duncanjwitham

At least with Rosenior-ball, you could see what needed to improve to turn it into good football (bit more movement, bit more tempo, bit more clinical in front of goal, bit more care with final balls etc).  At least the intent to play good football was there, and the improvements needed were relatively minor IMO.  Rowett-ball will always be terrible to watch, it’s terrible by design.

He's in charge of managing the assistants...

?

And let's not forget, if we go up this year, we're still going to be under EFL spending restrictions for another season.  So it's not like we're going to be splashing cash around either.

Mainly disappointed in some people's reactions tbh.
The one's who seem all of a sudden to have turned from patient with Rosenior, supportive of what he was doing and willing to let him make mistakes while he finds his feet, now full of how they never liked his style in the first place, how he's got a great League One squad and is underachieving, they don't like how pally he is with some players, how they talk about stuff together rather than him being the clear leader etc. (Probably forgetting Rooney's meetings with Davies & Jagielka)
We saw it a bit with Rooney too tbf, bigged up so much when he was here that it felt like people were willfully blind to his mistakes and brushed them under the carpet, but when he left all of the doubts started coming out. Well, most of them, he still has a few hangers on who've applied massive double standards to his time against Rosenior's.
I suppose it's just the way some cope with change as supporters, but some of the things people are using to justify Rosenior leaving & Warne coming in are rather a stretch and feel somewhat forced, and any potential problems with Warne are already being whitewashed.
There's a lot of talk about Rotherham's budget being small, used as a defence against them being relegated every time they go up. First time (I think) he got them up they came down with the worst record ever at Championship level (23 points). Even our decimated squad last season got to 34 and that's with a 21 point deduction!
I'm not bringing this up to have a go at Warne, but I do find it interesting that it's hardly even been mentioned. He was allowed that season by their board and by their fans, however catastrophic the performances on the pitch must have been to accrue so little over 46 games. He won't get anywhere near that level of patience here, obviously. I'm a bit worried though, looking at how some people's true colours have so quickly revealed themselves with Rosenior, that he won't have very much time to make his mark here at all before people turn on him.
I'll wait and see how it goes. I've criticised some of the decisions Rosenior has made and very much advocated needing a different approach away from home - which ironically he may have found in his final home game - but I've also been supportive of the idea of letting him learn.
I'll just continue doing that with Warne, but my gut feeling is still not great tbh and I hope we aren't adrift by January if results plummet while he figures out how to manage a larger club, and how to play direct football when we don't have a striker at the club who can play as a target man.
 

But we’ve let him sign like a dozen players with his style in mind, and I’m pretty sure we all expected them to carry on with a similar style to last season, so it can’t have been a surprise.
And it’s not just the first team, the academy is supposed to be playing a broadly similar style so there’s a pathway straight through.  Is there any point in developing players like Liam Thompson and Darren Robinson if we appoint a manager that just wants to hoof it?

For me anyway, it’s not so much about Rosenior being sacked as the guy apparently replacing him.  IMO the root of all of the problems under Mel Morris was lurching between managers of differing styles every 5 minutes.  On the surface, it appears like we’re making exactly the same mistake again, barely a few months into Clowes ownership.
And if Warne is being bought in to play a complete different style to what he did at Rotherham, then that’s equally baffling.  Why appoint a manager in the expectation he’ll do the exact opposite of what he did at his previous club?

But we’ve let him sign like a dozen players with his style in mind, and I’m pretty sure we all expected them to carry on with a similar style to last season, so it can’t have been a surprise.
And it’s not just the first team, the academy is supposed to be playing a broadly similar style so there’s a pathway straight through.  Is there any point in developing players like Liam Thompson and Darren Robinson if we appoint a manager that just wants to hoof it?

Yes but you are relying on Ed Dawes to accurately describe a game of football. 
It's like asking Liz Truss to run the country. 
Oh wait... 

So happy we beat that load of scummers. That's what happens you do Ronaldo celebrations at 1-0 in the 15th minute and then proceed to time waste for 75. Morons. Back to London you go. Good riddance.

Korey Smith was injured ?

The only RB who may have been a potential was Stephen Kelly. He’s gone to West Brom and even then it was a long shot.
Everyone keeps saying let’s put Knight up the pitch but no one ever says who that would be at the expense of?
I actually don’t think his goal/assist return is quite there for being up the pitch. I’m perfectly happy with him at RB for us.

If it gets to 9-0, are they legally required to sack their manager?

If it gets to 9-0, are they legally required to sack their manager?

I thought you were suggesting a new name for Pride Park for a sec…

I thought you were suggesting a new name for Pride Park for a sec…

The problem is, every one of these extra requirements just make it harder for legitimate buyers to actually complete a purchase.  If Quantuma had insisted on this, and the £5m non-refundable deposit, and every other suggestion in this thread, there's a decent chance that we'd have to got to May with no interested parties at all and Quantuma would have started liquidation proceedings.  Don't forget that at the point Kirchner was named preferred bidder, negotiations with credits weren't even complete (since HMRC etc wouldn't commit to anything until they had an actual bidder to talk to).  So you're asking buyers to hand over millions without even knowing for sure what they're buying.  And I'm sure "The purchaser has pulled out because conditions imposed by Quantuma made a deal unviable" headlines would have been treated wonderfully by Derby fans.
The problem is that none of the other bidders were offering anything like enough either.  Ashley was apparently offering low £20ms for the entire thing, stadium included, which was nowhere near enough.  At least Kirchner had what appeared to be a viable plan to get a deal over the line.  You can say it was a poor choice by the admins, but you're basically criticising them for not liquidating us months ago.

The problem is, every one of these extra requirements just make it harder for legitimate buyers to actually complete a purchase.  If Quantuma had insisted on this, and the £5m non-refundable deposit, and every other suggestion in this thread, there's a decent chance that we'd have to got to May with no interested parties at all and Quantuma would have started liquidation proceedings.  Don't forget that at the point Kirchner was named preferred bidder, negotiations with credits weren't even complete (since HMRC etc wouldn't commit to anything until they had an actual bidder to talk to).  So you're asking buyers to hand over millions without even knowing for sure what they're buying.  And I'm sure "The purchaser has pulled out because conditions imposed by Quantuma made a deal unviable" headlines would have been treated wonderfully by Derby fans.
The problem is that none of the other bidders were offering anything like enough either.  Ashley was apparently offering low £20ms for the entire thing, stadium included, which was nowhere near enough.  At least Kirchner had what appeared to be a viable plan to get a deal over the line.  You can say it was a poor choice by the admins, but you're basically criticising them for not liquidating us months ago.

The problem is, every one of these extra requirements just make it harder for legitimate buyers to actually complete a purchase.  If Quantuma had insisted on this, and the £5m non-refundable deposit, and every other suggestion in this thread, there's a decent chance that we'd have to got to May with no interested parties at all and Quantuma would have started liquidation proceedings.  Don't forget that at the point Kirchner was named preferred bidder, negotiations with credits weren't even complete (since HMRC etc wouldn't commit to anything until they had an actual bidder to talk to).  So you're asking buyers to hand over millions without even knowing for sure what they're buying.  And I'm sure "The purchaser has pulled out because conditions imposed by Quantuma made a deal unviable" headlines would have been treated wonderfully by Derby fans.
The problem is that none of the other bidders were offering anything like enough either.  Ashley was apparently offering low £20ms for the entire thing, stadium included, which was nowhere near enough.  At least Kirchner had what appeared to be a viable plan to get a deal over the line.  You can say it was a poor choice by the admins, but you're basically criticising them for not liquidating us months ago.

The problem is, every one of these extra requirements just make it harder for legitimate buyers to actually complete a purchase.  If Quantuma had insisted on this, and the £5m non-refundable deposit, and every other suggestion in this thread, there's a decent chance that we'd have to got to May with no interested parties at all and Quantuma would have started liquidation proceedings.  Don't forget that at the point Kirchner was named preferred bidder, negotiations with credits weren't even complete (since HMRC etc wouldn't commit to anything until they had an actual bidder to talk to).  So you're asking buyers to hand over millions without even knowing for sure what they're buying.  And I'm sure "The purchaser has pulled out because conditions imposed by Quantuma made a deal unviable" headlines would have been treated wonderfully by Derby fans.
The problem is that none of the other bidders were offering anything like enough either.  Ashley was apparently offering low £20ms for the entire thing, stadium included, which was nowhere near enough.  At least Kirchner had what appeared to be a viable plan to get a deal over the line.  You can say it was a poor choice by the admins, but you're basically criticising them for not liquidating us months ago.

The problem is, every one of these extra requirements just make it harder for legitimate buyers to actually complete a purchase.  If Quantuma had insisted on this, and the £5m non-refundable deposit, and every other suggestion in this thread, there's a decent chance that we'd have to got to May with no interested parties at all and Quantuma would have started liquidation proceedings.  Don't forget that at the point Kirchner was named preferred bidder, negotiations with credits weren't even complete (since HMRC etc wouldn't commit to anything until they had an actual bidder to talk to).  So you're asking buyers to hand over millions without even knowing for sure what they're buying.  And I'm sure "The purchaser has pulled out because conditions imposed by Quantuma made a deal unviable" headlines would have been treated wonderfully by Derby fans.
The problem is that none of the other bidders were offering anything like enough either.  Ashley was apparently offering low £20ms for the entire thing, stadium included, which was nowhere near enough.  At least Kirchner had what appeared to be a viable plan to get a deal over the line.  You can say it was a poor choice by the admins, but you're basically criticising them for not liquidating us months ago.

I seem to remember @Ghost of Clough running the numbers and coming to the conclusion that taking -15 basically saved a couple of million overall.  The figures for that kind of deal were still well above what Ashley was rumoured to be offering.  Quantuma weren't haggling over -15 or not, they were haggling over whether the deal was enough to keep us as a football league club or not.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at?  We basically stopped paying HMRC because we didn't have the cash to. What cash we did have went to paying wages, and other running costs etc, during lockdown.
Are you suggesting CK was going to do the same, and basically pocket the money instead of paying HMRC? There's basically zero chance of that happening.  The only reason it was allowed to happen previously was that HMRC basically weren't chasing up unpaid bills while companies where struggling due to COVID.  Now that (in theory) we're back to normal, they'll be chasing as soon as any money is overdue (which I *think* is quarterly).  And that's especially the case for a company like us, that's just agreed to write off some proportion of what we owed.  They'll be watching us like a hawk.

I still think it was unlikely it was anything like this.  He couldn't borrow (much) money against us because without owning the stadium, there was nothing to secure it against.  Money laundering or similar seems unlikely too, because you don't do it with an international border in between (because of the enhanced checks that take place on transfers), or a company that's being monitored more extensively than normal (you've got FFP reporting, plus enforced business plans and any other fallout/follow-up from exiting admin).  Any weird payments in or out are going to get flagged up relatively quickly.  And if his intention was something like trying to and drain excess funds out of the club to fund his lifestyle, then I'm not sure there's going to be enough excess funds to make that worthwhile, especially if he was intending to carry on making payments to creditors over the next 2 or 3 years.
The only explanation that makes any kind of sense to me is that he genuinely wanted to buy us, probably because he thought owning a football club would be a cool thing to add to his flash lifestyle.  And then he either changed his mind when he realised the true costs, or he genuinely couldn't transfer the money (whether that be because of money laundering checks, or the money was no longer "available" to him, or whatever).

I still think it was unlikely it was anything like this.  He couldn't borrow (much) money against us because without owning the stadium, there was nothing to secure it against.  Money laundering or similar seems unlikely too, because you don't do it with an international border in between (because of the enhanced checks that take place on transfers), or a company that's being monitored more extensively than normal (you've got FFP reporting, plus enforced business plans and any other fallout/follow-up from exiting admin).  Any weird payments in or out are going to get flagged up relatively quickly.  And if his intention was something like trying to and drain excess funds out of the club to fund his lifestyle, then I'm not sure there's going to be enough excess funds to make that worthwhile, especially if he was intending to carry on making payments to creditors over the next 2 or 3 years.
The only explanation that makes any kind of sense to me is that he genuinely wanted to buy us, probably because he thought owning a football club would be a cool thing to add to his flash lifestyle.  And then he either changed his mind when he realised the true costs, or he genuinely couldn't transfer the money (whether that be because of money laundering checks, or the money was no longer "available" to him, or whatever).