WestKentRam
-
Posts
568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WestKentRam
-
-
Can anyone enlighten me on why if he directly signed with Watford once his contract expired with us we would be due compensation, rather than going from Udinese to Watford?
-
1 hour ago, Jubbs said:
Derby 0-1 Preston - Didn't give an obvious foul on Sibley in the middle of the pitch, they went on the counter and scored in the 90th minute.
Other highlights of this game were:
Waghorn was sent off after 20 minutes.
Jozwiak was through on goal and a foul was then given against him.
5 minutes of added time at the end of the game at 0-0 were indicated, but when Sibley was fouled in the move they went on to score from this was in the 90+6th minute.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow and will keep my usual uncritical, open mind as to the referee's performance!
-
I remember watching a TV programme on referees' decision making a while ago, possibly the Redknapp and Carragher one, and was surprised that one of the referees said in the build up to the game they discuss which players to watch out for as known divers who try and con a decision from a referee etc.
In my naivety I thought that referees would enter each game with a clear, unbiased mind, but of course this is impossible. But to actively research each club before a game makes me think that biases are likely to enter their decision making. Unless referees live in some sort of monk like existence, with no access to the internet, social media, newspapers, or people with an interest in football to discuss clubs with, then pre-existing ideas are bound to influence them.
It isn't too much of a stretch to think that a referee, who is self employed and given a job to referee a game on a week to week basis, knows that that the organisation that ultimately funds their livelihood has stated on the record that they want Derby County relegated, and this influences their decision making during the match. I am sure it is not as overt as sitting around in a darkened room with orders to make sure a result goes a certain way and a conspiracy as such, but it would be unreasonable to think that biases do not occur in the decisions they make.
-
9 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:
Think we're going round in circles so I'll leave it here - totally agree it shouldn't have been a throw in. Everything that follows after that is in our own gift to make sure that Bournemouth didn't score.
Yes I agree with you on this, but just feel strongly this was their third attacking opportunity given by a poor officiating decision in the first half, and this gave them a distinct advantage.
On a separate point, while perusing info re the PGMOL while waiting for MOTD to start, I find it interesting to note that referees are classed as self employed and have a contract with the PGMOL for each individual match, lasting from the Monday before the match until the post-match report is completed.
https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/hmrc-v-professional-game-match-officials-ltd
Referees must be under some pressure to do well in each game, in case the EFL/PL/FA funded PGMOL decides not to require their services for future games.
-
6 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:
The nutmegs which Anthony did on Bielik to set their first goal up was not down to the standard of officiating.
I concur that it should have been a throw in however after that the clock resets and we didn't defend the next phase sufficiently enough hence why they scored.
Yes if it's wholly down to their player beating one of ours or our poor defending then fair do's. However, if an incorrect refereeing decision helped in this move or leads to the subsequent goal then they are being given a helping hand to win along the way.
-
15 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:
Not trying to be argumentative but once the throw in was given incorrectly isn't it up to us to then defend the next phase of play which we didn't do hence why they scored
Absolutely, but if they are given more potential scoring opportunities in a game than they would otherwise have had, because of favourable refereeing decisions, then because football is a low scoring game, we will be at a huge disadvantage unless every single situation is defended 100% effectively.
-
1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:
The EFL don't appoint matchday referees though do they
The PGMOL who oversee and appoint referees is funded by the PL, EFL and FA. I'm sure they are free from being biased by any agenda their effective employers may have.
-
I was at the game today, close to parallel with the six yard box and could clearly see the controversial decisions, apart from our penalty shout down the other end, and am seething. Football is a game of fine margins but with decisions going against us consistently like that we've no chance.
In the first half they had two attacks that were clearly offside in the build up but not given. From this I had a sense of what was going on and going to happen.
All too predictable that the ball went out of play that should have been our goal kick but ended as their throw in, they then took from the wrong place and scored from.
It's all very well saying we should have created more or taken our chances, but if opposition teams are gifted such an advantage I'm afraid any team will be hard pressed to overcome that.
The hard thing for me to take is when it is so obvious, it just spoiled the game as it then isn't really a sporting contest. The refereeing performance in 'Escape to Victory' seemed more even handed.
- angieram, Dordogne-Ram, Carl Sagan and 2 others
-
3
-
2
-
11 minutes ago, Foreveram said:
174 tickets in block 24 now on sale
It's obviously not an automatic process to release tickets in block order then, as when blocks 22 and 23 sold out yesterday, and all that was showing were wheelchair user/assistant tickets in block 24, it would have been easy to make the incorrect assumption that there were no standard tickets left in 24 or 21.
-
Has anyone bought tickets in block 21 for the Bournemouth away game via the club website?
It just seems a bit odd that this apparently is the last block to be released as they were being sold in the order of 22, 23, 24, 21.
Tickets were available for 22, 23, 24 this morning, now all gone apart from wheelchair user/assistant tickets in block 24, but no sign of 21 all day.
It may be block 21 sold out very early, despite being released last, as this is nearer the half way line than the corner. However it's making me paranoid this is linked to the lack of Quatuma statement and the club hasn't the funds to buy them from Bournemouth, if this is how it works, if they buy them in tranches from the home club as each stand fills.
-
9 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said:
No Mel Morris’s incompetence at running a football club and thinking he was too clever for the EFL were the main Factor.
So we broke a rule, that wasn't yet a rule, in what was defined by the LAP as not to be a conscious attempt at deception, and have been severely punished for this.
Some clubs in the Premier League employ people whose sole remit is to look at loopholes and to work up to the limit of P&S.
Consider Dele Alli's transfer to Everton, where a way of him playing but no transfer fee being paid until it can actually be afforded next season has been used.
The difference is Rick Parry has been trying to stamp his authority on the EFL since his appointment, and unfortunately we are the case that is being used as a warning to other clubs. In the PL those with the money tend to write the rules, whereas in the EFL other factors appear to be at play as there isn't a 'big six' and the huge TV money deal to keep everyone sweet.
-
To make it clear to anyone who thinks the EFL do not have a vendetta against us, exactly as Mel Morris stated, they wanted the points deduction that we have had this season, imposed last season, after the season had already finished, to ensure we were definitely relegated. This, again, is from the LAP document:
In the event that we were minded to impose a deduction of points, the EFL urged us to impose that deduction in the 2020/21 season.
The EFL was thus seeking (in effect) a retrospective points deduction; it was asking us to impose a points deduction for a season that had already been completed
-
6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:
Yes. Reflecting that the LAP judgement didn’t say: amortisation must be straight line. Instead it said: Derby’s method does not comply with FRS 102
Indeed, and the LAP said:
'Similarly, the Club knew that the Annual Accounts contained a description of the amortisation policy which we found to be non-compliant with FRS 102, but once again there is no basis on which to conclude that the Club knew (in the sense of ‘consciously appreciated’) that that description was non-compliant'
This compares with Leicester's huge £3.1m settlement for breaking FFP in that fateful 2013/14 season when they got promoted, where the EFL stated:
'the EFL acknowledges that the club did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive and that the dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the rules between the parties.'
I'm sure we all agree Leicester and Derby have both been punished to similar extents for differences in interpretation of the rules.
- Crewton, kevinhectoring and cosmic
-
1
-
2
-
Of course we are at a time critical moment in the club's history where we can't fight this now that makes it harder to take.
It is incredible that the logic from "EFL Clubs have agreed that a mandatory requirement for the amortisation of Player Registrations on a straight-line basis should be included" is that it wasn't a mandatory requirement before. But surely we were told it was so already, that led to us failing P&S, prolonged claims by Boro and Wycombe, and going into administration with a huge points deduction.
- cosmic and RadioactiveWaste
-
1
-
1
-
We all knew this was coming, but still feels like a kick in the guts.
The cynic in me wonders if Reading will now be conveniently allowed by the EFL to appeal at least some of their points deduction, given what Reading said at the time:
The breach of regulations was calculated across a period of four years, two of which were unavoidably yet significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
I'm not considering my own wishes with regard to the result tomorrow.
Have gone back to first principles and the question I am pondering is, what result does the EFL want and am working from there ?
-
27 minutes ago, Curtains said:
As a point of clarification, and for the avoidance of doubt, the EFL had not declared the claims made by Middlesbrough and Wycombe as football debt, rather that under the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy, the claims cannot be ignored. Put another way, the EFL cannot rule that they are not creditors as the claims may subsequently be upheld by independent process.
How the EFL's reply to you ties up with their statement of 4th Feb is beyond me:
Derby County considers those claims should not be treated as football related debts and that it would be wrong for the EFL to require the Club to have to continue to defend the claims as a condition of continuing membership in circumstances where they have been compromised by way of a restructuring plan. The EFL does not agree with that analysis.
- SaffyRam, RadioactiveWaste and Curtains
-
1
-
2
-
Phew. Never in doubt ?.
So my morning re-reading the 52 page League Arbitration Panel ruling in an attempt to find a loophole was wasted. My bleeding eyes are thankful, and so are my friends as now I'll have to find another topic of conversation...
-
Damn. Shop says 'THIS IS A PRE-ORDER ITEM. THIS ITEM SHIPS ON OR BEFORE Wednesday, 23 February 2022.'
Do they know something we don't?
Fight til the end on the day we play Millwall sounds good though.
-
40 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:
Thought some of this the tax due on the sale of the ground which was in effect a paper exercise.
Could explain why they would be likely to accept a low settlement as realistically it’s not money they have really lost out on.
I had asked this question of my accountancy snout, but was told the accounts to 2018 show the club made £40m when it sold the ground. There was no tax payable as the club had brought forward tax losses from prior years.
I would be intrigued to know over what time period following 2018 the sum owed to HMRC accrued. If it was mainly due to the change in amortisation procedure, that had initially been agreed with the EFL who then changed their minds after it had been used for some time, then this essentially would mean the EFL directly led to our financial difficulties by their retrospective rule change. I am hoping this is the case and am awaiting further accountancy advice... If not, it rather stuffs my narrative up!
-
39 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:
I admit I missed the source for this assertion. Do we have detail as to what was actually said ?? Of is it conjecture based on vague comments in the Boro intervention decision and from Parry ?
23 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:It’s in the IDC write up. Although IDC concluded there was nothing improper about that. Maybe IDC didn’t realise how this would play out because right now it doesn’t feel right at all.
I'd say it was more than vague comments in the League Arbitration Panel decision document of 26th October 2020. I agree, though, that the future significance of this and Boro's involvement and influence on the EFL perhaps hadn't been considered properly.
4. On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC. MFC indicated that if EFL started such disciplinary proceedings, MFC would seek compensation from DCFC pursuant to EFL Reg 92.2.5. In other words, they would apply for compensation on the back of a finding of breach by DCFC.
-
28 minutes ago, Curtains said:
Club representatives
Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest
Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End
Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough
Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion
Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town
John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United
What sway do these people have !
Has Nixon been replaced in one of his roles
From the article, Nixon appears to have stepped down from his role on the EFL Trust board, but retained that on the main EFL board:
'Nixon retains other roles in football, including his position as League Two clubs' representative on the EFL board.'
-
48 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:
Time to stop all the posts relating to the impartiality or otherwise of the EFL, we all know they couldn't run a bath.
Of course I understand where a lot of posters are coming from, but I'm just conscious I don't want Boro and the EFL to actually be playing the long game, hoping we make a load of libellous comments on here so they will actually come after us fans for compo rather than the club!
I'm trying to deal in the facts of this whole sorry affair, but it's become so tortuous and complicated that I find it hard to get my head around the timeline and how exactly we have arrived at this current situation. So while awaiting Mr Gibson's yay or nay to Mel's offer I'm piecing together such a timeline for my own benefit, to try and counter those who just come out with ridiculous statements such as 'well you cheated so you deserve to be liquidated', with reference to what the club has actually done compared to others in the league, and how we were found guilty in what feels like a very unfair process.
On reflection, I do wonder if Mel is actually such a villain in all this that he is portrayed as.
He was pursued by the EFL and Boro over a number of years with an ongoing transfer embargo and the sense that a huge points deduction was looming with likely relegation and possible successive relegations on the cards. There was a massive financial claim outstanding making a sale of the club by him very unlikely. So cutting his losses by entering administration would seem like the next step to give administrators a chance of resolving these issues by removing himself, as it had become very personal between him, the EFL and Boro.
Of course I understand this does not factor in the terrible cost to staff, businesses and charities owed money by the club, but would be interested to know if an owner has ever personally settled a businesses' debts first then put it into administration, as this would seem to be a most unusually altruistic thing to do from a business and personal finance point of view.
With regard to the money owed to HMRC an accountant I know has had a preliminary look at the club's audited accounts accessible on the Companies House website just to informally try to answer a question for me. They only extend up to 2018 but I am told that up to this point there was no money owed to HMRC. The £26-£29m owed is not from trading ie it is from PAYE, NI and VAT. When did the club start getting behind with these payments after 2018? How much can be explained by going into administration and amounts owed over the course of a year due to this?
-
9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:
With Boro representation on the board I'm almost certain that Gibson will have known what the EFL statement was going to say prior to it being released.
The EFL have already answered this in their statement of 17th Jan 2022:
https://www.efl.com/news/2022/january/efl-statement-derby-county/
8. Is there a conflict of interest at EFL Board level? What involvement do all Board members have in decisions relating to Derby County?
Any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. In addition, any Director who is conflicted does not receive any board papers in respect of the conflicted matter. The position on whether any director is conflicted is reviewed on a meeting-by-meeting basis. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions.
I assume the 'two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter' are those from Boro and Forest. If so, is the Forest representative truly conflicted, or is it someone else? Is Jez Moxey at Burton likely to have a conflict of interest??
Club representatives
Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest
Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End
Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough
Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion
Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town
John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United
Festy Ebosele - Signed for Udinese
in Transfer Forum
Posted
Thanks for the replies.
As he's out of contract at the end of this season, if Watford want him why don't they wait until then to sign him?
I assume if they did so themselves directly now before the end of the season, rather than Udinese, it would ironically essentially be 'tapping up' as per the Gibson-Parry Ziege case.