BTRFTG

Unless one wishes to travel any distance in a timely fashion.

Because over half the home games this year have been available via legal TV subscriptions we already have. If the only way we could see games meant we had to travel to AG we would. As is, sitting in comfort of home, watching the racing then footy then an immediate night out doing whatever, rather than 3-4 hours each way, trying to source parking and £80 worth of petrol, its a no-brainer.

Pointless buying season tickets. We'll not bother in future.

'..should have won.' just goes to show what a deluded thug he is. However, to those who live in glass houses - the post match, losing quote of the season to date is: "I can't be too displeased with the performance, on the data - percentile wise, it was a win, although it wasn't." I'm sure we all recognise the source of that moronic guff

The licence is direct with the company that is the football club. The deal to purchase 85% of the company that owns THAT company is yet to go through. If Ashley wants the football club there's nil value in seeing it go bust, given he now owns the stadium. I think the ground regulation applies prior to the start of each season hence Ashley, in issuing a short licence, could be forcing the prospective new owner into a corner (or if they're acting in cahoots driving the price down...)

Every proposal I've seen suggests the regulator's first task will be to ensure a 'more equitable' (sic) transfer of monies from Premier to EFL. If that isn't commercial interference, what is? As for promotion/relegation between leagues, what's the issue as there doesn't appear to be one now save for restrictions on quality of facilities and that really isn't an issue. Clubs already are able to sort that for themselves and the pre-requisite requirements are there in the best interests of supporters and competitions played. Clubs go up and down, as they always have. 'Independence' of board members, from whom? If I want a say in appointing a board member elsewhere I first need to be a shareholder. Why should football be any different? Why should somebody without material say in a club, whose monies aren't at risk, dictate who runs the company? As for diversity, give me a break. If directors had to own 5% of stock for a place on the board many would rightly argue that precludes most the 'box tickers' would demand be attracted. But why should somebody be provided a seat on a board simply because of their gender, ethnicity, age or sexual preference, rather than merit or depth of pocket? If my club needs money to survive I want the latter on board not somebody potless who ticks Channel Four's boxes. Heritage Assets, what they? Shall all clubs revert to their original names, colours, ground name, epithet? Where does one draw the line? Look at how farcical asking fans what club crest they'd like on a shirt becomes. Multiply by a thousand. Fans already have shown they ultimately hold all the power. Don't like the kit, don't buy it. Don't like the stadium rebrand, ignore it. Owners and sponsors quickly catch on. What's the issue with the provision of financial information now, other than the football authorities should mandate punishment for when it isn't provided, without exception? So the regulator is to be funded by licences, fines and penalties. In fairness one assumes that's a common licence fee such all clubs pay the same for an equal supposed benefit? It won't be. You also can't operate a regulator on income for non-compliance as such income isn't guaranteed (I should know having delivered a financial operating model for one such regulator.) So clubs are to be financially penalised to fund a body that may seek to resolve issues that aren't there or only exist in the minds of some who like to create them. Doesn't sound much like progress to me. Rather a sledgehammer to crack the nutcases who think they have inalienable rights (sic) over that they do not. Provided, that is, they come at cost to others and never themselves.

By participating in domestic leagues the 'elite' clubs confirmed they would still be bound by UEFA regulation, they just wanted their own league outside it (cake and eat it.) The fundamental problem with regulation is firstly what they hell are they to regulate and how far does that power transfer down the pyramid? There's suggestion the regulator will have power to veto commercial deals and payments. Let's suppose this is challenged and the regulator loses, who picks up the tab? Who funds the regulator? Sure as hell shouldn't be the taxpayer but also, why should it be only a select few clubs? I've yet to hear any cogent argument as to what it is fans demand regulating? 'Don't want unfit owners?' Lots of plastic Manure fans moan about the Glazers, some transferred allegiance to FC Manchester because of them, but I've never heard one of them suggest all Manure's records should be expunged given they were bought on the corrupt supply of condemned meat to schools, hospitals and care homes throughout the North West. Tad xenophobic perchance? Perm any of the clubs Ken Bates owned, funds trousered via illegal breaches of export controls to Rhodesia. Don't hear fans of clubs he kept afloat complaining. 'Keep Gambling out of football', the present 'woke' pariah. Unlike Scousers to be so two faced moaning about Coates and Stoke given their own successes were founded on Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters. Fans need to be careful for that they wish. They prattle on about the excitement of the good old days, all of which worked despite corrupt ownership by local businessmen, awful facilities and players on decent, not life-changing, salaries. Horse has bolted but I, for one, wouldn't be bothered were we to return to those times, where players were truly part of the local community (not bussed in for photo shoots to suit,) where access, like wages, was cheap, where football was about 90 minutes on the park and sod all else. If fans really do think themselves custodians of their local clubs then they should do what they've always had opportunity to do snd that's front up and buy them. They won't, like they never did and allowing them their regulated pennyworth is a recipe for disaster.

Fans leading on football reform? As meaningful as asking the public their thoughts on EU membership. Until fans are prepared to put their own monies where their unrealistic demands lead then its simply lip-service. The biggest clubs, UEFA & FIFA won't reform unless the fans of those clubs boycott football. Parochial UK mentality ignores the likes of Manure having more 'supporters' in Asia than they do here in the UK. Save the chattering football classes dismiss these as 'not being proper (sic) supporters'. I haven't seen any proposal as to how overseas supporters are to be consulted, largely because that won't happen. It's not seen as significant despite it generating far greater revenues than punters through the turnstiles.

Ah, French. Is that where Arsene Wenger took inspiration for that touchline coat he wear to don?

Whatever form the initial contract took between Arena Cov & Sisu the term of the revised offer will not have changed (as Frasers wouldn't be legally entitled so to vary, at least not without mutual consent.) The differences in lease, licence & TAW are largely to fit in with accounting convention given if correctly drafted all may mirror each other in terms of risk transfer and security of tenure. My understanding is that contract had 8 years to run (for Sisu) but I'm unsure what arrangement Sisu had with Cov (the football element?) That term might have been shorter. The new licence offer only arose as a result of Sisu refusing to sign the like-for-like contract with their new landlord AND not raising dispute such there was no longer a valid contract between the newly named parties. Sisu having defaulted, Frasers are able to vary (within limits) any new offer tabled as its that, a NEW (not replacement) offer. Landlords flip all the time and from a tenant perspective it really is as simple as signing to agree in future to pay and notify the new landlord at their agent/bank rather than the the landlord listed in the original contract. As the terms do not otherwise vary this is usually accomplished by a variation deed of assignment, not newly drafted contract.

Thoughtless of the club not to provide the 20k bike racks our lycra masters dictate should be our only method of transport. Use public transport! WHAT PUBLIC TRANSPORT!

Went off The Avon Gorge, so I heard it said....

To those thinking Ashley's actions harsh remember all the tenant insurances, warranties and public liabilities under the lease/licence/TaW will similarly have become invalid, as will some of the landlord's as the contracting parties covered have changed. Recall the initial changes were nothing more than the names on the contract, bank/agent and insurance details. The contract details itself didn't change. The mystery here is why they wouldn't sign a revised contract equal to that they already enjoyed?

Either way Sisu/Cov have to leave immediately. It's unclear whether in respect of the L&T (54) Sisu/Cov were occupying under a Licence/ Tenancy At Will or Lease (and if the latter whether or not the lease was contracted out of the Act or in Cov's (the football club element,) case for a period in excess of 6 months remaining, in which case S23-28 would not apply?) Might even be Sisu held a lease from Arena Cov which was part sublet to Cov in the lesser term? Frasers, in acquiring the asset from Arena Cov, appear to have first offered (as they must,) a revised lease to Sisu on the same terms (change of name only) which implies L&T(54) was applicable. However, the existing lease may have included terms (usually dilapidation or repair,) that Sisu/Cov as Sisu's sub tenant may not have actioned (or be able to afford,) and which the new landlord was calling in. Landlord is king in all matters and immediately exercising tenant obligations is usually the quickest way to shift them if they're potless. I believe Sisu refused to sign the lease within the permitted timeframe AND without raising dispute as to Landlord's actions (as is required by the Act,) hence the lease became void with Frasers offering Cov directly a licence for protection under new terms which Cov found unacceptable.

Terrific player massively unappreciated at AG.

Rose garden. So much nicer than either Memorial or Eastville. For starters, Aldershot never had greenfly infestations nor greyhound turds amidst their flowerbeds.

Not true. For starters Aldershot had the roses and mini garden between the turnstiles and stands with not a hint of canvas or plastic in sight. Are you sure you haven't confused 'The Wreck' with 'The Rec'?

If one ever needs evidence of why VAR must be scrapped immediately that was it.

You sound like Khan and where I live air quality has significantly declined under his tenure and will signally worsen when his idiotic Silvertown Tunnel scheme is introduced. You also miss the blindingly obvious. Take my regular trips to and from AG. Do I pollute central London? No, as it's impossible to access these days given traffic, where it is still permitted, is 24/7 gridlock along the few roads remaining open. Do I cover an ADDITIONAL 120 POLLUTING miles through the suburbs and outer London? Sure as hell I must. Traffic and the pollution it causes doesn't decrease, it actually increases where displaced.

Folks appear to be signally missing the fundamental flaw in the policy. If folks simply 'cough-up' (every pun intended,) the charge how much pollutant is removed from the air? Answer - NONE. And to those who say folks will pay up, look at areas where charges have been in for some time. In London (over double the national average) around 1 in 20 vehicles on the road is untaxed, uninsured and registered incorrectly, so they don't pay charges. There's also a sizeable proportion of 'foreign' registered vehicles on the streets, including those driven by otherwise law abiding folks who 'play the system'. I live on an upmarket road and six of my neighbours have exotically registered, top of the range vehicles that incur no charges and collect non-traceable parking tickets like confetti. There are even foreign leasing companies that swap, flip and temporarily export vehicles just for this explicit purpose. Those driving and parking anywhere in central London the daily charges amount to the better part of £100 per day (assuming you'd ever pay the reduced parking fine.)

That's exaggeration of which even Gasheads would be 'prowed'. Life on earth, if it lasts that long, has but 950m years left. The Sun, having lost around 10% of its present mass, will irradiate to cinder all organic matter, plus remove the Earth's atmosphere long before it itself expands. You're correct though that until then the gaseous 'giant' (sic) will still be minding the gap.

Join the club as we've had the pillock mayor up here expand London's zone to the whole of the inside the M25 whilst adding in another unwanted tunnel that will double traffic through an already choc-o-bloc tunnel link. Sod all to do with air quality, everything to do with raising money for his stupid schemes. If I wish to go north of the river without paying a toll its a 60 mile, polluting drive.

Oh dear. Oh deary, dear.

Tame compared to the Goztepe/Altay game the other day which should be made compulsory viewing for all of those muppets thinking flares and crowds are a good mix. Utterly sickening.

Not so much a game of 'forced turnovers' more a ninety minute 'unforced turn out'. I'd give it a few days if I were you....