ExiledAjax

I think with Kalas at CB, Pring at LB and Williams and James midfield we would cope with the physicality and power much better. At times it felt like Luton had multiple Semenyos on the pitch. So much power and pace. Bell, Adebayo, Morris, Campbell, others. The first half was boys against giants. Second half was better matched, and Sykes and Weimann ran their socks off. But we still just couldn't threaten. 1-0 Luton was, imo, a fair result.

This picture is better than any written match report I could produce. Sums the whole thing up. Fair result.

I'm honestly not sure what Dasilva and Pring can do against Adebayo and Morris. The physical mismatch is incredible and the support from Luton's other players is too good. Campbell is all over Scott as well and King has been flogged. Dunno what we can really do to get back into this.

Luton: harder, better, faster, stronger.

Sykes dropped back to RB with Tanner on the bench and Cornick starting wide right. Surely tactical rather than form based. Ps. That pissing robin on the shirt ?

And can (or at least could in his younger days) do properly good overhead and scissor kicks. Basically turning kicks but with a ball. Technique straight out of the dojo.

Saw the thread. Went through many strange things that could be notable enough to merit the video/thread. None of those guesses were even close. Wow.

We may need to send a thank you hamper to Manchester City.

I done what? Checked the rules so that I understand what the Club is doing and to check for myself whether rules have or may have been broken? Yes I have done it before, and I'll do it again if the Club do stuff that looks a bit odd. I make no apology at all for that, and some people find it interesting. "No rules have been broken". As I said I don't think the letter of Rule M has been broken, but I think the spirit of the guidance around it has been pushed to the limit, to the extent that the Club should explain why they have moved the Crest to the collar, and why they have replaced it with - as you so eloquently put it - something that looks "shit". Whether the Kit and Advertising Regs have been broken is I think quite technical, and I'm not an expert in garment production so I cannot be sure, but I think there's a possibility that they are right up against the edge of the rules. It is worth asking the question. I think it is really telling that the Club are yet to acknowledge the change/move of the Crest in any of the press releases or promotional videos or articles around the third kit. They are just ignoring a really clear and fundamental part of the design. Why? I can only assume that they knew it would cause an issue/backlash and so decided to just not address it. That is, in my opinion, inexcusable and is really, really poor governance and terrible leadership, and shocking fan engagement. Similar things being done by other Clubs means nothing. Rule M only came into force in the summer of 2022, so any change by any club made prior to that is not a precedent with respect to that Rule. This by the way invalidates our own changed badge on our 2018/19 away shirt (when we used the historic Robin/bridge badge) because that was done when the rules were different. Other clubs may have been in the Premier League when they made their change. PL clubs are sometimes subject to different rules governing them, so again you cannot assume that just because Arsenal are using a different badge on their away kit this season, we cannot automatically assume that Bristol City are ok to do the same next season. It's just checking, and having some knowledge of this area means that if the Club ever do do something off, or wrong, then we as fans can call it out.

See my above post. Under a "standard" embargo in place for non-FFP related breaches they can sign free agents if they dip below the squad number thresholds - which depend on the transfer window being open or closed. If the embargo is partly or wholly in place due to FFP breaches then whether or not they can do that depends on the precise terms of the embargo - as you say on a case-by-case basis per the EFL's decision.

Means we sold somewhere between 500 and 1,000 half season tickets.

@Hartleysbeard @Kid in the Riot @View from the Dolman I had a look at the Rules and regs yesterday - in particular Rule M of the FA Rules (thanks to View from the Dolman for pointing me there) and also at the FA's Kit and Advertising Regs. The EFL does not seem to have much in the way of regulation around Crests - they leave it to the FA. In short I am not convinced that a consultation was strictly necessary under the FA Rule M. Rule M requires a consultation where there is "any material changes to any aspect of a Club Crest (e.g. changing a colour from blue to red, adding or deleting text, or adding new design features and/or deleting established design features)." I think the Club would argue that they have not technically made any material change to the fundamental design of the Crest. Instead they have just moved it and shrunk it on this particular shirt. They've not changed the trademarks, or registered a new one. I assume they've not changed the FA registration of the Crest (which Rule M10 requires if the make a material change to the Crest). If I was the Club's lawyer I'd be pretty confident of this argument. However, in my opinion, the club has clearly acted against the spirit of Rule M. The guidance to Rule M states that "Club Crests form an important part of the identity of a Club and changes can be an emotive issue for some supporters and lead to legitimate concerns being raised." I think that suggests that any type of change - including moving and shrinking - to the Crest should be done with care and with due consideration of supporters' emotions and concerns. That hasn't happened here. it's not a strict or technical breach of the Rules, but it's worth an explanation from the Club. Under the Kit and Advertising Regulations I think it's a bit more concerning. There is no requirement for the Crest to be displayed in the left breast position, but the Crest is the only club emblem (manufacturers and sponsors are considered elsewhere) that is stated to be permitted to be shown on the front of the shirt. other logos/emblems/designs of "club identification" are only permitted if incorporated by "jacquard weave form, as tonal print or by embossing the shirt". Now we have not seen the physical shirt (I might try and get Scott's tonight at Luton) but if the flying robin is not incorporated onto the shirt in one of these ways then I think the Club might have breached the Kit and Advertising Regulations. I suspect the trademarking of the flying robin, and the prolific use of it in club media, press conferences etc, is all being done to evidence that it is a form of "club identification" - even though in reality it is not. Note that it is under this exception that I think man City got away with having their badge on that 21/22 away shirt that was discussed earlier in this thread.

Great questions. I will try to explain the EFL's stance in clear terms. Ask me if you don't think I've been clear anywhere. Firstly, the rules I describe below apply to "standard" embargoes for relatively "minor" or administrative errors and breaches of EFL regulations. There are additional rules where a club is embargoed because of an FFP breach - basically the EFL can strengthen the embargo depending on the severity of the FFP breach. Four Championship clubs are currently the subject of a transfer embargo: Huddersfield's embargo is purely because they have failed to submit accounts. Burnley's embargo is because they failed to submit accounts and they are subject to an FFP breach related to providing their estimated profit and loss account. They are therefore possibly subject to some additional restrictions - however these are determined on a case-by-case basis by the EFL and they don't publish them. Reading's embargo is just for FFP breaches, so I expect they have a pretty strict embargo in place. Probably stricter than Burnley's. Sheffield Utd are also embargoed, but like Huddersfield it's not an FFP breach (it's about transfer payments to other clubs) so they have the "standard" emabargo in place. Below I focus on Huddersfield and Burnley as that is who you mention, but the rules apply equally to Reading and Sheffield Utd. What does this mean in real terms ? The extract you provide above says that "The embargo means [Club X] are unable to register new players". That is broadly true once you look at Huddersfield and Burnley's current squads, and the the various limits and rules around the embargo. The EFL knows that it might impose an embargo outside of a transfer window, and so there are two sets of rules that apply. Outside of a Transfer Window A Club can only register free agents if they have fewer than 16 players of Professional Standing (2x Goalkeepers, 14x Outfield Players). A player is a player of "Professional Standing" if they have made one first team appearance (including as a sub) for any club in any first team competition (EFL Trophy appearances do not count). Clubs can also register an Emergency Goalkeeper Loan if they don’t have any Professional Goalkeepers available due to injuries, suspensions or international call-ups. During a Transfer Window Clubs can ‘staff up’, so they have 23 players of Professional Standing within their squad. However, when ‘staffing up’ they can only sign free agents or players on loan. Clubs cannot pay fees to acquire loan players and cannot pay additional wages on top of the salary the player receives at their parent Club. Free agents can only be signed until the end of the current season, and loans can only be for half a season (ie until the next transfer window. So, currently Huddersfield and Burnley are under the first set of conditions. As both have squads of more than 16 players, we should expect to see them sign no free agents at this time. However, if they are still under the embargo when we hit the summer window, they will move to being under the second set of conditions. It is therefore possible that we could see them sign free agents or loanees in the summer if, due to contracts running out or player sales, their squad numbers drop below the 23 player threshold described above. Clubs under embargo can register academy players and you can give academy players first-team professional contracts (subject to EFL approval). Clubs under embargo can offer new contracts, or trigger extensions to existing contracts (subject to EFL approval). These last two items might be the kind of thing that Burnley or Reading might be prevented from doing as they have breached the FFP rules. Will the embargo be lifted when clean accounts submitted ? Yes. The EFL says "An embargo prevents a Club from strengthening its team or adding to its playing staff costs until such time as it has met its existing financial obligations and/or the Club has rectified the relevant breach of EFL regulation(s)." So that suggests that once the EFL is satisfied that a club has rectified it's breach - in the case of Huddersfield that the Club has provided satisfactory accounts/financial information - then the embargo should be lifted. Burnley will need to rectify both the provision of their accounts and their future profit/loss information. Huddersfield might have bigger problems if they do go into Administration. Absolutely, that would be a different breach of rules and would incur an automatic 12 point deduction, as happened with Derby last season. Whether that deduction would apply this season or next depends on exactly when the "Insolvency Event" (as entering administration is classed) happens and exactly what the impact of -12 points would be this season. The important date is 5pm on the fourth Thursday in March - ie a week tomorrow - and given where they currently are in the table it's likely that if they go into Admin after the fourth Thursday then they will start in League 1 on -12. If you'd like to read the full EFL description of embargoes then go here: https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/embargoes-faqs/

Not if they've still not filed by the time the window opens. It may be a largely symbolic punishment right now - although it does stop them signing free agents (unless they somehow end up with fewer than 16 professional players) - but if the issue persists then imposing the embargo now means that it's in place at minute 1 of the window. It's a good show of real time monitoring and sanctioning.

Fair enough, I remembered it as training kit.

Plus that's a training/leisure kit not a match kit. There's no regulation or rules on training kits.

If the IPO doesn't think its' too similar to other trademarks, and if no one protested or opposed it when it was published then I'm not surprised. There's only a small requirement for 'originality' in that a trademark cannot be too common and non-distinctive, and cannot be just a generic shape associated with your business. I guess the tracing has been stylised enough that it is deemed distinctive. https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-trade-mark

Which one? The flying robin with wings spread or the stylised robin on the football? I was talking about the flying robin with wings spread - which was trademarked in October 2022 - https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmowner/page/search?id=1759295&domain=1 The stylised Robin was trademarked in April 2019 just before the new crest was launched https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmowner/page/search?id=336069&domain=1

To be fair, that logo was first used on kits designed under Gould. Used then as a secondary logo on the back of the third kit. Now promoted to the breast area where the Crest should be.

This video is from March 2019 when the Crest was redesigned. Some selected quotes are below. On the reason for changing from the "City crest" to the crest we've used for the past 4 years “...to give something that was instantly recognisable and something that we could truly own as a club, something that children and younger fans could relate to more, and also just something that gives us that identity to take forward.” So why would you now relegate that "instantly recognisable" crest to the back of the shirt? If that crest is our identity why hide it back there? Why move it from it's normal proud position above the hearts of our players and fans? On the importance and value of consultation “Back in early autumn [of 2018] we sent out a survey to the fans and we wanted to be really clear and upfront about what that was about…we had well over 3,000 responses and obviously the passion that came with that, because people knew what it was for and that really did help shape the design process and the thought process. Following that we set up a fan feedback group which covered various sections and demographics of the fanbase to make sure we could hone those answers and those responses…to make sure we had interpreted that correctly and had done the best process we could.” On collaboration with fan representative groups “[in relation to the 1894 date]...we’ve collaborated with the supporters club and trust to make sure we’ve got our facts straight, so taking a collective effort.” So 4 years ago Jon Lansdown and the Club knew that they should consult, discuss, and plan a change to the Crest. But this time they've unilaterally replaced it - albeit on the third kit and with the official crest present on the nape of the neck - without so much as a notification to any of us. Why this change in attitude? Why the change in approach? Do they see a third kit as a plaything, a kit so meaningless that it can be the place for experimentation? If so then why not say that? I've looked at all the tweets and articles released by the club around this new kit and not once is there an open acknowledgement that the crest has been moved and replaced with this Robin. No explanation of why it's been done, no reasoning, not even making it part of the announcement. What? Did they think we'd all just not notice?

We do also need to give credit to the Gas. When they wanted to change their badge last year they actually did a consultation, held polls and then ultimately listened to both of their fans when they said they'd like to stick with a camp pirate squashing a football. They get many, many, many things wrong, but like any stopped clock, they were correct this once.

That's in the Kit and Advertising bit. I think you could read it as saying that the club emblem may appear only once on the front. Ie. Not twice. I don't think I can see anything that actually says it has to appear on the front. But those same regs don't seem to allow for an alternative logo, they talk about sponsors and competition logos - but that's not what this is. It's getting late tbh and I'm reading on a phone, but it might be that there's a bit of a muck up here.

Thanks so much. I feel pretty stupid. I thought I'd combed through the FA Rules but must have missed this. So I suspect that the Club don't think this comes under these rules as a) they'd argue they've just moved the Crest to the back of the neck, and b) it's possible it's just for one season and just on the third kit, so it's a "temporary" change, c) I assume they've not actually changed the Crest that is registered with the FA, and so they would argue that actually there is no change. "Club Crest" is defined as "the official club emblem used on the playing strip which is the recognised symbol of the club". Nothing about location there, and the Club Crest is on the nape of the neck. As I said to @Kid in the Riot all rules I've seen - including these - clearly have an implied assumption that Clubs will use the same Crest on the "traditional" front of shirt position, and that Crest will be the registered one (bar small colour changes). Most rules account for one off changes for anniversaries or other celebrations, but there's never really a mention of a switch on a whole kit. Seems the Club may have found a minor loophole. However, if Jon Lansdown is already bored of the Crest he redesigned 5 minutes ago and wants to replace it again, then he will need to have a consultation with fans.

Neither can I. It's weird, everything I read talks as though these rules are in place...and then I look in the FA handbook and can't see them. If they are meant to protect heritage assets that fans have an interest in then they should be publicly available. I'll keep looking and asking.

Yes these are a reference to the FAs new rules on heritage protection. These were brought in earlier this season. The White Paper suggests that the Government thinks this is sufficient protection. I cannot find the full new rules published anywhere though, so have no idea what they actually say beyond the press releases. Have you got a copy?