BTRFTG

Are Ipswich also taking Bakinson's imaginary friends? You know, those he spends time marking and occasionally passing to......

If only the same could be said of Bakinson and Palmer .........

Our direct losses due to Covid in 20/21 were in the region £8-9m. Income was down £11m but operating costs also came down £5m. Don't think one could bank transfer losses due to Covid, unless we've written off others debt, which I didn't see.

The only bright thing about this season is the kids he's played. Are they good enough? I don't know. But by next season they'll have had a good few games under their belt, hopefully the likes of promising Pring will have ironed out his needless and costly challenges. If they haven't progressed I'm sure they'll be offloaded. I think Pearson calls kids brilliantly, gives them a chance, as it should be. None of this early 20's 'one for the future' rubbish.

Good idea but how even to get to that starting point? For City, assuming little moving on the transfer front, we've to find £25m pet season immediately. OK if fans are happy to quadruple the price of admittance. I won't hold my breath.

Exactly, he who pays the piper and if you can't or won't pay why should he play your tune? I'll give you a classic example of why fan power ain't worth a bean. I used to organize a few things at the London Branch of the Supporters club. A few of us would, through fanzines, T shirts and events raise quite decent sums which were used to subsidise those supporters less able to afford to get go fixtures. We built up a tidy reserve for such purposes and had a decent following. Now some egotists at the main Supporters Club got ideas above their station, thinking they too should sit on City's board, save they didn't have the wherewithal. In desperation and under threat they sequestered the London Branch funds. I immediately resigned, others quickly followed, subsidised trips stopped, nobody bothered with the supporters club at the ground, communications ceased and organized trips to games no longer took place. We each ended up doing our own thing. The 'token' board member lasted about as long as Scott Davison because, no **** Sherlock, if you can't back up decisions with funds, why are you there?

It would, but the ToR gives little hope of how that might be achieved? Existing regulation should have sought to prevent where we now are, but it didn't . As with most political solutions the quick fix is to throw prudent folks money at other's failings. In this case football becoming reliant pretty much exclusively on The Premier, but if that's too onerous it'll kill that golden goose and their owners will look elsewhere. Sure will if the non-starter of womens parity is realised. Nowhere does the review seek to address the fundamental problem, that football's financing model at the top has little to do with fans in stadia. It talks of heritage grounds and communities whilst the reality is, even at our level, City receive more in solidarity and TV monies than it does from its own fans paying through the gate. It's also good reason why politicians should never be let anywhere near the problem. If a badly run club goes bust is it really that bad a thing? If the fans really are there and willing to show support,(Wimbledon, FC United et al,) there will follow phoenix from the flames. But as Derby have shown that isn't what this is about. They want cake and eat it. Demand high price competition, just wanting to pay for it, whoever that impacts.

When I used to visit there was no Tourist Visa for Saudi, but now there is I'm not sure how it would work on the land border.? I know you can have multi entry international visits from abroad but assumed these were from international ports and airports, not internal travel on the peninsula. There was a time Saudis would routinely shut borders for various reasons known only to them.

Last I looked there was no accomodation to be had ( not yet released by FIFA who own all rights,) though there were plans to have cruise liners parked up as temporary hotels. Not sure what's happened since.

And in 20/21 (including £1.6m of Government Grant income some of which I suspect will be repaid,) wages were 195% of Turnover. Exclude the Government Grant and wages to Turnover were 212%.

The problem with that report is it's the footballing equivalent of Monty Python's 'How To Do It' sketch (look it up yung 'uns'.) On the one hand they demand better and more timely financial diligence, on the other they demand 'parity' (sic) for Womens football (whilst acknowledging few wish to pay to watch or sponsor that, therefore such diligence as applied to the men's game would have to go out the window.) Supporters Golden Shares are great in theory, but not if I'm the punter investing in the club. Why would I risk my investment if a bunch of potless herberts could scupper the way in which I desire to make the club a success? Isn't German football great? In some ways undoubtedly it is, but not according to the large clubs who bemoan such restriction prevents them from competing at the highest level of European competition. 'Heritage' and populism rarely mix. It's why monuments fall to rack and ruin & preservation organisations are run by middle aged, middle income, white folk. Have 'heritage football' by all means; get it off TV save for a few select highlights when games aren't being played, make punters realise if you want to see football you have to go to the game, ensure players earn no more than 6 times the average fan wage such there's an affinity between players and supporters, ensure fans have access to 'shop price' Bovril & Wagon Wheels not 'restaurant price' mechanically recovered meat burgers with exotic flavourings, ensure newspaper back pages are filled with images of players playing, or dressed in comic attire pending the next cup fixture, not discussing their contract demands, excessive demonstrations of affluence, sexual predilections of the latest wanabee starlet, or appearing at Court for crimes committed. They claim 'heritage', they want no part of it. Today fans WANT something they can't afford. No easy and quick solution to resolve that.

There's 'producing accounts', 'producing fully audit accounts to agreed international standard', 'producing impaired accounts' & 'producing fictional accounts'. Derby appear loathe to fulfill the second option.

Folks love to bandy about demands such as 'justice' or 'reform' though rarely without an inkling as to what outcome they'd like to see delivered. I see no possibility or reason to start the pyramid again from scratch, one cannot ignore memory & association. So 'reform' should take what form? I don't think that'll start with supporters having more realistic expectations, supporters ever being dreamers, nor do I think supporters will propose to pay more for the existing level of extravagance they demand. One only has to look north to the 'House of Tents' to realise how difficult it is to strike a balance. How they mocked us with the Fake Sheikh's alleged wealth, not realising he doesn't have to spend it even should he have it (which has always been in doubt.) Is he a fit person to control a club? Why not? Seems he's doing a grand job from where I'm sitting. He's kept them trading, he's kept them struggling. It takes two to tango and as Gasheads were thick enough to fall for his non-falsifiable patter is it they or he who should reform? 'I said I'll build a stadium. Didn't say of what type, where or when...' Bloke could still be good to his word. Or one could go down the route of restriction, but as nobody starts from a level playing field is that fair? Forest Green may never generate Man City level revenues, irrespective of how well they perform. Not all clubs are funded equally, some have greater latitude than others - City being a prime example. Interesting that in pro sport the finest example of maintaining fair and open competition is to make it utterly restrictive. All clubs receive the same from TV and merchandise. That's why the NFL is so brilliant. And in respect of fans, their solution is to forbid fans ever being able to collectively own their club. Though The Packers horse bolted long since the stable door is now firmly shut, nailed and triple padlocked, never again to open. So unfair, but you never hear fans complaining. Perchance it's us fans, not football per se, that need to reform?

Boro's threat against the EFL was subjective, to the extent their interpretation as to how they wanted the EFL to act didn't accord with how they thought the articles of association allowed. They may be right, but that would have been for a court to decide. Of course courts hate seeing cases where mediation hadn't first been attempted, hence where we are where we are and why the EFL statement read as it did. To a degree Boro were posturing, but that's for them, not the EFL. The equivalent of a player rushing at the ref miming a card for an opponent whilst not yet knowing what action the ref is to take.

I thought the EFL clear. Their role is to attempt to have members in dispute resolve their differences to the benefit of all, without resort to Court. Where that mediation process doesn't work to support resolving the matter via an independent arbiter. EFL does not itself act as judge. In that respect they made clear they had sought submissions from all 3 parties. Boro commencing activity over a year ago and Wycombe in response to Derby's intransigent attitude. EFL will let the independent body rule whether Boro & Wycombe's claims are football related (haven't seen an argument why they wouldn't be,) and if that's the finding they'll administer under their existing procedures. As is, it seems to me the EFL have bent over backwards to give Derby chance after chance. I didn't realise, for example, that once in administration membership is annulled, though the decision temporarily suspended, such you have a chance to fulfill obligations. It's not suspension pending expulsion, it's the other way round. Despite that threat Derby have failed to produce the documents and undertakings by the dates required and the EFL, rather than go through with the sanction, gave them another chance. The documents that were produced weren't full disclosure, such the EFL has allowed these to be redrafted showing all potential liabilities (football or otherwise.) Now that sounds the opposite of vindictive to me. Note also Derby are trying to use Covid legislation in respect of insolvency for issues that arose long before Covid existed. Lawyers have spotted the EFL may not have updated their articles in light of the legislation but as that was designed as a temporary measure is that really a surprise? It's akin arguing that although 'my client murdered all those women the case must be dropped because he wasn't fully read his rights'. Ditto Derby's flagrant 'heartstrings' appeal via Parliament. "We've been around a long time, ...were once famous, ...lots of people like us...." What the hell has that to do with fiddling the books and taxman? I note they didn't deploy the "...good for the local economy.." argument, as would have been embarrassing seeing the lines of unsecured creditors who've lost out having been robbed by the club.

It'll be modular alright. They'll start by reusing the Portakabins at hand.....

One of the major reasons owners turn away is they're egotists who don't need the hassle. When chants turn against them and particularly their family, it's easy to understand why they decide to get out. City fans to take note.

Royle was a childhood hero of mine when at Everton (my mother wrote to him to get me his autograph,) so was made up when rumoured he was coming to AG. Memory fails and I know he signed in the November though had thought on debut he played via a special 'loan' arrangement. I recall there was a last minute hitch with the paperwork with doubt he could figure on the Saturday, so after he scored the 4 everybody was desperate to make sure the signing was ratified. Pretty sure he didn't score more than that for the remainder of the season (the Cov hat-trick match being the season after 'the fix'.) Not doubting your stats but if true, those two games aside, that's 9 in 118, hence my comment.

The EFL couldn't have been clearer. Wycombe & Boro lodged their complaints in the correct form, within the appropriate timeframe and it's now in the capable hands of the independent arbiter to adjudicate. In that respect and under EFL's articles of association it was a failure on the part of the administrators not to include the risk of potential penalties within their liability assessment or declare as much to potential bidders. As much as Derby like to think themselves the victim, their position remains entirely of their own making.

HMRC are a preferential creditor.

Well, for the 6 months after he signed he proved to be 'prime' City striker material, never nearer than nodding acquaintance with the Onionbag.....

Until Saturday judgement of height has been one of his main weaknesses, though could be he's watched Weimann to closely in training for whom the crossbar could never be high enough.

Funny that because there are dozens of players younger that in both Championship & Premier & 22 is the age City tend to drop the ones fir the future who never were. Hopefully Semenyo is a late bloomer but his return to date in respect of both goals and assists is exactly why we are where we are.

Which year?

Jesus Christ. We are doomed.... I hope Semenyo scores hatfulls, he needs to to save us, but I won't put my money on it. As for 22 being young, not in modern football it isn't.