ExiledAjax

Well then it's a shame I'm not a gambler. But honestly, I live near Leicester, get a few little bits of info from the training ground as well. It's not a happy place right now, and I know several of their fans who won't be surprised at all when I see them.

Some context needs to be considered as well. Leicester are having a pretty major crisis right now. They're facing 3 financial cases, their women's coach has just been sacked for inappropriate relationships, the board aren't really engaged with the owners, the players are grumbling at Maresca's workload demands, they've struggled to get results, and their rivals (Leeds in particular) have reeled them in from what was, at one point, an 18 (eighteen) point lead. Each of those issues might in isolation be irrelevant, but as a melange of problems they are all having an impact. Well done to us for capitalising on that today, but as I said a while ago, I actually don't think this was the surprise result that it will be painted as.

In a 1-0 win does MOTM ever go to anyone other than the goalscorer? I'd have said most of the defence put in better all round performances.

Leicester are a crisis club now surely?

Fair enough, I respect your opinion even if I absolutely disagree with it.

So. 6.

In my opinion his overall contribution to the team is generally negative. Yes he pops up with the odd goal, but it's not enough to counterbalance the other shite he does.

Anything they offer tbh.

Agreed. It's not TV making us better, it's that the clubs who get on TV are often the better teams, the "bigger" clubs, and those attractive to TV companies. See our televised game v Rotherham earlier this season for the exception that proves the rule.

We've had one extra Sky game this season I think? Maybe we've had some extras picked for overseas? I dunno, generally you get at least 38 or so of the 46 league games on RTV. And as most of us are breaking the TS&C's right from the get go by using VPNs, I'm pretty fine with it. Next season though...not sure I'll renew what with the new TV deal. Tbh I'm half expecting an announcement in the summer that RTV is getting canned.

Take it up with the EFL. They and their TV deal calls the shots re pricing and games shown on RTV. It's not the clubs decision. It's always been like this, ever since RTV became a thing 5 or 6 years ago.

Really couldn't care less what the result is today. I'd prefer a win, but that's it. It's all about performance, seeing progress, improvements in game management, some indication of some sort of cohesion, and some decent underlying numbers. If it's just another game in the same mould as the last lot, then **** it.

It's weird isn't it. Had we (as I suggested we might) managed to keep Pearson until the end of this season and made the switch to Manning at that time, and if we then obtained 26 points in the first 23 games of 2024/25 (basically putting us in about 17th at Christmas). He'd be gone. No way we'd keep him and give him January 2025 if that was the outcome of those first 23 games. But because of the timing of the change and the subsequent collapse, he's given time.

And Huddersfield's Kian Harratt has been suspended for four months and fined £3,200 for breaches of betting rules. He placed 484 bets on football matches between 30 June 2020 and 3 June 2023, and he subsequently admitted to this charge. There are multiple cases of breaches of the betting rules every month from players all over the pyramid. Just as a couple of examples another Newcastle player, Jude Smith, was charged at the end of Feb with 151 bets, a player for weston-super-mare is accused of placing more than 1,700 bets, his case continues. They don't all get the coverage though do they. It's a huge problem in football and across other sports as well. Needs serious consideration from all stakeholders.

And the further complexity is that there are staff salary recharge agreements between the group companies. So for example where someone employed by BCFC doe work that's for a Bears project, BCFC will pay that person, but then can claim back or "recharge" a portion of their salary from Bears. That's just an example, I'm not saying there are people employed by BCFC doing stuff for Bears. So basically it's possible that someone might be employed by one company but ultimately the cost of their salary falls on another. Again all very normal for a group of companies, and also something that I understand is under review with the aim of simplification.

Anyone capable of using sat nav and able to navigate Leicester's roads will be ok getting across Bristol from the M42.

So true.

No. True. I guess I'm guilty of what I said - in times like this it's easy to jump on anything to beat them with.

It's not an actual company no you're right. Maybe I shouldn't have posted the bit about arms length contracts etc. And look, people can be involved in multiple businesses, that's fine. But it doesn't sit well with me that one of our two directors, our chairman, our club's "custodian" in his own words, is clearly not totally focussed on our club and it's related companies and sporting endeavours.

I mean I doubt City are paying FP much if anything at all. But it's the principle you know.

It's a bit odd, and at times like this any little thing can be jumped on for laughs at the clubs expense but I'm not massively furious at us helping Zak out with some t-shirts. I'm also really fed up with Fever Pitch. If that is what Jon wants to do then he should go and do it. Resign from the NINE City/Bears/BS boards that he's on and go and devote his time and attention to what he clearly actually wants to do. He could stay on as an observer on our boards if Steve needs "eyes on the ground", but get away from a body making decisions that you're clearly not investing full time and energy in.

Ah ok. Well hopefully something is able to be published relatively soon.

Mark I know. I wrote the draft of it!

It's a lack of technical legal knowledge for which I don't blame anyone. It's a slip of common lay language being applied to a distinct legal set up. It's nothing to beat them up for, but it's annoying as it conveys something wrong to fans (who also don't have the technical knowledge to spot the error).

No. We don't rent it. We are not tenants and we don't hold a lease for it. This is a common but important technical error of language that I have previously explained to Tom and the SC&T. If we did hold a lease then we'd have to sub-lease it to, or grant a licence to, the Bears, and the Women's team, and BS for the offices their staff use. We, and all those other teams, pay a licence fee to Ashton Gate Ltd to use AG on match days and as office space.