vonwright

12 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Personally thought there was a bigger difference than that. Think QPR are close to how Rooney ultimately wants us to play - one touch, dominate possession & very mobile front men - they're just much better at it than us (better players in the final 3rd obviously help that)

Totally agree re Morrison & I'm very disappointed. He was a final third impact player earlier in his career but looked totally lost there tonight.

Morrison is a bit of a worry. I'm fine thinking he no longer has the zip or physicality to be a dynamic forward player. But it looked like he wanted to reinvent himself as a playmaker who had killer passes and vision that others lacked. All well and good but his workrate seems to have dropped right off and he just isn't finding space or demanding the ball, and he's lost that early precision. I hope it's a blip - we really could do with those players with a bit of extra quality that brings the best out in others. 

Good effort but completely ran out of steam, and the mistakes came. We have got pretty good at defending, working incredibly hard, and making it tough for the other team. But the minute we start pushing too many forward or taking a few chances... bad things tend to happen, and particularly when our midfield has run itself ragged. 

Can't blame Rooney or the players for gambling. And QPR are a very good team. 

It's funny how people remember Commons differently - I though he was really good for us. He speaks really well of his time at Derby here. To me he just comes across as a proper professional, respectful of all the clubs he's played for. It's hard to blame him for not wanting to take a wage cut. 

I always wonder with players like Lawrence - the occasional wonder-dribble or wonder-goal, combined with a lot of anonymity/stuff not coming off - how much is really within his control, and how much is basically down to luck. By which I mean nine times out of ten his dribbling won't come off because that's the limit of his skill, and likewise with his 'ambitious' shooting. But he's the only one for whom it will work that one time. So when it does, we all say 'You've got something in you no one else has, why can you do that every time?' But the fact is, he can't, and never will, because he needs that bit of luck that means the defender misses a feint or lunges in early, or he finds himself in just the right position with just the right amount of space to measure his shot. 

I wonder if this is true of Sibley too. He just needs to get a bit lucky, get a break that gives him some space. He's maybe not quite good enough to consistently make that space for himself, and maybe never will be. That's not necessarily a lack of application. 

23 hours ago, David said:

If Man United came calling he would be gone, make no mistake about it, even as interim if he did well the permanent job would be his.

However I just don't see it, not after Ole. Carrick and Fletcher will continue until they can appoint a Poch, Zidane or ten Hag.

They have a lot of superstars in that dressing room, needs experience and respect in there to take control of the situation.

It's still one of the biggest jobs in the world, can't see many not being interested, with the squad they have as well to walk into.

The silver lining of us losing Lampard to Chelsea (popular ex-player with limited management experience: failed) is that it is now less likely Manchester United will poach Rooney, who has basically the same profile. Particularly after Ole, who was roughly similar (yes he'd managed for a while but never in a top league). I think the big clubs will increasingly want recently retired big name players to have a more successful track record before they take the leap (eg Gerrard going through Rangers and now Aston Villa).

That's what I hope, anyway... The only complication is that there aren't a lot of decent managers available to United at the moment. But still can't see them taking this punt - the only thing that would make sense is roping him in as assistant to whoever the new manager is, with a view to him being the ultimate successor. But not sure things ever work like that, or how attractive that prospect would be. Rooney seems like his own man, with his own ideas.

Great result, great resolve. It's a weird time to say it but from a playing point of view there's a lot to feel optimistic about at the moment. 

Fair enough, do it if the other team aren't immediately pressing - but if they are, it makes no sense.

There's a load of potential risks: a small risk of a very bad thing happening (ie today) and a large risk of a not-particularly-terrible-but-still-bad thing happening (aimless hurried clearance by the goalie or defender). 

I guess you weigh that against the chance of something good coming from it, but really: how much gain, for how much potential pain? How 'pulled out of position' are they, really, and how many goals or scoring opportunities has this created v things like the completely unnecessary goal today?

6 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

an echo chamber of self-righteousness, whataboutery, entranchment, and opinion presented as fact but rooted in, well, opinion.

'Siri, what is the internet?'

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I think the only minor inaccuracy in your post is that the EFL did not object to our amortisation approach, rather than they agreed with it. 

I'm just panicking now that the FCA might now decide to haul me over the coals and lock me away for the issue that was investigated by the fsa in 2004 and no further action was decided upon. 

Clearly I was bang to rights and should be made an example of. It's a disgrace that people like me are allowed to walk the streets, frankly. 

?

Did the EFL ever investigate and decide no further action was necessary? I mean the whole process has been woefully slow, no doubt, but I thought their line was that they don't 'approve' accounts, they just take action where they think policies breach the rules?

Having said that I do think it's a bit unfair to fail for years to take action over a policy, then seek to apply a punishment for several years during which that policy was used. I've not fully thought this through, obviously, but there should be some equivalent of the statute of limitations at play. I guess pointing out this unfairness was part of our bargaining for 'only' nine points when by the letter of the law our breaches would have merited more. 

2 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

FFP is an outdated concept now for the reasons stated. The yoyo of Norwich, Watford etc show this. The only true financial constraint would be to put a worldwide cap on transfer funds and wages, but that’s never going to happen. 
  
Either we make it no limit and if owners go crazy chasing the dollar then it’s a gamble clubs and fans have to accept or they keep with the FFP rules. Or some smart arse comes up with another plan but that’s out of my limits. 
  
Sad times. 

I found it really heartening when fans forced a rethink of the Super League plans, but we are already half way there. The fact is we have a top tier which is separate from, and vastly more profitable than, the rest of football. It breaks things for everyone else. And I have absolutely no idea what you do about that. You could have a system where revenue is shared more fairly but the rich clubs would simply split. You could have a system where no losses are allowed and the best players would play abroad and fans wouldn't accept it. It's an impossible puzzle really. And it's why, while I believe Mel messed up and is responsible for much of our current plight, I can't say that I think he was badly motivated. The whole system is geared toward encouraging owners to go that little bit further, that little bit further, until they can no longer swim safely back to shore. 

6 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

 

I should also say - as someone who has been pretty vocal in attributing a fair bit of blame to our previous owners - I don't think the EFL has covered itself in glory. The whole system stinks: football basically doesn't work, financially, outside the Premiership. There's a complete disconnect between the Prem and the rest of football. And rather than any kind of benevolent independent oversight the whole thing seems to be run on the basis of 'Yeah we all know it doesn't really work, but just don't take the **** and we will pretend it's all fine and functional'. At best the EFL is curbing the worst excesses while turning a blind eye to the underlying issues. We messed up, I can't really defend the way we were run - but it's not like we were one bad apple in an otherwise perfectly healthy batch. 

3 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

In terms of the P&S breaches yes as it’s all about the phasing. I watch your updates with interest as probably the best authority on here when it comes to the P&S figures. We were debating no points deduction or about 4 points at worst and what Mel said to RD in September seemed to back that up. The P&S breaches shown today indicate the EFL could have hit us for more than the 9 they have.

In the grand scheme of things is it the massive breach it’s been made out to be by the EFL, the media, and fans of rival clubs - absolutely not but that’s where the rules are not fit for purpose. But against their rules applying amortisation in the way they want to apply it they’ve got us bang to rights whether we think it’s fair or not.

Im genuinely intrigued though to see how they treat clubs on the accounts for the Covid years because surely half the league will fail. 

Also - if we are honest - the scale of losses under a straight-line amortisation policy lays bare the underlying financial situation fairly well. Our policy was based on back-ending losses and essentially pretending worthless players were worth something. Huge losses were only partially offset by a 'generous' stadium sale. The whole pattern is one of overspending compounded by overspending, dodging the final reckoning for as long as possible. And then the final dodge was to put the club in administration and leave the mess for someone else to clean up. I'm trying to work out what the plan was if we hadn't been pulled up on our amortisation and I'm struggling. 

1 hour ago, Chris_D said:

we haven't spent 300k on an appeal

And it might have given us some leverage, even if we weren't likely to win. 

There's clearly been a fair amount of horse-trading in order to agree a final punishment. On the one hand it's actually lower than the agreed overspend figures would suggest, but on the other we've dropped the administration appeal and (more to the point) we've accepted being pinged for multiple years and not just the first. 

I think we can all agree it's a highly unsatisfactory and opaque process and to whoever said football should be overseen by an independent body - I could not agree more, and there will never be a better example than us.

It is a real shame we couldn't have got to this point without the additional penalty of administration, because I really believe we'd have a chance of staying up, and it would be easier to rebuild from the Championship than from League One. But here we are: hopefully we can get the club sold, and the future sorted, and rebuild around young players who want to stay and become legends of the future.

48 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Bielik is bound to go I reckon. Perhaps it means we’ll see him at his best once he’s back, because he’ll be trying to show teams in the PL how good he still is

Those who say MM had bad luck only have to point at Bielik. What would have happened if he’d stayed fit ?

Yeah there's an alternative universe where prime Bielik and prime Thorne are playing together in some England-style formation, and are the best midfield in the league. And if we'd have had that base it would have made a lot of our other players look a lot better. 

Was looking at the 1985/86 promotion squad and realised we had some decent players that year (and Phil Gee, too):

Goalkeeper
Eric Steele 
Mark Wallington 

Defender
Paul Blades 
Steven Buckley 
Rob Hindmarch 
Mickey Lewis
David Linighan 
Ross MacLaren 
Charlie Palmer

Midfielder
Jeff Chandler 
Andy Garner 
John Gregory 
Steve McClaren 
Gary Micklewhite 
David Penney 
Mickey Thomas
Geraint Williams 

Forward
Trevor Christie 
Bobby Davison 
Phil Gee 

Manager
Arthur Cox 

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

£9m match day and £7m commercial/hospitality per annum. Plus other little bits such as programmes, merchandise, etc. Let's estimate total per annum at £16.5m

9 games also without fans in 19/20 (one fifth of a season). £16.5m + 20% =£19.8m

Next.

What are you including in commercial and hospitality here? Usually that would include sponsorship and merchandise, which are not 'small bits' and were not wiped out by COVID. Are you in any way considering offsetting income from people watching in alternative ways, ie online? 

In any case, say it was £20m if you like. My point was that even if this figure is correct, it needs to be looked at in context: the enormous losses Mel absorbed over multiple seasons, and the total £60m debts we apparently now have. The COVID loan that we were apparently cruelly denied by an EFL hell bent on destroying us was capped at £8.3m. That's roughly the sum we reportedly owe Cocu and his sidekicks for sacking them (in the middle of the pandemic).

Clearly a number of people need to believe that we are a victimised club, led by a visionary businessman whose masterplan of sustainable success was cruelly derailed by a combination of COVID and the evil Baron Gibson and his EFL minions. And I say that's wishful thinking, as the accounts we still have to publish for 2018/19 onwards will probably confirm. I trust the administrators are doing their best to get us back on track. 

Anyway I realise this is an unpopular view so I'm out. 

24 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Our revenue was £30 million before COVID.  SO its mathematically incorrect as well as wrong on many other facts.

And funny how its OK for EFL to appeal ( but actually not OK for them to make false claims late in the process when they tried to get us relegated) , and not OK for Derby to appeal against the admin deduction? 

But yes the important thing is to find a new buyer.. and the only reason to accept any penalty is if that closes off the deal by bringing closure to EFL's witch hunt. 

   

You're going to need to show some working. Our matchday income in 2017/18 was £9.1m. Our total revenue, including eg broadcast rights, was £29m. (In passing, our wages were £47m.) I'd like to know how exactly we get to £20m lost through COVID but even if we do, it's a fraction of the money we've lost or the debts we've accumulated. It's a factor obviously but it's absolutely not the sole cause of our problems.

It's absolutely fine for us to appeal the administration penalty! I'd love us to appeal and win. The club however has agreed an adjournment. Are we claiming they are doing this despite having an ironclad case? Sacrificing 12 points to bring forward an additional penalty of nine? It makes no sense. They know they are not going to win that appeal. 

You've convinced yourself we would win the administration appeal and you're now constructing a huge conspiracy theory around it. There's a much simpler explanation. The administrators know they were unlikely to win, that the finances are a mess, and that if they can leverage their minimal 'threat' of legal action to at least close off the threat of multiple points deductions when our accounts are calculated like every other club, then so be it.

If this was any other club, all this would be obvious. Since it's our club, it's painful. But it's true all the same. 

39 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's not an answer though....why did we have to sell our ground?

...and still ended up £60m of debt, only £20m of which was supposedly due to COVID (£20m being higher than the average annual matchday income of all championship clubs in 2018/19, the last season for which most figures are available, and more than twice the matchday income Forest declared that year when they had roughly the same crowds as us).

I think we have to be honest about just how much of a financial basket case we became under Mel. Are the EFL really singling us out for particular attention, or did we quite a lot to single ourselves out? No other club used our controversial amortisation policy, and the EFL were perfectly within their rights to appeal the original decision. Under normal circumstances nine points - if it represents a final settlement of P and S breaches - wouldn't seem so bad. We don't know what the accounts for recent years are going to show but there's a very real chance they are going to look pretty awful, given that the effect of the amortisation policy was to back-end transfer losses, and we've lost a lot on buying expensive but worthless players. 

We were also the only club to go into administration, and that's an automatic 12pts. We have now adjourned the appeal - presumably the administrators realised the chances of success were limited, and not worth delaying settlement of other issues. In my view that's sensible as there wasn't much chance we were going to win a force majeure case when we had been put into administration by an owner who had set the club up to make enormous losses, had previously shown a willingness to sustain these losses, but who had then decided he couldn't or wouldn't sustain further losses (not least because we already had huge debts). 

We need clarity, we need a sale to a more pragmatic and business-oriented owner, we need stability. I would have loved us to have stayed up against the odds but honestly, they are the real priorities this season. 

Well this is grim. We've collapsed mentally. Blunt in attack and totally disorganised in defence. Like the worst of last season. 

This is pretty grim. I feel it must be Jozwiak's fault, somehow. 

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Your analysis is wrong logically and in law. If the answer to 1) is No then how could the EFL claim we were a basket case going into the pandemic? We may have been weak but we would have survived financially if the pandemic hadn't happened and that is the proper legal test.

Again, I'm not sure why you think this is the proper legal test of whether this force majeure clause applies. Rather, the way the clause is drafted suggests we will need to show Covid was solely responsible for forcing us into administration. If the Wigan ruling is anything to go by, the argument "We were run perfectly happily by a rich owner who was prepared to plug £xm gaps in our income/expenditure, but couldn't or wouldn't cover gaps of £xm" isn't going to play well. These circumstances are very different, and I have no idea what the outcome will be, but the way the club was run before Covid will be a relevant consideration in deciding whether Covid alone forced us into administration. I think we need to wait for the ruling and see what it says, but the "rich benefactor" model which we've used, as have many others, always came with risks. 

19 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

19 years ago yesterday...

Some young whippersnapper put an end to Arsenal's 30 match unbeaten run.

Whatever happened to him, I wonder?

 

 

God I hate it when commentators say: "REMEMBER THE NAME! A new star is born!"

If he's that good I won't need to remember his name, will I? It will be everywhere.

It really should be more like: "Con Blatsis! Remember the name, because he's not very good and if you don't make a real effort to remember him now, you'll probably forget about him very quickly."

So frustrating. If we'd have turned just a couple of these draws into wins we'd be two places off the bottom. 

I realise we wanted to sell Marshall but since he's still at the club he has to play ahead of Allsop.

What is the point of a goal kick where the defender taps it to the goalie who then belts it while under pressure from the onrushing attackers?

1 minute ago, vonwright said:

Bad feeling... One of those games where we are trying to attack without creating many clear cut chances, and at the same time leaving ourselves open to much more dangerous looking counters. 

LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE KNOWS HIS FOOTBALL

(Great strike Jason Knight!)