PistoldPete

Was that the Leeds game 4-1 defeat I recall? It wasn't his best to be fair, but still way better than Clod.

Well yes. A proper journo would have asked.. "So Richard you were the only person who was injured out of the four people you say were in the car? Why do you think that might have been? Was it perhaps because you were not wearing a seat belt?"
"Will the people who lost their jobs this week from Derby County be getting £2 million payouts after self inflicted injuries that prevent them from doing their jobs anyway?"
"Why are you coming out with this stuff now, could it have anything to do with the fact that you are worried your big windfall might be at risk if Derby go up in smoke?"
"How many games have you played in the Premier League Richard?"
"Isn't £2.3 milion rather a lot of money for a player of such limited ability , even if you had been paid for playing instead of paid for inflicting on yourself an injury of you own making?"
 
 
These are the sorts of questions I would be asking.  
 
 
 
 

But that isn't the point. They were all guilty of misconduct so the club were entitled to sack them all.. and also entitled to make a commercial decision to keep them all, notwithstanding their conduct.. which they did but in Keogh's case that meant reduced terms which he refused. 
The proper legal test is whether the conduct was bad enough to warrant dismissal.. and for professional footballers to go out and get drunk and break the law I would say in all cases yes it was . 
The "optics" as the Guardian rather unfortunately puts it are irrelevant. The optics for Keogh was that he was club captain on a team bonding session.. saying he didn't know Lawrence had been drinking is just pure tosh. You spent the evening on a team bonding session and you are leaving a pub and in any case as I say he was club captain, it his job to watch over players.
 
 

Exactly. If it had gone to an employment tribunal he would have lost. And the reasons for the decision would have been published.

But that isn't the point. They were all guilty of misconduct so the club were entitled to sack them all.. and also entitled to make a commercial decision to keep them all, notwithstanding their conduct.. which they did but in Keogh's case that meant reduced terms which he refused. 
The proper legal test is whether the conduct was bad enough to warrant dismissal.. and for professional footballers to go out and get drunk and break the law I would say in all cases yes it was . 
The "optics" as the Guardian rather unfortunately puts it are irrelevant. The optics for Keogh was that he was club captain on a team bonding session.. saying he didn't know Lawrence had been drinking is just pure tosh. You spent the evening on a team bonding session and you are leaving a pub and in any case as I say he was club captain, it his job to watch over players.
 
 

Well you would think a journalist would question how, if the fee was truly £10 million, the agreed instalments were only £2million after two years. So Arsenal agreed to us to pay £1 miilion a year for 10 years? I don't think so. Does it not occur to the journo that maybe the fee isn't £10 million unless Derby get into the Prem and Poland win the world cup with Bielik as captain?

It is really very silly what other fans come up with. Blaming us for Keogh leading the players on a drunken rampage in Allestree, all Derbys fault of course despite us laying on taxis for the players to get home safely. 
Blaming us for overspending.. when we spent half what Villa did on wages, and  fraction of their net transfer spend. Our net transfer spend is about £25 million under Morris.. Villa's in the same period  is about £300 million. Financial mismanagement by Derby, but not by Villa apparently.. because they got promoted and we didn't. 

Well you would think a journalist would question how, if the fee was truly £10 million, the agreed instalments were only £2million after two years. So Arsenal agreed to us to pay £1 miilion a year for 10 years? I don't think so. Does it not occur to the journo that maybe the fee isn't £10 million unless Derby get into the Prem and Poland win the world cup with Bielik as captain?

Exactly. If it had gone to an employment tribunal he would have lost. And the reasons for the decision would have been published.

Well you would think a journalist would question how, if the fee was truly £10 million, the agreed instalments were only £2million after two years. So Arsenal agreed to us to pay £1 miilion a year for 10 years? I don't think so. Does it not occur to the journo that maybe the fee isn't £10 million unless Derby get into the Prem and Poland win the world cup with Bielik as captain?

Exactly. If it had gone to an employment tribunal he would have lost. And the reasons for the decision would have been published.

Well you would think a journalist would question how, if the fee was truly £10 million, the agreed instalments were only £2million after two years. So Arsenal agreed to us to pay £1 miilion a year for 10 years? I don't think so. Does it not occur to the journo that maybe the fee isn't £10 million unless Derby get into the Prem and Poland win the world cup with Bielik as captain?

Well you would think a journalist would question how, if the fee was truly £10 million, the agreed instalments were only £2million after two years. So Arsenal agreed to us to pay £1 miilion a year for 10 years? I don't think so. Does it not occur to the journo that maybe the fee isn't £10 million unless Derby get into the Prem and Poland win the world cup with Bielik as captain?

How much do Sheff U owe us for Bogle and Lowe? And don't get me started on Gordon and Delap. 

Especially journalists who are Forest fans writing about Derby. 

Our best years were when we got to play off final in 2014 and then in 2019. Both times academy players were part of the success model .. Hughes and Hendrick in 2014 and bogle and Bennett in 2019 , plus tapping into Chelsea academy with mount and tomori. Loan players also played a part in 2014 with Thorne , Bamford and Wisdom. 
 
in 2014 we also had some shrewd signings by clough … Martin, fozzy, Bryson, and yes even keogh although that season ended badly for him. 
 
It nearly worked. Far too much slagging off of Derby’s efforts in the media over the last two weeks . 

How much do Sheff U owe us for Bogle and Lowe? And don't get me started on Gordon and Delap. 

The difference though is the Wigan owner stopped providing financial support a few days after he took over. Mel ran out of money after several years. Would he have done so if not for covid? That is the question, but Mel was very clear that its 100% about covid. 

You are wrong. Knight, Bird, Buchanan and Sibley will play at Championship level or above for many years to come… if they drop a division it will only be because they stay with us after we are relegated .
 
 

It is really very silly what other fans come up with. Blaming us for Keogh leading the players on a drunken rampage in Allestree, all Derbys fault of course despite us laying on taxis for the players to get home safely. 
Blaming us for overspending.. when we spent half what Villa did on wages, and  fraction of their net transfer spend. Our net transfer spend is about £25 million under Morris.. Villa's in the same period  is about £300 million. Financial mismanagement by Derby, but not by Villa apparently.. because they got promoted and we didn't. 

It isn't a question of it being the Government's fault necessarily, (although many do not agree with lockdowns at all).   But where the Government demands that businesses close down in the wider interests of public health , it is reasonable to expect either compensation from the Government, or some considerable leeway given to tax liabilities for people and businesses that suffer the financial consequences of those closures.
 
Contrast this with Glasgow Rangers, who were wound up by HMRC due to unpaid tax. That wasnt  due to the PAYE tax owing due to lost revenues during a  pandemic but was due to  massive amounts swerved due to dodgy Employee Benefit Trusts. HMRC rightly had no sympathy there. Derby's case is very different though. 
 
 

You believe wrong. We were denied the loan by the EFL because we were suspected of breaking the rules, including the stadium sale.  In fact the IDC decided we had not broken that rule, but too late we were denied the loan anyway. Clubs in receipt of parachute money were already getting money from EPL so didn't need the loan. Derby weren't , and defintely needed the loan but were denied the loan by EFL  as extra punishment for crimes we were later found not to have committed.

Well if you want to be really positive , how about the last four games? 7 points from those, all teams who will be expecting to be near the top (apart from Reading maybe due to points deductions) . That's  80 points at the end of the season.. play off places form indeed, if not automatic!

Well if you want to be really positive , how about the last four games? 7 points from those, all teams who will be expecting to be near the top (apart from Reading maybe due to points deductions) . That's  80 points at the end of the season.. play off places form indeed, if not automatic!

So the Government compensated people who couldn’t earn anything. Why didn’t they compensate Derby for their loss of income due to protecting the NHS and banning football crowds ?