nottingram

Unless that advantage was being one of the top 3 spenders on wages in each of the seasons being looked at we haven’t pished it anywhere.
We’ve ran an (unsustainable) wage bill that has probably ranged from top 4 to top 10 in the division and have more often than not been a top 6 team in that time period. Few unlucky defeats in play off games to teams that have spent more than us / have gamed the system to a greater extent than we have (delete as appropriate) has meant we haven’t gone up, so be it. When football comes down to one off games it can at times be luck based and that’s why we all love it. We’ve now tightened that wage bill, understandably, but I get the feeling that won’t or indeed hasn’t stopped you moaning that we will be less competitive in the league now.
Don’t think we are “victims” as such but it is curious that just winning one of those set of play offs would see our strategy highlighted as a great success story and have fans of other clubs saying “wow look how well Derby are run” like you see from some on here re. Leeds, Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth and so on.
Unfortunately by not going up due to these fine margins we have found ourselves in the cross hairs of the EFL who’s rules are so clear that they are now seeking to change or clarify the rules that supposedly found us guilty. We are not victims of other teams cheating, in my opinion, but we have been victim of the EFL going on a crusade after the football club and creating a narrative that we are the villains of football with their vindictive, unclear statements and obvious leaks to the press.
Yesterday’s news should have been celebrated across football, that no precedent was set to retrospectively relegate a team for off field matters that were signed off for three years by an organisation that didn’t understand their own rules. I get the feeling it wasn’t though, because a narrative has been created that if you push spending limits and do not get promoted, you are worse than those who push limits and do.

Unless that advantage was being one of the top 3 spenders on wages in each of the seasons being looked at we haven’t pished it anywhere.
We’ve ran an (unsustainable) wage bill that has probably ranged from top 4 to top 10 in the division and have more often than not been a top 6 team in that time period. Few unlucky defeats in play off games to teams that have spent more than us / have gamed the system to a greater extent than we have (delete as appropriate) has meant we haven’t gone up, so be it. When football comes down to one off games it can at times be luck based and that’s why we all love it. We’ve now tightened that wage bill, understandably, but I get the feeling that won’t or indeed hasn’t stopped you moaning that we will be less competitive in the league now.
Don’t think we are “victims” as such but it is curious that just winning one of those set of play offs would see our strategy highlighted as a great success story and have fans of other clubs saying “wow look how well Derby are run” like you see from some on here re. Leeds, Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth and so on.
Unfortunately by not going up due to these fine margins we have found ourselves in the cross hairs of the EFL who’s rules are so clear that they are now seeking to change or clarify the rules that supposedly found us guilty. We are not victims of other teams cheating, in my opinion, but we have been victim of the EFL going on a crusade after the football club and creating a narrative that we are the villains of football with their vindictive, unclear statements and obvious leaks to the press.
Yesterday’s news should have been celebrated across football, that no precedent was set to retrospectively relegate a team for off field matters that were signed off for three years by an organisation that didn’t understand their own rules. I get the feeling it wasn’t though, because a narrative has been created that if you push spending limits and do not get promoted, you are worse than those who push limits and do.

Unless that advantage was being one of the top 3 spenders on wages in each of the seasons being looked at we haven’t pished it anywhere.
We’ve ran an (unsustainable) wage bill that has probably ranged from top 4 to top 10 in the division and have more often than not been a top 6 team in that time period. Few unlucky defeats in play off games to teams that have spent more than us / have gamed the system to a greater extent than we have (delete as appropriate) has meant we haven’t gone up, so be it. When football comes down to one off games it can at times be luck based and that’s why we all love it. We’ve now tightened that wage bill, understandably, but I get the feeling that won’t or indeed hasn’t stopped you moaning that we will be less competitive in the league now.
Don’t think we are “victims” as such but it is curious that just winning one of those set of play offs would see our strategy highlighted as a great success story and have fans of other clubs saying “wow look how well Derby are run” like you see from some on here re. Leeds, Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth and so on.
Unfortunately by not going up due to these fine margins we have found ourselves in the cross hairs of the EFL who’s rules are so clear that they are now seeking to change or clarify the rules that supposedly found us guilty. We are not victims of other teams cheating, in my opinion, but we have been victim of the EFL going on a crusade after the football club and creating a narrative that we are the villains of football with their vindictive, unclear statements and obvious leaks to the press.
Yesterday’s news should have been celebrated across football, that no precedent was set to retrospectively relegate a team for off field matters that were signed off for three years by an organisation that didn’t understand their own rules. I get the feeling it wasn’t though, because a narrative has been created that if you push spending limits and do not get promoted, you are worse than those who push limits and do.

Forgive me if this has been asked.
Any word on why the EFL are looking for a rule change if we are found to have broken the existing rules?

Forgive me if this has been asked.
Any word on why the EFL are looking for a rule change if we are found to have broken the existing rules?

Forgive me if this has been asked.
Any word on why the EFL are looking for a rule change if we are found to have broken the existing rules?

Forgive me if this has been asked.
Any word on why the EFL are looking for a rule change if we are found to have broken the existing rules?

If indeed he was on a largely incentive based contract, it was a risk with considerable upside if it came off as he has the potential to be a very good player at this level, and so one worth taking.
As it was, it didn’t come off, but the outlay would appear to be minimal. Would imagine he now goes with everyone’s best wishes. Hopefully he can get playing again but first and foremost hopefully he is able to get himself well again.

If indeed he was on a largely incentive based contract, it was a risk with considerable upside if it came off as he has the potential to be a very good player at this level, and so one worth taking.
As it was, it didn’t come off, but the outlay would appear to be minimal. Would imagine he now goes with everyone’s best wishes. Hopefully he can get playing again but first and foremost hopefully he is able to get himself well again.

If indeed he was on a largely incentive based contract, it was a risk with considerable upside if it came off as he has the potential to be a very good player at this level, and so one worth taking.
As it was, it didn’t come off, but the outlay would appear to be minimal. Would imagine he now goes with everyone’s best wishes. Hopefully he can get playing again but first and foremost hopefully he is able to get himself well again.

If indeed he was on a largely incentive based contract, it was a risk with considerable upside if it came off as he has the potential to be a very good player at this level, and so one worth taking.
As it was, it didn’t come off, but the outlay would appear to be minimal. Would imagine he now goes with everyone’s best wishes. Hopefully he can get playing again but first and foremost hopefully he is able to get himself well again.

If indeed he was on a largely incentive based contract, it was a risk with considerable upside if it came off as he has the potential to be a very good player at this level, and so one worth taking.
As it was, it didn’t come off, but the outlay would appear to be minimal. Would imagine he now goes with everyone’s best wishes. Hopefully he can get playing again but first and foremost hopefully he is able to get himself well again.

Curtis Davies is in for pre season training at least. Hopefully means he is staying put.

Curtis Davies is in for pre season training at least. Hopefully means he is staying put.

Curtis Davies is in for pre season training at least. Hopefully means he is staying put.

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Yes, perhaps we could. But it is looking like we will have a very limited budget so equally, perhaps we could not.

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Ultimately, he’s only one year younger than Buchanan who was clearly selected as the better option in the present.
It’s a shame it is looking like he is leaving but he has never even made a first team squad (I don’t think) despite the option of naming 9 subs and him being quite versatile all the way down the left side. If it was felt he was ready, he would have, like McDonald and Ebosele on the right.
Hopefully he does well, good to see him testing himself abroad even if it does mean less compensation for the club, which I would imagine would have been minimal anyway 

Ultimately, he’s only one year younger than Buchanan who was clearly selected as the better option in the present.
It’s a shame it is looking like he is leaving but he has never even made a first team squad (I don’t think) despite the option of naming 9 subs and him being quite versatile all the way down the left side. If it was felt he was ready, he would have, like McDonald and Ebosele on the right.
Hopefully he does well, good to see him testing himself abroad even if it does mean less compensation for the club, which I would imagine would have been minimal anyway 

Just had a quick look down their Twitter feed, I don’t really watch the news so this is the next best alternative for me.
Using the topic of taking the knee, a decent case study as obviously something that is fairly divisive - and to their credit I can see they have perspectives from both sides on this, which is a good start and not something I expected.
My trouble is then that the interactions to the tweet show exactly where their “base customer” falls on the particular debate. The issue then is that everyone’s (both sides, but if I am being really honest I think there is only one correct side to this) views are so entrenched that this base customer is not going to see Harry Redknapp saying taking the knee is a good thing and agree with him, they’ll switch off, as is their right. That will likely then lead to GB News showing less and less of that side of the debate because it will hurt their pockets and then it simply becomes an echo chamber. If it is going to be truly balanced then they will need to entice balanced viewership, currently they don’t seem to have that. Whether it is intentional or not, who knows, but so far their marketing seems to have largely attracted a certain viewer / consumer. 
Boycotting companies that advertise on GB News is not going to be helpful in getting it to be balanced reporting (or for it continuing to be balanced reporting) but I think it is a little disingenuous to claim this only comes from one side. After all, @maxjam appeared to imply a boycott of Gillette by the “other side” in a previous post, and indeed I have seen a certain MP telling everyone they will boycott the Euros over the taking of the knee, as well as the ongoing issues with the booing of it as well. Not quite cancel culture but certainly not just ignoring it either.

Just had a quick look down their Twitter feed, I don’t really watch the news so this is the next best alternative for me.
Using the topic of taking the knee, a decent case study as obviously something that is fairly divisive - and to their credit I can see they have perspectives from both sides on this, which is a good start and not something I expected.
My trouble is then that the interactions to the tweet show exactly where their “base customer” falls on the particular debate. The issue then is that everyone’s (both sides, but if I am being really honest I think there is only one correct side to this) views are so entrenched that this base customer is not going to see Harry Redknapp saying taking the knee is a good thing and agree with him, they’ll switch off, as is their right. That will likely then lead to GB News showing less and less of that side of the debate because it will hurt their pockets and then it simply becomes an echo chamber. If it is going to be truly balanced then they will need to entice balanced viewership, currently they don’t seem to have that. Whether it is intentional or not, who knows, but so far their marketing seems to have largely attracted a certain viewer / consumer. 
Boycotting companies that advertise on GB News is not going to be helpful in getting it to be balanced reporting (or for it continuing to be balanced reporting) but I think it is a little disingenuous to claim this only comes from one side. After all, @maxjam appeared to imply a boycott of Gillette by the “other side” in a previous post, and indeed I have seen a certain MP telling everyone they will boycott the Euros over the taking of the knee, as well as the ongoing issues with the booing of it as well. Not quite cancel culture but certainly not just ignoring it either.