ExiledAjax

I'd care.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Peace to all men.

Qatar won't have a bloke dressed up as a bird.

Minute's applause on Monday?

Nice that they have mouths as part of their beaks rather than Scrumpy's weirdly separated beak/nose and creepy grin. Anatomical correctness is absolutely key when designing an anthropomorphic human sized bird costume.

Dress what up?

Yep. It's the only time in the last 5 years where we were averaging about 0.5 xG per game. Average xG against? About 1.5. Now even if you "don't trust" xG, you know that's bad. Basically our average expected result was a 1-0 loss. To say we've not improved from there is ridiculous.

Ok. Assuming reduced wages (similar to Weimann's re-signing) then fine.

And as they've not paid the Sala money (as ordered to by CAS) they will be under a transfer embargo in January. I believe they are appealing to the Swiss Federal Court, but until that is settled FIFA will not allow them to register new players.

I do agree that football is different now to how it was 100 years ago. Of course it is, everything else is as well. However I don't believe that should stop us a) trying to stop it degrading further or b) trying to change things. If you believe in the status quo (as it is, because doing nothing will only allow further development towards money and away from fans and tradition) then that is your prerogative. I am going to do what little I can to help change things. Merry Christmas.

Long post again, so I'm just going to pick out a couple of points. Absolutely not. Millions of companies up and down the country, indeed around the world, have directors that are not shareholders. There is no legal requirement under the CA 2006 for a director to hold a single share in a company that they manage. It is absolutely feasible that a football club could, and indeed should, have a director who does not own shares in the company. Any fan, ex-pro, or other appointed director would naturally be subject to the same legal and fiduciary duties as a 'normal' director, and so they would have liability - so far as the corporate veil permits - for "liabilities and undertakings". As an aside the FLR does address this - and it is one of the reasons they actually recommend shadow boards rather than true fan directors. However, they still also recommend NEDs be appointed as part of the regulation - perhaps I mistakenly conflated the two earlier. I general I think you are echoing Lansdown's fear of those who are inexperienced 'meddling' in the economics of the Club. That isn't what a "golden share" - ie the fan share ownership that the FLR recommends - is about. Such a share would have no economic rights or benefits. Liability would be limited to par value. The shareholder would have very clearly defined voting rights - and you can look at Brentford's articles of association for an example of that. On Brentford, you are not the only person in this conversation to have an inside track on that. I have spoken at length to the lawyer that drafted those articles about how he drafted them, and how they have worked since. His tale is similar to yours, that yes some serendipity came into play. However he provided the added detail that the "Special Share" worked in that it forced the Board to talk to and involve the supporters trust - Bees United - at an early stage of the process. In doing so the board were able to explain why the stadium needed to be below the 20,000 capacity specified in the articles. The Special Share created a dialogue between owners, developers, and fans, and so avoided messy scenes where an unconsulted fanbase might have disagreed with a decision. Finally, on a club like Arsenal...yes if I had a magic wand I would whisk them back down to Woolwich. However the FLR is realistic as well as optimistic and so I suspect "heritage" would be fixed at the point of the issue of the licence.

Barton's case (and all other cases) don't create a binding precedent over the FA. I've been privy to a detailed analysis of 101 betting cases which are publicly available on The FA’s website as of 19 March 2021. The severity of TOney's punishment (assuming he's found guilty) will depend on a few things. Most iomportant is the type of offence. Broadly there are four relelvant categories: Category 1 (betting which does not involve own-team competitions) Category 2 (bet placed on Participant’s competition but not involving his or her club), Category 3 (bet placed on own team to win) and Category 4 (bet placed on own team to lose). Of these 4 (there are two others which both involve spot bets and are very very rare) Category 2, 3 and 4 cases form the vast majority of cases that the FA considers - 85%. However it is Category 4 cases that are the most serious but the Guidelines recommend a big range of suspension of six months to life. So the severity of the sentence will first be based on that scale of severity, the following factors would then be considered when determining appropriate sanctions: Overall perception of impact of bet(s) on fixture/game integrity; Player played or did not play; Number of Bets; Size of Bets; Fact and circumstances surrounding pattern of betting; Actual stake and amount possible to win; Personal Circumstances; Previous record – (any previous breach of betting Rules will be considered as a highly aggravating factor); Experience of the participant; and Assistance to the process and acceptance of the charge. I'll now share the full analysis of BArton's case from the breakdown I have seen. ...in which the Participant was ultimately suspended for a total of 57.2 weeks (just over 13 months) following his appeal. This is the longest suspension for a Category 4(b) [Barton bet on his own team to lose but did not take part in the fixture in question] offence and is over two standard deviations more than the average. It therefore warrants closer inspection. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Commission in Barton placed particular emphasis on the fact that the Participant had bet against his own club not once, but 15 times. It is clear from the Commission’s decision that it considered the number of Category 4(b) bets to be a serious aggravating factor, warranting a significant departure from the lower end of the recommended sanction. However, the facts of Barton are certainly not unique: there are four other publicly available cases in which a player has bet against their own team between 10 and 15 times but did not play in any of the relevant fixtures. In those cases, the average sporting sanction was 21.5 weeks. In the three further cases where the number of “own team to lose” bets was larger than Barton, the average suspension was 33.2 weeks. Therefore, if number of bets against a Participant’s own team is to be treated as the most important aggravating factor (as appears to have been the case in Barton), Barton does seem to be out of kilter with similar cases. It could be argued that there were other aggravating factors such as bets on his own team to win and the overall large number of prohibited bets but, again, Barton is not unique in this regard. One element of Barton which does appear to be unique is a series of Twitter messages in which the Participant was “publicly dismissive” of the FA and the FA Rules concerning gambling. This was an aggravating factor, but it is not clear why this factor should lead to such a significant increase in sanction compared to other apparently similar cases. Previous criticism of the sanction in Barton, even after its reduction on appeal, therefore appears to have some force.

Equally fivethirtyeight currently have: Bristol City relegation chance: 14% (1 in 8 ) Bristol Rovers promotion chance: 4% (1 in 20) 0.14*0.04 = 0.0056. 0.0056*100 = a 0.56% chance, or 1 in 180. I won't lose sleep over it.

Mathematically it's possible. Realistically it's incredibly improbable.

There's an interesting little couple of paragraphs in Barney Ronay's article today. On the future of FIFA and the World Cup. "A final note on what might happen next, beyond the US, Mexico and Canada in 2026 and our newly opened book on the morality of World Cup hosts. It was interesting that Michel Platini declined Emmanuel Macron’s invitation to attend the World Cup final. Platini is said to be unwilling to meet Infantino and his circle, whom he sees as malevolent architects of his own downfall. There is genuine enmity here. Platini is also free now of criminal charges. Infantino, newly re-elected, cosying up to world leaders, looks bulletproof. But if anyone knows anything about the things no one knows about, it is perhaps Platini, who doesn’t seem to be done just yet." There's scope for more drama, more scandal, and more revelation. I don't believe for a second that Infantino is clean, and there's surely a good half dozen pieces of evidence floating around somewhere.

Nice of Infantino to lend Messi his dressing gown

Allow it for Aguero though. By all accounts that I've heard he's about 1,000x the man Terry is.

Part one

That'll happen when your pitch is glued together and laid on sand

I guess 3-1 to France. Early Messi penalty to get the wankfest started. But then he tires and France control the second half. Three bangers to win it.

God I fancy back to back wins.

(Belinda) Carlisle

Cash money. But I agree with you.