ExiledAjax

Gets Bailey Wright phoning in live on RTV. First thing Downsy does? Cracks out a holiday photo from Qatar and starts banging on about how he DJ'd one of the Australian games. Could ask about the match...but nah.

Maybe the Stadium of Light IS the bin?

So much rubbish on show, and also some football is being played.

Who's on litter picking duty at HT?

Join me in Madrid.

I'm really not sure that will have any impact on it at all.

Yeh Ipswich have one of, if not the, toughest final 6 games in the division, starting today. Huddersfield on the last day is their only cushy game left.

A lot yes. Quick scan of the articles shows fairly common private equity terms, which will certainly be supplemented by a private shareholders agreement. Interesting to see that Probert, Rolls, and of course Ashton all got issued Growth Shares, which they can sell to club in certain circumstances - most likely a full sale - for a whack of cash.

Do you want to deny the club the glory of winning Group B of the Professional U-18 Development League!?!? Sort your priorities out.

Late to this thread but this is likely. Most likely promotion. Ie - we will pay for N shares now, at a price of £X per share. Then we want an option to buy A shares within the next two years, and the price we pay for those shares at that time is £Y if we're in the PL, or is £Z if we're not. Something like that would be pretty common, and it could also be tied to a loan that is later convertible into shares. Has anyone checked CH to see what shares have actually been issued now, or if the PSC register has updated?

If he stops funding at Holdings level yes. But it's BCFC Ltd that trades as the football entity in terms of transfers, holds player registrations, owns the share in the EFL and gets promoted, relegated, and receives that football income. Isn't it possible that an owner could, for some reason, cease to fund that BCFC side of the Holdings group, but continue backing the AG Ltd side? BCFC then goes into administration, and the stadium isn't involved in that insolvency.

The club would enter administration, be deducted 12 points, and then ultimately likely be bought at a cut rate price. Ultimately if absolutely no buyer could be found, then the clubs assets - the players registrations, the shares in the women's team, the training ground - would all be sold, the proceeds would go to creditors, and the company would be wound up. The stadium, being owned by a separate company, would not be an asset of the club so would likely remain a solvent operational entity. It would lose a major revenue stream, but initially at least it would remain a sports stadium. Derby are the latest most relevant example. No. Other sports demonstrate that sport is possible without the involvement of the billionaires. I've said a few times that my opinion is that the basic corporate structure of football clubs - Ltd companies operating to generate value for their shareholders - is wrong. As @Blagdon red and @Eddie Hitler say, there are clubs out there like Union, like Exeter, that are existing and at times thriving despite having no sugar daddy. But the persistent ecosystem of football does not encourage that kind of set up. So yes clubs can exist with billionaires, but the current system can't.

And with Watford home to PNE, and Cardiff home to Hull, it's quite the mid-table melee tomorrow.

Because of the way points are handed out as in 3, 1, 0 it's much more important to win than to not lose. This is obviously the design of this - encouraging teams, particularly those playing away, to attack and go for the win rather than block out for a draw. But what it means is that the difference between a win and a draw, 2 points, is double the difference between a draw and a loss. Generally draws really don't help a team climb the table. Therefore converting draws into wins has greater impact than converting a loss into a draw. The same goals can have more impact on table position. None of what I say here is exemplary critical thought or revelation. Seeing as no-one ever actually said the phrase "top 6" they'd probably be confused by the question. "Top 6" was implied by phrases like "top end of the division" and "promotion challenge" etc. But quite sensibly they never actually used that little phrase. I go back to what Tinnion said on SoTC. He said at that time we needed to be "about ten points further on". IIRC given the points total at the the time he effectively declared that 1.54ppg was the target. That does make sense as that, over 46 games, achieves a 71 point total - which will normally see you finish something between 5th and 8th. A perfectly reasonable and realistic target for a club with our resources in my opinion. So what I think they are looking for, at any single point in the season, is either 1.54ppg or an indication that we're not far off that.

I'll take number 4 if with a side of 2 please.

Made this post as a bit of a joke, but we really are in this mid-table-mini-league. Maybe that's depressing, or tinpot, or whatever, but it's where we are. I've included Hull and Swansea in the screenshot, but really they're acting as the bread in this gorgeous mid-table sandwich. It's really us, Sunderland, Watford, Cardiff who are the bacon, lettuce, tomato, and er...rogue slug(?) respectively.

It's a huge game in the battle for 12th place and a top-half finish. Something of a six-pointer in that regard.

A third consecutive 1-0 win for the City I think.

Wasserman is a massive agency so I'm not surprised we worked with them often in the past. Transfermarkt reckon they've got about 1,000 players on their books. Some of my colleagues do a lot of work with Wasserman and I'm absolutely not trying to say they are a "bad" or "difficult" agency. Agree with your assessment on each of them.

It's interesting perhaps that James, King and Williams are all use Wasserman as their agency. They may not be signed in with the exactly the same individual, but there will be a common approach and style of negotiation there.

Oh. Um. But the players and coaches have all changed to one degree or another, and in some cases even the actual clubs have changed. I'm not sure this really works as a method of comparing tbh Pop. Ultimately I think we'll see that the squad is the squad. And finishes where it finishes. When Pearson was sacked I think I said something like "Barney the dinosaur could manage this squad and it would finish 11th". Looks like they'll both finish with something around 1.3-1.4 ppg attributed to them. Bar the drama at the end of October this season has simply been forgettable.

I don't understand.

Ah the 64 on Pearson's website includes Fleming's 3 points. Intriguing. And should Manning get us to 60 then he technically exceeds Pearson's solo projection. Intriguing.

Correct. I would add that I think 71 is a pretty realistic target for us. In most seasons it would see you finish something between 5th and 8th. But yeh from where we are right now I'm expecting a final total of maybe 62.

Not sure about pre-season, but based on what Tinnion said on the radio a few weeks back the target is 71 points, or 1.54 points per game. Pearson was on 1.29ppg, and so on course for 64 points.