ExiledAjax

Yes. You remember which club you support right?

I just wonder whether it might have been easier to teach Scotty how to use the washing machines?

Special clothes for the weekend.

From huboo's website it looks like they have changed their logo. The IPO office site shows that new trademarks were registered in November 2022 with the capitalised H. So they've taken the opportunity to update.

Presumably means "We are trying to get permission from the EFL (and other relevant bodies) to allow us to switch kits halfway through a season." Nice shirt, reminds me of our last pinstripe effort from 2017/18...we all know what happened that season.

It will sit alongside any league rules around financial sustainability. Whether the current rules or some future system, this will compliment it. The White Paper says that any Regulator requirements will be coordinated with pre-existing financial rules to minimise the potential compliance burden on clubs and deliver a system which allows the Regulator to fulfil its statutory duties. The WP also goes at lengths to say that the first step ibn any enforcement by the Regulator will be made on an "advocacy" basis. Essentially that means that should the Regulator think a club is potentially non-compliant, the first step is to work with the club on a collaborative basis, to seek to "sort out" any defects. The WP describes this as engaging constructively with regulated parties, resolving issues and encouraging compliance through advice, soft influencing and informal engagement. On financial regulation specifically the White Paper says as follows: Financial sustainability regulation would be the Regulator’s core focus, delivered through the first licence condition: ‘appropriate resources’. It would be based on improving financial resilience, to protect the long-term sustainability of clubs for the benefit of their fans and communities. Clubs would be required to: demonstrate good basic financial practices; have appropriate financial resources or ‘buffers’ to enable the club to meet cash flows including in the event of a financial shock; and protect the core assets and value of the club - such as the stadium. "Appropriate resources" is a key phrase used throughout the WP. It means that the club must have adequate financial and non-financial resources and controls in place, to meet committed spending and foreseeable risks. Demonstrating this to the regulator would include planning for adverse circumstances - including relegation and the withdrawal of owner funding. Also the WP says that the Regulator will make objective, risk-based decisions on what constitutes adequate financial resources according to each club’s specific circumstances and its risk level. If a club lacks sufficient resilience, the Regulator may require the club to improve its financial resources, such as by building up its readily available liquid assets or seeking greater assurances on owner funding. So yes escrow sums, owner bonds, or simple "rainy day" funds may be required - but it will be quite specific to each club. Stadiums will be quite closely protected, with sales of stadia needing prior written approval from the Regulator. On debt the WP says that the Regulator would be able to place controls on excessive debt where it could threaten the viability or value of the club. The Regulator would determine the appropriate limits and controls when setting that club's Specific Licence Conditions. They expect that these limits may need to be waived in exceptional circumstances, if agreed with the Regulator in advance. For example, a high-interest loan might be the only way to help a club survive to the start of the next transfer window, when players could be sold, debt repaid, and the club downsized. The WP gives a broad example of how this might work in practice: In general there's quite a clear ambition to make the licenses issued to clubs, and the conditions needed to be complied with, quite specific to each club. There will only ever be (subject to league structure changes) 116 regulated entities. That's a very small number compared to most industries. I think the intention is that this will allow a fairly small team of people to have quite involved and intensive supervision of these entities.

You're right to challenge me. I don't know many details. All I know is that I have had a number of discussions with the club over the last two years related to kit. Mainly these have been aimed at ensuring that our kits take colourblind fans into consideration. Through those chats I have been told, by Gould, that kits are signed off in September/October each year and that is JL's responsibility/. That's not huge news to most as it's well known that JL looks after kit designs. Then, through my job, I know a little bit about commercial contracts and the types of clauses they tend to contain. Not specifically football kit supply contracts, but general B2B contracts for supply of goods and services. So it is just with those bits of background that I offer my conjecture, supposition, and assumption for the consideration of the forum. With respect to whether the EFL would consider us to be "changing kit" - that would pretty much be up to the opinion of the EFL. Reg 39.1 in full says: "During the Close Season, each Club shall notify The League in writing details of its ‘home’ and ‘away’ kit (shirt, shorts and socks) and if applicable any ‘third’ set of kit. Each set of kit registered must differ visibly from and contrast with each other kit registered by the Club in that Season. No changes either in the kit or combination of colours of kits shall be permitted during the course of the Season." It's quite clear that the EFL expects kits to be finalised during the off-season, and do not expect any changes to the kit during the season. However, there is also scope for a club to approach the EFL should a change be necessary. I expect the EFL would have a pretty high threshold as to whether a change is "necessary" and "we don't like our kit supplier and they've been a bit slow" is unlikely to cut the mustard. I don't mean in terms of any potential breach of contract. If the terms say we can terminate without payment then we will do so. What I was referring to was specifically whether we might need to pay them for the designs that they produced in the autumn of 2022 - if we want to use those designs with O'Neills. I don't know the answer btw, it will depend on the contract terms. It might also be irrelevant if O'Neills have created entirely new designs.

The other thing with wearing it tomorrow is that you have to submit your intended kit to the EFL at least a week prior to the game. Now, ultimately it is up to the match day official to sign kits off, but each club is supposed to work with the EFL and the opposing team (ie Hull) to ensure that you avoid kit blends and that kits are used properly. A last minute change in kit is not going to be popular with the EFL, with Hull, or with the match day officials. I really don't think we'd do it unless we had no other option. A change in supplier next season is plausible though. If O'Neills are cheaper, or provide better supply of replica shirts, then I think Alexander and Jon Lansdown would not hesitate to pay Hummel off and switch.

So it was Hummel kit signed off in the autumn, and O'Neills have now had to design and produce new kits in 4 weeks? Or did we give them the Hummel designs and tell them to "make this", and then sorted Hummel's complaints out in the background? Sorry, are you saying we're changing kit halfway through a season? Have we had EFL clearance for that? EFL reg 39.1 says that "No changes either in the kit or combination of colours of kits shall be permitted during the course of the Season." We are allowed one home game per season where we wear a different kit (see the 125th anniversary game v Fulham a few seasons ago), are you saying that tomorrow is that one game?

I don't know. My point was that if it was a Hummel kit signed off then switching to O'Neills may, or may not entail a new design. If Hummel retained ownership of the designs then we would not be able to simply take them and give them to O'Neill's and say "make this" (unless we compensated Hummel). If we in fact own the designs then it would be easier. All subject to the terms of our contract with Hummel of course. I therefore think it's more likely that we were in talks with O'Neills quite early on, and those designs were O'Neill designs. I don't know an awful lot about lead times and design times etc, but the fact that the standard timeline is that designs get signed off in September/October of a season, I'd suggest that 4 weeks (being the time since Alexander took over) is a very short period in which to design from scratch, or even adapt existing designs, and then launch a kit.

I'm not sure Alexander will be key to this. The kits are designed in September/October, and I know that 23/24's kit designs were signed off in October 2022. Supplier is involved in the design. Based on that I'd say this switch has been in the offing long before Alexander took over. Ps. I've heard there's a dash of some azure on the away kit.

Just to say as well, we have more than 6,500 full paying adult season ticket holders. Plus another 7,000 in the various age and concession categories. But yeh, we have more full price adult STs than they have total ST holders.

Plus of course those attendance figures include away fans. In reality they have about 6,500 season ticket holders, plus maybe 1,500 (being generous) or so pay on the day types. In reality about 8,000 'core' fans.

I did. Mainly because Neville called him Richard! Interesting post, thank you. He's got an interesting relationship with our club and has some...interesting views on football, not all of which I agree with.

Why do you keep calling him Peter?

So, the White Paper is here. You can read it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bold-plan-to-protect-long-term-future-of-english-football Headline summary features of the Government's plans are: New independent regulator to help prevent repeat of financial failings seen at Derby County, Bury and Macclesfield Town; Clubs in the top 5 divisions will need to obtain a license form the regulator prior to competing in domestic competitions; Strengthened owners’ and directors’ test to protect clubs and their fans from unscrupulous owners this will run in parallel to, and will not replace, the current PL and EFL tests. There isn't much suggestion that it will include any moral or ethical test of owners, so it may simply be an extension of the current objective tests we have; Fans given greater say in running of clubs, and key heritage such as team names, badges and stadia at core of new plans; and No real say as to how this might happen, but given the White Paper essentially agrees with the original Review, and that Review strongly recommended Golden Shares, I suspect that is the route that the Regulator will expect clubs to take; Powers to block English clubs from joining unpopular breakaway leagues like the European Super League. All good, and all expected, and all without any real substance. On finances the position remains that football is to sort the distribution out itself. However, if the football authorities cannot reach an agreement the regulator would have targeted powers of last resort to intervene and facilitate an agreement as and when necessary. So I don't expect a solution to the financial distribution any time soon. That's a shame, but I think ultimately the backstop powers will be used, perhaps not immediately, but at some point in the next few years. I was posting yesterday about governance in relation to Scudamore's role at our Club. governance is going to be a big part of the new regulator's powers. The regulator will have a remit to ensure club directors demonstrate good basic financial practices, have appropriate financial resources and protect the core assets of the club and will aim to improve governance through the introduction of a Football Club Corporate Governance Code. So we should be looking to be absolute certain that our governance is up to scratch.

Professional footballers have long been required to be registered professionals. That is what is transferred when a player moves clubs - their registration. @CyderInACan is there a link to the actual story? Is this a confusion with the announcement today that clubs will be licensed under the new Regulator?

From what I read this cup is Le Tournoi for the girls. A four-team friendly invitational World Cup warm-up tournament. Well done to the girls for winning what's in front of them, and the accounts will appreciate a full crowd at AG. But let's not pretend this is a notable tournament win.

Yeh I saw that on CH as well. It's almost certainly a consultantcy company. To those who've responded to me @spudski @REDOXO @cidered abroad @CyderInACan I'm not suggesting that there is impropriety. It is simply the case that if Scudamore is making decisions then it is poor governance to have that done in the shadows. If he is merely providing advice, consultancy, or counsel, then that is fine - whether it be paid (in money or in lunches) or unpaid. I know for certain that the latter happens, but Alexander's use of "heavily involved" could be interpreted to suggest the former. That's it.

I agree that so long as the final decisions are truly made by the directors and shareholders then it's fine to have conversations and use networks behind the scenes. Accord should also be given to the EFL Regs and Owners and Directors test. I'm sure the club are confident that Scudamore isn't a "Relevant Person" under this Regs, but some of the definition there is quite broad and includes "a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act". I just hope that "heavily involved" doesn't mean this. We see with the current Birmingham case that this is something the EFL are starting to look at seriously. I'm sure it's all just networking and chats as you say - and as I said earlier that was always the impression I got from Gould - but if it's more than that then his involvement should be properly recorded and structured.

No. It's looking like 6th place is going to be 70 points or so. So if we want even a chance of finishing in the top 6 we need another 29 points from our final 14 games. 2.07 points per game. We also need the teams above us to fall away, or at least none of them can go on a similar run. It's not happening. We're about as mid-table as you can get. 10 wins, 11 draws, 11 losses, +1 GD. Middle of the road. Sleepwalking to 12th place.

I've had an opportunity to watch the interview. I agree that the way Alexander describes Scudamore's involvement makes it sound quite involved. In particular he refers to meeting him prior to starting work here. That makes it sound like Scudamore's an important person for a new CEO to meet. That is unusual. Scudamore isn't a listed director of any Bristol City company. He's not listed on the OS. He's not listed in the "Who's Who" section of the matchday programme. That lists everyone down to the Club Chaplain and the Head of Marketing so if he's not there then I'm fairly confident he's not a strict employee. I haven't got our annual return to hand so can't check if Scudamore's a shareholder either. If he is then it's a minority non-voting shareholding as Pula Sport owns all the voting shares. Scudamore could be employed as a consultant and if he's got a formal consultant position then I think it's fine. It's a bit weird the Club aren't open about it, but generally I'd not be concerned by it. However if he's just a mate of the owner who informally vets new CEOs and is heavily involved in decision making then from a governance perspective it's potentially a bit concerning as it would mean we've got someone influencing the Club who is not in anyway legally accountable. It would sound like he could be acting as a shadow director - although I'd expect someone of his experience to know how to avoid that trap. I was happy with Gould's explanation that it was a few chats and that Scudamore was a bit of a sounding board, but Alexander's description makes it sound like Scudamore has a little more control than the official records suggest he might.

It's how Richard Gould described Scudamore's involvement to me. Alexander will have his own relationship with Scudamore, but the description fits with what we know.

It's unofficial. Scudamore isn't a director or employee. He's a fan with a profile who knows Lansdown and he talks to the directors and gives them advice when they ask for it.

4 clubs have made the change twice. Some enforced like QPR losing Beale, but still. 3 managers in a season isn't particularly unusual this term.