vonwright

Cracking pen. Get in.

Great ref, this one

Nice build up play, toothless in the final third, vulnerable on the break.

Basically the same summary of 90 per cent of our games over the last few seasons 

Very hard to believe he's not at least a £2m or £3m player in the next couple of years. However good he ends up he's pretty much worth that now for the impact he can have. 

Lot of people saying 'Of course we are worth £50m!' but an awful lot of our assets are just disappearing. Really worrying times. 

We are just so brittle. If a team stands off and lets us play we look fine. But the second they press us and push us physically we just collapse. 

Jeez. Their corners v our corners. Night v day.

Oh dear. They've upped the tempo and are putting us under pressure and we aren't coping well. 

One of the few players in our recent history that you could describe as an absolute bargain, whose worth has been far greater than the sum we paid. Great player, great professional.

3 minutes ago, vonwright said:

Also "normal" chess is actually four dimensional since it necessarily takes place over a period of time.

Also if someone hurried up and bought the club I wouldn't feel the need to post this kind of thing.

3 minutes ago, vonwright said:

"A bit higher" isn't a different dimension though.

Also "normal" chess is actually four dimensional since it necessarily takes place over a period of time.

8 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Really?

"A bit higher" isn't a different dimension though.

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Problem is, if MM had said to us: I’m going to chuck £200 m at the club because that’s what’s needed to rise above the parachute corps...   most of us would have said, God bless you you are our saviour. 

And if he’d also said to us, don’t forget I’ve never run a football club, I don’t know how to delegate and I’m not a great judge of character, most of us would have said, let’s go for it anyway.

 

Hmm. I think most of us would have said: 'Great, gamble as much of your personal fortune as you want, just make sure you keep enough back to settle your debts without ruining the club.'

We aren't facing extinction because Morris spent so much money, so fruitlessly, chasing his dream. We are in a mess because he wouldn't or couldn't spend the money to fix what he so spectacularly broke.

Fans couldn't really be expected to know how much money he had (or didn't have) and can't really be blamed for taking him at his word - it's not like he ever gave the impression he was racking up unpayable debts from which he'd just walk away (with the stadium in his pocket to boot).

22 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Are the administrators the ones we should really be kicking? I noticed in the statement released by the Binnies that they were more than willing to buy the club for less than what it would cost to avoid a -15 point deduction next season. Are we really sure that's not currently what they're working against, people wanting to buy the club happy to take the -15 point deduction, and they're buying time trying to avoid that situation. 

I mean, what sort of atmosphere would there be around the club towards a new owner if they happily took a -15 point deduction next season to save a few £ against paying creditors.

Without knowing the ins and outs, but reading the tea leaves, there is a narrative that the administrators are trying to avoid further penalties going forward which obviously impacts fans. I would've thought anyone coming in to buy the club would obviously want to avoid that anyway, but seemingly not. 

Absolutely agree with all of this other than "to save a few £" - think it's going to be a lot more than a few!

There seems to be a bit of a fans' narrative that the admins have just been sitting on three perfectly reasonable, fully-formed bids while stroking their beards and counting their cash. I strongly suspect what's actually been happening is that they have been desperately trying to a) convert "interest" into solid bids, and b) negotiate these bids into a position where they allow us to exit administration, preferably without an extra 15 point penalty. And that isn't just a matter of negotiating with the "bidders" but with HMRC, too.

I would agree that their communication has been poor but in truth, what are they supposed to say? If the situation is worse than we think then does it really help to start announcing that publicly? Will that encourage higher bids, or will it do the exact opposite?

We all want there to be a villain here, a block, a nice simple scapegoat who is to blame for us being unable to get out of the situation. The sad fact is that the main problem now might simply be that no one is going to pay the amount we need to move forward, at least without a 15 point penalty next season. We are in a financial mess and our remaining "assets" (including players we'd like to secure on contracts, but can't) are losing value by the day. 

Maybe it isn't the admins fault we can't find someone to pay £50m for a stricken championship club who are very likely to be playing in the third tier next season. Maybe it just isn't possible.

I completely understand the frustration at Quantuma's lack of communication, but is it possible the reason they aren't saying much is simply that there's not much they could usefully say? Do people want them to come out and say "We've received a couple of bids, they aren't for very much, the HMRC won't go for it, and even if they did it would mean a 15 point penalty?" And how would they do that without driving away the bidders? 

For me the question is whether the behind-the-scenes work they are doing - presumably desperately trying to plump up the bids they have in order to make them viable - is what matters. And frankly we have no idea whether they are doing that badly, or well.

(PS This doesn't excuse them ignoring calls from the EFL, although the EFL clearly leak everything, immediately, in a way that isn't exactly helpful to Derby's cause.)

Sounds like the administrators are trying to 'clarify' that any bid is sufficient to prevent a 15 point penalty. It's quite possible none of the bids are big enough to satisfy creditors and/or EFL rules. 

I understand people's frustration but I can't see how this is the administrators' fault. They can't force people to bid more. I don't believe they are sitting on a bid that would solve our problems in the hope of earning the club, or themselves, some extra £££.

We are not an attractive investment right now - even more so now relegation is extremely likely. 

Aaagh we do everything so slowly and deliberately. It's not just the possession passing but the passes are so slow. The breaks forward are so slow. No wonder we rarely score (or shoot)

That ball from Byrne for Ebosele just now was unbelievable. 

Sky commentators didn't see fit to mention it but by God I will

11 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Morrison has no idea going forward.

Morrison has no runners going forward. Don't think he's done much wrong, he's just looking for passes and there are no passes there. 

We really need to do things faster and get more bodies forward quicker. But it feels like we've been saying that for years. 

I actually like the Bird/Morrison/Bielik midfield very much, particularly if we are chasing a game. This pitch won't help them though 

3 minutes ago, DanS1992 said:

Sibbo may have won the points last game, but I can see why Rooney won't start him regularly. Everytime he gets a start he seems to flatter to deceive.

Capable of scoring spectacular goals but gives the ball away an awful lot. He'd probably look better in a more dominant team but he's quite a luxury/risk for a team like us

On 19/02/2022 at 08:40, Chester40 said:

Any need to use the word 'jungle' ...? Tbh I can't think of a better one, just seems weird without the lion context.

Every time I hear that song I feel obliged to point out that lions don't actually live in the jungle, which might be why I never get invited to parties.

1 hour ago, vonwright said:

This time last year the clubs in 21st to 23rd had eight to ten points last than they do this season. And, as we know, 44pts was enough to survive.

This should say "more". No idea what happened there!

It's a weird season. The relegation battle includes just four clubs fighting for one survival spot. So most of the usual assumptions about average points needed to survive are less likely to apply.  This time last year the clubs in 21st to 23rd had eight to ten points last than they do this season. And, as we know, 44pts was enough to survive.

How many points do we need? More than Reading, Peterborough and Barnsley. Beyond that it's very hard to say.

44 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

We've had no discussion with Wycombe and he's personally spoke to senior board members at other clubs who are unhappy they've had to take loans to pay HMRC when we won't have to pay everything.  No poo Sherlock.

Exactly, this is incredibly annoying. It's just how administration works - creditors including HMRC get what the new buyer will pay (if accepted), rather than the full amount. This has been known for a very long time. That's why the EFL punishes clubs that go into administration with a points penalty. We were given that penalty. We accepted that penalty.

If the EFL or member clubs have decided that penalty should be stiffer, change it. But that doesn't affect Derby - you can't apply any rule change retrospectively.

If there's a problem with clubs having to take out loans to pay HMRC because of Covid, that's a separate issue. (By all means, put yourselves into administration too, if you think it's such a brilliant tax dodge.)

18 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Totally agree, but I think its too late to close the stable door as the horse has bolted with Gibson digging in the spurs.

Yep. There's the rules and then there is the unwritten 'spirit' of the rules, and that's a fragile thing that's just been hurled to the floor. Bit like cricket: once one or two batsmen stopped 'walking', it didn't take long before no one did. 

5 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Quoting myself but I've just read regulation 95 which does indeed in my opinion allow Boro to claim. It also therefore allows every other club to claim against each other if you can show you may have been affected by another's actions. 

I guess the point of the rule was to have some sort of backstop to prevent clubs suing each other in court, and doing their washing in public. But if clubs don't trust the arbitration process, or if the process is too slow and spurious claims don't get weeded out quickly, then it's probably better these cases do end in court. 

The rule is part of the problem but I'd also blame Wycombe and Boro for their use of the rule. It's never been put to this use before and there's a reason for that - clubs suing each other for 'damages' in this way could become an epidemic and is bad news for the game. 

Perhaps the EFL need to specify the cases where they would arbitrate and say 'for anything else you need to take it to court'.