Kenavo

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The EFL agreed to our accounts and then unagreed them 3 years later...

The anger is good. We all need an outlet for anger and being at the match, cheering the Rams on from start to finish is what has personally kept me sane and given me hope.
The South Stand, South West Corner and the East Stand from half way to the away fans is sold out for Peterborough. I suspect this may well be the case for the rest of the season. People want to be part of the unbelievable support for Rooney and this bunch of honest, brave, and united bunch of lads giving their all for the cause.
Harness this anger, use it to roar the players on, give the EFL every bit of abuse they deserve but mainly, get behind every single player with everything you've got, every game.
COYR

If Mel has caved in and paid extortion money would it show up in MFC accounts?

Anyone know if plant hire companies do refunds?
I'd just had this delivered, ready for tomorrow...

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

That tells you a lot though doesn’t it,  that we don’t know the details of his claim?
The truth here is not difficult to discern. Gibson and Morris detest each other. The reasons are lost in the mists of time and who cares? 
 
But we, Derby, are now in the position where - but for these claims - our club would have been sold in January. 
 
You say that Gibson has no desire to see Derby fold. You’re missing the point. The point is, his vendetta against Morris has pushed our sale back, he has trashed Rooney’s transfer window and he has put us at serious risk of liquidation. Our club is collateral damage in his nasty, squalid scrap and that is not acceptable to us. And I believe Gibbo also calculates that if he damages us, MM will be forced to pay for the repair, and he likes that. We see what has gone on and it is not acceptable to us.   
 
All is revealed in Gibson’s open letters - cleverly drafted by his PR and legal team. They are disingenuous, misleading and largely irrelevant to whatever the claim might be. And with each letter, the goalposts move, now it’s FFp, now it’s the stadium. (Don’t worry, we know Morris’ letter is not much better.) There is nothing confidential in his claim, so why has it not been articulated in the public arena? We know the answer. 
 
Even Couhig (whose behaviour is possibly even more revolting than Gibson’s) has had the sense to realise that to threaten a claim in these circumstances and without fully articulating it is beyond the pale. 
 
The outcome here will most likely be that MM will put in place arrangements to indemnify the club, that those arrangements will remain in place for several years at significant cost to Morris and that the claims will never be brought. (Mission accomplished for Gibbo, the worst kind of playground bully.)  And that Couhig will slither away to begin another attempt to exploit some legal system or other. 
 
Our owner has done a few shameful things in recent years. Nothing on the scale of what yours is currently up to 
 
 

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?

What Gibson did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL subsequently closed the loophole by adjusting their rules. What Morris did was not explicitly against the rules at the time, but was obviously against the spirit of the rules. The EFL retroactively changed the rules (because of pressure from Gibson) and charged us, which led to where we are now. Spot the difference?