bcfcredandwhite

I see Trundle is still playing:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/wrexham-us-tournament-uswnt-football-30141491
 

Good on him!!

14 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

Birmingham.

 

Don't let the facts get in the way mate. Just keep on keeping on. 

Forgot about that too. Thanks for the reminder. How could I forget - they beat us when he was there. 
I did say I was going from memory. 

1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

When he was at Burnley he became the Championship's longest serving manager so I think he can hold his own at that level.

I still think if he'd been properly backed at AG after promotion, as imo he'd earnt the right to be, he'd have given a double promotion 'a damn good go', as he assured me at the promotion celebrations was his intention.

I admit I'd forgotten he was at Burnley. 

The 'If he'd only been backed....' rhetoric is interesting - I read this (very popular) 'myth' a lot on various boards, but if I remember correctly immediately after promotion we put in HUGE bids (in excess of £10m) for Dwight Gayle, Andre Gray and Harry Maguire. Again, I'm going from memory so I may be slightly wrong, but the Gayle and Gray bids were accepted but the players didn't want to come to us (??). The Maguire bid was also accepted and the deal was going through, but someone in BCFC (?) tried to renegotiate the deal with Hull whilst Cotts was on holiday - Hull subsequently threw their toys out of the pram and cancelled it - saying that they would NEVER do any more business with Bristol City ever again. Whoever screwed that deal up is the real villain here - but it doesn't change the fact that the money was there. Bristol City just wasn't an attractive club to play for back then - fresh out of League 1 with no footballing 'pedigree'.  
If only ONE of those deals had gone through then Cotts would have overseen the biggest EVER transfer fee ever paid for a player - even by today's standard. IMHO that's quite strong backing. 
Ok, NONE of the deals happened - the players didn't want to come to us and someone screwed up the Maguire deal, but the financial backing WAS there. The fact that those deals didn't go through is NOT proof that money was not available. A club does not make an approach to another club and submit an offer without the money being there. 

Lets not lose track of why he was sacked; we were losing games and adrift in the relegation zone. He insisted on sticking to his 3-5-2 system - which worked a dream in League 1, but got found out very quickly in the Championship. Despite this, and losing games, he still stuck with it, game after game, week after week (the Forest fans called him a 'one trick pony' - and with this stubborn adherence to a failing formation I can see why). If this wasn't bad enough, he refused to deploy his subs until the 80th minute, when we were chasing the game. THAT behaviour indicates to me one of 2 things; (a) A manager who hasn't a clue what he's doing, or (b) A manager who knows exactly what he's doing and he is deliberately screwing it up to make a 'point' to the board. 

Neither of those possibilities were good for Bristol City and it was absolutely right that he went when he did.
If any proof was needed then you only have to look at the results once Pemberton was put in charge; 4-4-2 formation with the SAME players and the subs being deployed at a sensible time - it was a wonderful breath of fresh air (for me) - and most importantly we SURVIVED.

I would suggest again that there is a reason that he hasn't been offered a Championship manager (to-date) since he managed us. 

I love him as I said before - and really wish him well, but I stand by everything I said above. 

I’ve said before on various threads that I love Cotts and will always be grateful to him for dragging us out of the pus-filled mire that is League 1. 
However, I think League 1 is probably his management level. That’s only my opinion and plenty would disagree, but it seems likely to be true as he’s not done well in the second tier either with us or Notts Forest and no other club at our level seem to have been interested in him to-date. 
 

https://www.bristolworld.com/sport/football/bristol-city/popular-bristol-city-manager-set-to-leave-league-one-club-4166114

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

15 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

14 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Okay, a few challenges.

Firstly, I would wager that in the laundering of the money they received, many many people have been hurt.

Secondly, the news this evening said how they were big on selling the idea of the 3pm kick offs, so clubs up and down the country have - probably not to a great extent, but some - seen potential supporters out off from going to a game, would a usual armchair fan spent £25 quid on a League One game, if they could spend £2.50 on a Premier League game.

When Sky bid, they bid with a blended cost, knowing that they will have affiliated broadcasting companies who will pay them for their content, the more accessible that content is, the less it is worth. So despite the fraudsters making millions, the knock on to others, including Sky and BT is likely to be even greater.

Does the 3pm blackout need a review? Yes.

Is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not.

Is televised sport too expensive, maybe. But if clubs are going to pay players upwards of half a million quid a week, some of that money has to come from somewhere.

Again, some fair comments/challenges here. Just to address some of them:

- The Inland Revenue missing out on tax: The group could hardly declare their income on their Tax Returns !!! Maybe if it was legalised the revenue would receive a boost (like some 'soft' drugs - but that's another topic for the politics board)!!
- I never argued that it was not illegal and I always acknowledged that it deserved punishment.
-  'People being signed up are victims now as their details have been compromised' - This begs the question of the the definition of the label 'victim', as these people were willing, sometimes eagerly or even desperately willing, consumers of and participants in this illegal activity. They were certainly put 'at risk' by deciding to sign up to the scheme, but they went into it knowing it was illegal and took the chance anyway. 
- 'This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football' - Football was their 'product' and the current rules around broadcasting gifted them a gap in the market that they easily filled. They themselves may not be football fans - just like a drug dealer may him/herself not be an addict, but they sell drugs. This lot sold football. To argue that it has nothing to do with football is like saying drug dealing has nothing to do with drugs or pimping has nothing to do with prostitution. 

There are also some 'unknowns' which we can debate but it's impossible to conclude:
- For example; 'many people have been hurt through the laundering process' - this as maybe - we can ASSUME, but we really don't know HOW the money was laundered, so cannot tell for sure who, if anyone, was hurt in the process. It was not laundered very well - if at all - considering the group got caught and the figure of £7m was uncovered. I suppose the police and authorities will have some idea but we on this thread don't.
- People would happily pay £2.50 to watch a Prem match on TV, rather than go and watch their own team in their local stadium - if a 'fan' thinks like that then they can't really call themselves a true fan. I personally wouldn't but that's me. YES - if I couldn't get to Ashton Gate on that day for some reason and a Prem match was on then I would probably watch it, but it would NOT replace my passion for going to see the team I support play in person. I would guess (but cannot prove it) that this would be the same for most 'proper' fans too. Either way it's not possible to prove until/if the rules are relaxed - then we would see. 
I would argue that it is possible, if you have the broadband, the knowhow and the patience, to watch almost ANY live match NOW via dodgy streams, yet football attendances do not seem to be dropping. Even if they DO start to drop I would suggest that this has more to do with the cost of living rather than a true fan abandoning his/her club to become an armchair plastic. The cost of living may push people this way, but it would only last as long as the COL crisis then they would be back at their clubs again. That's only my OPINION of course and it can't be proven either way. 

Good debate BTW. 

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

Without trying to state the obvious; the relegated teams are coming down because they’re too crap for the Prem. 
The ones staying in the Championship (like ourselves) are here because we are not good enough to go up and not poor enough to drop to League 1 (apart from Cardiff who benefited from Reading’s points deduction)
Plymouth, Ipswich and Sheffield Wednesday proved they were too good for League 1. 
 

There are indeed some big names in the Championship next season, but we are ALL in the second tier for a reason. There’s no difference to any year IMHO. The newly relegated teams will have the advantage of parachute payments - but that’s been the case for years for teams coming down from the Prem. 
I don’t think the coming season will be more challenging than any other in the Championship for us - in fact it could be easier now we’ve steadied the finances and have some money to spend. 
 

I liked Eliasson and used to be frustrated and annoyed when LJ wouldn’t give him 90 minutes. 
One season he had the top assists in the Championship - despite only playing half the game as a sub. That is very impressive but obviously not to LJ. 
We wasted his talent imho. 

8 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

There's only one team that's gonna win it from here...

You’re right. 
However, that’s always the case - only one team is allowed to win. They can’t BOTH win. 
… and in this type of fixture a draw is not allowed……

33 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

Gotta be off your head if you want these in the Prem. 

Scummy club, scummy fans, shithole town.

I’ve never been to ‘proper’ Luton - Ive flown from the airport a few times that’s all. I’ve heard it’s not all that great but to get it into perspective I live in swindon…….
However, I’m not aware of their fans being scumbags and I didn’t think BCFC had any axe to grind with their club. 
Not that I really care - totally neutral on this one.  I just think (as a neutral) Luton deserve their lead. 

I wonder if Naismith thinks he might have been better staying where he was!!!

Luton seem to want it more than Sunderland at the moment. 

Panto villain in the dugout and a referee’s worst nightmare

amazing championship manager

… and apparently a real gentleman who always makes time for a football chat with fans. 
 

Warnock is one of the few football managers that I’d love to sit down and chat football with over a beer. I must look him up when I’m next in Looe. 

2 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Wash your mouth out! Have you forgotten our friends north of the river? Shame on you!

The Avon or the Severn?

They have not exactly set League 2 alight. 
Im surprised - they are quite a big club in THAT league. 

IMHO he’s better attacking rather than defending - he’s too ‘lightweight’. As someone earlier suggested I think he’d be better playing in midfield with an attacking role, rather than defence. 
 

On 05/04/2023 at 13:51, Robbored said:

The only time that I read the OS is during the two windows. There’s always plenty of wild speculation and rumour on here that means bugger all…………

A player joining or leaving City is only 100% fact when it’s announced on the OS.

Even then it’s not ‘gospel’

Remember that Egyptian player GJ signed (Metebh - or something like that)? 
That signing was announced on the OS but it never materialised. 

I’ve never booed a city player in my life. Not even the likes of Diony. 
Groan when something goes wrong yes, but targeted booing no. 
I’d rather encourage the players than shoot them down. 

Maybe the heels caused the knee ligament injury?

if so, Nige needs to have a word….

https://www.hellomagazine.com/fashion/celebrity-style/488731/alex-scott-dances-sheer-vinyl-catsuit/

3 hours ago, spudski said:

It was on the radio this morning. They were interviewing the landlord of the Three Lions. He mentioned it and who the new couple were running it. 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/whats-on/one-four-closed-bedminster-pubs-8311842

2 hours ago, Seventeen said:

He didn’t sack his staff :laugh:. He told them they could find alternative employment if they wanted too and their jobs would be waiting for them when they re-opened. Amazing how things get portrayed

Absolutely this. It was distorted out of all proportion. 
I share a hatred for his Br@@it views but he was not guilty of sacking staff during lockdown. 

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

They definitely had the Horse and Groom…and if you frequented that on a lunchtime during the late 90s there’s a strong chance our paths crossed.  There were quite a few “Council boys” who went in there.

I knew Bob Stevens who used to run the Horse and Groom. 
He took over the Winford Arms back in the day. 
 

this thread is sending me on a virtual pub crawl of my old haunts when I lived in Bristol…!!!