alexxxxx

Hows he beaten from that angle??? 

Nothing but 3pts today lads 

Braves won it all in the end. Don't tend to watch the world series as its on too late but glad it was someone other than the dodgers and astros tbh

8 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

 

If these posts (and this response) don't get deleted, they will forever be available to the eyes and minds of the worldwide public, and forever be associated with "Derby County fans".

Let that sink in!  ?

Yeah they're really bad takes this is nothing like racism. 

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Well yes the £100,000 fine for allegedly not following an accounting standard (actually a failing if anything by our auditors) is about the size of it.. a smaller fine than Leeds got for spying on us. Did leeds get threatened with relegation for their crime.. I don't think so. 

I think the problem with the LAP/DC decision was that although it found Derby guilty it couldn't seem to guide the efl and Derby to a solution to the amortisation policy issue. The restating accounts requirement has clearly just kicked the can further down the road.

We're nearly 3 months in from submitting p and s and yet we've still got no idea how much we've allegedly broken p&s rules and no independent panel has even yet to be called. 

I know this is boring but I've been pulled in to reading otib and their discussion on us. 

I don't really understand their obsession with us not filing accounts with CH like it's a crime against humanity. I thought it was known that the reason why we've not filed accounts was due to the fact that a fundamental feature of our accounting process has been under scrutiny for so long (years and years) by the efl. Hence why they've not been filed. I also don't quite understand why this in itself has given us (or not) a sporting advantage. Is not filing accounts with CH an offence in itself with proscribed penalty? Surely it is dependent on the outcome of discussions with the efl about the acceptability of amortisation techniques which has been ongoing for literally 2+years?

The DC was clear in that the breach in how the amortisation was described and evidenced in the accounts only merited a small punishment... Any case leading on from that should be based on its own merits.

Derby will eventually be punished (or not, if nothing to answer for) for breaking the rules and an appropriate penalty will be applied. 

Its clear Derby and the efl (and by extension the other clubs) don't trust each other... The independent panels are the best way to resolve this. 

I feel like the whole thing is so blown out of proportion and the background to the whole thing matters. 

Administration is a separate issue and we'll see what happens. 

1 hour ago, Malty said:

Yes, this could be a positive. i.e. we have a real chance of winning our appeal and the EFL have to get their own rules changed quickly to stop an avalanche of clubs going into administration and claiming force majeur as well.

they have to act quickly to change their own rules accordingly. Meanwhile Derby could actually “get away with it” and be successful on appeal … then ironically support the EFL when they propose a rule change to stop other teams doing the same.

The other irony is that Derby seem to have been the master of identying loopholes and being successful in exploiting them (with the possible exception of amortisation). This one they could have been successful in almost by chance rather than design!!

I have half a mind that in a week or so’s time our points deduction will change to minus 6 … then it’s a case of arguing the other points deduction ….

… and by the way on the other front we have no obligation to file accounts for the previous company that is now in administration … and therefore the efl can’t very easily prove that we have failed prs. Unless of course we decide to be really nice and present them with revised accounts … but why would we do that?

We might get away with minus 6 only. now wouldn’t that be brilliant!

Thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable, but still brilliant!!
 

I doubt the efl would drop the requirement for submission of p&s statements. They'll probably have to drop the requirement for submitting accounts to CH. 

10 hours ago, Chester40 said:

That anyone still cares is the more surprising thing.

He's obviously garbage or has serious problems being a professional football player and had an agent who's been successful in hyping him up. 

I'm always skeptical of tech bros. Promise more than they deliver. Let's see... Perhaps there's more cash than him or he's part of a consortium lead by gse. 

13 minutes ago, The Baron said:

 

6: I’m in favour as self regulation has not been an overwhelming success, but it won’t be a silver bullet, just look at regulators such as OFCOM and the water industry. Effectiveness will depend on the powers of the regulator and whether they want to be unpopular with club owners or not.

 

I think the problem that Derby fans have with is that the efl have show to be very poor at self regulation. The opaqueness of how decisions are made on what charges to persue etc seem like they're open to political motivation. The EFLs language in their 'disappointment' in being unable to punish us further and their actions in producing an interchangeable fixture list, for example seems inappropriate for an impartial body. 

I enjoy your podcast kieran just not so much when you're talking about us! 

3 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

It is not wrong logically at all.

Our appeal is based on COVID being the sole reason for going in to administration. If it can be argued that our poor business practices and poor financial state meant we were less resilient to external factors, then that means COVID was not the sole reason for us going in to administration.

COVID was one of the factors, probably even the biggest factor, but was it the only one? Of course not.

I hope we get the deduction reduced or overturned, but I rate the chances of it happening as much as I rate my chances of winning the lottery.

Surely it's about at the time the club goes in to admin rather than what would have happened without covid. 

The reason we're in administration is because we can't service the debt (as Mel can't/won't do it). Maybe It could be proven that covid was the sole reason we went under because revenues due to covid were too low to be matched with mels cash to service the debt and operate the club. 

Its only on Derby to prove, not the efl to disprove, so it's not beyond the possibility that Derby could prove it. 

I also don't think the overall resilience of the club is that relevant to proving whether covid was the only reason it went under. It either went under due to covid or it didn't?

My view on the whole thing is that the government are going back to their policy of too little too late as of this time last year. 

Its not a binary of lockdown and no lockdown... There's plenty of stuff to do in the middle like making sure people get their boosters... Double vaccinating teenagers... And dare I say it, vaccine/test passports. 

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?