Tamworthram

21 hours ago, Rample said:

1 year deal, nothing lost really.

There's definitely a championship player there if we can get and keep him fit. 

All I would say is be aware of his injury record and make sure that is factored in, he can't be recruited as first choice striker. I'd want 2 more strikers in aswell to ensdure we don't get caught short again.

Except for a place in the squad and his wages that could be offered to someone else.

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Correct. I believe that unless we match his existing wage, even for a shorter contract, we're not entitled to any compensation.

Seems a bit shortsighted, if true, unless he really is on a wage that doesn't fit into our new salary structure.

As you say, that could be the point. If his current salary is outside of our new salary structure and we'd offered him an extension on the same terms (just to make sure we get compensation), he might well have snapped our hands off (depending on what his actual salary was and what he agent can get for him at other clubs).

Just to counter balance the comments I’ve placed on the “things that should work but don’t thread”, I’ve recently had three appointments at Solihull and Heartlands hospital in Birmingham. In each case, I was in and out within an hour. I also had a CT scan at Solihull on a Sunday. I wasn’t even there long enough to trigger a parking fee.

2 hours ago, Day said:

NHS.

Currently sat in Derby A&E, what a horror show this place is.

Nothing serious, mums had an allergic reaction to penicillin. Got rushed to hospital, spent an hour outside in an ambulance as no beds available.

Since then we’ve been left in corridors with patients abandoned all over, 6 hours later finally got her into a Bay Area to see a doctor.

One guy spewed everywhere in his bay, took a good half hour before anyone went to clean it.

It’s not full of drunken people either, mainly older people.

I have been at the hospital for 9 hours with my daughter over the last two days (for booked appointments I might add, not A&E).

On Thursday she was told she needed an injection. We could either wait “a few hours” (it was already 5pm) for the pharmacy to make it up or, they’d order it and we could come back in the morning when it would be ready and waiting. Of course we chose the latter.

Needless to say, it wasn’t ready and we had to wait another 3 hours. Even when they said it was ready and they were sending a porter to collect it it still took another 40 minutes to arrive. It must be a damn long walk from the ward to the pharmacy.

Regarding A&E, I know as you say lack of rooms is a problem but so is lack of staff. I was there (Sutton Coldfield, not Derby) recently with my father in law. There was one nurse having to keep an eye on three different bays at once. And yet, in the ward where my daughter was (don’t forget, booked appointments only) there were three nurses doing not much at all. On Thursday I heard one of them say to another “we don’t have any scans booked for tomorrow. What are we going to do?” I guess it’s not as simple as it sounds but you’d think the department could “lend” a nurse to A&E (and recall her if things suddenly got busy). She might not have the specialist knowledge to do a great deal in A&E but she could have helped keep an eye on patients (in my scenario) and cleaned up the vomit etc (in your example).

I’m not blaming the nurses (except the one that it would seem failed to order the injection from the pharmacy).

3 hours ago, cstand said:

If you live in an unstable country like Mexico where drug cartels, and corruption is part of every day life it would be very risky to buy Silver or Gold without the drug cartels finding out. 

Buying crypto would be more secretive unless you brag about, so would be a safer option in a country with a high murder rate.

Obviously there is no guarantee but it is a factor I had never thought about before when considering why people would want to buy crypto instead of PMs

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

 

Is buying Crypto any more secretive (from the people likely to kill you) than buying gold or silver? 

I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that Mexico has a very high murder rate but I'm not sure there is any correlation between that and crypto sales.

14 hours ago, cstand said:

Mexico stock market dropped 11% after electing a leftwing president.

Bitcoin now over $70,000 up 2% Gold down 1% 

All a bit bizarre but if you live in a country with high inflation, corruption and high death rate Bitcoin might make sense.

Would Bitcoin protect you from death? If so, someone is missing a massive USP. 

6 hours ago, ramit said:

I was going to write something, but it would offend too many of my fellow Rams, for after a couple, I have a tendency for cruelty.

Suffice to say, I am anti war, no matter the cause, the date or the excuses.

Let reason prevail, may war forever be forbidden.

I suspect the overwhelming majority (if not all) posters on this forum are anti war. However, to rely on reason prevailing would only be feasible if the world was entirely made up of reasonable people which, of course, it isn’t. 
 

Off to the Dordogne on Sunday for 12 nights. I normally drive (via the Tunnel) but this year we're flying into Bergerac then heading east to Vitrac.

9 hours ago, ram59 said:

I didn't realise that they'd spent so much, as you say, the gamble didn't pay off. Their parachute payments will be taken up paying for all those signings and their wages.

Isn’t that the point/problem with parachute payments? They can afford to blow that sort of money on players who collectively weren’t good enough to compete in the Premier League but might well be far too good for the Championship (depending on whether they were wise signings and who their next manager will be).

20 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Yes - that's the letter of the law in general terms, but there are always "exceptional circumstances" where the referee is allowed to take a decision with authority. From the rulebook

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, ‘what would football want/expect?’ The Laws must also contribute to the safety and welfare of players and it is The IFAB’s responsibility to react quickly and appropriately to support the game’s participants

In this case, the ref decided not to play the additional minute as the season was over and the table decided, and it was deemed an unnecessary risk to continue 

Fair enough then. We’ll call it a draw. One right and one wrong. 😀

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I'm sure I read that the 4th official informed the ref via his headset that the Bolton game had finished as a draw, therefore the result of our game was no longer of any relevance to the final standings, therefore the injury time in our game was rendered pointless.

Under the laws of the game, the referee has the discretion to end a game before the injury time is up if there are external circumstances that dictate it. In this case the match was a dead rubber, and neither team had any reason to object to ending the game early 

The crowd were not on the pitch, they were behind the advertising hoardings, which is where a lot of people stand for entire games now in the South Stand. No one entered the field of play while the game was in progress

Nothing to see here

You’re actually wrong on two accounts I believe.

1) Not all the fans were behind the advertising hoardings.

2) According to the FA rules of the game, the referee cannot reduce the minimum time added on:

The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced.

2 hours ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I don't think they can set that precedent though. If they were to deduct points for us for example where there was no trouble or complaints from opposition players or officials, they'd have to do the same with all the other teams who invaded the pitch.

If opposition players are targeted then they should hand out a punishment. But I do remember going to see Chesterfield win the L2 title around 10 years ago and a portion of their fans battered the Bury keeper that day and the club just got off with a warning, which I don't think is enough.

I think there is a precedent for “being charged” for failing to control your fans but certainly not for any points deduction (apart from the suspended deduction for Reading but that was because their pitch invasion was an orchestrated event to disrupt the game). The worst we’ll all get (which is what I said, if they’re going to charge us then they they’d probably also have to the likes of Ipswich and Wrexham) if anything, is a fine IMO.

If the referee thought the game couldn’t continue because his assistants were impeded (you’d think that would have come out of his report long ago), they he could have paused the game whilst the touchlines were cleared.

8 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Its deliberate to avoid fans having to travel too far. There are apparently lots of considerations that go into the fixture list. Its not just "computer says!". I don't think clubs have too much say in it but can make requests.

The football authorities having a concern for fans travelling to away games? That'll never catch on. 😀

I do seem to recall listening to, or watching, a short programme about how the fixtures are initially generated automatically but then someone spends hours manually amending it in order to take account of major events and local rivals not playing at home at the same time.

7 hours ago, The Jeff Bourne Legacy said:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Pompey fans are unsure if their charge is for the pitch invasion after the winning goal or after the final whistle, or both.

In Derbys case, supporters around the edge of the pitch were impacting on the referees assistants being able to do their jobs without obstruction. Did this lead to the ref blowing the final whistle (2 mins) early ?

Whatever the reason, he did blow the final whistle before any supporters entered the field of play so the game did finish before the 'invasion'.

Recent examples of pitch invasion charges include Carlisle being fined £5,000 and Sheff Weds £50,000 after their playoff semi finals last year against Bradford and Peterborough.

Reading were given a suspended 3 point deduction last season after a pitch invasion caused their game against Port Vale to be abandoned.

There are further examples at the end of this season of on pitch celebrations at Man City, Southampton, Bolton, Wrexham, Mansfield, Chesterfield, Stockport and Leicester.

Football Authorities couldn't hand out fines and warnings to these 9 clubs and then relegate Derby, could they.

 

Absolutely zero chance of that happening. As you’ve pointed out, there is no precedent for a points deduction even at Reading where the sole purpose of the invasion was to disrupt the game. No points deduction, not even suspended I reckon, but possibly a fine. If we’re lucky, just a telling off.

4 hours ago, Crewton said:

Yes, I've had many business dealings with Russians, and a couple with Chinese business people and one job with the Chinese Government, and I found each extremely fair and honest, while driving hard bargains. The Americans lied, often to cover their own asses, didn't stick to agreements and were worse than Arab Clients  for paying their bills. Of course, that's just my experience, but it's coloured my views of Americans in business - but  I've heard similar from others. It seems to be their culture, but I don't have to like or tolerate it.

I think we have to be careful of generalisation. Our American owners prior to Mel Morris were OK weren't they?

4 minutes ago, RhylRam said:

Just read on the BBC website that Portsmouth have been charged by the EFL with misconduct ( failing to control their supporters )  It was because of the fans pitch  invasion after the Barnsley match in April  which clinched their promotion  Wondering if we will be charged as well for same reasons   🫣🐏 

Possibly, although wasn't a Barnsley player allegedly injured during the Portsmouth pitch invasion?

If they charge us then there are no doubt a few others including Wrexham and Ipswich at risk. 

51 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I see everyone is staying nice and patient. Willing to throw everything up in the air and take risks, just to see a premier league game at Pride Park. Unfortunately for them, I don't think Clowes will take chances with the Rams' existence and they'll just have to chill their bones until he believes he's found the right investment partner.

To be fair, I think most of us on this forum may have expressed a desire to see us play in the Premier League again sometime (but haven't been demanding an immediate return) and others have simply said that now is good time to be seeking new investors. I haven't ploughed through the whole thread but I'm not sure there are any/many advocating throwing caution to the wind in order to achieve a return to the "promised land".

33 minutes ago, Dimmu said:

I heard a crazy rumour today!

According the murmurs from the MLS, we would be after Teemu Pukki. 

There’s a huge list of factors against such move 😆

Not least of which being the fact that he's 34 and has wondered off to the retirement home (for some) of MLS.

49 minutes ago, Ram-Alf said:

Media apathy...imo, Gaza has taken the headlines, Worldwide protests, Mass killings, USA president desperate for this to end, While there "was" the same in Ukraine only a few months back 🤷‍♂️

Russia take Ukraine villages, Ukraine fight back, Putin has one of his homes burned down, Ukraine struggling for fighters, Russia fooling foreigners with good paying jobs only to find themselves fighting in a War, Western leaders giving Ukraine arms that will go deep into Russia, Ukraine bomb the Crimea ports and destroy Russian ships, Russia threatening NATO with WW3, North Korea/China backing Putin, Russia paying Western citizens to spy on their homeland are all in the media...but you have to look for it.

It's "forgotten" in the main by those who are in the media...but not those who would like to live in a World that could just get along with each other...ie World Leaders 🙄  

 

 

I don’t think it’s forgotten by the media more a case of not enough space to fit it in. They’ve got to find room for the stories about Prince Harry and Taylor Swift (not together obviously 😀) somehow.

Seriously though, the media reports what it thinks its viewers and readers want to see and read. If news about the relative stalemate in Ukraine is trumped (pun intended) by other by other news in their minds then updates on the war are bound to be pushed down the pecking order.

7 hours ago, 1of4 said:

A week as past since the announcement of our pre-season trip to Chesterfield. There's been no update of when tickets for this game will go on sale.

When the Matlock game was announced, the tickets were put on sale soon afterwards.

Can the ticket offices of both clubs get their finger out and get the tickets on sale. If for some reason they can't start selling them, can they at least announce when and how we will be able to purchase them.  So I don't have to keep checking both clubs website every day for updates.

Yeh, come Derby. It’s “only” 8 weeks until the game, people need to know now. #shambolicclub. 😀

5 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Because I think some of the observations they make are accurate, though they tend to bleed into lazy stereotypes.

Gen Z does generally have a very different attitude to work and 9-5s than any other generation before it. I just don't think that can be disputed. The problem is when it becomes "Gen Z are lazy and don't want to work".

Being accurate doesn’t necessarily make them useful. Plus, as you say, they do tend to bleed into lazy stereotyping and the degree of generalising makes them potentially useless rather than useful. I would hope that no sane person (that criteria doesn’t necessarily eliminate a great deal of people 😀) is going to prejudge an individual or treat them a certain way purely based on the generation they were born in.

51 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

The biggest thing for me is he will go for free with no compensation due. 
 

Just another legacy of Mel’s regime unfortunately.

Am I missing something (quite likely)?

Not particularly wishing to defend him but how is losing Sibley (if he does actually go) with zero compensation down to Mel? 

He survived the cull required to survive administration and if the current ownership/management regime thought he was worthy, we could offer him terms sufficient to generate a compensation payment.

14 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think they're fairly useful generalizations. I'm only just starting to notice significant differences between Millennials and Gen Z. A few years back, it was Millennials that pretty much ran social media, for example, but now it's dominated by Gen Z. You can see a big difference in humour and personality.

Genuine question: How is it useful? Other than for marketing purposes which, means it’s nothing new it’s just that we’ve attached a label to different generations. Any business half decent at marketing (since marketing was invented) would have identified their target audience and designed their product/service (along with the associated branding, promotion and advertising) to appeal to that group.

8 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Not at all surprised if Sibley doesn't stay, but I'd be amazed if he went to Rotherham. With Warne and Evans's close relationship, Rotherham is the least likely team in the country to want to play Sibs as their goalscoring attacking midfielder. And involves dropping a division when he's comfortably played at Championship level earlier in his career. 

If as suggested we've not matched his previous wages, it would be a bargain free transfer for someone with no compensation to pay us, and surely terrible business on our part. I'd actually expect us to have matched his old contract to avoid that happening. The dirties did seem keen before, and maybe will be back in again: https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/louie-sibley-leeds-united-transfer-19090059

What if we’d offered to match his wages just to avoid losing him with no compensation and he decided to stay? Meaning we’d end up with a player on a higher wage than PW/SP/DC thought he was worth thus reducing our wage budget available for other players. That could be perceived as even worse business.

(Note before anyone pounces [you know who you are], I am not providing any opinion as to what I think Sibley is worth or trying to guess how much he was earning before, we have now offered him or what any other club may have offered him.😀).

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Because I thought I'd say  WHY I thought they'd offer more than we might, if they have.

I get that but I don't know why you said "or perhaps" - implying I'd suggested an alternative reason.