ck-

Keep the form of the last 6 games until the end of the season and that gets us to 47 points (rounded up from 46.67)

Believe!!!!

 Actually may be more - depending on what the 6th gave back was because that result gets replaced by today’s result

Much better second half. Seemed to have a little more self belief

7 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Garbage game of football.

We have no plan whatsoever. There are no patterns to our play at all, while the side is completely devoid of any attacking quality or creativity. Feel for Plange, he’s on his own up against three players.

The only attacking players we have outa there are Jozwiak who is playing right wingback, Lawrence who has a free role and keeps dropping deep to do the work Shinnie, Bird and Knight should be doing, and Plange.

Rubbish.

I want to disagree with you because …. well because ….  well at least we’re ….  OK, but at least …

No, you’re right. We’re rubbish. 
 

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well he’s said he’ll waive £120m (?) of debt and the admins have confirmed the stadium will be part of the sale. So seems he’s already agreed to do exactly what you say he should be doing.  It’s more than many would do in his position imho 

Which is why I’ll reserve judgement until this is all over. If he does write off those debts, then he’s the one paying the price for the gamble - just as he’d have been the one reaping the benefit of it had come off.

I can’t say I’m happy with the effect on tax revenues, or any small businesses who have been put in jeopardy by lack of payment, but it would exonerate him to a degree. 

Looks better on every replay

On Sunday before the game I joked that I’d be happy with a better return than 0 points and better than -5 on the goal difference.

So, on reflection, I’m not displeased with 4 points against the top 2!

Done. Great initiative. 

Just spotted that a Forest fan had praised the initiative and made a contribution. That’s nice to see. 

Just wondering when the offence gets cleared. I thought that moving back into an onside position cleared the offence. 
Extrapolating and exaggerating for effect, if he hadn’t touched the ball when he did, could he still have been offside 10 minutes later?

Obviously not, but what is needed for him to be allowed to touch the ball / interfere with play again?

 I’m obviously missing some trivially simple point, so be gentle. 

6 hours ago, TexasRam said:

playing a false number 9 (still haven’t got a clue what that means)

After carefully analysing our version of it, I think it means one who doesn’t score ?

34 minutes ago, jono said:

Then we get Liam Thompson … a real CM .. not a wannabe No 10 or a DM spraying passes from deep. Nope ! He’s a terrier, quick feet, first time passes, moving the ball quickly, grabbing opportunities to move it the right way. Composed too.

Thanks. Saved me some typing. Exactly my thoughts. 

Thoroughly deserved. We hadn’t deserved to go behind and showed great character to come back like we did. 

Roos taken half the team out there. 

Regular donation set up. It’s well worth it. I donated a while ago which removed all ads for me.

Very happy to help this excellent site keep going. 

8 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

He may be many things, but number 10 is not one. He's more of an old school centre mid who gets all around the pitch, and that means he spends as much time around Shinnie and Bird as he does anywhere near the striker. Let's not pretend he's some sort of attacking midfielder/goalscorer and use that against him when he clearly isn't.

Definitely agree with this, but doesn't that show why we're having difficulty scoring? We're effectively playing with 3 DMs. Morrison is often the deepest of the three of them, and while he looks tidy in possession, he's not creating much.

There has to be a better balance than this, even with the limited players at our disposal. If he's going to play so deep, would it be sensible do you think to push max Bird further up field and to have Shinnie running off him?

21 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Am I missing something here, Why would it be -6?, If we win our case of Force Majeure why would we be hit with -6 points and not get all 12 back.

Is it we could be hit with either Force or Majeure? with both carrying -6

Oh come on, be sensible. 
 

it’s the EFL we’re talking about, so it will be something ridiculous like a point a letter.

 We’ll pass the Force part - 5 points - but fail Majeure, so that’s -7 points to you Derby … 14 if you appeal. 

12 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

why didn't Sibley just take the shot first time?

Frankly, it should have been fairly straight forward to control it and then shoot, which is what he tried to do. Unfortunately his execution was poor. He wasn’t the only one today. We consistently didn’t control the ball quickly or look after it when we had it. That’s been notable from a number of players for a number of games now. We’re just not a very technically gifted side. Sometimes we make up for that with effort, but it’s really disappointing that the basic skill level is so poor. Contrast that today with Blackburn, who’s first time control, shielding of the ball, and speed and accuracy of forward pass were streets ahead of ours. 
I’ve been generally pleased with recent performances, but the first half in particular today was awful. The second half was better, but we still look like a side who is focusing on keeping the ball rather than taking risks to get it forward at pace. 

1 hour ago, DavesaRam said:

Or Tom getting fouled twice either side of the penalty area line. The ref quite rightly blew for the foul outside the box

I noticed this at the time. There were two distinct fouls, so why didn't the ref play the advantage from the first, and give the penalty for the second?

Summary:

1st half - risible

2nd half - looked half decent

39 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think it was more than just an absence of a negative. Efl were very much in the loop on the stadium sale for example, asking for minor adjustments to the price to be included in the ffp results. Then suddenly 18months later saying they wanted £40 million off the price.

Totally agree on that one. I think our handling of the stadium sale was exemplary. 

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The Efl issued a public statement in March 2019 stating that the only club to have been found in breach of ffp rules for 3 year period period ending 2017/18 was Birmingham City.

So why would we not think our accounts up to then we’re not ok according to Efl?

and we made the disclosures of the amortisation policy in 2016. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume if there was anything wrong with that policy Efl would have said so before January 2020?

Because when you do something that is different to the norm, you make certain you’ve got evidence that it was agreed.

The EFL maintain they don’t go through each submission. Personally, I think that’s a ridiculous position for the EFL to adopt. No-one was asking for them to check every aspect of the calculation, but they should have had the capability to pick up on the broad approaches within the accounts. It speaks volumes to their competence that they couldn’t, even if we weren’t as clear as we could have been  

Our contention that they agreed with our submissions was based on their not objecting. But I still think it’s poor on our part that we can’t show any evidence that shows they explicitly agreed with our approach. Instead we are relying on the absence of a negative. That’s all I’m pointing out. 

14 hours ago, Cam the Ram said:

Derby - Hey, here's our accounts. By the way, we used an alternate method involving amortisation.

EFL - Hmmmmmm. It's unusual, but fine, we'll sign off on them.

Isn’t the problem that we couldn’t show any evidence that the EFL actually did say this? Not a single letter or email. So it came down to our word vs theirs and we were always going to lose that - it’s pretty unbelievable that there is no written evidence if it genuinely was agreed. 
 

Now I suspect there might have been discussions, and the parties to those discussions may each have believed that they understood what had been discussed. But for it to not have been then written up and sent in as “Just confirming that this is what we discussed, and what was agreed”. doesn’t portray us in a good way competence wise.

On 01/10/2021 at 19:29, CBRammette said:

It says "and the structure of payments enabled them to pay a small fee up front.

With only around £2 million paid in instalments so far, it means that any interested parties will have to accept inheriting the transfer fee for the Poland international."

also re Kamil...."There is also money owed to Polish club Lech Poznan for winger Kamil Jozwiak, which takes the overall ‘debt’ on transfer instalments over the £10 million mark."

Also "Quantuma, the business advisory firm, remain confident of a sale and have received approaches from more than six separate parties over a potential takeover."

on points "Quantuma are also in discussions with the Football League over the additional nine-point deduction for historical financial breaches and are hopeful of negotiating a lesser punishment, though it is thought unlikely the EFL will accept it."

I think that last paragraph sums up how accurate the rest of the report is:

“Quantuma are also in discussions with the Football League over the additional nine-point deduction for historical financial breaches and are hopeful of negotiating a lesser punishment, though it is thought unlikely the EFL will accept it.”

 Can’t really be both can it?

1 hour ago, Mr. P said:

Thought ref was decent today. Better than the poo we’ve had before. 

I thought the same. I did think we were a little unlucky with yellow cards, when similar offences by Swansea went unpunished, but generally it felt even handed. 

You know how dreadful the ref has been when he gets booed off even when we won. 
I normally am quite fair and believe that things even out but that was beyond inept. 

What a great header by Forsyth, and even better cross by Knight