ExiledAjax

RobinsTV starting to get nauseating. Apparently COD, Scott, Benarous and Bell are all capable of turning a game on its head? Apparently Palmer is worth his weight in gold because he does good tricks in training?

Got it working on the app. No idea why it's not working through my TV like normal. I am legitimately abroad ffs!

Haha Jesus I missed that. Also, traditional "anyone having issues with Robinstv" question. Am getting a "Customer not authenticated" message?

Presumably everyone is going off of one source for the formation. Slightly more believable that James might play CDM and Tanner wide right...but 3142 would be surprising.

I mean, that would be surprising.

I guess Bakinson starting? He only had 3 mins v West Brom, and hasn't played much for us so far this season. Agree it's not exactly an overhaul though.

Don't mind it though.

4 at the back. Hope that gets us back to being a bit more solid.

My thoughts and prayers are with all my colour blind brethren today. Best of luck distinguishing this green monstrosity from our lads and the pitch. Nothing makes me want to hand Barnsley a 7-0 thrashing than their decision to wear this kit. COYR let's get that home win that everyone's been waiting for!

I was speaking to Piercy after the Bournemouth game. He said he's actually colourblind as well and has been wanting to do a piece on the issue for a while. Tomorrow is going to to messy, I'd be interested to see how it goes on Twitter. If Gregor wants to chat afterwards then you've got my DM Fevs. I've been speaking to Mike since August on this, he's been great at taking it to the Club(s). He said the same to me today, and that the SC&T will be looking at this in more detail going forward.

Ah have they started wearing poppies. Yeh I can't imagine they will change then, unless they have a set of alternatives that also have it. I won't really be able to tell if Barnsley have poppies on their green shirts or not though!

Yeh, I posted the highlights of that game above. I suspect our game won't be quite as awful as we have the white shorts rather than red like Boro. However, for those sat high up, or in long camera shots, at corners and the like, it is going to be hard. BBC is forecasting a 25% chance of rain as well, and if it does soak those kits then it will be even worse. Hope your job isn't too awful tomorrow, and let me know if there is more chat in the press box. If Gregor could bring this up in the post-match then I'd love it.

I saw that you got retweeted by the Colourblind Awareness Org. Thank you again for helping to raise the profile of the issue.

Great idea. Thanks.

I love spending 90 minutes staring at men's thighs in an attempt to distinguish the shorts.

It would be wild, but I'd love it if we did go purple, and put a massive message up on the screens, get Downsy mentioning it on RobinsTV,and a press release explaining why. It would get attention. I appreciate it's not traditional, but for one game it would make a scene. If you've got twitter please copy Fevs' tweet. If not then an email to the SC&T is about as much as we can do on less than 24 hours' notice I think. info@bristolcitysupporters.org

Checking on Barnsley's kit plans for tomorrow. Nothing confirmed but from this tweet it looks like they're planning on wearing their green (I think it's green)* away kit. This is stupid. *Yes, confirmed as green on their website - I thought it might be brown - but the press release from launch says "Our PUMA shirt features red and white pin stripes on a deep green backing, complemented by a monocoloured white crest and white ‘The Investment Room’ branding. The kit will be completed with matching green shorts and socks." Also, they can keep the green shorts and socks and just wear the white shirt. That avoids a blend with our white shorts. Far from perfect but honestly the decision (if made) to wear an all green kit away to a team in red is absolutely, unequivocally, ******* shambolic. I don't actually use Twitter - I can see this tweet but don't have an account. Could anyone that uses Twitter possibly reply to the tweet linked here? Maybe copy in Bristol City and just mention that wearing the green away kit will be terrible for colourblind fans. If you can copy in Kieran Maguire, the Colourblind Awareness Org, Scott Murray etc as ell that might possibly help. I'll be emailing the SC&T as well. Either Barnsley need to switch to their white third kit, or we should roll out the purple kit at home and use the questions that come from that to highlight the issue and show how mad it is for teams with green kits to wear them at the home stadium of a team with red. Should the picture above prove indicative only I reserve my right to continue complaining about it anyway. No one should have an all green kit. @Hamdon Mart @Davefevs @GreedyHarry @1960maaan

The thing I hate most about a thread like this is that when, inevitably, Pearson does leave us, posters like @Hampshire reds will cry that they were right all along, that they had the mystical foresight to see what no one else could see. Then they'll get on the next guys back as well. Managers always leave eventually, and 90% of the time it's at the end of a very poor run of form. The easiest way to correctly predict anything in football is to constantly bang on about how a manager is crap.

That is what it sounds like isn't. Perhaps with a nice letter asking if they wouldn't mind awfully adding them onto the preferred creditor list for £6m? I suspect it's gone straight into the special filing cabinet for things from head office.

Honestly I've not kept up with it. I'd have thought it's a very long shot. Seems like it's not actually a claim in court yet either. Found this quote from Wycombe Wanderers' owner Rob Couhig here: “I don’t know if we call it legal action. But a claim has been presented and is with all of the others. “I don’t know if it’s secured or unsecured. It’s in the big jumble of things Derby have to deal with.” Seems like it's just a claim against the administrators for now. That won't get them anything at all, but if they are thinking to go to court eventually then then shows some early intention. If they're saying they're some sort of creditor they'll get laughed out of the office I'd expect. I'd also query whether they should really be sueing Derby at all. Yes Derby cheated, but you could argue that the EFL should have acted sooner and imposed penalties last season. That would mean that really they should be after the EFL or whoever dilly dallied last season. Ultimately I suspect Wycombe will get nowhere.

I went a little lower and said 17th with 53 points in @Nogbad the Bad's pre-season predictions game, and I stand by that (nothing to do with us currently being 17th and on a ppg that puts us on for 52.6 points though). I fully expect a flirtation with the relegation places though, possibly even a dip down to 21st or so if we play on a Monday or end up with a few games in hand due to a cup run or something like that.

No. The car doesn't have what's called "legal personality". The car cannot own things, cannot enter a contract, cannot have its own obligations, and cannot have liabilities. The car is simply an object, or a tool, and what it does is entirely within the control of, and is the responsibility of, the individual behind the wheel. A company however is a "thing" rather than a tool. A company can do all those things I say above. Yes it is controlled by the directors, and funded by shareholders, but it has its own agency. To an extent the actions of the company are it's own responsibility. Therefore it is right to sue the company itself in the Bennell case, and in your example to sue the driver at the time of the event. Hope that makes sense. It's an area that has many books and cases about it. I've attempted to summarise a very extensive matter in a few paragraphs.

Because when you buy a company in the way that Man City's owners did you buy all of its assets...and also all of its liabilities. You buy it warts and all. The claim is, according to that article, against Man City the legal entity, and not against the owners themselves. The claimants aren't piercing the Corporate veil here. It's the Club that apologises/pays out, not the current owners. Because of the principal that you take assets and liabilities, when you buy a company, you try to find out all the liabilities first. Too many big liabilities that have unknown consequences and you might either not buy, or chip the price down, or get some sort of indemnity from the sellers. The current owners will therefore have conducted due diligence on their new purchase. That will have included asking questions around any potential claims or litigation. They would either have been told about the possibility of people claiming re Bennell, or will not have been told. If told then they should accept it. If not told, then the entity Man City should pay out, and the owners can then pursue their own claim against the former owners - possibly under indemnity clauses, or possibly though the courts if the indemnity has expired. The former owners might say "we didn't know either", and then you get into a legal wrangle over what they should/could have reasonably known, and to an extent the answer to that depends on the exact wording of the purchase agreement and disclosure letter prepared at the time of the last sale of Man City. Each former owner should then claim against the previous one, up the chain of previous owners, until you hit the people in charge during Bennells grim tenure. Either way, the current owners shouldn't be able to deny a victim's compensation simply because they weren't running the club at the time. Paying out a claim like these is part of the risk of owning the club. You're right that no one would sue Bury. Bury have no money/don't even exist any more. The golden rule of litigation is that you only sue people who a) exist and b) have money.

I agree with your sentiments, and I am not arguing that Derby should get away with this. Far from it. I think they'd fail their appeal anyway - but they'd fail, using the same questions as you set out above, on the turning of the word "sole" in the regulations, rather than on whether or not the Covid19 pandemic was a FM event or not. However, we aren't dealing with the common legal definition of FM that you helped to clarify. We are dealing with the EFL's own definition that they have set out in their private regulations, and which are being considered by their private arbitration panel. That definition is wider than the common one and states: For the purposes of this Regulation 12, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event. In this definition the concept of FM is expanded to cover anything that happens and is outside of the Club's control. That analysis should be limited to the event itself, and should not have regard to its effects. The question is "Was the Covid19 pandemic caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which DCFC couldn't reasonably be expected to have had control?". You may argue that a pandemic's effects are a normal business risk, but the pandemic itself is not. @Mr Popodopolous do you know what they are actually alleging is the Force Majeure item? Is it the pandemic as an event or is it the fact they ran out of cash because of it? There's no doubt that it is arguable either way, and as I said in my first post, I wish they'd not used the phrase 'Force Majeure' in the EFL regulations as it confuses matters somewhat. As I say, if I am wrong and the panel take your reading of it, well then the appeal fails. If I am right then I think it fails again as even if the pandemic is considered to be an FM event, it won't be seen to be the sole reason for administration.

Agreed on the general legal distinction. I was keeping it simple for the purposes of the forum. I think the EFL have tried to create their own definition of "Force Majeure" for the purposes of their regs. See reg 12.11 that @Mr Popodopolous quoted above. That's what is weird in the drafting. Under that 'new' definition I think Covid19 could be a "Force Majeure" event.