alexxxxx

Would love to his posts on ltlf but cba to scroll through that site tonight...

This ain't the end of the punishment. The 'business plan' will prevent any true investment in the squad. 

Apart from total annihilation/expulsion/liquidation/demolition of pride park you'll never get some fans of some clubs to believe we ever had any punishment.

At this point I'm not really sure what any further punishment really achieves apart from just pissing off Derby fans (unless collective fan punishment is what they're going for).

Everyone responsible has long gone.

Mr p on otib still banging on about accounts.. none of his mates on there taking any notice.

I'm still not really sure why he's so upset about the accounts not being on CH as Q agreed a punishment for p&s. 

He's just upset that we might survive as a going concern.

2 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Sorry but can't feel any relief, excitement on hearing the news. With all the conditions in the contract that's been signed, it still leaves the club in limbo, unable to sign players and sell season tickets. It's just an extension under another name.

Yea to me, unless there's been a significant deposit been paid this is just a way to keep Ashley out. It's unclear what the penalties are for not completing the deal.

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not surprised. Can't be arsed to read it.

 

I kind of get it... But equally i think they need to be careful that the EFL doesn't overreach here. With the football creditors rule etc I do wonder whether the government might be upset with this, if it is seen to put another obstacle in the way of a legal process. There is also the very obvious conflict of interest issue.

I assume he's off to 5 live. Heard him on there doing bits and pieces before.

They'd never be able to sort out the fixtures so it all worked for either forest or county.

I could swallow my pride and watch Derby at home at the city ground but I don't think that many others could haha.

I think it'd have to be Leicester.. 

5 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

I struggle to understand why we make it so easy for landlords to own so much property. Hard to see what real benefit having loads of private landlords has.

I guess a big change in rules would cause an immediate shock to the housing market, that may have unintended consequences.

Perhaps regularly increasing taxation on earnings of 2nd properties could do the trick, with much more aggressive tax where multiple properties are owned.

All those empty properties owned by foregin investors too. Surely that is easy to sort out as well?

Trouble is property is big busienss and there will always be ways for landlords to set up companies to run their operations from. You can then sell the companies on to other landlords when you want to cash out and not have to pay stamp duty.

People are going in to property and landlording because it's seen as a lucrative investment.

Down south the market is so bad, I know people in London who rent a house they can't afford to buy, but actually own and let out property.

Could write on forever about the housing market but would get on for being political.

The long term 0% IR has basically ruined the housing market and the wider economy. Now you've got millions of people on low rate mortgages, if it was to go up to 3/4% you'd get a load of defaults and reduce everyone's disposable income. Dunno what the solution is apart from flooding the market with more homes.

House price rises need to be targeted to match inflation - also bear in mind inflation rates don't include house price rises... It's a massive drag on the economy.

I've paid probably paid £70k in rent personally over the past 10 years or so which makes me a bit sick thinking about it.

Hopefully next year I'll be finally in a  position to pay a small fortune to buy a 2 bed flat in London.

I think we need more flats too, but the leasehold stuff can be really bad and the new estates are cookie cutter and badly served by buses and other services. We need some creativity and not just leaving it to redrow homes and co to sort out.

45 minutes ago, angieram said:

They literally couldn't be further away and still in the ground! 

Yea sorry, i forgot about the reason, but there is some operational reason related to the train station and holding fans which means they have to stay on the side of the stadium that they're in.

11 minutes ago, DerbyRevolution said:

another idea would be to move away fans to the north stand. when we restrict sheff wed and sunderland to 3000 when they probably want 5000 we'll be throwing money away 

Doubt they'll move the away fans again.

I think they need to be that side in order to be closer to the station.

We are gonna have to sign a brand new squad. We won't know if we have the strength at all for a long time. Bear in mind, we will have spending caps enforced by EFL... I doubt we'll be promoted at first attempt.

Get proper food trucks outside.. burgers with fried onions need some competition.

I'm not totally sold on this guy but if we can field a team come August then I'll be satisfied. I suppose he has some more funding behind this than his own personal funding.

I do have questions over his conduct.. I would much prefer an Appleby led consortium but can't see that happening now.

Tomori could have been in the world Cup squad for Canada but instead fails to get a look in for the England squad, even though he's first choice for Milan.

You can see why players do it.

I reckon if they announce tonight, it'll be after Rooney comes off camera.

I think a bit of an update from Q is needed. It's endless speculation on here... 

Football creditors have to be paid, that's the absolute minimum to remain in the league. 

Hmrc need to be paid enough to accept. 

I've always wanted Appleby ever since it was rumoured he would be back. I'm actually gutted he's not in already. 

Who are the other 3 bidders? 

Assume Ashley and the Binnies(?). Maybe msd? 

20 minutes ago, whiteroseram said:

 

Same Simon Jordan who reckoned Erik Alonso is the real deal? 

Simon Jordan is just a content provider for talksport. People should remember that.. 

36 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Imagine derby is liquidated, that's bad.

Yet it gives the opportunity to totally rebuild under a new name.

It gives the opportunity to buy a club in League Two and rebrand that club as say Derby AFC.

Still keeping a version of Derby as  a club.

It removes the hmrc debt, msd debt, arsenal debt etc

I'm not sure Derby if there would be the money to buy Chesterfield or Burton  and rebrand them.

That could leave a club like Mansfield vulnerable.

A mansfield rebrand wouldn't give Derby much, there grounds not great, there players are not great and how do you move the ground to Derby.

Recall Wimbledon afc plays in Milton Keynes a very long way from Wimbledon, that club was rebranded.

It might be an extreme solution.

It might appear strange to buy a club in League Two for about 10 million and rebrand, but I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that cant be done.

Under that scheme finding new owners seems more probable.

 

I think there are rules now. 

And even if this was possible, I wouldn't support the destruction of either of these clubs for our fanbases benefit. Would be horrible. 

I think we are done sadly, and I feel that I'm starting to accept this eventuality. 

I suspect we'll still be a club by next season in league 1, with some ancient players on 6month contracts, but doubt we'll make Christmas and fold.

The second leg against Southampton was an incredible game.. The despair of Rasiak's goal and the elation at idiakez's penalty miss really sticking in my mind. Not that they were strictly of derbys doing.

I think the government understand Putin's view I just don't think negotiating with him recognising those views as legitimate in negotiation is ever going to be seen as the right thing to do by the west. 

The west didn't intervene in 2014 and allowed crimea to be annexed in to Russia proper and allowed Russian troops to take over areas of donbass. What happened then? Minsk agreements which were never properly followed by all parties.

Russia doesn't respect Ukraines territorial integrity and therefore no agreement will ever be made 

58 minutes ago, Anon said:

Actually I'm not sure. I know that Sky pulled their channel out of choice without waiting for the verdict of an Ofcom investigation. With regards to free to air, I don't know who made the call.

The satellite used to distribute sky tv is owned and operated by a Luxembourgish company hence to comply with EU law it was pulled from the satellite by the operator (and therefore sky).