duncanjwitham

1 minute ago, Leeds Ram said:

then why thank MSD in the club statement if they've forced his hand into the administrators? 

We don’t know for sure what’s happened. Maybe HMRC have demanded something, maybe MSD have been accepting lower repayments but he’s decided he can no longer even afford those.  
 

I can’t see what else it can be beyond debt though, and whatever remains of the wage bill/outstanding transfer payments.

I would rate it from 7th to 24th, as that’s probably what he’s done to our league position.

1 minute ago, Leeds Ram said:

how is he losing 1.5 million a month atm? staff and player wages are absolutely tiny and we've just sold god knows how many season tickets. 

Servicing the debts we’ve run up in the last 18 months, presumably.

It’s -12 for going into admin (which I don’t think we technically have *yet*, end of straw clutching…). The EFL issue is completely separate and may result in another -9 or anything else really. A new owner/administrator with a different attitude to it might result in a different decision (definitely the end of straw clutching now…).

1 minute ago, Yani P said:

just imagine if they bought it...we would be in the 16th tier before they secured a vote on what type of coffee to have in the foyer..

Vote? Why would there be a vote? Everyone knows the Rams Trust are the one true voice of Derby County fans, and they alone are anointed to speak in the name of what all Rams fans truly want.

1 minute ago, drgoodspeak said:

Ramstrust are mobilising…

Don’t be silly. They’re just writing another strongly worded letter demanding fan representation on the board as we speak.

4 minutes ago, Norman said:

Won't commit to the ongoing costs of the club, but some want us to take taxpayers money. 

The EFL got this one right. It's not our money. 

The issue isn’t whether it’s right to take taxpayers money or not. If basically every other club got the money, but we didn’t because of the EFL issues (where it’s still far from clear what we’ve actually done wrong), then there’s a major issue of fair play.

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Not meaning to defend Mel but he’s not received the season ticket money himself personally. The proceeds will have gone to paying off the debts he racked up under his ownership.

Fixed that for you.

Just now, Van der MoodHoover said:

Does that mean we'll settle keoghs back pay in academy players, cones and bibs? 

That’s probably classed as a “football debt” so we’ll end up paying it in full, while local businesses get pennies on the pound of what they’re owed.

25 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

We’ve obviously broken something. This is now clear as the EFL, not journalists, have spoken about rule 85 which, as had been said, covers negotiation of punishment.

Rule 85 is covers everything a Disciplinary Commission covers, from determination of guilt to punishment.  It's just a way of short-cutting the DC process to save both parties time and money. Just because we're discussing it with the EFL doesn't mean we've admitted guilt or even accepted the charges.

1 minute ago, LazloW said:

I haven't gone through the whole thread on this (or all the tweets and media) so pardon my ignorance...  but do we know for certain at the moment whether the club has agreed that it has broken the rules and we are just negotiating the penalty or whether the club is still disputing whether we have broken any rules and thus whether a penalty is justified in the first place?

If its the former, then can't really see what is taking so long. There can't be many options and if there is no agreement then there must be a course of action (either a penalty is imposed or we go back to arbitration). 

Any question that starts "do we know for certain" is going to result in a "no" answer at the moment.

We don't know what the discussion is about, and honestly, whether we've broken the rules and what punishment we might be due aren't entirely separate things.  If we're still arguing over exactly what amortization models are allowed, then the answer to that question will determine the extent of any overspend, and hence the extent of any punishment.

23 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

If the EFL had a cast iron, watertight case they would slap us with a points deduction immediately and dare us to appeal it. They haven't done that, which could indicate that they aren't entirely sure.

On the other hand, if we were totally bang to rights and had a 0% chance of winning an appeal we would take whatever was on offer and just get this over with.

I'm not actually 100% sure the EFL can do this.  The rules don't seem massively clear on it, but it seems to me that it's case of we either do an Agreed Decision, or the EFL formally charge us and it goes to another DC. There's no allowance in the rules for the EFL to just arbitrarily slap a points deduction on us themselves (outside of the fixed 12 point penalty for going into admin etc).

The graded penalties for levels of overspend (the 1 point per £Xm of overspend stuff) don't seem to be in the rules anymore (if they ever were...).  They're referenced as being part of the 'guidelines' in the Sheffield Wednesday appeal written reasons, but I can't find those guidelines online anywhere.  And I think that was the only mechanism that could have existed for an automatic deduction (without going to a DC etc).

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Didn't really take this para in from the EFL statement earlier. 

""In any disciplinary matter, the EFL will always consider whether it can be concluded by way of an Agreed Decision as per EFL Regulation 85. An Agreed Decision, which is subject to independent ratification, is deemed appropriate in circumstances which justify the conclusion of an effective and equitable resolution without a referral to a Disciplinary Commission."

Who would do the 'independent ratification'?

The relevant bit of the rules:

And for reference...

So it's basically someone who could potentially lead a Disciplinary Commission.  Not a member of the EFL board, or Steve Gibson or anything. 

2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

I guess we can look at it two ways.

If it’s a game we tried to win then we were absolutely awful. Zero shots on target, couldn’t get out our own half in the second period. Sam Johnstone literally had nothing to do other than a few routine goalkicks.

On the flip side, if it’s a game we looked to avoid defeat at all costs, then it was a brilliant backs-to-the-wall display. Kelle Roos outstanding.

Depends how we want to look at it I suppose.

I don’t see how we could have done much more. West Brom are vastly superior in terms of quality at their disposal. If we had tried to win and be open/expansive, we would almost certainly have lost.

A point gained. But it will mean little if we can’t follow it up with a home win as so far we have been underwhelming at Pride Park.

The big thing for me is how often we're doing it.  I have no problem with us setting up defensively as a one-off in arguably the most difficult game of the season, particularly off the back of a poor performance again Birmingham.  And by and large we've tried to play decent football this season, even if it hasn't always worked.  What I don't want to see is this style creeping in more and more because it sort of worked here.  We need to stick to our guns and keep trying to make the decent football work for the majority of the time.  

Not convinced it’s 5 at the back. Williams has come on as a winger in the last few games, and Knight is in in place of Bird, same system as usual.  Not at all sure how it’s supposed to work though - we’ve taken our 2 best passers out of midfield, but we’re still going to have to play out from the back because we’ve got no physical presence in the final third.

Just now, Steve Buckley’s Dog said:

Well, that is an interesting team. Are Lawrence and Morrison on the naughty step?

More likely it’s a rest with 3 games in a week, Lawrence just back from injury and Morrison having done a round trip to Jamaica.

1 hour ago, BucksRam said:

I still stick with if we have done something obviously wrong to directly breach their rules we'd have been hit with something by now.  If we have failed FFP for example, but Derby are arguing that it's because the EFL didn't call out our amortisation "discrepancy" for 3 years, then if the EFL are in discussions with us, rather than just hitting us with a big points deduction, does that not smack of their admitting we haven't actually done anything wrong really (other than just not articulating it very well in our account notes) but want to be seen to be upholding their version of the truth.  It just gets weirder and weirder and more and more frustrating.

 

If I had to stake my life it, I reckon we've submitted something that the EFL don't believe meets FRS102, but we do.  We've either not used a straight-line amortisation method, or it's something to do with the "missing £30m", or some other big of jiggery-pokery.  I'm almost certain we won't have submitted something that breaches the FFP thresholds, because we'd be absolutely mad to.  If we went down the route of submitting accounts that show overspend and try to argue mitigating circumstances, it's admitting that we were wrong for a start, and the original accounts were 'hiding something'.  It's potentially opening us up to other charges on the HMRC thing, not submitting accounts etc - it goes from "we can't submit it until the EFL clarify things" to "we didn't submit it because we got caught hiding something else".  There's just no major incentive for us to do it IMO.

Whether the straight-line/no-trickery accounts actually show overspend or not is another matter. 3 years ago, I would have been certain that Morris wild stand his ground and submit what he thought was right, just for the principle of it.  But now, with everything that's going on, I'm not so sure.  

Just now, I know nuffin said:

Butterfield I believe was Huddersfields fans player of the year. Came here and looked as if he hardly knew how to lace his boots up.

Huddersfield used Butterfield in a *very* different way to what we did.  They played him in the hole in a 4231 (i.e. in the middle of the 3). They then had 3 very mobile guys playing around him and running off him (the likes of Nakhi Wells, Sean Scannell, Joe Lolley etc).  Their game plan was get the ball into Butterfields feet and just have him play endless through balls for those guys to run onto. He didn't have to run around, he didn't have to pass-and-move, he didn't have to defend or track runners, just get it and play someone through.

We literally did none of that. He mostly played in the 2 holders in our 4231, so he was much more exposed defensively and lack-of-mobility wise.  We played 3 direct runners in the 3 (the likes of Ince, Camara, Russell, Ward etc), but they were all starting miles ahead of Butterfield and running away from him, instead of running off him.  So those cute little 10 yard through balls at Huddersfield needed to be 40 yard inch-perfect balls to have the same effect.  Added to that, we had Martin dropping off the front, effectively doing the same job Butterfield had done at Huddersfield, so even if he did get forward, he was competing for space and touches.

It goes back to what @Bris Vegas said about understanding players. We seemingly had no clue what he was good at or why he succeeded at Huddersfield - we just seemed to think that because he was a good passer, he would be a drop-in replacement for Will Hughes.

Thank god that distraction is over and we can go back to talking about accountancy regs and whether Mel Morris is the messiah or just a very naughty boy.

9 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

No it's not, he's the caretaker. Just like anybody who buys an house, eventually you sell it on or pass it on.  Selling it on is easier if it has a roof and windows left.

When I was buying a house in Derby, I went to see a lovely one. You couldn’t get in the front door because there was a sofa blocking it, I had to come in round the back. I couldn’t go down to check out the cellar, because there was a chest of draws blocking the entrance.  The bathroom was borderline falling apart, but she had a bidet in there. And my *God*, was the current owner proud of that bidet. I think she thought it would sell the house purely on its own ceramic merits.  Needless to say, I passed on that. Feel free to draw your own parallels or conclusions from that little story…

3 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

Three signings summed up the change in attitude - Shackell, Butterfield and Johnson.  

Those 3 are also the ones for me that really epitomise everything that went wrong.  I remember a Norwich fan coming on here as we signed Johnson, who basically said he's divisive - half your fans will love him for his effort etc, but the others will get wound up by his lack of technical ability, and how often he gives the ball away.  That was an immediate red flag for me, because we had a team that had spent the last few seasons playing pass-and-move football through midfield, and you just can't do that if your main midfielder can't pass the ball consistently.  If a random fan from Norwich could spot the problem, why couldn't we?

Exactly the same with Shackell. I'm pretty sure Clough bombed him out because he wasn't good enough on the ball for a team that wanted to play possession football, yet we go straight back and get him.  And we never really understood what Butterfield was good or bad at. We used him in the same way 'Boro used him (where he struggled), not in the way he was used at Huddersfield (where he was very good).  He played much further forward for Huddersfield and had mobile guys running off him, we sat him in front of the back 4, with a massive gap to the forwards and just hoped something would happen.

At no stage in that early rush of signings did we ever seem to stop and think about what players where good and bad at, whether they could do what we needed from their position, and whether they were going to replicate what they had done well at previous clubs when they got here.  

14 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

That is bang on the nail, I think this may demonstrate who has been picking the signings?  I'm asking this because what you pointed out, has happened under several managers not just one or 2.  This leads me into thinking that the players incoming may not have been decided by the manager. 

I suspect that's why Stevie Mac is back to perhaps advise Mel in this department, as Rooney 'claims' he has nothing to do with training, tactics or picking the team.

I don't think they necessarily need to be "decided by the manager". Obviously, the manager should have the final call on whether to sign them or not, but I don't think they always have to be involved from the start.  If Morris was dead-set on making this Derby-Way stuff work, it shouldn't really matter if the manager is involved anyway - everyone should be pulling in the same direction.  We should have a style of play in mind and be appointing managers that play that way, signing players that play that way, and developing academy players to fit too.

I genuinely have no idea who was in charge of transfers in those early Morris days, and I'm not sure it was one single person.  We seem to know Blackman was a Clement request.  We know Weimann and a few others were lined up (but not confirmed, obviously) before Clement was given the job.  There's various suggestions/allegations about Sam Rush's approach to transfers.  A few of the signings honestly feel like Morris either wanting to get the boys back together(Ince, Shackell, Wisdom), or basically have a new train set to play with (Johnson).  There was definitely a too-many-cooks problem somewhere there.

I have no idea what McClaren's job actually entails, but I think someone like him in charge of making sure the Derby-Way happens is absolutely what we need.  Someone that actually understands football, understands youth-development and is willing to make hard decisions ("we are *not* signing Malone when we have Buchanan and Lowe in line, you can have a loan for a year if we need it" etc).

1 minute ago, RAM1966 said:

The drones, I do not necessarily believe, but, it would not surprise me if it had happened in the crazy world of Mel Morris....

I've always thought the drone thing was probably just a storm-in-a-teacup type of thing.  Given what we spent developing the training ground, I reckon there's a decent chance we had cameras installed so the coaches could review training afterwards if they wanted.  And maybe that includes drones - there's an argument that overhead views are the best way to review player positioning in training games etc.  And maybe Morris watched the footage from time-to-time - it's his money being spent, he's got a right to see how it's being spent, or maybe he was just interested in watching as a football fan (I reckon there's a few on here that have been to watch training before). Is there anything wrong with any of that, not really IMO.

6 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

Where has Mel failed:

Firstly he has wasted far too much money recruiting managers to then sack them, meaning he got the appointments wrong.  Each manager, wants to build there own team and as such it cost £10Ms each time we do this, as a complete rebuild from players to formations and style of play is required.  I was particularly unimpressed with the majority of his appointments, he should of gone for someone like Warnock which knows his way out of this division and proved it on numerous occasions.   

Clement was a poor choice a talented No2 but no experience in managing, let alone in the Championship and his football was negative and dire. 

I'll skip over the horrendous contradiction I've highlighted there...

The big issue wasn't just the fact we kept sacking managers and kept letting them rebuild the squad, it's the fact we kept appointing managers with a radically different style to the previous one.  If we'd gone the equivalent of like McLaren->Lampard->Cocu we'd have been in much better shape. They all play vaguely similar styles of football, with similar players in similar systems.  They're not identical obviously, but there's more similarity that not.  Instead we basically alternated between managers who wanted to play possession and managers who wanted to be very direct.

Looking from the outside, the whole thing just screamed reactionary thinking, with no clear sign of having an actual plan.  Players wilted second half of the season, get a manager in to kick up the backside. Bryson got injured, sign the most expensive midfielder we can find.  We need more goals, sign the top scorer in the league, even though he plays in a different position in a different system and hasn't scored for 3 months.  Our promising young left back isn't quite ready for the first team yet, so spend £3m+, prem wages and a long contract on Malone.  Just endless random decisions that don't tie up with any other decision being made at the club.

And the really frustrating thing is, Mel described the right plan almost exactly when he took over (the Derby Way stuff). He either never had the balls to follow through on it (being willing to say no to managers etc), or the knowledge to know why it wasn't working. 

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

The irony of course is that they already had a centre forward on their books that they had signed for £15m the season before!

And they spent more on players the season we signed Waghorn anyway, I think.