PistoldPete

its called leaving no stone unturned. Retweet it and who knows Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos might email them. Amazon Prime Park Stadium anyone? 

Not sure that it has been on the agenda of EFL to save the club from anything so far has it? Let's hope that they can be persuaded that punishing the club any further really isn't going to help in efforts to save us, far from it.  

Not sure that it has been on the agenda of EFL to save the club from anything so far has it? Let's hope that they can be persuaded that punishing the club any further really isn't going to help in efforts to save us, far from it.  

Not sure that it has been on the agenda of EFL to save the club from anything so far has it? Let's hope that they can be persuaded that punishing the club any further really isn't going to help in efforts to save us, far from it.  

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 
The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 
Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 
I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.
 

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 
The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 
Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 
I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.
 

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 
The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 
Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 
I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.
 

The method was found to be systematic by the IDC. That point was not overturned by the LAP. 
The requirement of the accounting standard was for the depreciation method to reflect the expected use of the economic benefits of the intangible assets, and the LAP found that "use of economic benefits  " did not include selling the assets even though "economic benefits" is expressly defined in the FRS accounting standard  to include the benefit of disposal. 
Derby's analysis of transfer valuations  was irrelevant as they were not allowed , according to LAP's take on FRS standard,  to take any account of the benefit of disposing of a player during the contract. 
I think the LAP's findings are arguable at best, but I agree that it is likely that Derby's choice of this method was probably influenced by a desire to kick costs down the road.
 

No surprise. I don't think him and Wayne really worked together. 

Trigger for admin was the collapse of the latest takeover talks with Horton and co, and MSd wanting their money.

I would throw Bamford in to this theory too. Mac didn't bring Bamford on in the 2014 play off game until it was too late even when QPR were down to 10 men. Then Bamford gets signed by Boro.. and then Leeds. Plus both Mac and Bamford have Forest connections too.  
 

Exactly. A player wage bill of £30 million  for 23 players (average £1.3 milion each) when six senior players are on under £500k pa and there's quite a few kids, Ebosele, Macdonald , Stetton ,Watson all probably on less than that. The only player we signed from a Premier team was Bielik and his wages are hopefully being paid under insurance. The rest are former academy graduates, Bird,  Sibley, Buchanan and Knight, plus a few old pros/ journeymen like Byrne and Marshall (from Wigan when they were in admin) , Shinnie from a lesser Scottish team, CKR from wherever he last rocked up.    
So I don't think there can be more than three players (at most)  on over £1 million a year, not 23 of them!  
 
 
 

They are acountants. They are never optimistic. 

No surprise. I don't think him and Wayne really worked together. 

No surprise. I don't think him and Wayne really worked together. 

I didn't expect us to get anything today but to come so close agsint all the odds is so frustrating .. hope it hasnt taken it out of us for the midweek game which we really do need to win.

We need a quick sale so that things are sorted before January. We will sell players for sure but that will be decision of the new owners and hopefully not a fire sale 

Curtis Davies in goal. His handling is very good.

Play off final 2007. And er.. that's it.

We have had zero luck for the last 12 years.

Well yes. A 1 in 20 chance of the Rams being liquidated is still far too high. It must never be allowed to happen. 

Well yes. A 1 in 20 chance of the Rams being liquidated is still far too high. It must never be allowed to happen. 

Well yes. A 1 in 20 chance of the Rams being liquidated is still far too high. It must never be allowed to happen. 

Well yes. A 1 in 20 chance of the Rams being liquidated is still far too high. It must never be allowed to happen. 

An earthquake is a Force Majeure event, but the impact on a wooden structure is likely to be much more severe than on a building that has been designed to withstand it. 
That difference doesn't change the nature of the event. One building collapses, the other doesn't.