alexxxxx

3 hours ago, maxjam said:

So what I said is unclear but not wrong and certainly not deliberate misinformation.  Misinformation would be saying something wholly untrue - mine was at worst, as you say, a throwaway statement.

FWIW I recall the study that you linked stating that by week 12 there was no difference in tranmission whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated.  Now I am no Doctor, so feel free to research this yourself but I highly doubt that by week 11 day 6 you are still protecting others around you from transmission.  We also know it takes 2 weeks for the vaccine to kick in fully - therefore imho there is probably a goldilocks period during those 12 weeks in which you are much less of a risk to the people around you than an unvaccinated person, but it is not the full 12 weeks. 

For arguments sake if we say 10 weeks, anyone that had their jab before mid-July is as much as a risk as those that haven't had a jab.  For reference in the UK difference in the number that were fully jabbed on July 20th compared to today is approx 9m out of approx 67m - or 58m people carrying the same risk transmitting covid.

Case dismissed - nothing more to see here ?

I can't be bothered to go through all this but does this take in to account that by virtue of getting the vaccine you are less likely to get the virus in the first place and therefore cannot spread it. 

14 hours ago, Norman said:

I'm just going to put an idea out there. 

Maybe, just maybe, our vaccination programme was rolled out quicker. A lot quicker. Is our immunity through vaccination now waning? You'd think so from all the studies. 

So maybe this will start happening in all the other countries who were so slow to get their population vaccinated in a month's time or however longer they took to get to our levels. 

Definitely an element of the first one.. Most vulnerable people were vaccinated some time a go.. Where that protection wanes it will become more serious. 

You can kind of see this in the stats where the mostly unvaccinated under 18s have the highest rates of covid, with slightly higher rates in those 35 and above. The 20s and early 30s have the lowest rates... 

Also things to consider are that the AZ vaccine isn't as effective as Pfizer vaccine... AZ is basically what's used for the majority of those north of 40 here and the most vulnerable in the first priority groups. 

The EU countries have also vaccinated far more under 18s than we have...and started earlier. The UK approach seems to be a lot more cautious vaccinating kids but I don't think that the government consider overall impact on transmission as important as risk/benefit ratio on the individual. I'm sure your politics and point of view will dictate what you think is best... 

Do we know when the appeal is being heard? 

11 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Really? I've missed any discussion on that point - assumed it was a given

Normally it applies when

1) the event was the cause of the inability to perform normal business;

2) the non-performance of business was due to circumstances beyond their control; and

3) there were no reasonable steps that they could have taken to avoid or mitigate the event or its consequences.

Surely the first pandemic in 100 years that meant we had no ticket revenue for 12 months counts on all 3?

 

 

I'd argue it is as well however I've gone on what Mr maguire was saying on his pod this week.

Insurance companies have not been paying out on force majeure clauses. 

Interesting question about how much a chairman/shareholder should be expected to fund a club. 

15 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Maybe ‘a number of other clubs’ were also hit badly by the loss of income owing to Covid-19 lockdown?!

Trouble is for the efl, I don’t think ‘other clubs haven’t gone in to administration’ is relevant to understanding why Derby went in to administration.

i suspect Derby won’t win the appeal, as the administrators might struggle to show that Derby’s finances were otherwise stable, particularly if the hmrc debt predates COVID.

also there is the question about whether COVID actually is a force majeure event. 

1 hour ago, CBRammette said:

Yes it is and I have no idea why we even mention him or interact with him at all. He loves it and adds to his misguided sense of self- importance. I feel I'm talking to my kids about "that kid" at school - we should all just ignore him totally

Trouble is people like that drive fans' conversations and opinion. 

The trouble with Mr P and Co is that they speculate so much on figures whipping up some hysteria for themselves. I can see that they struggle to keep their heads when they've deleted some posts. 

I don't really understand the level of their frustration. Wishing us out of business, reacting as if the club have commuted war crimes. I don't think they've really grasped the issue. 

Its crabs in a bucket mentalitu.. When you've got Newcastle being bought by a state investment fund to compete with other oil backed clubs... But you're upset with Derby who will finish below Bristol in all likelihood because they sold their stadium as a loophole and overspent by single digit million quid AND now in administration because our owner has badly managed our club and put us back 5/10 years. It's pathetic. 

Did Mr P miss the last train from Derby to Bristol once or something - I'm pretty sure his hatred for us goes beyond most forest fans. 

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You cannot use "need to have a competitive squad" as an excuse. If that's what the administrators use to defend out transfer activity then the appeal be flat out rejected.

Enough players should have been sold to see us through to the point where we can avoid admin. Certainly long enough to get through to the next transfer window where further sales can be made if needed. Remember, the club statement said we're approaching a "financially sustainable" position.

Who knows what the actual structure of the bid was. If its £1M upfront in cash then that's good but if its over 2 years or something it's not really useful to pay the bills that were due previously. 

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's a calculated gamble by the government isn't it? Just found out my best mate has got it, and he's clinically vulnerable (double-jabbed but not had a booster yet). Caught it from his daughter who is in a class where the current count is 19 kids out of a class of 30 are off with covid

Hopefully the jab does its job for him - and that all the kids stay out of hospital. But of any of them die - hard lines eh? As long as the rest of us are ok

Tbh in my view the government has dropped the ball on the final stretch of vaccination. They were too slow to vaccinate the under 30s and then too slow to decide to only partially vaccinate the kids. 

Schools are a huge driver case spread but seems to be only the risk to the kids that seems to be considered rather than wider community. 

People should be under no illusion that covid is an ongoing problem - 40k additional deaths per year is not a good outcome. 

Figures seem to be mostly showing covid tearing through schools now. 

20s-30s seem to have low rates probs due to recent vaccinations. 

Im becoming a bit concerned that cases will not drop to a lower background level. Was hoping we'd see a sustained decrease. 

Use the term 'side hustle' 

7 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Dune tonight. It's beautiful and epic. As it's Denis Villeneuve it doesn't rush, so something I hadn't realized was it's only Part One. It's clearly a labour of love for the director and very true to the book (at least as far as I cold remember), but Edith Bowman (who was doing the Q&A) asked Villeneuve about Part Two and he replied that Warner Bros was waiting to see the receipts. And I wonder if it isn't too slow for a modern audience, rather like how some found Blade Runner 2049.

I'd give it 8/10 as I felt there was a little too much exposition at the start before it got going. Out in cinemas 21st October.

I'm surprised at how this film has been released.. Seems like it's been released in non-English speaking countries prior to US and UK?

Think it's clear at this point that the vaccine has a great impact at preventing serious illness, death and in many cases infection. 

It wanes after a few months but not as much on death and illness. I think a booster seems like a good idea for everyone... But I imagine it's limited returns after that. I suppose it'll be incorporated in to the flu jab and a combination of inherited protection from infection and/or vaccination will over time reduce the symptoms and severity of infection. 

Australia and NZ seem to ridding themselves of the covid zero approach as vaccination levels increase... Cases in Victoria now seem to be roughly the same as in London and South East. 

NZ still have quite strict rules but very low infections.. I am interested in how their government will manage their transition from covid zero. I suspect NZ and the least impacted states of Australia have the worst of their pandemic to come.

On 15/04/2021 at 10:23, Angry Ram said:

Used to play a bit in a London league when I was a yoof.. Barnes Barnstormers,1st base.

Love Baseball, go quite a lot when I am in the USA. Mainly Mets due to their location and my work arrangements but my heart lies in San Fran. Love AT&T Park right by the bay. Not been so competitive for a few seasons now.

Well well well not a bad season from SF in the end eh. 

Probably not followed a season as closely as this for about 10 years.. 

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Well yes. A 1 in 20 chance of the Rams being liquidated is still far too high. It must never be allowed to happen. 

Some optimism bias in that figure as well I imagine.

2 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I don't think the EFL are looking to deduct us points next season as well. In fact I thought the EFL wanted the outstanding issues resolved promptly.

We might end up with deductions next season due to new issues surrounding P&S or the insovancy not yet uncovered, Investigated and charged (i.e. not yet existing as a potential thing) or the above are not resolved.

The notion that the EFL just want to punish us over multiple seasons "to serve us right" is frankly balls.

I think you’re right in that the efl want to resolve (ie negotiate rather than formal process) but they want it on their terms.
 

The top brass at the efl probably feel more under pressure and accountable to the other championship chairmen than the temporary Derby administrators. They can essentially tell the administrators ‘it’s 9pts to make this go away’ or you can risk 12 or more going through DC.

The merit of the ‘charges’ will never see the light of day and will be hidden behind an opaque statement… presumably part of the agreement. The administrators barely care… as long as they can sell the club and recoup the debt. They aren’t going to fund a legal case that drags out for months.

The efl top brass get to placate the other chairmen, cosy their favour and keep in their roles. Derby can’t compete and we as fans suffer.

52 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

We've got a 12 point deduction due to going into administration. We are expecting a further points deduction from the financial fair play charges. 

The question is, when will the EFL impose this second points deduction? 

Will it be immediately after the charges are proved

Will the EFL wait to see where we look like finishing in the league before implementing the points deduction.

Or will they suspend the points penalty until next season, to prolong our punishment

There will be no proof of the charges. 

The administrators will be bullied in to it by the efl to placate Wycombe and Boro. 

They will release a vague press release and that'll be it and probably no transparency. 

28 minutes ago, Big Trav said:

That’s this season done then. 38 pointless games from now on then? we knew it was gonna be a tough season but duck me -21 points. Just purely ruins the championship this year. Makes us uncompetitive in the league and it’s only September 

Let's concentrate on the cup... 

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

"However, Hosking also warned of more short-term pain as they prepare to agree a sanction with the Football League after previous owner Mel Morris was found guilty of breaking financial regulations.

“We’d want to have clarity with the Football League and have that effectively encapsulated,” he said.

“We wouldn’t want to be passing that on to a prospective purchaser. We want certainty and we don’t want a prospective purchaser then having to divert his attention to try and get a solution with the Football League.

“There is going to be pain for both the employees of this club and the football staff, that pain needs to be dealt with in one fell swoop.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/09/23/Derby-set-additional-nine-point-deduction-ending-lingering-hopes/

I get this but the problem I have is that it doesn't necessarily mean that the punishment is going to fit the crime. Its just going to be that the administrators will roll over and just let the efl relegate us in order that they can sell us. 

Basically means the whole season is literally for nothing. Guess it's better than no football club but seems like it's a case of literally see you next year in league 1.

56 minutes ago, Archie said:

A podcast said it was leaked on twitter/LinkedIn on the day so the club rushed out a statement. First few mins of this. Worth listening to if you haven't done so. 

https://t.co/v14EexjabF

Yea someone shared the twitter post 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Based on having to restate the accounts to correct something that we were found not guilty of by an Independent Disciplinary Commission.

I agree with you here. People seem to be conflating the administration being linked to the alleged rule breaking. Almost as if the administration proves that we've been breaking the rules. 

At this moment in time, it still seems like the argument related to the accounting of amortisation still hasn't come to a resolution. 

If the administrators can somehow prevent further rule breaches and can successfuly argue that mels approach is legal then is it 16pts the maximum deduction?

Probably enough to relegate us still but still something to play for? 

7 hours ago, Ambitious said:

You only have to look at fans of other clubs that are absolutely loving it. I guess chairmen are no different, despite how we perceive them.

Boro and Wycombe serve to benefit if we die as a club, perhaps they want some of our players on the cheap?

It’s a cut throat business. Gibson isn’t going after Mel anymore, he’s gunning for the club. Same with Wycombe. 

Yea reading some other clubs forums and people really hate us, as fans. Seen some boro fans are calling us all deluded cos one person on here said sky would be upset that we wouldn't be in the championship anymore. 

So much for fans solidarity. Fans calling other clubs to get points deductions or be relegated or calling other teams cheats should be careful what they wish for.

4 minutes ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

Would someone from the Telegraph or Radio Derby have the guts to ask him

”Do you want Derby County to cease to exist as a football club in the Football League?”

He wants us completely gone. 

31 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Now that Mel is not his boss , he could reveal the full extent of the problems he has been up against.

I hope he gives a bit of an update on that. Unless the administrators tell him not to. 

Just now, Charlotte Ram said:

MSD as a major creditor appointed the Administrator, their sole aim to get their money back, my belief is that they could not wait any longer as because of all the press coverage HMRC had or were going to issue a winding up order which would have compromised the MSD position. The administrator will still want to sell the club as a going concern and as such will sell assets (players) only as and when they need to keep the club fulfilling fixtures. The big unknown is how much cash there is in the bank accounts and did Mel Morris leave enough for the next 2 month wages, my considered view is that Quantum will be on an earner to sell the club asap 

I wonder if the club can call in cash owed to it by Morris for the stadium sale?