StarterForTen

Of course they have - I was at Elland Road when Leeds did it to us - but the point I believe you were making was underpinned by a need for blind faith in order to be true fan.

I suggest that facing a highly probable outcome with grace and positivity (as @Ambitious did in their original post about life in League One) make you no less of a supporter.

2 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

A true fan that’s already given up??‍♂️. A true fan is when your 3-0 down and still think you can win 4-3.

So, to be a 'true fan' you also have to be deluded?

25 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

This is the single most important thing as it means we can retain the services of Bird, Knight, Buchanan, etc rather than having to wait until the summer before offering deals.

Absolutely.

I'm sure you've posted this many times before but what is the list of first team players out of contract next summer?

1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I don’t read it that way, am I reading it wrong?

I read it as anyone that has started 3 league matches at Championship level or above (the level the club was at when they signed or higher) at all in their career (so including their career from now) counts towards that 25 man limit. Anyone signed, of any age and with any or no experience, counts towards the 25 man limit if signed from now until the end of June.

I think, any player we sign now will count towards the limit. Any players currently registered to us will count once they have started three championship level or higher league games, which of course, most of them already have.

We can sign five free agents on restricted salaries (but not as restricted as before) and we can resign current players on terms that - give or take - allow for average salaries of £12k per week.

If players were free agents before the closing of the last window they could sign for us today and play next week.

Once we have our five free agents in, and we have extended the terms of the current players we ant to keep, then we would be free to play whichever youngsters we like.

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

They don’t have to.

May I ask, why is this the case? Surely if the club gets taken out of Administration as a going concern (rather than a sale of assets) won't it be required to post accounts?

I see a lot of League One football and there’s a lot of decent stuff played.

And we’ve hardly been spoiled at Pride Park in recent years have we? Be surprised if we notice much difference!

Not sure it's corrupt Sparkle , but it is most certainly broken.

2 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I think the administrators were using the appeal as a bargaining chip. I did expect the bargaining chip to result in less points, but clearly the EFL are playing hard ball.

So, maybe the deal on the table from us is, let the new buyer spend in January and we drop the appeal and accept the penalty.

If its true Kirchner is the only bidder and is willing to buy us regardless then may as well take the hit and start a fresh.

I have just had a similar thought too. Perhaps the appeal was for leverage on the business plan restrictions?

If the Administrators (and new owners) had accepted that a -21 point penalty was the most likely outcome then realistically this season is a write-off and it's far more important to start the rebuild with as much headroom as possible. That might mean standard SCMP restrictions in place for League One, which would give us a very decent playing budget to work to.

Pure conjecture of course, but that does make a lot of sense?

In terms of the League One SCMP calculations, 'turnover' is calculated from two sources - one being relevant turnover from general trading and the other being (what the EFL term) 'Football Fortune Income' which covers (among other things) net transfer income and owner equity injections.

It is also worth noting that EFL regulations allow former Championship clubs to spend 75% of relevant turnover from trading and 100% of Football Fortune Income in its first season as a League One club.

So, as an example, if Derby's relevant turnover was circa £16m; the club raised £5m from net player transfers and the owner injected £5m of (non-Loan) equity, the club could have a wage bill next season of £22m!

Of course, the much-feared 'EFL Business Plan' might not allow it in Derby's case.

League One doesn't operate FFP like the Championship does. Instead of Profit and Sustainability (P&S) rules clubs operate under the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) which restricts salaries to 60% of the turnover. Given that Derby would have one of the largest turnovers in the division (probably the largest if Sunderland go up) and that all of our high earners will have gone (most already have), I think it gives the management team some scope to build a very competitive squad around the talented young players on our books.

Of course some of our best players will be sold (or released), but I don't think it will be the clear out some might imagine.

And, as I have said before, League One is just the same old circus but with new towns in which to pitch the big top. After all, the mere act of going to the football each week is far more important than the football you are going to! Otherwise we'd all be Man City fans.

2 minutes ago, MickD said:

Short videos I guess? ?

And all close ups of a shuffling right hand?

43 minutes ago, alram said:

Why should people waste their time on here defending a man that has destroyed our club

It's not our club though is it; it was his club. We are merely consumers.

That's the harsh truth of being a 21st Century football supporter.

11 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

We are agreed I think that the 12 point deduction is probably irrelevant given the performances on the pitch.

Last few games have not been great but without the 12 point deduction we'd still be outside of the bottom three.

Out current form is that of a 50-points team; which is not usually relegation form. It's the points penalties that have us placed bottom and these are not, as yet, written in stone so why give up?

A change of ownership, the addition of a few players, the lifting of uncertainty would all point to a better second half of the season to the first. Whether its enough to compensate for any points penalties that may get applied/confirmed we'll have to see - but no need to resign ourselves to relegation.

And as for a 'reset' - that's exactly what exiting Administration offers.

10 minutes ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

Let’s put it into perspective. Without any points deduction, we’d still be 20th which isn’t good enough for the players we have. 

Really? So you believe there are more than five clubs in the division with a weaker, thinner, less balanced squad than the one Derby scraped together last summer?

13 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Or to look at it another way if the tightrope walker had their rope a foot from the ground would the unforseen gust of wind have the same impact. 

Sadly, in order to compete in the tightrope walking championship you have to be strung precariously over a canyon. Shame that the other leading contestants all have PARACHUTES to aid them…

If you chose to walk a tightrope over a canyon for a living and then, one day out of the blue, an unforecasted gust of wind causes you to fall, is it the freak and unforeseen weather that caused your death or the fact you were on a tightrope at the time it blew?

This is the crux of the appeal, in my opinion.

The effects of a viral pandemic is force majeur regardless of the position of the business before it hit.

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I was under them impression that 9 points was the EFL's negotiating stance, 4 million in one year, so 4 points was DCFC's negotiating stance, however, the option to have it tested the proper way by an IDC has not been persued as yet by the EFL who want a negotated outcome (i.e. what i think they really want, as well as the penalty is to be able to say "Look everybody, Derby said they were guilty like us, wycombe and Boro said all along" and agreed to this)

Very well put.

Some people (even in media circles) seem to be bandying around the nine-point penalty as if it's up to the EFL to impose when they see fit but, as @RadioactiveWaste has surmised very well, as things stand there is no further penalty imminent. The club either have to accept their guilt and take a negotiated punishment or the EFL need to issue a charge, which would then need to be tested and adjudicated on by an IDC.

Why this hasn't yet come to a head I struggle to understand, unless the Administrators are refusing to engage with the EFL on a negotiated punishment, feeling that is the right/responsibility of a new owner to do so? Perhaps the EFL would rather not press the charges button until a prospective new owner is identified and they can give them the option?

Given the time the process took the first time around, if the EFL are waiting for new owners to be appointed (or at least identified) and then do feel the need to issue a charge, this might not be resolved this season.

Absolutely crazy.

0-0

At 15/2 odds, that is the best bet of the season!

17 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

This means nothing to me.

You need to be from Vienna to understand. 

Coventry 2

Derby 0

3 minutes ago, Crewton said:

NDA would make a good name for a DBC beer.

Non Drinkable Ale... I've had a few of those from artisan beer bars.

9 minutes ago, cosmic said:

It's those minibars in the hotel rooms. That's how they get you.

You stay in better hotels than I do. Mine have a vending machine in the foyer, if I'm lucky.

23 minutes ago, S8TY said:

what i did find hard to believe was he said that 30m was owed to large chains of hotels for accomodation / hospitality /  away trips etc which seems excessive but says has built up over many years 

There was a suggestion a few months back that Rooney was picking up the tab for overnight stays at £3,500 a pop. If that's the 'rate' it would take 350 years to build up a £30m debt.