ExiledAjax

Both sides engaging in 20 seconds of head tennis to start. Set the tone.

Is there really a difference between 19th and 20th? In the grand scheme of it? It's relatively meaningless. Anyway, Blackburn are clearly shite away from home at struggling teams. Lump on us to beat them whatever happens today.?

Absolutely not, she cost far too much.

Feeling a little tickle of positivity today.

And that account has actually deleted that original post.

Answers above. I'm glass half full.

Completely agree. But all of this (bar it currently being 1 win in 12) is as true now as it will be at 5pm if we don't win. I agree we need a win at some point (we probably need 6 in these last 20 games), but we don't necessarily need one today.

Very unlikely to happen today, regardless of results. Therefore they are also hard to drop into. For us to drop into the bottom 3 one of the current bottom 3 must get out of it. If you worry that once in the bottom 3, we would be unable to get out, then logically you should be equally unconcerned that we will drop into it.

What would change if we lose or draw today?

It ties in with something very odd that I heard recently. My brother-in-law recently moved to Bristol as his wife is from our great City. Unfortunately his wife's friends are Gas and took him under his wing before I really knew what was happening. He's been to the Mem once or twice and appears to have been indoctrinated into the way of the Black Arabs. Anyway, we were on a family holiday and he mentioned that one reason he liked the Gas was that City are "...a bit fascist and are the right-wing club in Bristol." Without getting into a political debate this comment just generally surprised me. I'd never heard us described like that before, and especially in comparison to the Gas being the "left-wing" club. This Boca Juniors comment reminded me of this, as my understanding of Buenos Aires is that Boca are the left-wing, working class club and River Plate are the wealthier, generally more conservative, right-wing club. Or at least that's the perception. Therefore if the Gas are Boca, are we not River Plate?

That's not what I said. I did not say it's alright. There can be nuance to the Pearson debate, and nuance to ones position on him. Do I want us to win? Of course. Am I happy with us being where we are? No. But do we need to win? Is a win "required" today in particular? No not really. All can be simultaneously true.

Even if we lose and Blackpool win we are very unlikely to drop into the bottom 3 today given our goal difference. Even if we did drop in it would be on goal difference only and there remain 19 games to get out. We do not need to win today.

And an update from Fair Game. "We need an independent regulator to oversee the wellbeing of our National Game. And that prospect edged a step closer this week thanks to the EFL. The organisation hosted a series of six regional meetings for clubs and MPs at the Houses of Parliament. At the meetings, the EFL presented a briefing - the main thrust of which backed an independent regulator and called for it to have powers to impose a financial settlement “in perpetuity”. Among those to feedback to Fair Game on the meeting was Tim Farron. The Westmorland and Lonsdale MP was delighted to hear that the EFL were committed to a strong regulator, the abolition of parachute payments and a better redistribution of revenues. Meanwhile, Yasmin Qureshi, the MP for Bolton South East, used the opportunity to raise questions about the Sustainability Index and the current 80:12:8 split of EFL revenues. Afterwards, Managing Director of AFC Wimbledon, Danny Macklin, issued a plea to his peers: "The mood in the room was pro regulator, but the challenge is to make sure it delivers a fairer financial flow in football. As football clubs we have to unite to make that happen." Our own response was reported widely in papers across the country such as UK Daily News, and the Express and Star. We said: "This is a welcome move by the EFL. Football needs a proper holistic view of funding and that can only come from an independent regulator. The game needs fairer financial flow – a flow that rewards well-run clubs and incentivises culture change." When talking about financial flow from Prem to EFL, it is absolutely right to raise the 80:12:8 split between Championship, League 1 and League 2. Should that be a more equitable split? I am still wary of the regulator getting fully involved in the flow of money. I understand that money is ultimately what the 72 EFL clubs want, and it is their primary motivation when backing the regulator. But is it really what the regulator should be about? For me it should be a secondary item. Primary in the regulator's should be governance and financial hygiene of clubs. But at the end of the day it's money that talks.

Finally Chiles is on the case. Finally a mind truly capable of cracking this mystery wide open. Thank god.

But it is a notification. The clubs know the rules, and if they break them then they know the likely outcomes. We are in constant dialogue with the EFL and the financial reporting unit. As to being unable to register a player that a club has "signed". It happens commonly. Two recent high profile examples (admittedly not in this country) are Ronaldo at his Saudi club, and I think it was Lewandowski and a couple of others at Barcelona in the summer. Different reasons for those two examples, but the are examples of national federations refusing to process a registration because the club has breached local financial or other rules.

Yeh Gould uses his network well. He speaks to Davidson, Scudamore, and others that have connections to City plus knowledge. I mean he'll speak to anyone with an idea and a desire to make it work. Davidson has done good work with the former players association and has been instrumental in setting up the new heritage company and it's online repository. He's around, in the background and helping where he can.

You're entitled to move up to three times a season free of charge. After that the club can charge you the difference between the seat price and your pro rata per game ST price in your normal seat

You've quoted me so I'll respond. I'm not entirely against it. But, it would have to be a complete buyout by us of them. Essentially an eradication of them, and a final full-stop on their history. I'm also not really sure I would be happy at us setting a precedent like that. Football should be an industry where you can't just buy your rivals/competitors. I don't want Sheff Utd to buy Wednesday, I don't want Forest to buy County, I don't want Stoke to buy Port Vale. Note as well that I'm sure FIFA, UEFA, the FA (plus any future regulator) would have something to say about it - you're straying near to multi-club ownership territory. Even if it could be done it would take a generation or two to get the entirety of Bristol supporting one club. Partly due to past loyalties, and partly due to the time taken to educate the few about maps, roofs, fixed seating, sell by dates, 7-figure transfer fees, and general human etiquette. If it had happened 100 years ago then who knows where Bristol might be in footballing terms, but right now I can't see it. The only realistic ways that Bristol will ever (again) have just one football league team is when the gas get either relegated out of League 2 or are finally wound up for good.

My understanding, having spoken to him on one call in relation to the Heritage project - is that he's very unlikely to return to the BCFC board. He's happy to be involved as he is with projects that support the club, but full board membership isn't happening.

I agree, and it's a shame that people won't do it in accordance with the rules - because that will give the club and stewards licence to shut it down, or try to shut it down. If the people 'organising' this move want it to stick then they need to box clever. Getting around the rules and riling up the club and stewards might be exciting, but it isn't clever. Have to say that the Instagram account purporting to be leading this is encouraging people to buy tickets in the proper way, so we might see that they are doing it correctly all along.

And in doing so they give the Club/stewards the power to kick them out of that seat and the ground, and possibly to take away their ST. Doing it the proper way - by calling the number that @Magger1 posted, or by otherwise getting permission from the club/a steward to move seat, they remove the club's ability to do that.* *although the club always have the power to eject you if they think you're being dangerous or annoying.

I agree with almost all of your very good post, and certainly support the sentiment behind it. However, I will pull you up on this point. We are different to a few other clubs in the 92. Brentford, Portsmouth, Lincoln, Wimbledon, Exeter, Newport, Stevenage, and a few others all have some element of (common, ie not millionaire/billionaire) fan ownership or governance, or are currently looking to establish it. Many of these arrangements were established as a result of severe financial distress, but established they are. There is another way, and some clubs are already doing it.

Scott v Forest of course! I was right down the front of the south stand for that one. It happened not ten yards away from me. Stonewall.

Interesting, and I admire the effort needed to trawl through more than a year's worth of games and highlights. Below I've extracted the ones that the Bristol Post (who may not be an absolute authority on the subject) think are at least worthy of a "strong claim" or similar. They reckon that is 12 of the 30. So should anyone fancy putting together a compilation video - these are the 12 incidents you need to focus on. It's about 50 games now isn't it? 12 penalties in 50 matches would be pretty par for the course IIRC. Assuming a standard 78% conversion rate we could argue that we should have scored 10 extra goals across the last 50 games. That's not insignificant at all. 2021/22 Stoke City (H) City appeal after a Callum O'Dowda cross appears to strike defender Leo Ostigard's hand en route to the middle of the box. Verdict: City had a strong case QPR (H) A decision that, in-part, led to Andy King's frustration and his red card as Alex Scott was bundled over while dribbling at speed into the penalty area yet no foul was given. Cam Pring was then later penalised for a similar challenge handing Charlie Austin a spot-kick. Verdict: Hard to see how it wasn't given Millwall (H) Matty James runs onto a pass forward by Weimann but is beaten to the ball by Shaun Hutchinson who uses part of his arm to divert it out for a corner. Verdict: City had a strong case Preston North End (A) Semenyo is brought down by Van Den Berg a second time as he takes the defender on and the two go shoulder to shoulder in the penalty area with the City forward penalised after he hits the deck. Verdict: Definite case for a penalty Swansea City (A) Semenyo goes down after a heavy challenge inside the area and stays down for a good few minutes after the incident. Verdict: Was definitely something in it Bournemouth (A) Martin is brought down in the penalty area [see above from 3:40] following a clumsy challenge by Lloyd Kelly but to the surprise of everyone nothing is given. Verdict: Looked a penalty 2022/23 Hull City (A) Rob Atkinson is clearly manhandled from a corner, immediately after Hull's initial penalty, and falls to the ground. Referee waves away protests leaving Nigel Pearson and the coaching staff frustrated on the touchline. Verdict: A strong case Wigan (A) Tommy Conway gets goal side of his man and is bundled to the ground [see below from 1:14] following a clumsy tackle by Jason Kerr. Appeals from the City players including the striker laying on the floor. Verdict: Penalty Norwich (A) Mark Sykes is barged by Grant Hanley in the back as he charges towards the byline looking to fire in a cross. The incident happened moments after the hosts opened the scoring. Verdict: Strong claim Watford (H) Wells was involved in two penalty claims. The first was a high boot to the head [see below from 1:05] when battling for the ball alongside Dan Gosling. Although he doesn't catch the striker, there was certainly an element of dangerous play. Verdict: Strong claim Swansea (H) Three penalty shouts all waved away from the keeper. Semenyo is bundled to the ground attempting to shield the ball following a slide tackle from Ben Cabango. The referee claims the defender won the ball but replays showed it was a clumsy challenge. Verdict: Penalty The second saw Rob Atkinson taken down from behind with the ball bobbling loose in the area. Looked obvious from first viewing and opinion hasn't changed after watching the replay. Verdict: Penalty

Oh absolutely. It's an awful lot of pressure to put on some pretty low paid stewards.