ExiledAjax

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?

Interesting point. I'd love to know the logic behind the sanctioning of the badge move - because the official badge is still technically on the shirt albeit it's been moved to the back of the shirt. I'm not sure the new Regulator would prevent this. We don't know what the final rules will say, but in existing draft and example items that I've written and seen written, we've kind of approached it from a "don't change the official badge/crest", but it's always been under an assumption that the official badge/crest is what is then used uniformly across all media/kits/anywhere else that the club wants to use it's 'logo'. Your post has given me some food for thought. Friday I'm meeting some people to discuss the regulator/Governance and so I'll mention it from this angle.

Well I'm going on Wednesday. First live game since WBA away and I'm excited to see an in-form bodged together City take on a play-off team. Never been to Kenilworth Road either and a shithole it may be, but it's a unique shithole the like of which will never be built again, so I'm looking forward to the trip.

Is it the same as the flying robin on the back of the grey/orange kit? In that neck position?

Not sure how this will go from a colourblind perspective. I think it's fluoro enough to be actually pretty good, but if not then at a distance it will washout into the green of the pitch. I actually see it as yellow with green trim. I kind of like it, or at least want to like it. But the badge...firstly why does it have a second badge? Then after that why that design? @1960maaan I thought about rules and regs as well. I can only assume it's been sanctioned by the EFL.

The first sentence is hyperbole. Second is just wrong - just one example is that Huddersfield could have easily had a penalty. You're 3rd is narrow by only considering us, and also assumes that any extra penalties or decisions in our favour would have, collectively, gained us extra points sufficient to take us up to or near 6th. I've not checked, but I doubt every non-awarded penalty would have converted a loss to a draw or a draw to a win.

Think I went 56 points and 11th...could be close.

I do SA for HMRC as well - you can appeal the £100 if you have a reasonable excuse, which are quite broad and include "your computer or software failed just before or while you were preparing your online return". It isn't as cut-and-dry as you portray. That's why I say there would need to be some sort of suspended penalty, or at least an appeals system. Professional accountants and staff are still human, and systems are prone to error, failure and mistake. Harsh, deaf, and draconian regulation only serves to create resistance to regulation.

So if they miss the deadline by one or two days they automatically lose a few points? Perhaps an automatic suspended points deduction, with a two month grace period before they kick in and are actually deducted. Late filing of accounts is something to be discouraged, but I don't think you want strict and automatic points deductions for administrative errors. Suspending the points deduction allows for rectification and is a more collaborative and supportive approach to regulation. Given the timing in the season of most deadlines - with just a dozen or so games left to play - points deductions are sensitive (although I'd suggest they follow the same rules as insolvency related deductions when deciding which season to apply them to).

What is "sexual" is not always cut-and-dry in law. I think here it's unlikely to fit the legal definition, or satisfy the legal test, of "sexual". Something's are cut-and-dry - penetration, or masturbation for example - they are always sexual. However, a kiss by its nature can be either sexual or non-sexual and therefore you must consider the circumstances and purpose of the kiss when deciding if it was sexual. This kiss was in public, during a football match, between two players not known to have a romantic or sexual relationship, and who I believe are both openly heterosexual. Each of those factors suggests that the kiss is not sexual. None are enough on their own to exclude it, but together, as a body of evidence, they point to a conclusion that this particular kiss is not sexual in nature. If it's not sexual assault then it could still be common assault. However, there's a lot of nuance around what you consent to when you play on a football pitch. That's why you don't see players combusted for breaking a player's leg - the victim is deemed to have consented to the possibility of suffering a broken leg. It's also unlikely to be common assault as it probably doesn't cause the 'victim' to "suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence." At the most it is probably battery - which is simply "the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person."

@Davefevs is right to highlight that the BBC provide some of the most basic stats around Sky are a little better, but imo if you're going to discuss shots then I'd suggest you all download FotMob. It's free, sources it's data from Statsbomb - one of the bigger UK stats companies with one of the best free xG models - and gives detailed breakdowns of shots in an easy to understand way. The interface is easy, clear, and bold. You can scroll through shot by shot and see the result, the xG rating, the angle etc. It won't be necessary for every shot to be analysed in detail, but it's useful to enable you to define what you're discussing.

This division will be all but done by April. 6th place might be up for debate still, but bottom 3 and top 2 will be all but gone.

There's also a mandatory minimum number of times that each team has to be shown. Could have been an easy way to tick two teams off the list.

Most sites I'm looking at (whoscored, BBC, FotMob) are giving us 3 shots on target.

Technically Pearson signed him in 2021 as a free agent. Technically. Sorry, on review he actually signed a new contract under Pearson. He was never formally released as a free agent. Still, Nige clearly made efforts to keep him here.

Now mixing fonts? Any designers or typesetting professionals have a view on this? So messy imo. On another note: is Elon/Twitter trolling us (and loads of other clubs) by changing the avatar window back to a square after we changed our badge to a circle to fit nicely in the old window?

His 49th goal for us (185 games - so better than 1 in 4). Just one more needed to get on the honours board for scoring 50 for the club. Get it this season Andi ?

1.9 points per game over the last 10. xG par of 1.8 points per game over the last 10 games. Over a period of games results are consistent with performances, and both are consistent with top 4 seasonal form. GD is +0.5 per game over the last ten. That's also what you expect from a top four team.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Enjoy the stress free end to the season everyone.

More than 2 xG. I didn't watch today but the stats suggest a threatening attacking performance.

Would the kit supplier have control or influence over the font we use in our social media or on our own TV coverage scoreboard? Seems a slightly odd power to give the kit supplier. I suspect it's a simultaneous change rather than directly linked to O'Neills.

But we've gone the other way. Most of this season we used a bold, block, sans serif font. Then recently we've switched to the thin, serif font we're discussing here. So are we going against the tide?

Exactly. We all know that this is our traditional leprechaun and Guinness font/typeface/letters. This new font is too skinny, too serif-y, and just not good for modern graphics let alone scoreboards.

Completely agree. And worse, RobinsTV used it for the scoreboard.