ExiledAjax

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.

Sure. They can't sit in your seat. You've paid for that.

In which case he should be given a role like "Head of Media" or something (with respect to Dave Barton). I've said before that it's the club's fault for not clarifying what the "Chairman" role is. That leaves people confused as some equate it with the modern CEO role - ie day-to-day management of the club/company. Others read Chairman and think of a chairman of the board of directors - basically a position in large normally listed companies where the person is a non-executive who oversees the board and has a casting vote to break deadlock. Jon isn't that as he is very clearly an executive director. So what is his role? It's not clear and it's bad governance. If the protest was clearly about that I'd be down the 3 Lions in a shot on Saturday.

Of course, because that's the job of a CEO.

@italian dave note that strictly reading that clause of the Charter I would say that "permission" could be granted by the steward in A block on the day. So going up to a steward (any steward) on Saturday and saying "Here's my ST, I've not moved more than 3 times already this season, can I please sit in E34 today" would not breach any rules. Of course the steward might refuse permission if he's already let 50 of your mates through.

I agree that's probably how the club would want to interpret it. I also agree that you'd generally expect tom have to contact the club beforehand. However, on a strict reading and interpretation, including the definitions section I think you'd be within your rights, and able to argue, that there is no requirement to speak to the club beforehand. Yes it is poorly worded but that's the club's fault. I guess there could be something in the "Ground Regulations" referred to in the T&Cs. I think that refers to a section within the "Club Charter" on the OS. Now, in that section there is a term that says "All persons entering the Ground may only occupy the seat allocated to them by their ticket and must not move from any one part of the Ground to another without the express permission or instruction of any steward, officer of the Club and/or any police officer." So yes that does suggest that you have to get permission before moving seat, although it doesn't expressly refer back to 10.1 so you might argue that the express mention overrides the generic. There is then also a catch-all clause saying "Notwithstanding possession of any ticket the Club, any police officer or authorised steward may refuse entry to (or eject from) the Ground any person: that fails (or in the Club's reasonable opinion is likely to fail) to comply with these Ground Regulations or any reasonable instruction issued by a police officer or authorised steward; and/or whose presence within the Ground is, or could (in the Club's reasonable opinion), constitute a source of danger, nuisance or annoyance to any other person. So if in the Club's reasonable opinion you sitting in E34 could annoy someone, anyone, then they can refuse you entry or eject you. This is what empowers them generally to eject anyone, for anything, at anytime.

You could do that couldn't you. I wouldn't encourage anyone to do that. But it does look like you could do that doesn't it.

As I (admittedly somewhat confusingly) outlined above, the terms and conditions of a season ticket permit the ticketholder to move seats up to 3 times per season free of charge. There is no requirement to notify the Club, stewards, or anyone else prior to doing so. Therefore if you are an ST-holder and you have sat in your assigned seat (or area if your ST is in the unreserved area) then you should simply explain to the stewards that you are using your right under clause 10.1 of your ticket terms and conditions, and are moving seat for this match. If this will be the 4th time you have moved seat then yes you should contact the ticket office and pay the difference between the seat price in E34 and your pro rata season ticket price. Alternatively if you are flush with cash just buy a match ticket in E34.

Ah forgot that Wiles-Richards had gone on loan. Casa-Grande is a keeper as well isn't he? Perhaps we're not quite as well stocked in the youth goalkeeper dept as I remembered.

The enthusiasm and fearlessness of youth is great, and sometimes it is needed. However, they might benefit from the counsel of older fans as well. A blend of youth and experience.

"ticket or not". FFS. Just gives the club the opportunity to shut it down. Do it properly, understand your rights, and you will be more successful in the long run.

Sure, whichever body has the final say - it may well technically be the SAG as you say. You know, I've looked at the Ts&Cs again and actually, assuming this is one of the first three times that an ST holder has moved seats it is free of charge. It also actually does not specifically say that you have to ask permission to do any of those first three seat moves. Perhaps my long posts to @lenred are slightly jumping the gun. It's likely that just moving seat for the Birmingham game is already within the rules, assuming an ST holder hasn't moved 3 times already.

Ok, fair enough, sorry I took your question the wrong way. I should have expanded upon "club sanctioned". I meant it in two ways. Firstly in relation to doing the initial move in accordance with terms and conditions - I hope that this is being done as it will mean that the move gets taken more seriously by the club. Do it 'legally' and you take away the ability of the club to brand it as a 'protest'. If it's your 4th seat move this season then pay your £14 and get it 'sanctioned'. Then prove to the club that the atmosphere is better and you can be trusted. That's for the short term move. The second point is that if this is intended to be a long-term permanent move of "the singing section" from the corners to block E34 (and E33 maybe if capacity requires it?) then you are at some point going to need official club sanction, just as fans got in 2017 when the singing section was established. Three main reasons I can think of for needing this if what is intended is a wholesale relocation of the 'singing section': you're going to need the club to relax the no-standing rules in the new section as they have done for the current corner; if you want rail seating in the new area then that'll be the club that installs that; and the club will need to speak to any current ST holders in Dolman E34 and E33 to see if they want to move, or to facilitate that move. I support this move if it improves atmosphere. But do it properly and in accordance with the terms and conditions and with the club's assistance and it is far more likely to stick.

When someone buys a ticket or season ticket they legally buy that ticket to sit in a specific seat - or in the case of the unreserved area a seat in that specific area. Sitting somewhere else breaks those terms and conditions. Being cold about this it has nothing to do with fostering a good atmosphere. This condition is in clause 2.2 of the terms and conditions - "A Season Card permits you to occupy at the Match the seat indicated on the Season Card unless in a designated unreserved area or if the seat has been transferred to another area." For single match tickets clause 11.5 that says the same thing. Clause 1.2 of the terms and conditions then says "The Club reserves the right to withdrawal [sic] any Season Card if any of the Terms and Conditions of Entry are broken by any Season Card holder." So, what that means is that if you have an ST in one place and you go and sit in another seat the club can, technically, take your ST away. Now, the terms and conditions do allow an ST holder to move seat for free, for up to 3 games a season. They also allow for a permanent seat move. But either moving for a fourth time or permanently moving requires written consent of the club and payment - for a single seat move the difference of the single match ticket and the pro rata price of the ST - in the case of an adult in the unreserved section moving to E34 this would be a payment of £14. For a permanent move you have to pay the difference between your ST and an ST in the new seat - adjusted pro rata. Are the people moving seat doing it in accordance with their ST terms and conditions? If not they are at risk of losing their ST. Look, I know that people move seats all the time - I have done it myself many times - and I know that generally a blind eye is turned to it and it causes no issues. However where a large group do it I suspect that the usual blind eye will suddenly become not so blind, and some fans may unwittingly find themselves in hot water. I am just raising this point so people might be aware of it.

A Club sanctioned move of the - and I apologise for using the term - 'singing section'. Club sanctioned conversion of E34 to be unreserved - I assume that would be a preference, if it's not then don't worry about this. A trade in of the current STs held in the corner and purchase of STs in block E34 - note that at current prices an adult ST in Dolman E34 is £450 compared to a South Stand ST being £375. This can of course happen in the summer if everyone decides to buy STs in E34. A single adult match ticket in that block is currently going for £30. As @GTFABM says - are those moving buying tickets in E34 or are they just going to move round en masse and stewarding and ticket ts&cs be damned? Might be what some want - but doing that opens you up to a stadium ban from the club for breach of ticket ts&cs. Again, I am not against this move, and I am not particularly against the ad hoc move being proposed. But, if those doing this want it to stick then there needs to be thought put into doing it 'properly'. As I say, perhaps the way to start this discussion with the Club is to force it by making the move and then asking for forgiveness rather than permission.

Plus, I know it isn't the most popular spot for ST holders, but there will be a few in there. Anyone asked them if they're ok with this? Given they may have specifically bought their ST there on the basis that it isn't near the corner. Having said that, I would generally be in favour of moving the vocal home fans nearer the away fans. It just might be something that needs to be done 'properly' - although if the catalyst for a 'proper' move is an organic ad hoc move - then so be it.

Would have thought that if Bentley goes we stick with O'Leary and Bajic as 1 and 2, with Wiles-Richards the number 3.

BBC reporting it as paid.

Who would have thought we'd get that in a thread about Neil ******* Warnock ?

Tell you what though Fevs, and anyone else reading this: the prospective buyout and demonstration threads have been excellent today. Lots of adult discussion, excellent questions from genuinely interested people, and decent answers. I've found today quite an uplifting one on here!

And so you see how everything that happens on the pitch is dependent upon what happens off it. Bad management of the books means no money in the transfer market means we sell our best players and buy worse and so have a weaker squad and so lose games. Get it right off the pitch and you drastically increase your chances of getting it right on the pitch.

average xG deficit/surplus in bold above. If you're going to use shots to show that we are shit then really you need to use xG IMO. In the same time frame you've omitted to mention Watford where we had 9 shots and 2 on target to their 2 shots with none on target. xG of +0.9 in that one. Also Sheff Utd where we dominated shots by 16 - 4 and shots on target were equal at 3 apiece. xG was +0.83 there. It is still not pretty, but we have dominated some games. Watford, Stoke and Sheff Utd really could have returned us 9 points rather than the 1 they actually did.

In PE you'd very rarely see a fully leveraged buyout. Any bank providing a loan would absolutely expect the PE house to put in its own money yes. Would it be a gamble with a swift promotion built in? Probably. What is "swift". The number one way that any buyer would increase the value of the club is by getting into the Premier League. So yes promotion would absolutely be part of the equation. You are right to be wary by the way. I am just trying to explain the way this business works. If you're still wary after that then fair enough and in part I agree with you.

Why would a new owner buy a club using a structure that instantly wrecks it? By all means tell me I am a fool, but I'd trust any buyers, in particular professional US-based PE people, to structure the deal in a way that wouldn't see the club immediately wrecked due to overbearing interest payments.