Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Interests
    Sport & law.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,141 profile views
  1. Probably covered by the Football Secretary previously. Perhaps we needed someone who works more directly with the players a la Tour Manager role that we see with cricket teams etc., rather than the traditional office based administrator/secretary function. The office based role is more 9-5, Mon - Fri (some MatchDays), and so having a dedicated member of staff for the hotel/travel & transport, less tied to BS1 (and dare I say with minimal childcare, family tie commitments) can only be a good thing when it comes to meeting players' (and operational) needs out on the road. I suspect its very much in line with the shift to a more PR progressive club. Just look at the amount of orchestrated digital content from the Florida trip to see that someone is needed to organise the troops and get them walking correctly from accommodation to pool to training and back again, for the benefit of our comms teams.
  2. The relevant offence opens the gateway to applying for the banning order, but the prosecuting authority aren’t obligated to apply for the order in every case of a relevant offence having been committed. There exists a discretion so each case will be judged on its own facts as to whether or not this ancillary order (application) is appropriate in the respective context.
  3. Most likely depends on whether he is found guilty or not. ABH (s.47 OAPA) will be a relevant offence for the purposes of the Act, and I believe he has antecedents regards football (training ground) related violence, albeit from many years ago. Whether that comes out at the trial or, any, sentencing stage will be one for the lawyers/bench. If convicted, the real debate is likely to be around whether the banning order is needed to prevent violence or disorder. It's really interesting actually as there could be an argument that this is an employment context, not strictly football related. Query whether it would it be proportionate to slap him with a (for argument's sake) five year banning order if that means he can't then earn a living for that period of time...an order targeting JB in that way is going to impact him far more acutely than your common or garden football hooligan (which is really who the legislation is going after); maybe he should have thought about before allegedly hitting out, but if I was the CPS lawyer I think I would save all the hassle/resources and inevitable appeal etc. and not make the application for the Banning Order, in the event of a successful prosecution.
  4. Agreed that Fam would be a loss what with Championship standard strikers not growing on trees, as for CoD, not as convinced we would miss him.
  5. Just when you had forgotten how cringeworthy it is to read anything vaguely equality related on Otib
  6. Oh dear that’s a shocker of a ‘tackle’
  7. We are gonna get in the playoffs no problems, more significant question is which playoff position...
  8. Will need to develop physically to be able to enjoy a career at this level due to not currently being able to claim crosses/punch away corners etc. etc., as has already been pointed out. Shot stopping, tidy enough.
  9. As we saw with Metab, doesn’t really matter what was announced.
  10. Morally - most definitely in the wrong. Legally - very much arguable that they are in the right (given how far away they were from a fully ratified transfer).
  • Create New...