ExiledAjax

Mad end to end stuff. Either team could win.

Poor

And that's the real quiz. Lovely.

Weimann's high press has been fantastic today.

Wining or drawing surely? It was 0-0 for 34 minutes of his playing time today.

I thought that was a little generous from Bell. I'd say we've played like a competent Championship team - that's a huge improvement though, so credit where it is due.

Decent 20 minutes to be fair. The midfield have been decent at winning the ball high up, we just need to do a little more with it. COD is seeing a lot of the ball, and got the one decent cross in that ended in Bakinsons deflected shot. Khadra and Brereton-Diaz are dangerous on the counter, and I think our 3 need to make sure that they keep communicating and cover the gaps. We've just about dealt with the danger so far.

Mickey Bell

Kadra (sp?) absolutely gassed Scott there. Boy's got some pace.

Please let's get a second clean sheet of the season today.

Thats what I thought initially. Conte inspiring Pearson? If it works it could be bloody brilliant...if.

Almost a write off surely? As in the debts are pretty close to being more than the club is actually worth? The consequences of selling your main concrete asset coming back to bite you.

Something that is demonstrably proven. But that doesn't stop them being the biggest losses of the past few years, in terms of us "not being the team we were". Does make it more reasonable that we've not replaced them though. Better players are harder to replace. Insightful aren't I?

Fair enough comment. I'd argue that the big losses have been Webster and Brownhill, but losing the 4 named here has definitely changed how we can play and what we can do. Are we there for the taking? It's a hard thing to argue against sadly.

Agreed, it will be a hard sell. We only have the interim report right now - the full one is due to be published soon I believe. That report will be a starting wish list of recommendations, and you're correct that they will be negotiated until something is agreed between the government and the stakeholders. Of the three things that Couch recommends the regulator have oversight for - financial regulation, corporate governance and ownership, I would expect corp governance to be the least controversial. I've worked for regulators before, and my wife worked for the FCA when we were in London. I'm well aware of the testy relationships that regulators and their industries have, and when you have an industry with the resources that football has...blimey it's going to be tough to get something in place. I'm genuinely kind of excited by the prospect of the full report. There's a lot of nerdy corporate law type stuff that will come out of it. All this 'golden share' stuff, fan share schemes etc. There's a real possibility of defining a new class of company or legal entity within English law. Or it could all just be farts in the wind.

Would not normally quote myself, but @Red-Robbo I just looked up the interim findings of the review - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1004891/TC_letter_to_Oliver_Dowden_Accessible_Format.pdf Couch states in her letter that "I have stated publicly that there is a strong case for a new independent regulator, and I have heard nothing in evidence that has dissuaded me from this view. I believe that IREF should be established to address issues that are most relevant to the risks to the game and already at least partially a matter of English law - particularly financial regulation, corporate governance and ownership. The related requirements are likely to include cost controls, real time financial monitoring, minimum governance requirements (including a requirement for independent non-executive directors on club boards) and revised separate tests for owners and directors of clubs on an initial and ongoing basis." So yeh, should a regulator be founded, it's almost certain that the Lansdowns would be required to broaden the board, and provide greater transparency.

I agree completely. I'm hoping we see the 'fan-led review' recommend a regulator, and I'd certainly think that part of that regulator's role would be to ensure that there was uniform corp gov standards across professional football. To my mind including a requirement to have an independent element on the board would be a good thing. Football clubs aren't like normal companies, but currently they dance to the same tune.

To be honest, as private companies there is no requirement for an independent director to be on the boards. It's only with PLCs that you start to get into legal and regulatory requirements for non-execs and proper chairmen.

For the bit in bold, I guess it is hard to say for certain. You'd need to know not only the terms of his will, but also the transmission terms contained within the articles of association (or equivalent) of Pula Sport, the Channel Islands company that I believe is the only one in which any Lansdown actually directly holds shares (all the rest of the companies being subsidiaries of that ultimate holdco). I don't believe that Steve and Maggie own all of the shares jointly, as the PSC register for Bristol City Holdings Limited list them separately, and lists Steve as having 75% or more of the shares and voting rights, plus the right to appoint/remove the directors, whereas Maggie holds between 25% and 50% of the shares. For that maths to work out they must own some shares jointly, but others separately. Steve must also hold some shares that carry different rights than those held by Maggie. I suspect that Maggie does not have voting rights for example, as she can't affect the make up of the boards. You can assume that Steve's shares go to Maggie upon death, but you cannot know for sure that all of them do without seeing Steve's will and the corporate documents of Pula Sport. The second point that you make here is effectively accusing the group of companies of pretty piss poor corporate governance, bordering on negligent disregard for the proper role of directors and shareholders and a breach of fiduciary duties. The only Lansdown currently appointed to the board of any of the relevant companies registered at Companies House is Jon*. He is on the board of Bristol Sport Limited, Bristol Flyers Limited, Bristol Rugby Club Limited, BCFC Limited, Ashton Gate Limited, Bristol City Football Club Limited, and Bristol City Holdings Limited. So, the only member of the Lansdown family that should be involved in the day to day operations of the companies, is Jon. His duty as a director is to run those companies for the benefit of the shareholders, and yes ultimately that is his mum and dad. However he also has a duty in law to act independently and without his discretion being fettered by anyone else. If, as you say, the shareholders are involved in day to day to decisions, well then Jon (and all the other directors) are sailing pretty close to the wind in terms of fulfilling their duties properly and correctly. At the very least you'd expect conflict of interests and the like to be declared (privately, that sort of thing doesn't need to be public), or we'd expect some sort of shareholders' agreement (a private document). Now the confusion comes when Jon is described as 'chairman', but then acts in very much an executive role, including being head of kit design. He is clearly not really a chairman in the traditional sense of the word - a director who makes sure the other directors abide by their duties. This is all without even mentioning the chain of board and shareholder resolutions you'd need to pass if Steve and Maggie, via Pula Sport, actually wanted to make a controlling decision in one of the lower subsidiary companies. Just as one example the articles of association of Bristol Sport Limited says that the members may by special resolution, direct the directors to do something. Ok, that's a carve out from the general rule that the directors act independently. However, that special resolution would then have to be filed at Companies House, and so we would all be able to see it - there is no such resolution currently showing on the Companies House page.** You can say that I am naïve and that there is a difference between day to day reality and the legal framework within which they should be operating. However, if the operation of the board and club are as you allege, then the whole stack is pretty possibly in breach of a whole bunch of laws and regulations. As others have said, the corp gov generally is a bit of a mess, and needs clearing up. Ultimately, there's an awful lot to unpick. Bristol City has far from the most complicated corporate structure, but the devil is in the detail. *Note that Steve is a designated member, with Jon, of Vence LLP, the LLP that owns the Ashton Vale land, but my understanding is that this entity sits outside of the main Bristol Sport structure. **As an aside, if they do want to sell the club then Burges Salmon really want to be updating the articles of Bristol City Holdings Limited as they are from 2005 and still talk about stuff like bearer shares.

I think my conclusion is that Derby have got off pretty lightly. They were egregious in their cheating, audacious with their attitude, frustrated the process at every turn, and yet in some ways have less punishment than Reading.

It's not that simple though. They will always be 2 wins worse off than everyone else. Effectively they are playing a 44 game season whereas everyone else (bar Derby) is playing a 46 game season. Their season is in effect now 4.3% shorter than a standard season. It's small, but it's not "nothing". Plus, as it has been handed down after 17 games, it also means that they have to now be 0.2 points per game better over the remaining 29 games in order to achieve the position they would have done without the 6 points. 0.2ppg is a significant difference in standard. Did they seriously have play-off ambitions? Realistically that was seriously unlikely before the deduction. Teams with -6 goal difference after 17 games do not typically recover to a play-off position. That would have been remarkable really.

Would we be surprised to see further points deductions this season though? Just given how long it can take the EFL to come to these decisions, it feels like even if proceedings were started now we'd see deductions for 2022/23 rather than anymore this term.

Interesting to compare the Reading and Derby Agreed Decisions. Derby's case is more complicated by the fact that they are in administration, and that their charge around amortisation and failure to comply with FRS was more serious than Reading's simple failure to spend within their means. It seems to me like the restrictions placed upon the two clubs are not really commensurate with the really quite different facts. My summary of it is that both clubs cheated, but Derby tried to hide their cheating, whereas Reading overpsent, missed their deadline to get promoted, but didn't really try and hide it. Happy to be corrected on that. The broad difference in punishment seems to amount to Derby receiving an extra 3 points initial deduction, an agreed budget initially 25% lower than Reading's, (although coming down next season to a very similar figure), some specifics around their future accounting methods and amortisation model, and a few extra administrative items such as having to file accounts even if they didn't have to under the Companies Act. It feels like either Derby got off very lightly, or Reading got pretty badly punished. I guess the EFL are working within their own "sentencing guidelines", and quite possibly those don't allow for anything other than what has been served up. if that's the case then do those need reworking?

Genuinely interested in why the EFL Arbitration is the correct 'court' for that to be heard. Also, if admin extends into 2022, and no buyer has been found, then is there a prospect of a serious fire sale of players? If in January, Derby received an offer of £1m for Tom Lawrence, would the Admins be duty bound to accept that offer? I honestly don't remember enough about Admins duties to be certain of the answer. The overriding duty though is to act in the interests of the creditors - and in reality that means making the most cash available for them. My gut is that the would have to accept it as it represents the realisation of an asset, and saves wages, so creating more cash for the creditors' pot. I guess a full fire sale is out of the question, as that same duty requires the Admins to get market value for each player, so they can't realistically be lowballed by any club that fancies a Derby player on the cheap. Could see a lot of exits in Jan though?

INteresting, saw this elsewhere today as well. From the NYT article, and a search on google, it looks like the story broke at the end of October, but has only now reached wider media. Juventus and Napoli seem to be the focus. Juventus are having 42 transfers investigated, whilst Napoli are under scrutiny for their transfer of Osimhen from Lille, who Juventus 'paid' just over 70m Euros for, but simultaneously sent four of their players to Lille for just over 20m. Those four were, to quote the NYT, "an aging second-string goalkeeper from Greece and three young players of little pedigree". Only that 'aging' keeper has ever played for Lille, and the other three are now languishing in Serie C, or even semi-pro football. Juve, with 42 transfers being investigated, and being listed on the Milan stock exchange, are at risk here. Negative findings would potentially mean that they have inflated the company's value, and that potentially leads to a tank in the share price, accusations of fraud, breach of listing rules, suspension of trading, or even being forcibly de-listed. It has the potential to get bloody messy for them.