Mr Popodopolous

Absolute legend is Tresco- almost forgot was his last season but was rooting for him and Somerset. Still question whether England had properly replaced him at the top of the order. Him and Cook could've really done things- Strauss at 3, could've still been a top captain.

Unlucky Somerset- you gave it a right go, and seeing how Essex lost 9 wickets or 8 wickets in about 19 overs after Cook went you just never know. The rain won out in the end though, unfortunately.

Wow- been out of touch with this- wow?? IF you get Cook early...

All over for Bury I fear. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49841324 https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11774/11820096/bury-will-not-be-re-admitted-to-football-league-next-season

Yep- late September especially is a nonsense. We, as in collectively speaking Cricket, have been quite lucky with weather in September but we won't always be- this was clearly a week too far- hell I feared the Ashes Test at the Oval would be wrecked by rain, had that happened 2-1 Aussies! Should IMO be finishing no later than mid September- at the latest.

Yeah, of course they won't- 20 wickets in a day is virtually impossible I fear- said it before, your lot highly unlucky in title chases it seems.

Is there ANY chance of a result at Taunton? I hope so, but given how wet the West of the UK can be at this time of year I'd fear not unfortunately.

Raining quite heavily outside not long ago, looking out the window- centre maybe different to up there, dunno what forecast is like later. You're right though, no play at Durham- is there any point- joint celebration! ?

? Well done Gloucs- and did it without Howell too this last month or so!!

Re-read the article and a couple of interesting bits that maybe go below the radar a bit: "Clubs already questioning whether rivals such as Derby, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday should have been able to avoid heavy sanctions by purchasing their own stadium are expected to call for clarification about Wednesday's accounts at tomorrow's meeting." Wow! That WILL be interesting- could be quite a passionate meeting, quite like to be a fly on the wall there. On the Derby front though it also maybe speaking more widely. "Insiders suggest the situation is 'about to go nuclear', particularly if the EFL valuation of Pride Park is significantly less than the price paid by Derby. "It could mean that the EFL, which will rubber-stamp the appointment of its new chairman, Rick Parry, tomorrow, will have to accept it made a mistake in signing off Derby's accounts and look to impose sanctions. That, however, would most likely lead to a legal challenge from Derby, the club hinting as much in a statement issued last Friday". Certainly doesn't sound like either set of clubs are about to back down. Also notice that on Saturday, it's Middlesbrough v Sheffield Wednesday...chairman suing FL vs one who pushed it to and maybe beyond acceptable limits on Hillsborough- Gibson and Chansiri in the same Directors area??

?

Now reached! Never say never with Gloucs...but Glamorgan need to get those final 2 wickets, score 300 in 1st Innings AND win tomorrow as it stands, I think. Or if something set up ie Durham declare, they would still need to hit 350 in the 1st Innings...assuming bonus points cannot count in 2nd Innings/be carried over if there are forfeitures? @Fordy62 150 partnership now- brilliant stuff! Dammit- 7 down, but 151 for that wicket- fantastic.

I notice Derby forum must have noted this thread- mentioned how intrigued we are by the ground thing. Any Derby fans reading who wonder why this maybe the case- except @DerbyFan who knows this view of course. Essentially, the reason we are interested is because we do things right financially or with FFP- and all we want is a proper investigation and valuation- and adjustments made if necessary and if the adjustments change the FFP figure then we go from there- that's all, after all we have sold players, held back in the market and tried very hard to stick to these regulations- rules for all or get rid! PS- if one of you could clear up that revaluation reserve point for Pride Park, it'd help!

First tiebreaker I believe is most wins- well that'd be 5 each in this scenario. Fewest losses? Well that'd also be level! Err- whoever took most points from our 2 League meetings maybe? Our loss to them at Bristol in August would thus prove decisive.

Oh agreed- but I think no way would Glamorgan get say 400 in 60 overs- more likely to be bowled out quickly when trying!

Were I Durham, I'd fancy chances of a win here- weather and tactical bowling notwithstanding. I would offer the following- some joke bowling to get Durham up to 400 within the 110 overs- then offer for each side to forfeit an innings and Glamorgan chase 400 in 2 sessions, or 60-70 overs. Glamorgan don't agree, then draw it is and no promotion.

Not followed the 20/20 so much this year but yep big blow- we've done very well. I don't really fear it but I wonder if- or fear it to be possible- if both Durham and Glamorgan could indulge in joke bowling and then Glamorgan chase in the 4th Innings vs real bowling- it's a remote prospect anyway. Or does the post by @phantom on declarations etc rule out this possibility? Edit: Play ABANDONED for the day at Durham.

Indeed, know what you mean! I look back at a game v Glamorgan earlier in the season- had we gone a different way it could be academic now and us pushing for/on course for 2nd and not the last place. Note the scorecard- enforcing the follow on was, granted with hindsight, a mistake and we ended up scrambling a bit for a draw. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8204/scorecard/1166977/glamorgan-vs-gloucestershire-specsavers-county-championship-division-two-2019 We bat again, probably takes more time out of the game- problematic psychologically and I suspect we win- not least as they had a wicket keeper/batsman ruled out for the rest of the game. Smallish ground though, good wicket- you can always come back from a follow on with that. 48 overs at Bristol- or that's the aim anyway.

Play to begin at 3pm at Bristol. Inspection at Durham at 2.45pm.

Indeed. Entirely predictable- actually pretty pleasantly surprised that weather held as late as it did but just felt a week too far tbh.

Seem to recall Newcastle fan did it a few years ago too.

It's hard to say on Derby and the roof- according to Mel Morris in the interview, he said it was independent of the roof- seemed to indicate that if it was included or done post roof it'd be closer to £180m, but again who knows. It was. From memory it went like this: Reporting Period- Runs to 31st May 2018 Due Date at CH- 28th February 2019 Became: Reporting Period- Now Runs to 31st July 2018 Due Date at CH- Now 30th April 2019. All fairly mundane if it all adds up and the dates are commensurate IMO- problem is they seem not to have been. That due date saw the following: Accounts signed by Chansiri on 20th June 2019 and by the auditor on 21st June 2019. Transaction at Land Registry- Dated 28th June 2019- which seems fair enough given it can take time so I'm not suggesting it took place after the accounts were signed. Accounts appear on Sheffield Wednesday website on 11th July 2019 Accounts appear at CH on 16th July 2019. Oh yeah, and Sheffield 3 Limited was incorporated at CH on June 21st 2019- but it is also possible that it could've been dormant within the correct reporting period maybe and since then- would seem pretty irregular if not. Plus- Chansiri declared that if no promotion, they'd have big issues- not a small FFP loss but an 8-figure one. This was at a Fans Forum in December 2018 or January 2019, unsure which. I thought so too but it seems not- you can be fined but that wouldn't matter so much to Sheffield Wednesday/Chansiri but I was always under the impression there were more meaningful sanctions- some sort of exemption perhaps because they had a transaction in progress? It's all very murky though. Agreed- wonder if there could be some action against said idiot by the EFL in the coming months/years?

Thanks, just read. I've been trawling the accounting regs in recent weeks and it is possible that there is some clause that allows for it, there must be- but I have not yet found it.

@Davefevs @BobBobSuperBob @Coppello @downendcity Sure there are some others to add in being tagged as well. You might be interested in the above- I've had significant doubts on how well these two fit for some time.