Shipley Ram

I'm feeling a bit down now we are in the Tommy Docherty era.

I'm feeling a bit down now we are in the Tommy Docherty era.

It's a bit more than that, they want to be copied in to all correspondence, with their record of leaking things to the press this is worring.

It's a bit more than that, they want to be copied in to all correspondence, with their record of leaking things to the press this is worring.

It's a bit more than that, they want to be copied in to all correspondence, with their record of leaking things to the press this is worring.

I'm just catching up after doing a maths exam this afternoon, I'm so depressed I want to go back to the world of differential equations and vector dot products.

I'm just catching up after doing a maths exam this afternoon, I'm so depressed I want to go back to the world of differential equations and vector dot products.

I'm just catching up after doing a maths exam this afternoon, I'm so depressed I want to go back to the world of differential equations and vector dot products.

I'm just catching up after doing a maths exam this afternoon, I'm so depressed I want to go back to the world of differential equations and vector dot products.

I've got to take the dog out, I expect this all to be settled by the time I get back.

I've got to take the dog out, I expect this all to be settled by the time I get back.

I've got to take the dog out, I expect this all to be settled by the time I get back.

Went to see the Huddersfield Town reaction, first topic I opened, would appear that Bamford has been adopted over there as well as an insult ?
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

I am suspicious that if Mel was doing it would be found to be outside the rules.

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

Although I don't have an issue with most of your work I do have an issue with the language you use. As I understand it the change in policy didn't reduce overall losses but moved them to a later accounting period. The way you worded your statement encouraged people to think the losses had been magically disaapeared rather than kicked down the road. This has provided ammunition to those who accuse Derby of systematically cheating, which deeply pi**es me off.
As far as I can see Mel saw a grey area he could take advantage of and recklessly steamed into it. The EFL just shugged their shoulders and ignored the matter, despite getting your letter informing of the impications, untill they were threatened with legal action.   Then then went back and charged us for the whole period, their cheer leaders from Middlesbrough and Wycome then weighed in with their systematically cheating alligations, which I think were against EFL rules and they should have been charged for.
We were found guilty of being in breach of FRS 102 due to professor Pops evidence which atated there was not a sufficient resale market for our system to work and that the amortorisation represented there value on the field and should be a straight line. This appear to be at odds with the policy of Stoke and others to reduce the values below a straight line and attribute the losses to Covid. Surley if you rely of professors Popes evidence that their values should be on a stright line reduction this policy is also against FRS 102? 
I'm happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted anything.
 

You must have been close to me, I can see my mum in your picture but I'm not there yet.

I'm listerning to Benjamin Bloom and he kepps mentioning  the Leeds playoff game, that makes me smile.

I'm listerning to Benjamin Bloom and he kepps mentioning  the Leeds playoff game, that makes me smile.