Leveller

3 minutes ago, Super said:

This is just stupid now. You kind of hope India finish tomorrow 8 or 9 down.

Disagree. England obviously think the target is big enough but want to restrict the time available to get it. If batting is really difficult, we’ll bowl them out in a day. If it isn’t, the likes of Kohli and Pant could still chase this down. They’ve won a big run chase quite recently haven’t they?

10 hours ago, Lew-T said:

As a ‘yoof’ I find it interesting that all this shenanigans of taking teams home ends and being segregated started in the 60s. But only a few years before fans would mix and back then it was more of family outing, depending who was at home on that Saturday.

The culture seemed to change quickly in a short space of time. What happened?

 

It’s not quite that straightforward. There were massive battles between football fans over a hundred years ago. Millwall v West Ham for example was a big rivalry between dockers north and south of the Thames. It started pre 1900, but it’s a small part of history that tends to be forgotten now. I think the ruling classes and newspapers took working class violence more for granted then. However, it’s probably true that it was more civilised between the end of WW1 and the 1960s. Perhaps the experience of real wars took the edge off the male adolescent tendency to gang warfare.

I wonder if there are any books out there about football violence from 1880 onwards?

20 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Yep!

You need to be more subtle. I am.

4 hours ago, WessexPest said:

Yes, I just thought that was amusing considering who beat them. I’m sure it was unintentional too...

Good spot. You could have mentioned that in their next match the pirate fleet would sink ...

9 hours ago, WessexPest said:

Let’s have another dose of gobbledygook from the Gash website:

Peterborough added a second, in a similar fashion, when Dan Butler found the target from long-range midday through the final forty-five minutes.

The winger managed to dig out and effort from narrow-angle inside the box, but a covering challenge from Dan Butler deflected the chance behind.

A swift turn from the Rovers man saw him shake off his marker before his close-range effort was smoothed by Pym at the near-post.

The game petered out in the closing stages

“Petered out” is perfectly correct.

Lord Buttler of Wedmore has a good ring to it.

2 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Strong evidence? What evidence is that?

Like I said, despite what some of them post on a public forum knowing full well that the thread has been noticed by us, there are definitely, 100% Gasheads out there who think exactly the same as the OP on that thread.

We get called deluded by them on a regular basis but I can hand on heart say that I hear far more Gasheads claiming their club is a big club than I do City fans saying it.

 

 

 

Shh!

15 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

That’s right.

Its nearly 45 years since they last averaged over 10k in a season. Whether the deluded Sag is real or not there DEFINITELY are Gasheads who think the same as he does.

Undoubtedly the most deluded bunch of belters in the entire Football League.

To be fair, there is strong evidence the OP is one of us, and they all think he’s deluded. Some fairly sensible comments on there.

On 25/06/2020 at 15:42, nebristolred said:

I've no basis for this, but I always assumed it worked so that the owner takes a larger slice of the club, diluting the value of other shareholders in the process.

So let's say there are 100 shares of Bristol Rovers. Wael owns 49 shares and other investors own 51 shares. So 49% v 51%.

The club has racked up debts to Wael.

Instead of calling in the debt, Wael can capitalise it as equity instead. So the club will create maybe 20 extra shares, all going to Wael (so it's now 69 shares v 51 shares). This leaves the split at 57.5% v 42.5%. So the other investors own the same number of shares as before, but they are now worth less as Wael has taken a bigger chunk of the pie as part of the debt capitalisation.

The club's value remains exactly the same theoretically. It's just distributed differently internally.

I could be way, way off but this is how I assumed it works, and I think it's this practice which has allowed Wael to take control of Rovers.

Fully prepared to be ripped to shreds here now!

Correct, I think, except that the club’s value rises, it doesn’t stay the same. There is now capital of 120, not 100. And yes, the asset value is the same, but the debt has been reduced, so the net asset value has risen. This is why capitalising the owner’s debt is generally seen as a good thing - he has the same amount of money involved, but the balance sheet is stronger. If the business fails, the owner loses that extra money, rather than claiming it as a lender.

Eddie Howe may be on the brink of a move. Perhaps out of our reach, if it happens, but the geography might work in our favour for once.

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Trouble in paradise.

https://bristolroverssc.co.uk/ken-masters-brsc-statement/

Sounds like it is all going wrong up the Mem and maybe now the Fewers are just starting to smell the coffee.

Could be an interesting few months.

This David Thomas from their Supporters Club doesn't seem to understand limited companies. Why does he say this guy would lose his personal home and be personally liable for the debts of the business?

13 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

“It’s just flu” is the new “Get Brexit done”

It's actually less serious than flu in itself ... it's the lack of protection that is the issue.

11 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

There's no way the season will be cancelled or abandoned imo. It has to be completed even if it's not until the autumn. 

Why? Surely a lot easier to treat it as null and void, rather than try to finish it in the autumn and start again immediately?

I’ve just come in for a break from the beach here in Greece. Little coverage on BBC Sport website, which basically seems to believe now that only Test cricket exists.

However, they do have a “pick your Championship team of the season” feature which sets out the averages as an aide. I see Somerset have no batsmen in the top 20 of the averages - but 6 of the top 20 bowlers! Seems to tell a tale.

19 minutes ago, kelbcfc said:

Although I have sympathy with the Bury fans this should have been sorted one way or another before the season started.

Exactly. Complaining that they have only just missed the (latest) deadline when they have got this far into the season just doesn’t wash. How long is the EFL supposed to wait, only to discover that the latest bidders may well pull out too. Why haven’t the latest bidders been involved before now. The EFL haven’t covered themselves in glory, but let’s not forget that in these desperate cases they’re probably sometimes asked to accept the only prospective owners that come forward with a rescue bid.

44 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I think Bolton's financial problems are more to do with the hotel side of the business rather than the football side. May be wrong but sure I heard this a few weeks ago on Talksport

I’m following some of Alan Nixon’s tweets on Bolton, and he keeps stressing that the hotel is profitable and there are several buyers keen on it. The football club seems to be the problem. They are in administration separately but it seems hugely complicated.

On 12/08/2019 at 20:26, The Horse With No Name said:

I notice on their website that Bury offer half price, £10 instead of £20 tickets to all matches, to all serving military personnel , and all past served military, as well as all serving police, ambulance and fire service personnel. While a very worthy gesture, that must have cost them a packet every season.

On the other hand, as with all discounts, you could argue that it attracts people who would pay £10, but not £20, so they figure they’re getting something instead of nothing. It can work either way.

31 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I see, thanks. Even the EFL now accepts the fit and proper test is inadequate and it is being amended but somebody could pass a stiffer test then indulge in the uncontrolled spending he advocates and bankrupt a club.

You need something like FFP to protect clubs from reckless owners "living the dream".

Your last line is is arguable though. The truly wealthy and supportive owners, like Lansdown will always put in as much cash as they feel they want to afford to achieve success. They aren’t a risk. Without FFP they may choose to inject £100m over three years instead of £39m. On the other hand, even FFP lets a bad owner take on commitments they can’t afford (as at Bolton). And if a Ken Anderson can let a club lose £39m before it is even investigated, then FFP doesn’t really achieve much - the club will be long gone before then if there is no capital injection to cover the losses. Nixon’s argument (as I understand it) is that the ordinary insolvency laws will come into play before FFP achieves any thing. FFP tends to punish the responsible owners as much as, if not more than, the irresponsible ones. Has FFP ever actually saved a club from disaster? 

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Then he doesn't understand that the Bolton and Bury problems are not FFP issues. What he suggests would lead to some clubs being even more reckless than they already are and perhaps one of the big clubs his suggestion would give an even bigger competitive advantage to going the way of Bolton.

He is right to criticise the EFL but you don't solve a weakness in one area of governance by making another weaker.

Perhaps he should read David Conn's piece to get a better understanding.

You misunderstand my post. He does understand that Bolton/Bury’s Problems aren’t FFP issues - his point being that EFL regs are punishing those that can afford to splash out, while allowing “fit and proper” owners to buy clubs they can’t afford to run.

On 27/07/2019 at 10:18, chinapig said:

And still football journalists continue to ignore the issue. It couldn't be because it would take some actual work as opposed to regurgitating stuff from Pogba's Instagram and other such fluff surely?

On the other hand Alan Nixon, as an example, regularly tweets that FFP is pointless, and that owners that can afford to spend should be allowed to. He argues that EFL are punishing those that have the money, while allowing people like the owners at Bolton and Bury to ruin clubs, because they can’t cover the losses.

I’m not sure I agree, and it doesn’t excuse breaking the rules that do exist, but he doesn’t ignore the issue, and it’s a valid point of view.

4 minutes ago, Midred said:

101 - 0 in second innings, 160 ahead. How many do we need to bowl them out by tomorrow evening?

Bowling isn’t looking easy. A good lead, but a draw may still be the most likely result.

On 21/06/2019 at 16:39, northsomersetred said:

Some sad news from Taunton

 

Charles Clark RIP

 

A few of you may also remember a neighbour of mine, Dennis Silk, who passed away a few days ago. Played for Somerset as an amateur and later a major figure in the TCCB and MCC.

On 18/06/2019 at 18:18, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

I understand your negative feelings about New Road, but it really is one of the most picturesque grounds in County Cricket; almost as pretty as The County Ground at Taunton .

The entire ground staff have always been extremely friendly and accommodating whenever I have been there and it is just a short walk in to the town should there be a lengthy delay due to rain or whatever - plus no hassle going in and out of the ground. 

... provided you bring your own canoe.

It was like Ashton Gate with the non stop Wurzels medley. A good day out.

9 minutes ago, Super said:

In fairness to Cardiff I haven't heard anything from them about refusing to pay unless I have missed it.

If it was due on 26 January, why hasn’t it been paid? The selling club shouldn’t need to ask.