ExiledAjax

The other thing with wearing it tomorrow is that you have to submit your intended kit to the EFL at least a week prior to the game. Now, ultimately it is up to the match day official to sign kits off, but each club is supposed to work with the EFL and the opposing team (ie Hull) to ensure that you avoid kit blends and that kits are used properly. A last minute change in kit is not going to be popular with the EFL, with Hull, or with the match day officials. I really don't think we'd do it unless we had no other option. A change in supplier next season is plausible though. If O'Neills are cheaper, or provide better supply of replica shirts, then I think Alexander and Jon Lansdown would not hesitate to pay Hummel off and switch.

So it was Hummel kit signed off in the autumn, and O'Neills have now had to design and produce new kits in 4 weeks? Or did we give them the Hummel designs and tell them to "make this", and then sorted Hummel's complaints out in the background? Sorry, are you saying we're changing kit halfway through a season? Have we had EFL clearance for that? EFL reg 39.1 says that "No changes either in the kit or combination of colours of kits shall be permitted during the course of the Season." We are allowed one home game per season where we wear a different kit (see the 125th anniversary game v Fulham a few seasons ago), are you saying that tomorrow is that one game?

I don't know. My point was that if it was a Hummel kit signed off then switching to O'Neills may, or may not entail a new design. If Hummel retained ownership of the designs then we would not be able to simply take them and give them to O'Neill's and say "make this" (unless we compensated Hummel). If we in fact own the designs then it would be easier. All subject to the terms of our contract with Hummel of course. I therefore think it's more likely that we were in talks with O'Neills quite early on, and those designs were O'Neill designs. I don't know an awful lot about lead times and design times etc, but the fact that the standard timeline is that designs get signed off in September/October of a season, I'd suggest that 4 weeks (being the time since Alexander took over) is a very short period in which to design from scratch, or even adapt existing designs, and then launch a kit.

I'm not sure Alexander will be key to this. The kits are designed in September/October, and I know that 23/24's kit designs were signed off in October 2022. Supplier is involved in the design. Based on that I'd say this switch has been in the offing long before Alexander took over. Ps. I've heard there's a dash of some azure on the away kit.

Just to say as well, we have more than 6,500 full paying adult season ticket holders. Plus another 7,000 in the various age and concession categories. But yeh, we have more full price adult STs than they have total ST holders.

Plus of course those attendance figures include away fans. In reality they have about 6,500 season ticket holders, plus maybe 1,500 (being generous) or so pay on the day types. In reality about 8,000 'core' fans.

I did. Mainly because Neville called him Richard! Interesting post, thank you. He's got an interesting relationship with our club and has some...interesting views on football, not all of which I agree with.

Why do you keep calling him Peter?

So, the White Paper is here. You can read it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bold-plan-to-protect-long-term-future-of-english-football Headline summary features of the Government's plans are: New independent regulator to help prevent repeat of financial failings seen at Derby County, Bury and Macclesfield Town; Clubs in the top 5 divisions will need to obtain a license form the regulator prior to competing in domestic competitions; Strengthened owners’ and directors’ test to protect clubs and their fans from unscrupulous owners this will run in parallel to, and will not replace, the current PL and EFL tests. There isn't much suggestion that it will include any moral or ethical test of owners, so it may simply be an extension of the current objective tests we have; Fans given greater say in running of clubs, and key heritage such as team names, badges and stadia at core of new plans; and No real say as to how this might happen, but given the White Paper essentially agrees with the original Review, and that Review strongly recommended Golden Shares, I suspect that is the route that the Regulator will expect clubs to take; Powers to block English clubs from joining unpopular breakaway leagues like the European Super League. All good, and all expected, and all without any real substance. On finances the position remains that football is to sort the distribution out itself. However, if the football authorities cannot reach an agreement the regulator would have targeted powers of last resort to intervene and facilitate an agreement as and when necessary. So I don't expect a solution to the financial distribution any time soon. That's a shame, but I think ultimately the backstop powers will be used, perhaps not immediately, but at some point in the next few years. I was posting yesterday about governance in relation to Scudamore's role at our Club. governance is going to be a big part of the new regulator's powers. The regulator will have a remit to ensure club directors demonstrate good basic financial practices, have appropriate financial resources and protect the core assets of the club and will aim to improve governance through the introduction of a Football Club Corporate Governance Code. So we should be looking to be absolute certain that our governance is up to scratch.

Professional footballers have long been required to be registered professionals. That is what is transferred when a player moves clubs - their registration. @CyderInACan is there a link to the actual story? Is this a confusion with the announcement today that clubs will be licensed under the new Regulator?

From what I read this cup is Le Tournoi for the girls. A four-team friendly invitational World Cup warm-up tournament. Well done to the girls for winning what's in front of them, and the accounts will appreciate a full crowd at AG. But let's not pretend this is a notable tournament win.

Yeh I saw that on CH as well. It's almost certainly a consultantcy company. To those who've responded to me @spudski @REDOXO @cidered abroad @CyderInACan I'm not suggesting that there is impropriety. It is simply the case that if Scudamore is making decisions then it is poor governance to have that done in the shadows. If he is merely providing advice, consultancy, or counsel, then that is fine - whether it be paid (in money or in lunches) or unpaid. I know for certain that the latter happens, but Alexander's use of "heavily involved" could be interpreted to suggest the former. That's it.

I agree that so long as the final decisions are truly made by the directors and shareholders then it's fine to have conversations and use networks behind the scenes. Accord should also be given to the EFL Regs and Owners and Directors test. I'm sure the club are confident that Scudamore isn't a "Relevant Person" under this Regs, but some of the definition there is quite broad and includes "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act". I just hope that "heavily involved" doesn't mean this. We see with the current Birmingham case that this is something the EFL are starting to look at seriously. I'm sure it's all just networking and chats as you say - and as I said earlier that was always the impression I got from Gould - but if it's more than that then his involvement should be properly recorded and structured.

No. It's looking like 6th place is going to be 70 points or so. So if we want even a chance of finishing in the top 6 we need another 29 points from our final 14 games. 2.07 points per game. We also need the teams above us to fall away, or at least none of them can go on a similar run. It's not happening. We're about as mid-table as you can get. 10 wins, 11 draws, 11 losses, +1 GD. Middle of the road. Sleepwalking to 12th place.

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet. That is unusual. Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company. He's not listed on the OS. He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee. I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares. Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it. However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

It's how Richard Gould described Scudamore's involvement to me. Alexander will have his own relationship with Scudamore, but the description fits with what we know.

It's unofficial. Scudamore isn't a director or employee. He's a fan with a profile who knows Lansdown and he talks to the directors and gives them advice when they ask for it.

4 clubs have made the change twice. Some enforced like QPR losing Beale, but still. 3 managers in a season isn't particularly unusual this term.

Ah of course. You know, my mind literally went blank when i was writing that and I put Weimann in as he was who I remembered. But yeh James will play.

I think we will start in the 4231 that we've seen. Initially look to counter attack I assume. Of recent games I think we'll set up and play more similarly to the Norwich game than others. I think Pearson has found a system that is getting results and I don't think he's the type to revert to a previous system for a single game. Currently I expect a back 4 of Pring, Kalas, Vyner and Tanner. Williams, Scott and Weimann in midfield. Wells, Bell and Sykes up front. Bench will probably be quite light given injuries and cup-tied players.

It is expected this week yes. The only thing really holding it up now is finding time in the Ministers' diaries for an announcement. I have heard that Sunak wants to be personally part of the announcement, so his diary needs to be considered as well. But yes I heard last week that it was expected to be this week.

You Cannae get away with that joke.

@CheddarReds I'm delighted that you've picked up on the SI and on Niall's comments about it and how it ranks City. A few of us did have a little chat about this a few weeks ago when it was published. See below. Should be an exciting week this week in the world of football governance.

It's more like 46 or 47, think the actual average points haul for 22nd is 46.something, so 46 +GD or 47 will tend to keep you safe. In very recent years it's even lower, more like 44. 1 point per game tends to keep you safe in most leagues in most seasons.

53 points for safety? As in 52 is what 22nd will get this season. Not in a million years. 47 or 48 will see a team safe this season.