Jump to content

ExiledAjax

OTIB Supporter
  • Posts

    12168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by ExiledAjax

  1. It's weird isn't it. Had we (as I suggested we might) managed to keep Pearson until the end of this season and made the switch to Manning at that time, and if we then obtained 26 points in the first 23 games of 2024/25 (basically putting us in about 17th at Christmas). He'd be gone. No way we'd keep him and give him January 2025 if that was the outcome of those first 23 games. But because of the timing of the change and the subsequent collapse, he's given time.
  2. And Huddersfield's Kian Harratt has been suspended for four months and fined £3,200 for breaches of betting rules. He placed 484 bets on football matches between 30 June 2020 and 3 June 2023, and he subsequently admitted to this charge. There are multiple cases of breaches of the betting rules every month from players all over the pyramid. Just as a couple of examples another Newcastle player, Jude Smith, was charged at the end of Feb with 151 bets, a player for weston-super-mare is accused of placing more than 1,700 bets, his case continues. They don't all get the coverage though do they. It's a huge problem in football and across other sports as well. Needs serious consideration from all stakeholders.
  3. And the further complexity is that there are staff salary recharge agreements between the group companies. So for example where someone employed by BCFC doe work that's for a Bears project, BCFC will pay that person, but then can claim back or "recharge" a portion of their salary from Bears. That's just an example, I'm not saying there are people employed by BCFC doing stuff for Bears. So basically it's possible that someone might be employed by one company but ultimately the cost of their salary falls on another. Again all very normal for a group of companies, and also something that I understand is under review with the aim of simplification.
  4. Anyone capable of using sat nav and able to navigate Leicester's roads will be ok getting across Bristol from the M42.
  5. No. True. I guess I'm guilty of what I said - in times like this it's easy to jump on anything to beat them with.
  6. It's not an actual company no you're right. Maybe I shouldn't have posted the bit about arms length contracts etc. And look, people can be involved in multiple businesses, that's fine. But it doesn't sit well with me that one of our two directors, our chairman, our club's "custodian" in his own words, is clearly not totally focussed on our club and it's related companies and sporting endeavours.
  7. I mean I doubt City are paying FP much if anything at all. But it's the principle you know.
  8. It's a bit odd, and at times like this any little thing can be jumped on for laughs at the clubs expense but I'm not massively furious at us helping Zak out with some t-shirts. I'm also really fed up with Fever Pitch. If that is what Jon wants to do then he should go and do it. Resign from the NINE City/Bears/BS boards that he's on and go and devote his time and attention to what he clearly actually wants to do. He could stay on as an observer on our boards if Steve needs "eyes on the ground", but get away from a body making decisions that you're clearly not investing full time and energy in.
  9. Ah ok. Well hopefully something is able to be published relatively soon.
  10. It's a lack of technical legal knowledge for which I don't blame anyone. It's a slip of common lay language being applied to a distinct legal set up. It's nothing to beat them up for, but it's annoying as it conveys something wrong to fans (who also don't have the technical knowledge to spot the error).
  11. No. We don't rent it. We are not tenants and we don't hold a lease for it. This is a common but important technical error of language that I have previously explained to Tom and the SC&T. If we did hold a lease then we'd have to sub-lease it to, or grant a licence to, the Bears, and the Women's team, and BS for the offices their staff use. We, and all those other teams, pay a licence fee to Ashton Gate Ltd to use AG on match days and as office space.
  12. Yeh Birmingham did theirs at our away game there (they presumably use the calendar year rather than season) and it took up most of half time. But when you look at the numbers it's not too surprising. The annual death rate in the UK is about 1%.* So even if you just limited it to our STholders you can reasonably expect roughly 1% to die each year, so very roughly that's 150 people each year. Even giving just two seconds to each of those people takes you to a 5 minute memorial. Of course this can't be a precise prediction of how many fans will die each year due to the demographic of a football fanbase not perfectly reflecting the demographic of the country as a whole, but it's going to be close. These memorials can take names from the entire fanbase, not just STholders. You can see how any decent sized club will pretty easily run up a list of the dead that runs to a few hundred each season. It also shows why a minute's applause/silence for every dead fan is impractical. *ONS https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregistrationsummarytables/2021refreshedpopulations#:~:text=The overall age-standardised mortality,) (see Figure 1).
  13. Yeh they've been planning it for a while.
  14. If I'm Leicester/de Marco all I really care about now is avoiding a points deduction this season. Next season is next season, a points deduction in the PL would hurt but we see from Everton and Forest that it's not a certain death/relegation sentence. Frankly any team relegated from the PL with PPs should be able to take a -6, even a -10 in the EFL (the ceiling is basically -12 as that's what you get for insolvency - see the Forest award for that analysis), and still have an excellent chance of a playoff or even top 2 finish. So what they really need to avoid is a deduction this season that pushes them into the playoffs. So delay, frustrate, delay again. Stick in all the Rule K applications you can. It doesn't really matter if you win or not, you just have to ask the question and force someone to spend time answering it.
  15. Well de Marco clearly reckons it's at least useful as a delaying tactic. Which may absolutely be the intention here of course. Try and kick any EFL deduction into the "it's waiting for you if/when you're next relegated" long grass, and try and get any possible PL deduction either a) applied as late into next season as possible or b) applied in the EFL. I suspect b) is a very, very, very long shot, but the rest...a delay for the FA to sort out a Rule K might just be enough to achieve those aims.
  16. Leicester are asking for an FA Rule K hearing to determine which league has jurisdiction over which issue and so which points can be deducted from which season by either competition organiser. Top banter.
  17. Utterly spectacular. https://www.theguardian.com/football/picture/2024/mar/26/david-squires-on-england-flag-furore-kit-collar-woke-things-destroying-football
  18. Yep, and you can see that initially it wasn't awful, and if we look at something like shots on target against them we did see an improvement under Manning initially. But it's gone off a cliff. Against looking at shots on target very roughly. Pearson's last 10 games - average of 4 per game. Manning's first 10 games - 3.6 per game. Manning's latest 10 games - 5 per game. Sorry I don't present this all as aesthetically as you do, but the downward trend expresses itself in many areas.
  19. Oh FFS. Thank you. I looked at my goals for column again. This is why you should always question a stat. It's of course 16 in 14, which is 1.14 per game. The numbers are heavily influenced by small number bias. Which is ably demonstrated by my **** up here where one extra imaginary game for Pearson, with 0 goals conceded, improves his average from 1.14 to 1.07. Which is a big improvement from a relatively minor shift in the numbers.. That's the main reason I say that it's a fairly meaningless measure.
  20. Yes it is. But it's still 1.26 p/g. I was looking at the goals for column for my 26 Quite.
  21. Technically, but imo not meaningfully. Pearson was on 16 in 15 this season; 1.14 p/g Manning on 29 in 23; 1.26 p/g It's really a very small difference considering you can't actually score part of a goal. General shots against and shots on target against are basically the same. xG against is actually slightly better under Manning. Edit: also, it is deteriorating under Manning. Over his first few games it did appear that we'd tightened up a little at the back, but it's gone downhill in recent games.
  22. Have to say, whatever my feelings about the legitimacy of the English football team, there's a damn classy Plantagenet coat of arms on display in this photo.
×
×
  • Create New...