Ghost of Clough

The thing is, Mel has already said the money is there to pay wages through to the end of the season. If we're still struggling to pay back STHs, transfer fees due, etc... then we'd see sales such as Lawrence, Jozwiak, Byrne, the youngsters before we'd go into administration. 
I'd only start to worry if we're still talking about money troubles once all players of significant value are sold.

It really would be typical of Derby to be able to find the one person on the planet that could fail the EFL's fit and proper person test.

Yeah, I had a quick look myself and I'm scratching my head as to where I saw it. I suppose there is a chance that conclusion was arrived at based on what could be appealled with any chance of a punishment being handed out.
The second charge was broken down in to 5 particulars. The EFL withdrew the 1st of those.
2. EFL felt FRS 102 means amortisation of players should be on as straight line basis. Dismissed and no chance of winning on appeal.
3. ERVs (assigning an estimated value prior to the expiry of a contract). Due to us not disclosing the policy clearly, the EFL misunderstood, thinking it was an assigned value at the end of the contract. Dismissed, and no chance of winning on appeal.
4. Reliability (not certainty) of ERVs. I suppose there's a chance this one could be overturned. However, the appeal is based on the evidence previously provided, and whether the verdict reached is fair based on that evidence. FRS 102 states 'expectation', rather than the EFLs case of 'entitlement'. For example, despite Bielik's injuries, we may still expect to sell him for £6m. It doesn't mean we will get £6m.
5. Disclosure of policy. We were already found guilty of this one. If appealing the punishment, it should be noted that it had no impact on our P&S position, and therefore can not be punished for failing it. That means no points deduction. It's a fine at most for deliberately misleading the EFL (due to not responding to their queries on the matter).
 
Summary: if it is the entire charge, there is zero chance of #1-3 beijg any different to the decisions already made. It would take a massive Gibson to overturn #4. A maximum punishment of a 'slap on the wrist for #5.

Yeah, I had a quick look myself and I'm scratching my head as to where I saw it. I suppose there is a chance that conclusion was arrived at based on what could be appealled with any chance of a punishment being handed out.
The second charge was broken down in to 5 particulars. The EFL withdrew the 1st of those.
2. EFL felt FRS 102 means amortisation of players should be on as straight line basis. Dismissed and no chance of winning on appeal.
3. ERVs (assigning an estimated value prior to the expiry of a contract). Due to us not disclosing the policy clearly, the EFL misunderstood, thinking it was an assigned value at the end of the contract. Dismissed, and no chance of winning on appeal.
4. Reliability (not certainty) of ERVs. I suppose there's a chance this one could be overturned. However, the appeal is based on the evidence previously provided, and whether the verdict reached is fair based on that evidence. FRS 102 states 'expectation', rather than the EFLs case of 'entitlement'. For example, despite Bielik's injuries, we may still expect to sell him for £6m. It doesn't mean we will get £6m.
5. Disclosure of policy. We were already found guilty of this one. If appealing the punishment, it should be noted that it had no impact on our P&S position, and therefore can not be punished for failing it. That means no points deduction. It's a fine at most for deliberately misleading the EFL (due to not responding to their queries on the matter).
 
Summary: if it is the entire charge, there is zero chance of #1-3 beijg any different to the decisions already made. It would take a massive Gibson to overturn #4. A maximum punishment of a 'slap on the wrist for #5.

Yeah, I had a quick look myself and I'm scratching my head as to where I saw it. I suppose there is a chance that conclusion was arrived at based on what could be appealled with any chance of a punishment being handed out.
The second charge was broken down in to 5 particulars. The EFL withdrew the 1st of those.
2. EFL felt FRS 102 means amortisation of players should be on as straight line basis. Dismissed and no chance of winning on appeal.
3. ERVs (assigning an estimated value prior to the expiry of a contract). Due to us not disclosing the policy clearly, the EFL misunderstood, thinking it was an assigned value at the end of the contract. Dismissed, and no chance of winning on appeal.
4. Reliability (not certainty) of ERVs. I suppose there's a chance this one could be overturned. However, the appeal is based on the evidence previously provided, and whether the verdict reached is fair based on that evidence. FRS 102 states 'expectation', rather than the EFLs case of 'entitlement'. For example, despite Bielik's injuries, we may still expect to sell him for £6m. It doesn't mean we will get £6m.
5. Disclosure of policy. We were already found guilty of this one. If appealing the punishment, it should be noted that it had no impact on our P&S position, and therefore can not be punished for failing it. That means no points deduction. It's a fine at most for deliberately misleading the EFL (due to not responding to their queries on the matter).
 
Summary: if it is the entire charge, there is zero chance of #1-3 beijg any different to the decisions already made. It would take a massive Gibson to overturn #4. A maximum punishment of a 'slap on the wrist for #5.

3 home wins will do me, as long as they're Barnsley, Boro and Derby ?

3 home wins will do me, as long as they're Barnsley, Boro and Derby ?

3 home wins will do me, as long as they're Barnsley, Boro and Derby ?

Hand gestures are fine sometimes.

If we could just somehow sneak a win v Brum things would look so much better...

Can't wait for trips to Plymouth and Portsmouth next season

... can we have 'Boro investigated for match fixing? Just a suggestion ?

*Gibson urges Warnock to throw the games to spite Rams*

Some absolute stone cold classic threads there. Beautiful.

unlucky 13, when will our luck change?

Not even top 10 most views in the 'Derby County Forum' yet.
Abu Derby County Lampard and the Chelsea job New Manager Tribunal Update EFL charge Derby over FFP Lawrence and Bennett convicted of drink driving Derby County Flags 17/18 Summer transfer suggestion thread 18/19 Summer transfer suggestion thread Cocu, van der Weerden, Scheepers Suggestions for next Derby manager [prior to Cocu] Keogh sacked Relegation watch Sadly, this thread will be top 5 by Saturday dinner time.

Maybe it wouldn't exist without them?
RamsTV and academy are pretty much only parts of the club which do give me some enjoyment.

Wait till the mardy toddlers find us...

It doesn't help that Kazim, Waghorn, Gregory and Stretton were injured all at the same time

Derby's season summed up...
 

Isn't it about time we got an OCG buying our club? Forget changing the amortisation rules and taking court action against former employees, let's start referee intimidation and blackmail oppo goalkeepers. Get some of the weaker academy prospects into football administration and in 20 years, we'll have our own people running the game on the inside. Forget crying about fair play in the media, if a rival is spying on our training session, beat up one of their people.
If we controlled the police, by now Keogh would have returned from his freak shower injury and be leading us to glory. Or not.

The boldest act by NASA since the Apollo missions, showing the most ambition since Kennedy's 1961 "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. 
There were three bids still in the running for the contract for the Human Landing System to take astronauts back to the Moon as part of the Artemis mission. The other two were far more expensive than SpaceX, but were "safe" ideas, essentially trying to recreate the Lunar Module from the 1960s, but a little bigger. And would largely have just resulted in more cushy government contracts to do the same old, same old. 
In contrast, SpaceX has self-funded the development of Starship for five years, risking bankruptcy along the way. If it can succeed, it represents a step change in what NASA can do on the Moon, delivering thousands of tonnes of cargo for a significant Human presence. 
This is a political decision in that the Chinese and Russians have signed an accord to build a Moonbase together. Meanwhile, Biden has nominated the deeply unpopular (in the space world) Bill Nelson to run NASA, now awaiting Senate ratification. 
If NASA had waited, Nelson wouldn't have allowed SpaceX to have the contract, and the Russians and Chinese would have the Moon to themselves. Instead, if (and it is an "if") Starship can succeed, NASA has a hundred times more capacity than other nations. That's my reading of it anyway. 

In fairness, most do make cut backs upon relegation. This season, Norwich and Watford sold players for £40m, Bournemouth over £80m. None of those spent much, if anything at all. However, the parachute payments allowed them to retain players they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford.
There were some clubs who used the parachute payments to strengthen their squad - Boro, Villa and Stoke stick out in my memory.
What makes matters worse is P&S rules which allow a club to lose £22m more for each season they spent in the PL. 
Using Huddersfield as an example (an ignoring changes for Covid), they had a £87m advantage over other clubs in the 19/20 3 year period. In 20/21, it is a £100m advantage. Even next season, they still have a £90m advantage.
 

I'm not sure Mac would be doing any better with the squad to be honest. We may be playing better football, but the squad is so small, especially with the injuries that the team wouldn't be much different.
We're forced into playing 4231:
GK
Byrne   Wisdom   Mengi   LB
CM   CM
RW   AM   LW
Kazim
Choice in goal is a toss of a coin - Roos vs Marshall
Likewise at LB - Buchanan vs Forsyth
CM is any two from Bird, Knight and Shinnie
The three behind Kazim is out of Lawrence, Jozwiak, Sibley and Roberts
Even Kazim and Lawrence don't appear to be 100% fit at the moment. For Mac-ball to work he needs the players to be fully fit, with top options off the bench. We just don't have that right now.