duncanjwitham

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).

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).

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.

What's the alternative though?  We owed £60m+ to creditors.  Either somebody rocked up and handed over a significant chunk of that cash (in some form or other), or we got liquidated.  What other outcome do you think Quantuma could have possibly engineered?

We can’t pay money, so the only lower league gems we can pick are out of contract ones.

We can’t pay money, so the only lower league gems we can pick are out of contract ones.

We can’t pay money, so the only lower league gems we can pick are out of contract ones.

We can’t pay money, so the only lower league gems we can pick are out of contract ones.

We can’t pay money, so the only lower league gems we can pick are out of contract ones.

We can’t pay money, so the only lower league gems we can pick are out of contract ones.

I feel like I mostly laid out the why in the post but I get that some of things can get lost in a big post. 
- So that the midfielders who aren't Bird can push right up looking to exploit space 
- So that wingers can take up aggressive positions high and wide
- So we have more bodies in build up play to play through a pressing team (Also helps the couple CBs we have who may not be the best on the ball)
- To have cover against the counter and so possession can be recycled to keep up pressure.
Is it necessary? Yes and no. As with any set of tactics it's a choice. It's necessary for what we are trying to do but it wouldn't be necessary if we set up differently. And we've set up this because it will likely pay off against we shall face week in week out once its properly embedded and we've found the right balance.

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home)