Betty Swollocks

He seems able to pass to another one of our players - which is a big plus. I see a tendency to pass sideways, but that could be due to lack of movement ahead of him by forwards. 
 
I think he will get stronger- just needs to not allow other teams to press his buttons like on Friday.

I am mates with a Leicester fan too, he`s from Leicester.
He was a staunch Man U fan until about 5 years ago!!
MOTWYW

Plenty Angie and I suspect a deal could be stuck very swiftly if A) the EFL poo or get off the pot and levy the punishment they see fit (in addition to the £100k fine imposed as a result of their own disciplinary procedures) thereby allowing us to either take our licks and move on or appeal their nonsense charges and punishments and B) Mel is willing and able to price the club and its assets in a manner that makes it an appealing investment. 
By the same token, I think it's extremely unlikely that we will find another owner with any connection, emotional or otherwise the the club which most likely points to a Far Eastern of US consortium which may, or may not be a good thing. Someone like Micky Arison would be welcome! 

Based on the football we have watched over the last 3 seasons, I would gladly trade positions. 
Watched Burnley against Leeds the other week and they aren't half as bad as people make out, its just football snobbery.

So the EFL telling somebody how to spend his money - if it was me get stuffed would be the answer 

Why are we accepting a points reduction? What have we done wrong?

There was something about Birmingham being ordered by the EFL to accept a bid for Che Adams that was worth significantly below what they valued him at, they refused and ended up with a points deduction.  If we end up in the position where the EFL are ordering us to sell players for less than what they're worth, I'd say that makes us almost unsaleable.  No new owner would be willing to accept that.  And of course, if it turns out that the EFL would be willing to drop an imposed business plan for a new owner, then it just backs up the "personal vendetta against Mel Morris" arguments...

I think at this point there’s too much we don’t know, such as what is the proposed deduction for? Is it for breaching the P&S limit in the years we had to restate? Is it for the next 3 year period that includes 2019? The one that includes 2020? (That one seems highly unlikely, given that Covid losses are allowable.) If we have breached the limit, is the proposed punishment purely for that or are they trying to claim for aggravating factors?
Saying that, if I’m reading between the lines of the article, it says ‘with a points deduction still possible’ - only ‘possible’ so not guaranteed? If it’s not guaranteed why would we accept it as though it was?
‘Under pressure from rival Championship clubs, the EFL is pushing for Derby to be punished’ - if we have obviously breached the limit why would they have to be put under pressure to try and punish us, and it wouldn’t only be ‘possible’, it would be written in the rules, so they’d just charge us with breaching it, let it go to another Disciplinary and be done with it, why would they effectively be negotiating with us? - unless they thought they would lose the case due to mitigating factors in our favour, so are trying to get us to accept something so they don’t lose face again?
It says ‘as expected’ about challenging the proposed punishment, ie. they don’t expect us to accept what they have proposed, presumably they think we’d accept a lesser amount, just to get it behind us, but why should we if it’s not guaranteed? If accepting a deduction doesn’t even get us out of an embargo, what does it get us? If we can’t add to the squad to mitigate the deduction, why not fight it, otherwise we’d have a small squad and a deduction, when we could fight it, have a small squad but maybe avoid a deduction. Why should we have to just accept both?
It, once again, points out ‘Derby have always maintained they did not seek any competitive advantage with their amortisation policy.’ which does make it look like as though it’s a limit breach, it’s in the years we’ve had to restate, they are trying to increase the punishment because of aggravation, trying to say that we deliberately went over the limit to give us an advantage, and we’re fighting our corner on it.
If it’s a small limit breach it may be that we’re trying to avoid a deduction at all, due to what was mentioned in the club statement post original charge, we can’t go back and retrace our steps to get back in line.
The DC made it very clear that we couldn’t have known at the time that what we were doing was going to be considered contrary to FRS 102. If it’s that we’ve ended up going over by an amount we could have sold a player for (so bid rejected) or played hard ball and increased what we sold a player for, not bought a player for, not paid a loan fee/signing on fee or wages for, as we couldn’t have known at the time that doing what we did would lead us to breach retrospectively, and different decisions would have been made at that time had we known, I don’t think we’d just roll over and accept it, and I wouldn’t want us to either.

What i cant get my head around is if you are/were a season ticket holder,so presumably pretty die hard fan, why would you not want to go to the Forest game?
The fact that over 9000 of them didnt bother is inconceivable.

As Boro actively and directly took part in the disciplinary process, they should really play no part in the decision, and Derby should be making this point.

Personally I cant see it being a deduction. I think we might get a Suspended penalty and warned as to our future conduct, but that`s about it.
We have been cleared of any serious wrongdoing twice already and only found guilty of a minor accounting technicality.
The accounts were already submitted and passed as accurate by a qualified chartered accountant and thus accepted by HMRC.
 

They wont be going to Companies House.
They were legally submitted over 3 years ago.
This is simply a resubmission to the EFL or the Disciplinary Committee for P&S purposes.

They wont be going to Companies House.
They were legally submitted over 3 years ago.
This is simply a resubmission to the EFL or the Disciplinary Committee for P&S purposes.

Personally I cant see it being a deduction. I think we might get a Suspended penalty and warned as to our future conduct, but that`s about it.
We have been cleared of any serious wrongdoing twice already and only found guilty of a minor accounting technicality.
The accounts were already submitted and passed as accurate by a qualified chartered accountant and thus accepted by HMRC.
 

They wont be going to Companies House.
They were legally submitted over 3 years ago.
This is simply a resubmission to the EFL or the Disciplinary Committee for P&S purposes.

Were these deadlines not extended by some margin (9 or 12 months?) due to Covid? I'd be surprised if the 2020 accounts need to be submitted yet in terms of the HMRC requirements.
However, my understanding was that despite the HMRC saying you don't need to submit accounts because of Covid, my recollection was also that the EFL said "we'll put you under embargo if you don't because we have no interest in the welfare of our member clubs and any financial difficulties you may be experiencing due to a global pandemic".

They wont be going to Companies House.
They were legally submitted over 3 years ago.
This is simply a resubmission to the EFL or the Disciplinary Committee for P&S purposes.

They wont be going to Companies House.
They were legally submitted over 3 years ago.
This is simply a resubmission to the EFL or the Disciplinary Committee for P&S purposes.

They wont be going to Companies House.
They were legally submitted over 3 years ago.
This is simply a resubmission to the EFL or the Disciplinary Committee for P&S purposes.

Personally I cant see it being a deduction. I think we might get a Suspended penalty and warned as to our future conduct, but that`s about it.
We have been cleared of any serious wrongdoing twice already and only found guilty of a minor accounting technicality.
The accounts were already submitted and passed as accurate by a qualified chartered accountant and thus accepted by HMRC.
 

Personally I cant see it being a deduction. I think we might get a Suspended penalty and warned as to our future conduct, but that`s about it.
We have been cleared of any serious wrongdoing twice already and only found guilty of a minor accounting technicality.
The accounts were already submitted and passed as accurate by a qualified chartered accountant and thus accepted by HMRC.
 

Personally I cant see it being a deduction. I think we might get a Suspended penalty and warned as to our future conduct, but that`s about it.
We have been cleared of any serious wrongdoing twice already and only found guilty of a minor accounting technicality.
The accounts were already submitted and passed as accurate by a qualified chartered accountant and thus accepted by HMRC.
 

?. Some things are best left in the past. 
This is one. 

Personally I cant see it being a deduction. I think we might get a Suspended penalty and warned as to our future conduct, but that`s about it.
We have been cleared of any serious wrongdoing twice already and only found guilty of a minor accounting technicality.
The accounts were already submitted and passed as accurate by a qualified chartered accountant and thus accepted by HMRC.
 

The follow through - I simply ask what on earth is he supposed to do? He’s taken the ball as clearly as anything, and their player then comes across him.
Thats a foul on Jagielka to me, or at least that’s how they should be officiated. I know that’s not what the law book says but Warnock can go and do one with his comments.