ExiledAjax

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?

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.