AGR

Whilst I hate him, he does have a point on the amortisation policy 

Whilst I hate him, he does have a point on the amortisation policy 

Whilst I hate him, he does have a point on the amortisation policy 

Whilst I hate him, he does have a point on the amortisation policy 

Whilst I hate him, he does have a point on the amortisation policy 

Whilst I hate him, he does have a point on the amortisation policy 

Can’t see this happening now that Kane is staying at Spurs 

I think the fact that he was told no matter how well he trained or performed in games he wouldn't get in the team ahead of Rooney who had to play and Bird who was in Cocu's remit to bring on, would suggest that it has come from the top. 
Just my perception of the interview though.

From the outside it looked like Rowett threw Thorne (and Keogh) under the bus after Sunderland which was a woeful team performance, but in fairness it doesn’t sound like Thorne had too much issue with being dropped. The fact he was never picked again was odd but in fairness the form of the team also picked up. However that season he showed he could be a useful option in a top 6 side.
At times in the Lampard season we could have done with more options in midfield, such as when he randomly decided he wasn’t going to pick Johnson after bite gate before having to go back on that. It’s maybe fair enough to say that an extra midfield option wasn’t worth £15k per game but we spent £3m and probably double Thorne’s clause on wages for a rotation left back that season (before giving Lampard’s mate a contract to play there as well) so not sure it really washes. Sounds like Lampard was an arse if he didn’t like you which corroborates with the stories coming out from Chelsea now. 
Ultimately a fine footballer was robbed of two years of their career thanks to a clause, negotiated by ‘businessmen’, that he didn’t even know existed.

Not for the first time, I'm with @angieram on this one.
I've supported Derby for over 40 frustrating years, sometimes up, mostly down, and recently I've found myself pondering on what it actually means to support the club.  After all, there is almost no link between the Derby of the late '70s and that of today - not the players, manager, owners; not even the ground.  Perhaps the kit, if you squint in a low light...
I think it was Rowett's preposterous sale of Will Hughes that really crystallised it for me - it's through the development of the club's young players that I most identify with the club.  I really enjoy watching young football players develop; like the vicarious thrill of hearing fans of other teams talk about "that young Derby player" they've seen; even more so when, like Buchanan this season, they show it on a bigger stage.
That's why, after yesterday's disappointment, I found myself looking at other results - Will Hughes at Watford, obviously, but also Jack Stretton at Stockport, Farrend Rawson (& Nigel Clough) at Mansfield, Charles Vernam at Bradford, wondering where JH-I is at Stevenage....  These players (and manager) are always "Derby" to me.
And so, after Rooney's ill-advised public comments about Louie Sibley yesterday, I no longer care whether Rooney goes or stays.  For me, Derby County isn't about Wayne Rooney, it's about Louie Sibley, Max Bird, Lee Buchanan and the others.   Keep going, boys.

Marshall (Not convinced by him though)
Byrne Wisdom Clarke Buchanan
                  Bielik
            Knight  Sibley
Joz            CKR        Ibe
Harsh on Shinnie and would rotate him with Knight or Sibley depending on the opposition. Not too fussed whether Wisdom or Edmundson plays to be honest. If Bird is playing he needs to be further forward in one of the Knight or Sibley positions, dont think he's good enough yet to sit in front of the back 4, his vision and passing isn't there yet

Didn’t make any rash/ throat high tackles that people seem to think he’s capable of on here.
Jozwiak is offering nothing. Needs to play. Creativity lacking, give him a chance!! 

Just listened for a third time. He says Keogh and Granty thought he was a 'belter' for that. Him saying 'understandable init' is them agreeing with him for refusing to play and wanting to go out on a free weekend.
Sorry for criticising the club captain for laughing at a young player refusing his manager's orders on his second day at a new club.

Just listened to it again to double check, Keogh and Grant were actually on Thorne's side and thought it was hilarious he refused to play for the 23s. I remember thinking that doesn't reflect well on Keogh as a captain when I first listened to it.

But for 700k, if we weren’t in such a dire state, you’d probably take the risk to see if he makes it. The money seeing us through is no comfort to me when we’ve been forced into selling young players on the cheap because of years of mismanagement.

Regardless of whether it was Franks preference or not he should've been told the reasons instead of the poor lad wasting two years of his life with us whilst he was never going to play. Derby should have done the decent thing and let him go to QPR even if it meant taking a loss (if that was possible with his West Brom deal)
Surely his agent would've picked up on the £15k per match when we signed him.
Whilst I don't agree with him refusing to be on the bench or play for the 23s under McClaren I can't help but feel sorry for him. He's had some rotten luck with injuries and treated appallingly by Mel. I'm surprised he's not more bitter to be honest.
I'm guessing Anya was in the same boat.

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

Are we able to counter sue him £120m for the slice to Zamora?

I hold a completely different view.  He was the captain and the leader of men.  He carries  lot of the blame for that night.  He has shown not a tiny bit of remorse over his involvement.  Turns up the next day for free rehab and expects to earn his full salary despite being unfit for work due to his own behavior.  I expect Mel couldn't stand seeing him 

I'm absolutely amazed by this result. It seems that his reason for appeal is that Bennett and Lawrence weren't sacked. That's irrelevant. He was unable to carry out the works in his contract due to his own stupidity and was generously offered £5k a week to sit in his pants for a year and watch daytime tv until back from his injury, which he refused so we sacked him. How on earth has he won his appeal I just don't understand it.
Give the bamford his money in 1s and 2s

Apart from the booing bit @Mucker1884this is absolutely spot on. I don't think Keogh has a case and I'm quite angry that some appeal system thinks he has. I'm fully behind the Club on opposing this. Legally and morally Derby County got it correct. Frankly extremely selfish and mis-guided that Keogh - now back playing at Huddersfield on a no-doubt large quantum - feels that he is owed £2m when through his own blind-drunk stupidity he willingly endangered himself and others by his actions, broke the law, rendering him unable to fulfill his contract of employment, let his employer down totally, who then offered him an assisted route back, refused it and now believes Derby County should foot the bill. I think he seriously needs to stop listening to his advisers and think very clearly about this. It is frankly scandalous and utterly wrong. The Club needs to stick to its guns. 
 

I wonder if Roman’s thinking should he stay or should he go?

Shame

It may be coming to an end. 
losing 2-0 at Leicester. 

Are we able to counter sue him £120m for the slice to Zamora?