davieG

Scared back into form at the thought of coming back to us.

I don't think we'll see Page starting many games now with Aribo available

Why would you think they would change the way they've always done things.

Mix of The Young Ones and Bottom

Those names

No Cars

As I've said they had the chance to set up a level playing field structure but those pushing for it just went for the potential ££££s in creating a clone of the PL I suspect there was also a social aim of proving the women can be as successful as the men. Even now with their continuing comparison with the men's game re trophies (football's come home) and England attendances. I'm sure the women's game could have proven as popular as the men's if allowed to grow naturally and equally but I have no more than a passing interest in watching them as the 6 take over the women's game

These and a meter on the rediffusion TV that my sister had in London.

Because they believe PSR = Please Save Rudkin (he's blameless)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c050315l16no Proposed safari site could house bears and wolves Brown bears, lynx and wolves could be seen in Rutland as part of plans to create a 1,000-acre British safari experience. A planning application has been submitted to build the Wild Rutland attraction on Burley Estate farmland, parkland and woods between Oakham bypass, Rutland Water and Burley Wood. Long-term aspirations could see native animals including Eurasian brown bears, lynx and wolves reintroduced inside holding pens, according to developers. Planning documents said the project would showcase "the wonder of British wildlife" if given the go ahead. Boardwalks will need to be built to allow visitors to access the different habitats, sculptures, viewing platforms and animal enclosures planned across the site, the Wild Rutland Partnership said. A barn on the site is planned to be refurbished while the scheme would also see a Close Encounters area to show small mammals, reptiles and insects to visitors, and a high ropes course and outdoor woodland play area built.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/2167418/11-things-learned-Premier-League-Leicester-points-deduction 11 things learned from Premier League's 100-page Leicester report as Foxes docked points Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for breaching EFL rules and have dropped down to 20th place in the Championship table as a result. Share Article Bookmark 2 Comments By Charlie Malam 18:29, Thu, Feb 5, 2026 Updated: 18:33, Thu, Feb 5, 2026 Leicester City v ACF Fiorentina - Pre-Season Friendly Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction (Image: Getty) Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for the current Championship season, which drops them near the relegation zone, and the Premier League have released a 100-page commission report which details the complex legal battle between the Premier League (PL) and Leicester City FC (LCFC). The Foxes were found to have breached the EFL's profit and sustainability rules for the 2023/24 season and an independent commission recommended the six-point sanction, which was implemented by the EFL board today. Express Sport looks at seven takeaways from the Premier League's report... 1. £9.6million substitute The report stated that if the EFL was "unwilling or unable" to enforce the recommended six-point deduction, the Commission would impose a £9.6million financial penalty as a substitute sanction. This figure was calculated to serve as a punishment and to vindicate other clubs that complied with the rules. But the financial aspects discussed in the report are tied to the Rules B.18 and W.1 breaches (disclosure) rather than being a direct "buy-out" for the points deduction, which the EFL has now ratified and applied immediately. So Leicester do not need to pay the fine as a result. 2. Breaches of disclosure obligations Beyond the financial overspend, the Commission found LCFC in breach of disclosure rules (Rules B.18, W.1, and W.16). Refusal to provide accounts: The club refused to provide its FY24 Annual Accounts when requested by the PL. Jurisdictional defence: LCFC argued the PL had no power to request these accounts, but the Commission rejected this, noting that clubs remain bound by rules during investigations even after changing leagues. 3. The "37-month" dispute A major technical argument centred on whether LCFC’s losses should be assessed over 36 or 37 months. Accounting extension: Because LCFC changed its financial year-end in 2023, its audited accounts for the three-year period actually covered 37 months. The difference: The PL alleged the overspend was £42.1 million over 37 months, compared to £23.6 million if only 36 months were counted. Decision: The Commission ruled that the rules require assessment based on the actual "Annual Accounts," meaning the 37-month period stood. 4. Leicester’s competition law challenge LCFC attempted to have the case thrown out by arguing the PL’s rules breached the Competition Act 1998. Ground 1: They argued that applying EFL sanctioning guidelines to a club now in the PL was "unfair and disproportionate". Ground 2: They challenged the "Variable Upper Loss Threshold," which sets different loss limits (£83m vs £105m) based on time spent in the Championship. Outcome: The Commission rejected both grounds, ruling the measures were necessary to prevent clubs from "gambling" on promotion through overspending. 5. Mitigating and aggravating factors The final six-point sanction was reached after weighing several factors: Positive trend (Mitigation): LCFC received a one-point reduction because their losses were trending downwards, showing an intent to eventually comply. Lack of "exceptional co-operation": The Commission denied further mitigation, noting that LCFC's legal tactics had "disrupted and delayed" the investigation. Sporting Advantage: The PL argued that by overspending, LCFC avoided having to sell star players at "undervalues," which helped them stay competitive in the Championship. 6. Legal "U-turns" The report highlights that LCFC’s legal position shifted significantly during the hearing. Initially, the club argued for a delayed points deduction (to be served only if they returned to the PL), but by the end of the trial, they argued the Commission had no power to impose any sporting sanction at all, pushing for a fine instead. 7. The "unprecedented" sanction Leicester City expressed "profound disappointment" in their official statement, specifically calling out the Premier League for seeking what the club described as an "unprecedented" and "disproportionate" sanction. The club argued that the league’s pursuit of a six-point deduction (on top of the threat of a massive fine) ignored the unique circumstances of their transition between divisions and represented an attempt by the Premier League to exert "overreaching authority" beyond its jurisdiction. 8. The "double jeopardy" argument Leicester’s legal team argued that they were being punished twice for the same financial period—once by the EFL (who previously placed them under a registration embargo) and now by the Premier League. The Commission rejected this, ruling that an EFL embargo is a "compliance tool" while a points deduction is a "punishment," meaning they are legally distinct. 9. The "fair play" definition A significant portion of the 100 pages is dedicated to defining what "fair play" actually means in a financial context. The Premier League argued that Leicester’s overspend wasn't just a numbers error, but a "deliberate choice" to maintain a squad they could not afford, thereby gaining a sporting advantage over clubs that stayed within their means. The 100-page report also goes into exhaustive detail about the "March 2025 Arbitration Tribunal," which was the turning point that allowed the Premier League to investigate a club that was technically in the Championship at the time of the breach. 10. Implications for future cases The report sets a legal precedent for "relegated/promoted" clubs. It confirms that the Premier League retains the power to punish a club for a breach that occurred while they were a member, even if that club is now in a different league (the EFL) by the time the verdict is reached. 11. Executive testimony The report references testimony from Leicester’s senior leadership. It highlights that the club felt "trapped" by high player wages and long-term contracts signed during their years of success (including their European campaigns), arguing that the "cliff-edge" of relegation made it impossible to balance the books quickly enough to meet the 37-month deadline.

Tom Collomosse in the Daily Mail - article here Text: Ten years before they lifted the Premier League title in 2016, Leicester finished 16th in the Championship. A decade after that never-to-be-forgotten moment, it feels horribly like the fall could be even steeper than the rise. After being deducted six points for breaking spending rules, Leicester are above the relegation zone on goal difference alone and could drop into the bottom three this weekend if they lose at Birmingham, and West Brom avoid defeat against Stoke. This is a crisis that has developed over about five years and is a result of mistakes made by many, though two men above all others are blamed by supporters: chairman Aiyawatt ‘Top’ Srivaddhanaprabha and his beleaguered director of football, Jon Rudkin. At one stage, Leicester feared they may be docked 20 points for their breaches, although the Premier League stress this was never the case. Either way, Top and Rudkin are lucky that governing bodies cannot issue penalties for the under-performance of senior figures. If they could, Leicester would probably be in non-league by now. You name it, Top and Rudkin have done it. Bad squad planning? Tick. Poor financial management? Tick. Indulging average players for too long? Tick. The list goes on. Let us look at Rudkin first. He has the complete trust of Top, which the Leicester owner reiterated in a rare series of interviews last month. While loyalty is admirable, allowing staff to continue regardless of performance is certainly not. A series of managers, from Brendan Rodgers to Enzo Maresca and Steve Cooper, believed that – at different times – Leicester had not been entirely clear with them about the club’s financial picture. If the manager is unhappy, disharmony usually follows. Rudkin may dispute that but as he has so far been reluctant to speak in public, we cannot know. Strong executives empower their managers. Instead, over several years, Leicester players have felt able to go over the manager’s head and take grievances directly to Rudkin. That breeds dysfunction. It breeds situations where at least one senior player was known to stroll defiantly around the pitch during training sessions, infuriating team-mates who were giving 100 per cent. During the first Premier League relegation season in 2022-23, players described Leicester’s sumptuous £100million training ground as ‘a holiday camp’. Late in 2024, players flew to Denmark for a Christmas party on the eve of Cooper’s sacking, appearing to taunt their former boss by standing near a sign praising Maresca, whose Chelsea team had won at Leicester hours earlier. Others feel they can flat-out refuse requests to stay overnight in the hotel-style rooms at the training ground. Rudkin is not directly responsible for this, of course, but a more alert executive would create a culture where such actions are not even contemplated. Yet he did have a say over the lucrative contracts handed to players with little market interest – Jannik Vestergaard, Harry Winks, Conor Coady, Jordan Ayew, Oliver Skipp and Bobby De Cordova-Reid. He is responsible for the transfer market haggling that costs Leicester valuable time and seems to offer little benefit. There are many examples but one will suffice. At the start of the January 2025 window Sheffield United wanted Hamza Choudhury on loan with an option to buy. Leicester would agree only to a loan with an obligation – for a player on a hefty contract who was unwanted by then-manager Ruud van Nistelrooy. With the deadline approaching, Leicester agreed to a loan with option after all. Valuable time lost over a single issue, in a month when speed and flexibility are vital. Maresca wanted to appoint his own sporting director and would often grow frustrated when he could not reach Rudkin to discuss recruitment or contracts. Yes, Rudkin was there when Leicester won the title. But has he really been subjected to the sort of scrutiny from ownership that he should have been? Even if Leicester appoint a technical director, as they insist they will, that person will likely report to Rudkin. Fans are understandably sceptical about whether anything will change. Along with many things, the treatment of Rudkin falls on Top. His father, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, was killed in a helicopter crash in October 2018. Top wanted to honour Vichai’s legacy and for the first part of his reign, it seemed he would do so. His commitment to the club has never been in question. Yet is Top the high-class leader an ambitious football club needs? The kindest thing to say is that the jury is out. Top was far too late to sack Rodgers in 2023 and was perhaps too quick to dismiss Cooper 18 months later. Leicester would deny it, but when they appointed Van Nistelrooy to succeed Cooper, it appeared as though they did so primarily because the Dutchman had led Manchester United to two wins over the Foxes as interim manager. They appointed Cifuentes but because of the financial situation, he was not given the chance to sideline certain senior players and stamp his mark on the club. Indeed, the appointment was odd in the first place. A promising young coach, Cifuentes was not the man for a squad that has proved so difficult to handle. Why not hire Chris Wilder, who was interviewed for the role and had vowed to shake things up? The Covid-19 pandemic made a huge impact on Leicester’s parent company King Power and Top needed to lead their recovery from the front. It may have damaged his ability to keep on top of things at Leicester, though. The recent interviews were a welcome attempt to grip an alarming situation yet for too long, he has appeared distant. Indeed, some at Leicester even wonder whether he has a clear grasp of how each department works. Top would insist the contrary. Now is the time to prove it. When Leicester face dropping into the relegation zone, it feels glib to mention positives. Empty seats will dominate the backdrop for the next home game, against Southampton on Tuesday, which will also see protests against the club’s leaders. Yet the club’s academy is in excellent shape. Jeremy Monga is a jewel and the Foxes did very well to hang on to him, amid interest from Manchester City, Chelsea and other elite clubs across the continent. He is the emblem of a system that is actually working. There are also smart, diligent people working at the club who, given the opportunity to shine, can help revive it. That revival cannot come soon enough – but for as long as Top and Rudkin are running the show, a significant number of supporters doubt whether it ever will.

May have already been posted.

https://getfootballnewsbene.com/oh-leuven-sporting-director-turns-down-move-to-city-football-group-clubs-to-remain-with-leicester-city-linked-side/ OH Leuven sporting director turns down move to City Football Group clubs to remain with Leicester City linked side 5 February 2026 HNB are reporting that OH Leuven sporting director Gyorgy Csepregi has turned down a move to the City Group. The former Beerschot man had been approached by the City Football Group to take over as the sporting director of Palermo or New York City FC. Instead, Csepregi has decided to remain with OH Leuven, a side he has a contract with until 2027. OH Leuven are linked through ownership to Leicester City. Csepregi has had mixed results in his role at OH Leuven since 2024. Not many of his signings have fully come off, with the side still struggling in the Belgian Pro League despite having the infrastructure and finances in place to be more competitive. He earned the OH Leuven role after helping Beerschot win promotion to the Pro League on a shoestring budget in the second tier. The City Football Group are certainly aware of the situation in Belgian football and the second tier. They have been in control of Lommel for some seasons now. GBeNeFN | Ben Jackson

Mike's Musical Memories · Follow David and Jonathan were a British pop duo from Bristol, England, featuring Roger Greenaway and Roger Cook. They had two top 20 hits in 1966. Greenaway and Cook began working together in 1965 in Bristol, England and wrote the hit songs "This Golden Ring" and "You've Got Your Troubles" for the British group the Fortunes. They teamed with George Martin to record a cover of the Beatles' "Michelle", which was a hit single in 1966 in both the UK (No. 11 UK Singles Chart) and the US (Billboard Hot 100 No. 18, US Adult Contemporary chart No. 3). They had a top 10 in the UK, also in 1966, with "Lovers of the World Unite", which reached No. 7. The stage names "David and Jonathan" were suggested by Judy Lockhart Smith (who married George Martin in June 1966) and allude to the ancient Hebrew king David and prince Jonathan, whose close personal friendship was documented in the First Book of Samuel. The duo sang the main title theme (composed by John Dankworth), for the eponymously titled 1966 spy-spoof film, Modesty Blaise. They also recorded a version of the Beatles' "She's Leaving Home", produced by George Martin, in 1967. After David and Jonathan had run its course, the duo formed The Congregation and also continued to write successful hit singles, both individually and together, for such artists as Blue Mink, the Hollies, Engelbert Humperdinck, Whistling Jack Smith, Bobby Goldsboro and others.

10 points with 1 point reduction every time we keep a clean sheet

They're already off in the changing room

You'd need to start at the bottom with a new club - Leicester Fosse 2016

Coleman on Blackburn's radar according to sky

Steve Winwood · Follow “When I was 13, I'd get the bus to music college in Birmingham, but within a year I was kicked out. The head called me in and asked what kind of music I liked. I said, ‘Paul Hindemith and Igor Stravinsky, Fats Domino and Ray Charles.’ He said, ‘you've either got to forget about the last two or leave this establishment.’ So I left. The world was just a different place back then, as anyone who grew up in the 50s will remember.” “I told myself at age 14, 'In the next year I want to be able to sing like Ray Charles, play harmonica like Little Walter, play guitar like BB King and play keyboards like Oscar Peterson.’ Needless to say, I didn't really achieve any of those things. But that's what drove me: self-improvement. There was no other way to do it. You couldn't go to a man to teach you how to sing like Ray Charles.” - SW

History of Leicestershire in Images Mervin Wallace · ON THE 3rd FEBRUARY 1967 Robert George "Joe" Meek died. He was born on the 5th April 1929, an English record producer and songwriter considered one of the most influential sound engineers of all time. Credited as being one of the first to develop ideas such as using the recording studio as an instrument, and becoming one of the first producers to be recognised for his individual identity as an artist. Meek pioneered space age and experimental pop music, and assisted in the development of recording practices like overdubbing, sampling and reverberation. In 1966 Hinckley group at that time known as ‘The Four Matadors’ got the chance to record a single with the legendary Joe Meek, thanks to their manager Mick Tiernan. Two of the Joe Meek recordings were eventually released by Columbia Records who put out the single in January 1966 ‘A Man’s Gotta Stand Tall/Fast Cars and Money’. The credit Meeksville shown on the A Side. My copy unfortunately with a malformed label.🛡️