happened for both Barton and Greenwood isn’t it?

So in summary @Hot Air: Charlton are bigger than Millwall - probably agreed but not relevant. Jordan/Bahrain aren’t as bad as Saudi - not sure either way but not relevant. SL should be criticised morally for being resident in Guernsey - doesn’t really get you anywhere as he’s a self-made billionaire whose using a similar ‘tax efficient’ arrangement as Wael using Jersey. You say we’re tinpot because of a mascot fight on the pitch in the late 90s - that was a wolf and three pigs (who had nothing to do with us) having a scrap which didn’t seem to reflect back on the club, but yes we’re a lot more professional now. You say we as a fan base cannot criticise your club for decisions it has made in 2023 because of a decision taken by our club 20 years ago - times have moved on. Compare our fans’ reaction to signing Danny Simpson with how your lot reacted to signing Brown. There’s been some discussion about morality and ethics on here. Hiring convicted criminals falls into that. In a fair and liberal society, once someone has served the sentence given to them by law, are they not free to renter society as they were (with only some restrictions)? There’s no legal bar to convicted footballers earning a living. It’s a moral question. It seems a lot of football fans (Man Utd fans over Greenwood, Sheff Utd with Ched Evans etc) would say the publicity and fortune that come with it make it inappropriate or at least don’t want their club associated with certain behaviours. Your owner made himself look hypocritical with the comments about JB before his trial and then signing Brown and your fans have not protested in great numbers against that. BCFC aren’t as slick/professional as we should be - most on here would agree, did you see the complaints about the digital tickets, the 5-transfer limit, the collars on the home shirts, the lack of away shirt, the changed crest on the yellow kit? Here’s the crucial bit though, as a fan base we tell the club when they get it wrong and expect better from them, we don’t complain that Ted posties and green counsellors are to blame for us demolishing our own stand before we could have hoped to get planning permission. You say 1982 was (or should be) embarrassing for us but is now a source of pride - our unwanted record of going from the first division to the fourth is embarrassing for any fan base, there is no pride in the ‘Eight Men had a Dream’ chant. It’s gratitude. They tore their contracts up so we could go on. Without them doing that, there’d be no City. Like you saying without Dunford there’d be no R*vers. (Though note that the AG8 saved the club by not taking out money they were legally entitled to.) That you have to go back 20-40 years to say we’re tinpot says it all. In the last 20-40 days you’ve started the season without a stand (and still don’t seem any closer to getting planning even though you’re the ones who knocked the other one) and have our name printed on your shirts. It was very good of you to come on here and give us another laugh!

Why? He’s the bloke funding Bristol’s best comedy club for the foreseeable. We’ll be laughing at his expense. There’s no excuse for abusing him when he’s out with the family.

Not many clubs could boast that having lost one stand, they’ve still got 6 in use (stand including cricket pavilions, tents, car ports, open terraces etc). It’s only one out of seven that they’ve lost!

Teds in the home end… Teds in the away end… Teds in the Post Office… There really is only One Team In Bristol

If there’s one club which would tell their supporters they’ve improved the ground by rotating the pitch by 180 degrees, it’d be them! ?

There are two steps to this process: the first is conviction the second is sentencing. The tests are different. To secure a conviction the prosecution have to prove so that jury are sure the events took place as they allege. That is not easy to do and is the test which has evolved over centuries when there have been no photos or CCTV so invariably one person’s word against another’s. The benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. If convicted by a jury, the judge then sentenced on the basis of the conviction. That means the judge takes it as fact that the events took place as found by the jury. Sentencing is notoriously complicated with various guidelines to follow. He may well get a suspended sentence but that will be because the guidelines recommend it, it certainly won’t be because the judge thinks it was one person’s word against another. There is no benefit of the doubt at this stage. On the domestic violence as others have explained, his wife’s evidence is necessary. That is also in the Magistrates’ Court not the Crown Court so different sentencing provisions apply. Whatever happens, the reaction from the club, Wally and GasChat will keep this thread going for a while.

We have trial by a jury of our peers. What you’re proposing is trial by lawyers. If juries knew the work experience kid had it because silks has declined the case, juries would convict in those cases. Neither you or I want trial by lawyer, we want to be judged, if at all, by our equals. The right to representation at a fair trial is the hallmark of a free society.

I’m not sure getting into the etymology is of any assistance. The word he used brings to mind a very particular atrocity which is of no comparison to a footballer not being on form. It is that comparison which is offensive (if you need me to spell it out, millions of deaths are not the same as a few misplaced passes). It is not to do with any specific religions, races or creeds, but straight forward decency. I don’t see many on here calling for him to be sacked as a result, people are simply saying what he said was crass and he should apologise for the (unintentional, perhaps) offence he has caused. You and others might call it woke, or cancel culture but it’s really just about thinking before you speak and not saying things that any right minded people would say are wrong and inappropriate. His and the club’s failure to apologise is by this point worse than him ranting without thinking. A quick tweet clarifying he didn’t mean it on Saturday evening would have dealt with it, now it looks like he/they think the comparison between their player’s loss of form and the systematic murder and torture of millions is a fair one. They are wrong to think so and are rightly criticised for it.