ExiledAjax

Yep same. Long camera shots it's almost impossible isn't it.

Yeh it's live only. And I doubt they get the number of viewers required to make it worth it.

At the moment he kind of is...but just in reverse.

1.6 or 1.4 points per game, as a set of 10 it's good. The below is perhaps interesting - and perhaps it means nothing at all. Just a quick table to show the 10 game totals for Holden's first and final 10 games, and for Pearson's first 10, and the current 9 game run a the start of this season. It's clear that we are closer to Holden's first ten than the dirge of the latter half of last term, but we won't be bettering it in terms of points on the board.

If I did read it then then sorry but I don't recall it specifically. But I agree with the summary and my view was that LJ was, as a generalisation, reactive rather than proactive. He reacted to wins by keeping the same team, and to losses by changing everything. That was what I saw when you say he 'winged it'. However one describes it, it was a nightmare and would only ever lead to what you describe. Honestly my favourite bit of Pearson so far is the changes he made pre-Cardiff, getting the win, and then reverting to his preferred overall method, but keeping a little bit of Baker at LB that worked so well in that game. He was proactive before the game, then analysed what particularly worked, but didn't get carried away with his own genius, and recognised that the squad needs consistency. That's how I saw it anyway. Every team wants a striker, all the time.

Yep, I am finally getting to a game when we play Forest at home in a couple of week's time. I am looking forward to seeing the Pearson iteration of BCFC live for the first time.

This is true, but honestly I wouldn't ever say that the statistics 'cause' the better performance. As you say, that isn't the case. I've come to see the stats as one of three ways in which you can judge a club's performance. The others are i) the performance as one sees it, and ii) the result. By looking at each of those three aspects, and checking whether each supports or alternatively casts doubt on the others, you generally are able to arrive at a measured and relatively accurate view of the likelihood of a squad achieving its aims. For a large part of the past 3 years our results have been far better than our performances and statistics suggest they should be. That road leads to success bias, where an organisation or person ignores underlying problems because the results continue to be good. In the long run that has the potential to lead to issues like we had in the summer (and in the summer of 2020) with a faltering team, contracts expiring, the club's finances (notwithstanding the pandemic) in trouble, and a hard reset needed. In reality that hard rest was needed in summer 2019, but this is the tendency to rest on ones laurels. Right now there is better alignment between the three aspects. The performances look better to the eye, the statistics confirm that there are real improvements in key areas, and the results have broadly been in alignment with what those two aspects suggest. I would not pinpoint games and say "we should have won that one, or lost this one", but looking at the numbers you'd expect us to have around about 12 points and a GD of +2 right now, and we have 13 points and GD of +1. Therefore we are perhaps a couple of places higher up the table than I would expect, but at this stage of the season you can expect a greater degree of variance due to the very small sample size of 9 games.

I have to admit to struggling to see the value in this particular plot (to those reading this, this is not @Davefevs work so this is no slight on his good name). It is interesting to see how each team plays, but there's such little correlation between a team's position on this graph and their position in the table, or to who they beat and who they don't, that I find it hard to see the wood for the trees. I guess it perhaps shows just how many ways there are to skin the proverbial cat?

Fulham 1st, QPR 4th. Interesting take on this particular point. My theory for the lack of long range shots under LJ and DH was that it was an instruction not to do so. We were so, so far below the divisional average that I really don't think it was just the players. Coupling that with LJs talk about box entries and the like, I deduced it was a tactical instruction to cross/pass it into the box when in positions outside the box that might normally allow for a shot. It's interesting though that whilst we are up slightly in this department this term, we are still way below the division's average, and the increase is marginal at best. Perhaps that supports your theory that it's the players themselves who don't fancy it from range? Ultimately, not many goals are scored from range, although I do think it is good to test Championship keepers, and long shots are a decent source of corners. It's not my top priority on the list of things to improve, but at the same time I don't think it would hurt to have a few more goes from range.

Yep. Your displays are looking much better than those you showed me a couple of weeks ago. Good work mate.

Oh be still my beating heart.

Yeh, and I think prior to those two games we'd have probably predicted a hefty number of incoming shots from QPR and Fulham. It's not unreasonable at all that we conceded nigh on 40 shots over those two games. Tomorrow is game number 10, roughly 1/4 through the season and with a wide range of opponents played. Let's see where we are then. With a gun to my head I probably go for a draw with Millwall. That gets us 14 after ten. Solid mid table form.

Sure, come May the division is ranked on points, GD, etc. However, that doesn't stop some of us (I'd not claim to speak for any number of fans, let alone the majority) from trying to look beneath the current league table in an attempt to discern why we are 8th, and whether or not it is at all likely that we can continue or replicate our current unbeaten run. There isn't any harm in doing that. Don't worry, we aren't saying nasty things about St. Nigel.

In terms of measureable product we've improved as an attacking force. We're taking more shots, that are more threatening, than we managed over the whole of last season (Holden and Pearson). The numbers don't suggest that we've transformed into a relentless attacking machine - but I can't see anyone saying they think we've done that either. It's an improvement, and that is good. The defensive side of the game hasn't improved as much. As @Davefevs says, the past 3 games have skewed that a little as in those 3 games we've allowed 66 out of the total 126 shots that we've faced so far. So about 50% of the shots against have come in just 33% of our games. Still, if we keep allowing an average of 14 shots against each game, 5 of which force Bentley into action...well we're going to have to make sure we keep scoring ourselves. @Davefevs' data also shows that we tend to be on the wrong side of the divisional average for most metrics. We take fewer shots than the average side, allow more than the average side etc. That's broadly why, despite a decent start to the season, I still think that the preseason predictions of lower midtable are fair and remain reasonable.

Up the ******* media team.

I think the result could be any of the three. The performance is likely to be similar to the QPR game though. I expect Fulham to dominate, particularly in terms of chances, shots, and with much of the game played in our half. Fulham have taken 139 shots in just 8 games, with 54 hitting the target. Those are some very impressive figures and we will have to work incredibly hard to keep a clean sheet today. If Bentley is on form and we take one or two of the few chances we get - well then a result is possible, as we saw in the last game. However, if we go behind early then I fear a 3-0 loss could be on the cards. I feel like today that first goal is more important than it ever is.

Precisely. Others have set out the black and white rules, so this is more of a common sense/golden rule approach. I don't see how Derby could claim that they went into administration solely because of Covid-related losses when there are literally dozens of other clubs in the EFL, the Premier League, non-league, France, Italy, the USA, Sierra Leone etc that have suffered similarly due to Covid and yet have somehow managed to not enter administration. Any particular sensitivity or exposure that Derby had that caused Covid to hit them harder than other clubs immediately defeats the FM argument as it intrinsically means that their administration is not solely down to Covid - it's down to that pre-existing financial sensitivity or over-exposure that was then compounded or exacerbated by Covid. It's only made worse by the fact that those sensitivities were created through the flouting of the P&S rules. Logically it just isn't an argument that holds any water.

Interesting move by Bolton here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58672469 Bolton Wanderers Football Club has said it will no longer provide facilities for online betting at its stadium. The League One club also said it would not sign any new sponsorship deals with gambling firms, but it would respect existing commercial partnerships. It said the move followed concerns over growing levels of gambling addiction. Club chairman Sharon Brittan said "problem gambling ruins lives" and the move was aimed at showing support to those affected. The club said it would not enter into any new partnerships with firms representing the gambling industry and instead "look at supporting charities and organisations that seek to provide help for those suffering from betting addiction". Chairman Sharon Brittan said: "Latest research shows that there are between 340,000 and 1.4m adult gambling addicts in the UK and over 60,000 young people aged between 11 and 16 are addicted. "We as an industry must do more and, through our work with Bolton Wanderers in the Community, Bolton Wanderers Football Club will support outreach programmes for those who experience gambling problems." The club's chief executive Neil Hart said: "We will not take part in any activity to promote gambling outside the existing EFL [English Football League] contractual requirements." "This means we will not provide match day betting kiosks or enter into any new agreements with gambling companies." He added it would continue with its club lottery as the fundraising income supported "good causes and supporter engagement projects".

Just to say, I currently live in a country where gambling is illegal. The whole thing. There are no bookies, no lottery, no casinos. The closest you can legally get to gambling is a raffle at the local fete or charity dinner. However, I can ask the right person and quickly get on the phone to "a man" who will enter my name into an underground lottery. There are a few places that run cock fights and the like that will take bets. Alternatively in the modern age I can also access any UK or US website or app via a VPN and gamble on there, using my UK bank account that I can freely transfer cash to/from if I want to. Gambling still goes on, quite widely as well, it's just totally unregulated and unobserved by any local government. My point is that it is human to speculate, gamble, and bet. It's a vice, and has the capacity to destroy a life, but it will always happen. In my opinion it is better to have it regulated, taxed, and monitored, and for there to be support available (paid for by those who profit from it) for those affected by it rather than to outright ban it and drive it underground where it can be exploited by unregulated people. Simultaneously I'd say that you can have all of that and yet still ban the active promotion of it, and without making it seem like it is a natural part of sport. I would ban it from being advertised, I'd probably do the same with alcohol. These businesses just don't really need advertising IMO, humans will seek them out regardless.

What is this argument? Could you kindly summarise? I cannot for the life of me think of a way that dodgy accounting, failing P&S, or anything else that I know of this case could possibly ever fall under the kind of stuff normally set out in a force majeure clause.

The Guardian podcast? I've not got to it yet. I mean if he was being paid in more "creative" ways then the book should be thrown at them with the full force of the law.

I don't think it is this. I think it is sloppy wording on the BBC's part. There's no doubt the Derby/Rooney/32Red deal was a bit grubby, perhaps 'creative', but it would seem that it wasn't the case that Rooney's wages were being paid directly by 32Red. This article - https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/why-32red-is-betting-big-on-wayne-rooney/ - sets it out quite well, complete with ludicrously worded quotes from people in the know. The key line is: "As for claims 32Red is making a mockery of financial fair play (FFP) by paying Rooney’s weekly wages, reported to be around UK£90,000 (US$109,000) a week? “To be clear, 32Red did not sign Wayne Rooney and 32Red is not paying Wayne Rooney’s wages. Our agreement is solely with Derby County,” Banbury [Neil Banbury, 32Red’s general manager] asserts. “Our commercial agreement with Derby is sensitive, but it is a significant additional investment on top of our original sponsorship agreement with the club.”" Apparently the signing did lead to the bigger sponsorship deal, Banbury admits that when he says "“When Derby told us they were signing Rooney, we again decided to deepen our relationship with the club."" but I'd be amazed if even Morris et al were stupid enough to have a concrete flow of cash from 32Red to Rooney. As I said, it's shady, 'creative', and I certainly would not want Bristol City to do similar...but from what I know, I doubt it is something Derby can be punished for as part of all that they are currently going through.

On the Rooney/32Red thing. It's bit weird, and I don't like the precedent it kind of sets...but I can't see how it is something they should be punished for. Is it so different from what many, many clubs (including our own) do (or used to do) with inviting local businesses to sponsor certain players? The profile of the player and the sums involved might be bigger, but the principle is surely the same - that the club get money to pay for a player, and the business gets the kudos of being associated with that player. That Rooney wore 32 as part of it is just an element of the agreed contract. Perhaps there is an argument that if the 32Red 'sponsorship' was the defining reason that allowed Derby to sign him, and that without it he would not have signed, then maybe there are more questions to ask...but I suspect it would still be broadly ok. I'm also really not sure that it is true 'third-party ownership' as we understand it, and as we have seen used in S. America, and at times in high profile cases like Tevez and Mascherano. To my knowledge 32Red have at no point owned any of the economic benefit of Rooney's contract. For example had he been sold they wouldn't have benefited from that sale, and got no benefit from the licensing of Rooney's image rights or other economic assets. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, especially given the industry that 32Red are in, but I'm not sure this is the thing to be trying to punish Derby over.

Perhaps. I'd be betting they don't have enough.