ilkleyram

It doesn't, in principle, apart from being traditional, which is probably not much reason at all other than traditions are, imo, important in that you shouldn't change them without either some thought or some considerable gain. There used to be matches on Christmas Day - different social times.  But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. The changes have often  come about because, largely, they suit television (and one channel mainly) and the TV audience first and foremost.  The matchday customer comes a distance behind.  So too the clubs and players. The pendulum has swung far too far
But where the time is important, where it matters, is not whether it's 3pm or 745pm or even 12 noon per se.  It is that it can be all of those times, and others, with no thought as to the practical consequences for those that might wish to plan to go to the event.  And they give no thought, the TV companies and the EFL authorities, because they're really not bothered.  The money is what is important, the TV spectacle is what is important when what should be important is the club, the players and (most of all, imo) the paying customer, or fan as we used to be known.
In League 1 or Championship terms we are a TV draw.  Our kick off times will vary home and away often with relatively little notice and probably happen to us more than most.  There will be fans who buy tickets who won't be able to go; fans whose travel arrangements made months in advance that have to miss out; away games impossible to get back from on public transport; times when we have to play matches closer together than will be ideal.  No thought will be given to players or fans; every thought will be given to TV company scheduling and TV audience. 
There's a girl who sits near me who has had a season ticket since PP opened who comes up from Essex.  So too does my son, coincidentally.  They both buy a season ticket knowing that they won't be able to get to all the matches - other than sitting in the same place with people they know and enjoying that, what will be the point of their renewing if they know that the real likelihood is that they will have to miss even more matches?  It's already not financially worth their while to buy a ST.  This just makes it worse.  And how does that help Derby County if they don't renew and Derby can't resell their tickets?
The benefits such that they are, are the wrong way round for very little gain.  And that's why timing is important. Some traditions are worth trying to keep.

Well you say that but.........
Ignore the fact that a sky subscription buys you more than just football (so not all your subscription pays for football, just part of it), the important figure is what Sky is paying for EFL football, not the subscription that you or I might pay to Sky.
What Sky are paying is £895m over 5 years.  They are also paying £40m for 'marketing', whatever that means (probably paying for the EFL to advertise games in their divisions on Sky, but that's me being cynical)
£895m works out as £179m per year.  Presuming (and it won't work out that way) that all 72 clubs get an even share of that £179m, each club will get £2.5m per year.  What will actually happen is that the EFl will top slice a large chunk of it for their own uses, some will go to the players' union and other projects the EFl will want to fund, including their cup etc etc, so the net effect is that £179m will be significantly reduced before it gets anywhere near being distributed to the clubs.  Some will be lucky to see anything like £2.5m; some may see more; most will see less.
Then take our club.  20,000 season ticket holders this season at (my guess) an average of £400 per ticket.  £8m in season ticket income before the away fans are counted or those who buy on a match by match basis (and we haven't had many gates below 20,000 this year).
I think that we are contributing far more to our players' wages bill than this poxy shambles of a TV deal

It doesn't, in principle, apart from being traditional, which is probably not much reason at all other than traditions are, imo, important in that you shouldn't change them without either some thought or some considerable gain. There used to be matches on Christmas Day - different social times.  But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. The changes have often  come about because, largely, they suit television (and one channel mainly) and the TV audience first and foremost.  The matchday customer comes a distance behind.  So too the clubs and players. The pendulum has swung far too far
But where the time is important, where it matters, is not whether it's 3pm or 745pm or even 12 noon per se.  It is that it can be all of those times, and others, with no thought as to the practical consequences for those that might wish to plan to go to the event.  And they give no thought, the TV companies and the EFL authorities, because they're really not bothered.  The money is what is important, the TV spectacle is what is important when what should be important is the club, the players and (most of all, imo) the paying customer, or fan as we used to be known.
In League 1 or Championship terms we are a TV draw.  Our kick off times will vary home and away often with relatively little notice and probably happen to us more than most.  There will be fans who buy tickets who won't be able to go; fans whose travel arrangements made months in advance that have to miss out; away games impossible to get back from on public transport; times when we have to play matches closer together than will be ideal.  No thought will be given to players or fans; every thought will be given to TV company scheduling and TV audience. 
There's a girl who sits near me who has had a season ticket since PP opened who comes up from Essex.  So too does my son, coincidentally.  They both buy a season ticket knowing that they won't be able to get to all the matches - other than sitting in the same place with people they know and enjoying that, what will be the point of their renewing if they know that the real likelihood is that they will have to miss even more matches?  It's already not financially worth their while to buy a ST.  This just makes it worse.  And how does that help Derby County if they don't renew and Derby can't resell their tickets?
The benefits such that they are, are the wrong way round for very little gain.  And that's why timing is important. Some traditions are worth trying to keep.

Well you say that but.........
Ignore the fact that a sky subscription buys you more than just football (so not all your subscription pays for football, just part of it), the important figure is what Sky is paying for EFL football, not the subscription that you or I might pay to Sky.
What Sky are paying is £895m over 5 years.  They are also paying £40m for 'marketing', whatever that means (probably paying for the EFL to advertise games in their divisions on Sky, but that's me being cynical)
£895m works out as £179m per year.  Presuming (and it won't work out that way) that all 72 clubs get an even share of that £179m, each club will get £2.5m per year.  What will actually happen is that the EFl will top slice a large chunk of it for their own uses, some will go to the players' union and other projects the EFl will want to fund, including their cup etc etc, so the net effect is that £179m will be significantly reduced before it gets anywhere near being distributed to the clubs.  Some will be lucky to see anything like £2.5m; some may see more; most will see less.
Then take our club.  20,000 season ticket holders this season at (my guess) an average of £400 per ticket.  £8m in season ticket income before the away fans are counted or those who buy on a match by match basis (and we haven't had many gates below 20,000 this year).
I think that we are contributing far more to our players' wages bill than this poxy shambles of a TV deal

It doesn't, in principle, apart from being traditional, which is probably not much reason at all other than traditions are, imo, important in that you shouldn't change them without either some thought or some considerable gain. There used to be matches on Christmas Day - different social times.  But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. The changes have often  come about because, largely, they suit television (and one channel mainly) and the TV audience first and foremost.  The matchday customer comes a distance behind.  So too the clubs and players. The pendulum has swung far too far
But where the time is important, where it matters, is not whether it's 3pm or 745pm or even 12 noon per se.  It is that it can be all of those times, and others, with no thought as to the practical consequences for those that might wish to plan to go to the event.  And they give no thought, the TV companies and the EFL authorities, because they're really not bothered.  The money is what is important, the TV spectacle is what is important when what should be important is the club, the players and (most of all, imo) the paying customer, or fan as we used to be known.
In League 1 or Championship terms we are a TV draw.  Our kick off times will vary home and away often with relatively little notice and probably happen to us more than most.  There will be fans who buy tickets who won't be able to go; fans whose travel arrangements made months in advance that have to miss out; away games impossible to get back from on public transport; times when we have to play matches closer together than will be ideal.  No thought will be given to players or fans; every thought will be given to TV company scheduling and TV audience. 
There's a girl who sits near me who has had a season ticket since PP opened who comes up from Essex.  So too does my son, coincidentally.  They both buy a season ticket knowing that they won't be able to get to all the matches - other than sitting in the same place with people they know and enjoying that, what will be the point of their renewing if they know that the real likelihood is that they will have to miss even more matches?  It's already not financially worth their while to buy a ST.  This just makes it worse.  And how does that help Derby County if they don't renew and Derby can't resell their tickets?
The benefits such that they are, are the wrong way round for very little gain.  And that's why timing is important. Some traditions are worth trying to keep.

It doesn't, in principle, apart from being traditional, which is probably not much reason at all other than traditions are, imo, important in that you shouldn't change them without either some thought or some considerable gain. There used to be matches on Christmas Day - different social times.  But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. The changes have often  come about because, largely, they suit television (and one channel mainly) and the TV audience first and foremost.  The matchday customer comes a distance behind.  So too the clubs and players. The pendulum has swung far too far
But where the time is important, where it matters, is not whether it's 3pm or 745pm or even 12 noon per se.  It is that it can be all of those times, and others, with no thought as to the practical consequences for those that might wish to plan to go to the event.  And they give no thought, the TV companies and the EFL authorities, because they're really not bothered.  The money is what is important, the TV spectacle is what is important when what should be important is the club, the players and (most of all, imo) the paying customer, or fan as we used to be known.
In League 1 or Championship terms we are a TV draw.  Our kick off times will vary home and away often with relatively little notice and probably happen to us more than most.  There will be fans who buy tickets who won't be able to go; fans whose travel arrangements made months in advance that have to miss out; away games impossible to get back from on public transport; times when we have to play matches closer together than will be ideal.  No thought will be given to players or fans; every thought will be given to TV company scheduling and TV audience. 
There's a girl who sits near me who has had a season ticket since PP opened who comes up from Essex.  So too does my son, coincidentally.  They both buy a season ticket knowing that they won't be able to get to all the matches - other than sitting in the same place with people they know and enjoying that, what will be the point of their renewing if they know that the real likelihood is that they will have to miss even more matches?  It's already not financially worth their while to buy a ST.  This just makes it worse.  And how does that help Derby County if they don't renew and Derby can't resell their tickets?
The benefits such that they are, are the wrong way round for very little gain.  And that's why timing is important. Some traditions are worth trying to keep.

It doesn't, in principle, apart from being traditional, which is probably not much reason at all other than traditions are, imo, important in that you shouldn't change them without either some thought or some considerable gain. There used to be matches on Christmas Day - different social times.  But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. The changes have often  come about because, largely, they suit television (and one channel mainly) and the TV audience first and foremost.  The matchday customer comes a distance behind.  So too the clubs and players. The pendulum has swung far too far
But where the time is important, where it matters, is not whether it's 3pm or 745pm or even 12 noon per se.  It is that it can be all of those times, and others, with no thought as to the practical consequences for those that might wish to plan to go to the event.  And they give no thought, the TV companies and the EFL authorities, because they're really not bothered.  The money is what is important, the TV spectacle is what is important when what should be important is the club, the players and (most of all, imo) the paying customer, or fan as we used to be known.
In League 1 or Championship terms we are a TV draw.  Our kick off times will vary home and away often with relatively little notice and probably happen to us more than most.  There will be fans who buy tickets who won't be able to go; fans whose travel arrangements made months in advance that have to miss out; away games impossible to get back from on public transport; times when we have to play matches closer together than will be ideal.  No thought will be given to players or fans; every thought will be given to TV company scheduling and TV audience. 
There's a girl who sits near me who has had a season ticket since PP opened who comes up from Essex.  So too does my son, coincidentally.  They both buy a season ticket knowing that they won't be able to get to all the matches - other than sitting in the same place with people they know and enjoying that, what will be the point of their renewing if they know that the real likelihood is that they will have to miss even more matches?  It's already not financially worth their while to buy a ST.  This just makes it worse.  And how does that help Derby County if they don't renew and Derby can't resell their tickets?
The benefits such that they are, are the wrong way round for very little gain.  And that's why timing is important. Some traditions are worth trying to keep.

I don't find it astonishing and I'm not convinced that any new regulator will find it any easier to identify the charlatan owners in advance either.  My view is that they are essentially powerless in a free market economy or even, as football is nowadays, a more controlled market.  It's harder to do than getting a grip of things.
Take three examples:
Had the authorities, at the time he was taking over, stopped Mel Morris from buying us - a multi, multi millionaire with legitimately earned income, a person born/educated in Derby and allegedly a fan of the club - we would have (rightly) been up in arms.  What happened later was largely unforeseeable then though, no doubt, the EFL would give MM as a prime example of why they don't like the owner/funder model of club ownership (without clearly identifying what model of ownership they do like).
Or the Glazers.  Bought Man Utd essentially by putting the club into debt, using it to buy itself.  All perfectly legal whether intrinsically you like that way of funding a club or not. From the beginning there were people who didn't like the club suddenly having to service significant amounts of debt but the club/business can clearly afford the debt levels given its turnover.  No Man Utd fan can legitimately argue that their squad hasn't had money lavished upon it even if you can argue that what was bought was over priced rubbish.  You can't just ban Americans/foreign owners or even people wanting to fund takeovers in ways that limit their own personal liabilities.
Or Newcastle.  Owners that were originally turned down but later became acceptable because, apparently, their funding is not controlled by the State concerned.  Does anyone really believe that or that the state concerned doesn't have human rights issues?  You sense that a great deal of money was spent in between on expensive lawyers finding a fudge or three to satisfy the needs of regulators and the EPL; you sense that some of the opposition was football political - that the existing 'big' clubs didn't want a gatecrasher to disturb their financial monopoly on the top EPL places; and that there was an underlying threat of expensive legal action should the takeover not be eventually sanctioned
Kirchner was clearly a persuasive guy, certainly to a club desperate for new ownership and to authorities that wanted MM gone and for Derby to have new owners.  Whatever the EFL may say now they clearly allowed him past the ownership tests and they and the administrators clearly saw some proof of funds whatever that later proved to be. And Kirchner fooled international banks, plane owners, Rooney and his agent and the game of golf. Maybe, just maybe, we owe MM some thanks for not selling the ground either to Kirchner or to Ashley (and for splitting it from the football club) and for selling it to Clowes' company.
The amount of money sloshing around in football generally nowadays will always attract people at the edges whether they're individuals or countries with dodgy records.  Some might be easier to spot than others but no regulator is going to stop easily perfectly legal transactions from happening, whoever is involved.  Hindsight is a great skill given to no one.   

I don't find it astonishing and I'm not convinced that any new regulator will find it any easier to identify the charlatan owners in advance either.  My view is that they are essentially powerless in a free market economy or even, as football is nowadays, a more controlled market.  It's harder to do than getting a grip of things.
Take three examples:
Had the authorities, at the time he was taking over, stopped Mel Morris from buying us - a multi, multi millionaire with legitimately earned income, a person born/educated in Derby and allegedly a fan of the club - we would have (rightly) been up in arms.  What happened later was largely unforeseeable then though, no doubt, the EFL would give MM as a prime example of why they don't like the owner/funder model of club ownership (without clearly identifying what model of ownership they do like).
Or the Glazers.  Bought Man Utd essentially by putting the club into debt, using it to buy itself.  All perfectly legal whether intrinsically you like that way of funding a club or not. From the beginning there were people who didn't like the club suddenly having to service significant amounts of debt but the club/business can clearly afford the debt levels given its turnover.  No Man Utd fan can legitimately argue that their squad hasn't had money lavished upon it even if you can argue that what was bought was over priced rubbish.  You can't just ban Americans/foreign owners or even people wanting to fund takeovers in ways that limit their own personal liabilities.
Or Newcastle.  Owners that were originally turned down but later became acceptable because, apparently, their funding is not controlled by the State concerned.  Does anyone really believe that or that the state concerned doesn't have human rights issues?  You sense that a great deal of money was spent in between on expensive lawyers finding a fudge or three to satisfy the needs of regulators and the EPL; you sense that some of the opposition was football political - that the existing 'big' clubs didn't want a gatecrasher to disturb their financial monopoly on the top EPL places; and that there was an underlying threat of expensive legal action should the takeover not be eventually sanctioned
Kirchner was clearly a persuasive guy, certainly to a club desperate for new ownership and to authorities that wanted MM gone and for Derby to have new owners.  Whatever the EFL may say now they clearly allowed him past the ownership tests and they and the administrators clearly saw some proof of funds whatever that later proved to be. And Kirchner fooled international banks, plane owners, Rooney and his agent and the game of golf. Maybe, just maybe, we owe MM some thanks for not selling the ground either to Kirchner or to Ashley (and for splitting it from the football club) and for selling it to Clowes' company.
The amount of money sloshing around in football generally nowadays will always attract people at the edges whether they're individuals or countries with dodgy records.  Some might be easier to spot than others but no regulator is going to stop easily perfectly legal transactions from happening, whoever is involved.  Hindsight is a great skill given to no one.   

Oh no. Not the shorts discussion again.

I’m not sure we know for certain. Logically it would probably be until the official end of the season which I think is the end of June 2024 when players’ contracts end, so 15 months is more accurate if that’s correct. 
Whether the Clowes charm offensive is working or not we’ll have to wait and see.  I can’t imagine the EFL would lift every restriction this year even if they’re comfortable with how we’re doing and the relationship. Some of this is about punishing us, in my view. But you never know.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Clowes tried to negotiate around transfer fees - something along the lines of we can spend what we generate in selling players for example - otherwise how are we going to get players in the 23/29 age bracket who are still in contract? The alternative is another season of a similar squad.

I’m not sure we know for certain. Logically it would probably be until the official end of the season which I think is the end of June 2024 when players’ contracts end, so 15 months is more accurate if that’s correct. 
Whether the Clowes charm offensive is working or not we’ll have to wait and see.  I can’t imagine the EFL would lift every restriction this year even if they’re comfortable with how we’re doing and the relationship. Some of this is about punishing us, in my view. But you never know.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Clowes tried to negotiate around transfer fees - something along the lines of we can spend what we generate in selling players for example - otherwise how are we going to get players in the 23/29 age bracket who are still in contract? The alternative is another season of a similar squad.

When that happened at Barnsley the referee ignored it and gave the goal 🤷🏼‍♂️

I don't find it astonishing and I'm not convinced that any new regulator will find it any easier to identify the charlatan owners in advance either.  My view is that they are essentially powerless in a free market economy or even, as football is nowadays, a more controlled market.  It's harder to do than getting a grip of things.
Take three examples:
Had the authorities, at the time he was taking over, stopped Mel Morris from buying us - a multi, multi millionaire with legitimately earned income, a person born/educated in Derby and allegedly a fan of the club - we would have (rightly) been up in arms.  What happened later was largely unforeseeable then though, no doubt, the EFL would give MM as a prime example of why they don't like the owner/funder model of club ownership (without clearly identifying what model of ownership they do like).
Or the Glazers.  Bought Man Utd essentially by putting the club into debt, using it to buy itself.  All perfectly legal whether intrinsically you like that way of funding a club or not. From the beginning there were people who didn't like the club suddenly having to service significant amounts of debt but the club/business can clearly afford the debt levels given its turnover.  No Man Utd fan can legitimately argue that their squad hasn't had money lavished upon it even if you can argue that what was bought was over priced rubbish.  You can't just ban Americans/foreign owners or even people wanting to fund takeovers in ways that limit their own personal liabilities.
Or Newcastle.  Owners that were originally turned down but later became acceptable because, apparently, their funding is not controlled by the State concerned.  Does anyone really believe that or that the state concerned doesn't have human rights issues?  You sense that a great deal of money was spent in between on expensive lawyers finding a fudge or three to satisfy the needs of regulators and the EPL; you sense that some of the opposition was football political - that the existing 'big' clubs didn't want a gatecrasher to disturb their financial monopoly on the top EPL places; and that there was an underlying threat of expensive legal action should the takeover not be eventually sanctioned
Kirchner was clearly a persuasive guy, certainly to a club desperate for new ownership and to authorities that wanted MM gone and for Derby to have new owners.  Whatever the EFL may say now they clearly allowed him past the ownership tests and they and the administrators clearly saw some proof of funds whatever that later proved to be. And Kirchner fooled international banks, plane owners, Rooney and his agent and the game of golf. Maybe, just maybe, we owe MM some thanks for not selling the ground either to Kirchner or to Ashley (and for splitting it from the football club) and for selling it to Clowes' company.
The amount of money sloshing around in football generally nowadays will always attract people at the edges whether they're individuals or countries with dodgy records.  Some might be easier to spot than others but no regulator is going to stop easily perfectly legal transactions from happening, whoever is involved.  Hindsight is a great skill given to no one.   

I don't find it astonishing and I'm not convinced that any new regulator will find it any easier to identify the charlatan owners in advance either.  My view is that they are essentially powerless in a free market economy or even, as football is nowadays, a more controlled market.  It's harder to do than getting a grip of things.
Take three examples:
Had the authorities, at the time he was taking over, stopped Mel Morris from buying us - a multi, multi millionaire with legitimately earned income, a person born/educated in Derby and allegedly a fan of the club - we would have (rightly) been up in arms.  What happened later was largely unforeseeable then though, no doubt, the EFL would give MM as a prime example of why they don't like the owner/funder model of club ownership (without clearly identifying what model of ownership they do like).
Or the Glazers.  Bought Man Utd essentially by putting the club into debt, using it to buy itself.  All perfectly legal whether intrinsically you like that way of funding a club or not. From the beginning there were people who didn't like the club suddenly having to service significant amounts of debt but the club/business can clearly afford the debt levels given its turnover.  No Man Utd fan can legitimately argue that their squad hasn't had money lavished upon it even if you can argue that what was bought was over priced rubbish.  You can't just ban Americans/foreign owners or even people wanting to fund takeovers in ways that limit their own personal liabilities.
Or Newcastle.  Owners that were originally turned down but later became acceptable because, apparently, their funding is not controlled by the State concerned.  Does anyone really believe that or that the state concerned doesn't have human rights issues?  You sense that a great deal of money was spent in between on expensive lawyers finding a fudge or three to satisfy the needs of regulators and the EPL; you sense that some of the opposition was football political - that the existing 'big' clubs didn't want a gatecrasher to disturb their financial monopoly on the top EPL places; and that there was an underlying threat of expensive legal action should the takeover not be eventually sanctioned
Kirchner was clearly a persuasive guy, certainly to a club desperate for new ownership and to authorities that wanted MM gone and for Derby to have new owners.  Whatever the EFL may say now they clearly allowed him past the ownership tests and they and the administrators clearly saw some proof of funds whatever that later proved to be. And Kirchner fooled international banks, plane owners, Rooney and his agent and the game of golf. Maybe, just maybe, we owe MM some thanks for not selling the ground either to Kirchner or to Ashley (and for splitting it from the football club) and for selling it to Clowes' company.
The amount of money sloshing around in football generally nowadays will always attract people at the edges whether they're individuals or countries with dodgy records.  Some might be easier to spot than others but no regulator is going to stop easily perfectly legal transactions from happening, whoever is involved.  Hindsight is a great skill given to no one.   

I don't find it astonishing and I'm not convinced that any new regulator will find it any easier to identify the charlatan owners in advance either.  My view is that they are essentially powerless in a free market economy or even, as football is nowadays, a more controlled market.  It's harder to do than getting a grip of things.
Take three examples:
Had the authorities, at the time he was taking over, stopped Mel Morris from buying us - a multi, multi millionaire with legitimately earned income, a person born/educated in Derby and allegedly a fan of the club - we would have (rightly) been up in arms.  What happened later was largely unforeseeable then though, no doubt, the EFL would give MM as a prime example of why they don't like the owner/funder model of club ownership (without clearly identifying what model of ownership they do like).
Or the Glazers.  Bought Man Utd essentially by putting the club into debt, using it to buy itself.  All perfectly legal whether intrinsically you like that way of funding a club or not. From the beginning there were people who didn't like the club suddenly having to service significant amounts of debt but the club/business can clearly afford the debt levels given its turnover.  No Man Utd fan can legitimately argue that their squad hasn't had money lavished upon it even if you can argue that what was bought was over priced rubbish.  You can't just ban Americans/foreign owners or even people wanting to fund takeovers in ways that limit their own personal liabilities.
Or Newcastle.  Owners that were originally turned down but later became acceptable because, apparently, their funding is not controlled by the State concerned.  Does anyone really believe that or that the state concerned doesn't have human rights issues?  You sense that a great deal of money was spent in between on expensive lawyers finding a fudge or three to satisfy the needs of regulators and the EPL; you sense that some of the opposition was football political - that the existing 'big' clubs didn't want a gatecrasher to disturb their financial monopoly on the top EPL places; and that there was an underlying threat of expensive legal action should the takeover not be eventually sanctioned
Kirchner was clearly a persuasive guy, certainly to a club desperate for new ownership and to authorities that wanted MM gone and for Derby to have new owners.  Whatever the EFL may say now they clearly allowed him past the ownership tests and they and the administrators clearly saw some proof of funds whatever that later proved to be. And Kirchner fooled international banks, plane owners, Rooney and his agent and the game of golf. Maybe, just maybe, we owe MM some thanks for not selling the ground either to Kirchner or to Ashley (and for splitting it from the football club) and for selling it to Clowes' company.
The amount of money sloshing around in football generally nowadays will always attract people at the edges whether they're individuals or countries with dodgy records.  Some might be easier to spot than others but no regulator is going to stop easily perfectly legal transactions from happening, whoever is involved.  Hindsight is a great skill given to no one.   

I don't find it astonishing and I'm not convinced that any new regulator will find it any easier to identify the charlatan owners in advance either.  My view is that they are essentially powerless in a free market economy or even, as football is nowadays, a more controlled market.  It's harder to do than getting a grip of things.
Take three examples:
Had the authorities, at the time he was taking over, stopped Mel Morris from buying us - a multi, multi millionaire with legitimately earned income, a person born/educated in Derby and allegedly a fan of the club - we would have (rightly) been up in arms.  What happened later was largely unforeseeable then though, no doubt, the EFL would give MM as a prime example of why they don't like the owner/funder model of club ownership (without clearly identifying what model of ownership they do like).
Or the Glazers.  Bought Man Utd essentially by putting the club into debt, using it to buy itself.  All perfectly legal whether intrinsically you like that way of funding a club or not. From the beginning there were people who didn't like the club suddenly having to service significant amounts of debt but the club/business can clearly afford the debt levels given its turnover.  No Man Utd fan can legitimately argue that their squad hasn't had money lavished upon it even if you can argue that what was bought was over priced rubbish.  You can't just ban Americans/foreign owners or even people wanting to fund takeovers in ways that limit their own personal liabilities.
Or Newcastle.  Owners that were originally turned down but later became acceptable because, apparently, their funding is not controlled by the State concerned.  Does anyone really believe that or that the state concerned doesn't have human rights issues?  You sense that a great deal of money was spent in between on expensive lawyers finding a fudge or three to satisfy the needs of regulators and the EPL; you sense that some of the opposition was football political - that the existing 'big' clubs didn't want a gatecrasher to disturb their financial monopoly on the top EPL places; and that there was an underlying threat of expensive legal action should the takeover not be eventually sanctioned
Kirchner was clearly a persuasive guy, certainly to a club desperate for new ownership and to authorities that wanted MM gone and for Derby to have new owners.  Whatever the EFL may say now they clearly allowed him past the ownership tests and they and the administrators clearly saw some proof of funds whatever that later proved to be. And Kirchner fooled international banks, plane owners, Rooney and his agent and the game of golf. Maybe, just maybe, we owe MM some thanks for not selling the ground either to Kirchner or to Ashley (and for splitting it from the football club) and for selling it to Clowes' company.
The amount of money sloshing around in football generally nowadays will always attract people at the edges whether they're individuals or countries with dodgy records.  Some might be easier to spot than others but no regulator is going to stop easily perfectly legal transactions from happening, whoever is involved.  Hindsight is a great skill given to no one.   

I’ve seen the argument before that you have to reduce the length of matches if you introduce more accurate timekeeping, but why?
Rugby (both codes) is a much more physical game than football and they didn’t reduce matches from 80 minutes when they introduced the ability for referees to stop the clock.  We have more subs than ever before - you can alter half the outfield team if you want - better pitches, medical staff, kit including footballs, training, dietary advice and all the rest of it, why can’t they play a full 90 minutes?  If they want to stop the ref from extending the time they’re on the pitch then they should stop all the play acting and nonsense that goes on in the name of ‘professionalism’. Does my head in.
As a starting point the football authorities and referees have to do something. I thought the world cup might be the start but seemingly no one has the courage to take it further 

This is just another example of football being broken. Everton referred to an independent commission,  Bournemouth losing 55 million last season despite parachute payments and promotion.
Until we do something about it, the list of casualties will keep growing. 

OK, own up, which one of you was it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65063522
"Investigations are currently ongoing to establish the credibility of that threat."
I would have thought the only threat was to the 'credibility' of Leeds United.

It’s not a normal season because we’re subject to an agreed two year business plan. I know we’re all speculating but maybe the restrictions within that business plan are subject to review during the summer. Maybe any potential variation is dependent upon what league we’re playing in. Maybe this year, unlike previous years, because of that business plan and any potential variation the club are waiting to see what division we’ll be playing in before setting prices.
The simple fact is that none of us know the reason for the delay but we all probably have our own favourite theories. At the end of the day though, whilst frustrating (because we all want to know everything and we want to know now) as @ilkleyram is saying - it doesn’t really matter to us supporters. We know we’ve got a club and we know season tickets will go on sale eventually. It might just mean we’ll only have three months in which to renew (and possibly no early bird offer) rather than the usual six months. 

It's only 'late' in comparison to previous seasons (except this one) but other than cash flow all that really matters is that those who want to buy a ST can do so before the start of the season and the club can do all the admin before the first game.  Even in normal seasons they continue to offer STs or part STs after a season has begun.
The cash flow is important to see us through the summer when no/little income is coming in but, without knowing the ins and outs of how the EFL manage clubs' ST monies, it might be that a good season this season from the point of view of income will help us through the summer period anyway.  And if we can't pay fees for players during the summer because of the business plan then we might have even less of a problem than usual.
The big advantage to DCFC of any delay is that they can price STs according to the division we'll be in - they don't have to guess - and they'll still have time to make any early bird offers if they want to.
My bet would be that ST demand will be high whether we go up or not even if they go on sale after the play offs, and that the problem of no direct debit offer is more to do with credit arrangements because we've been in administration than anything else.  Whether that will change this year or not who knows.

No he didn’t say that as I recall. He did say that he thought the players didn’t train well on Friday, but didn’t offer a reason - nor was asked for one.
He also said that he had some theories (I think was the word he used) about why the match performance was poor, but wanted to watch the game back to confirm his thoughts. The two statements may have been transposed to create a conspiracy theory. C’est la vie.

Tbf they deserved 3 points yesterday but not 1 point or a clean sheet at their place - that was down to luck and our poor finishing.

Tbf they deserved 3 points yesterday but not 1 point or a clean sheet at their place - that was down to luck and our poor finishing.