AutoWindscreens

9 hours ago, Ram@Lincoln said:

That, and a shared bank account that gives a Google maps location of every transaction. 

And that is why cash is king!

2 hours ago, scout's dad said:

I took a double look as I thought we’d got Pep?

Papa John's Pep...

Peppa John's?

7 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Not really. I think there was always a plan and the various parts of the plan have happened:

 1. Appoint LR as interim manager.

2. Set a review date.

3. Hold a Board meeting on the review date.

4. At the review, list the +ve progress and weigh up the -ve

5. Come to a Board decision. ie Appoint LR permanently or decide on alternative. 
 

The 1st international break is an obvious review date. Hence it’s happened. 
 

What is encouraging is the Club has followed a logical and planned sequence and used evidence to form a judgement. Sounds like mature stewardship to me; and I agree with it. The Away form is key but also home game victories have not once been convincing really. 
 

LR gets to stay as a Coach. I hope he does. He’ll benefit and learn from a chap who has greater experience of what it takes. 
 

Why speculate that something sinister {implied} was behind it? ?‍♂️

 

I have a feeling Rosenior knew that a review was coming up, from what he was saying at the weekend. It was noticeable that he was emphasising his role in building the team: James Chester told him that he knew he would play for him one day; Conor Hourihane only came here after he called him 15 times; he had known Curtis since he was 18 and they had a great relationship.

15 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

1.How you going to do that then and 2.where do you stop?

1. Easy

2. When he is not sitting on an unearned £1bn of property which represents land grabbed by feudal lords over the centuries

?  

37 minutes ago, sage said:

As well as he has played for us, i don't see him playing regularly in the PL. More due to lack of pace rather than height.   

Will be excellent for us in this division and the next. 

Agreed. When we get to the Prem we'll just get Tomori back in alongside him.

1 hour ago, RAM1966 said:

I appreciate we've not had as much time to prepare, if its down to fitness that's fair enough.

As I've said, its not a major criticism, its just an observation that LR seems to be at the moment struggling with addressing second half tactical changes.

I'd really like LR to succeed, he's stayed when he could of gone to Blackpool.  He's still learning as a manager and 6 points out of 9 is not a bad return either, so Im not lambasting him just yet.

But it is not just down to LR's instructions. Adapting to the other team's changes is easier when you have a settled team who know how they all work together. The players on the pitch and especially the leaders can see where changes are affecting them. If you have only just started playing together it's not that easy.

1 hour ago, Dimmu said:

It's one of the chapters in The Great Book of Emptiness. Other chapters worth mentioning are "Russian War Heroes" and "Oasis: All the hits".

Now you're showing your Finnishness - in England people say Italian War Heroes!

13 hours ago, David said:

It’s one of those unwritten rules in my book, right next to never bet on the early kick off.

How do you have an unwritten rule in a book?

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Yep , got to say it was really heartwarming to hear how clowes spoke about Lionel, at the very worst we have a club left to support and it’s in the hands of someone who knows and loves the club

To hear him talking about crying when he heard that the takeover was done almost set me off again...

I feel bonded to him knowing that he was crying at the same time I was, about the same thing.

?

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

went to the cricket last time it was really hot. My mate soaked his y fronts in water, put them in the freezer overnight, then put them on under his shorts before we left for the game. Tip he got from women’s hour but the water was his idea. He said at first they were rigid so a bit scratchy - he blamed his shoes but he was walking oddly plus he said his willy was numb. Then they quickly got soggy. He claimed it was a brilliant idea but as they melted if looked from the front like he’d peed himself, worse from the back and at one stage it looked like the security guys on the gate weren’t going to let him in . He’s still walking pretty strangely and has some sort of fungal rash.
Anyway you could give that a go ?

Thanks for a morning chuckle. It's not often I laugh out loud in the coffee shop. ?

6 hours ago, jono said:

We’re going up …. Like the cheese burgers 

You mean, coming back up, like the cheese burgers? 

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

I’m thinking great signing 

Did anyone else click thinking this was a link?

48 minutes ago, whestonram said:

Well, I'm asking you to support me in addressing a petition to David Clowes.  And I am hoping that he'll have the same view as me about what is morally correct.

Yes I do support you. I was meaning to say that it was not really fair to criticize you for putting 'pressure' on David Clowes by saying that 'he's a good guy - I'm sure he'll listen', when you were not addressing that comment to David Clowes, but to us.

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Stating "David Clowes is a good guy - I'm sure he'll listen" is vastly different from telling him what "[you] think is morally correct".

True, except he's not talking to David Clowes, he's talking to us.

14 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Fair enough. I like having a flutter and am happy to have gambling companies as sponsor at any time. I've found betting on a game has been a fun thing to do for many years, just as drinking at a game has. Humans are social animals and these things add to the mix and I'd suggest it's a strange attitude to partake in either but then want the names of the companies involved banned from the ground. As noted in the thread, the National Lottery is the biggest form of gambling in in country and I'd be delighted if they want to put Lotto on the Derby shirts. I feel there are too many morality lessons from the middle classes pervading society nowadays, who don't like seeing what us dirty oiks get up to.

I don't think anyone is telling you what to do. 

The petition is not about what you get up to.

I signed the petition because I don't want our club to lend its support to online gambling companies. Online gambling is designed to be addictive, and the online gambling companies pursue the addicts for every penny they have and then some. It's a long way from the Saturday coupon.

That's not telling anyone they can't have a bet, is it?

1 hour ago, David said:

Sorry but it's not, gambling is normal, it is something millions in this country have enjoyed for many years without having problems.

Paddy Power are not beheading people in Ireland and looking to use football as a way to improve their reputation, hey look, we love sport, let us buy your club and sign lots of players so you can defend us.  

Many arguments can be made against gambling, taking it down the sports washing path is a terrible path to take this conversation down.

I'm not saying its sportswashing.

I'm saying that the normalization has gone way too far and entrapped too many people. Plenty of grownups enjoyed a bet before deregulation and that's fine by me. But the amount of money in gambling advertising now tells you how much more money is being hoovered up since deregulation. There is absolutely no question on the facts that deregulation has led to thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) more problem gamblers. It's their money that pays for the dividends and the shirt sponsorship (and let's not kid ourselves that the companies give a flying one about them).

16 minutes ago, David said:

I will politely decline to answer your question as you still refuse to answer my simple question that was made in response to your initial post, would removing a gambling logo from the front of a football shirt, make gambling less socially acceptable. 

Yes it would. The logos on the shirts are part of a system designed to make it seem normal and everyday.

40 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

It's terribly sad to hear when people have problems, but for me it's wrong to use that to stop the vast majority who don't. And it is the vast majority. Derby are in the financial mire, have just come out of administration and need access to every penny we can get to make it back onto an even keel. The petitioning and banning culture isn't for me and people at the club should not be made to feel bad for doing deals with bookmakers. Every sympathy for the loss of the original poster, but no to the campaign.

Making a decision not to put gambling companies on shirts is not stopping the vast majority who don't have a problem from having a bet.

It's deciding not to be a part of a system designed to normalize gambling, which adds more and more young people to the list of those who do have problems and helps the gambling companies hoover up more cash.

I'm all for the petition, help turn off the ducking hoover (and I speak as a regular and reasonably happy gambler).

As for those who say we'll do it when we can afford it: if you only have principles when they are not uncomfortable then you don't have principles. And I don't believe that gambling money is the difference between survival and liquidation.

23 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Because the word "attendance" is in the dictionary. 
I've not checked, but I'm pretty confident it doesn't mean "Number of tickets sold", "Amount of income from sales", or any other such definition.  ?‍♂️
The two are different entities.  Different definitions.  Neither are right or wrong per sé, as stand alone announced figure(s), but they will never be the same thing. (They could of course feasibly be the same figure, technically speaking at least).

 

I sent 145 invitations to my birthday party.  For some inexplicable reason, only 19 people showed up.  I don't tell people 145 people came to my birthday party!  That would be lying!* 

EGs:

PA Guy 1:
"We can now announce the number of tickets sold for today's match is 27, 128.  We would like to thank you all for your continued custom".

PA Guy 2:
"We can now confirm today's attendance is 26, 876.  We would like to thank you all for your continued and loyal support.  The main Exit doors will be opened on 75 minutes, for your safety and comfort."

 

 

 

 

 

*The birthday party scenario was, of course, hypothetical... in reality, it was 15 that showed up, and 9 of them left before dark... and my birthday is in January!  ?  It's still inexplicable though, as I'm sure you'd agree!  ? 

It's a nice try Mucker, but your example only works if all those people also paid for ticket to come to your birthday party!!

Edit: I do agree with you on the meaning of attendance, though.

From the EFL statement, this is all good:

The League has already commenced the process in respect of its Owners and Directors’ Test, as well as an assessment of the ultimate source and sufficiency of funding to support the proposed business plan for the Club.

The League understands and acknowledges that there is a desire from Derby County’s stakeholders, including supporters and staff, for a swift conclusion to matters and its focus remains on the Club’s prompt exit from administration. 

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Makes a change from Nixon, but really I just like the picture! ?

 

 

That is the face of somebody who has finished the last strokes

35 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

It's my understanding that TUPE regulations aren't just for liquidation/administration stuff, it applies whenever a business is transferred to a new owner.  So all those situations would probably also apply to normal takeovers too, which would be absolute chaos.  All of Chelsea's players could tear up their contracts tomorrow, for example.

This below is what the BBC article says, is it right? 

If Derby survive it will be in the form of a new company since that is the only way of avoiding paying full liability to non-football creditors.

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Being lucky would have been just that, lucky.  A get out of jail free card. 

I think we can probably all agree the actual biggest mistake is signing the wrong players for too high prices (we've been through the list a million times on here already, so no need to do it again).  But I think the more subtle and interesting mistake is that we held on to players for too long.  We should never have convinced Bryson to stay when Burnley wanted him, for example.  The same with Keogh, Martin, and probably a lot more.  We ended up renewing their contracts and paying near-premier league salaries while we were in the championship.  And then most of them left for free.  If you look at Brentford, they do the opposite - they've moved on Watkins, Benrahma, Maupay and so on, and then use that money to go and get the next guy, while covering any overspend at the same time.

Very true. It was the wrong and expensive way to prove that we were a big and competitive club. Probably something to do with a rich man's vanity. 

Of course, the difference with Brentford is that they had rock solid confidence in their recruitment of the next guy...

8 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Would it not be beautiful (sort of), it is all sorted bang on page 1884.

tbh I think we are looking at 2000+

 

 

 

Maybe we can party like it's 1999