Ghost of Clough

Roos
Byrne   Edmundson   Clarke   Forsyth   Buchanan
Knight   Shinnie
Waghorn   Kazim   Lawrence 
 
Almost perfect. Would have preferred 4 at the back with Bird in for Fozzy.
Cashin's won the U23 raffle and joins the first team this week

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Solomon popping up in the box to make it 5
 

Plange seems to take his chances with ease looking at a couple of those goals ?

Shouldn't Cresswell have been included in the first team squad for today?

Obviously just warming up last night! 
 

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

FYI
 

Cresswell will be starting for the U23s tonight so will not be in the squad tomorrow. 
A bit disappointing given the availability, fitness and form of our forwards 

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.

Saturday 24th April, 15:00, Pride Park.
It's about time we had a winner starting a matchday thread.
It's also time we had a manager who can install a bit of confidence in the players.
 
Manager: Wassall
Assistant Manager: Mac5
Starting XI:
Roos
Byrne   Edmundson   Clarke   Buchanan
Bird
Sibley   Shinnie
Roberts   Waghorn   Lawrence
Subs: Marshall, McDonald, JBrown, Forsyth, Knight, Watson, Jozwiak, Wilson, Kazim

I like your thinking. I'm a big fan of Trojan Horses. We might have to sneak one into the training ground

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.

Dave Mackay. Player-manager

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.

I like your thinking. I'm a big fan of Trojan Horses. We might have to sneak one into the training ground

I like your thinking. I'm a big fan of Trojan Horses. We might have to sneak one into the training ground

The introduction of Bielik to the team increased the confidence of the rest of the team. We all saw that confidence drop the instant Bielik was injured.

Trialist only wins penalties

Unpopular opinion: Cresswell's better at winning FKs than Martin 

Whyteleafe FC I think.

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

Just a reminder about this game tonight ?