vonwright

What were people expect Jozwiak to do in this game? Our front three have barely touched the ball. He's been anonymous but you could say the same about all but the defenders. I'd say he's done more than Sibley (lost the ball less). This wasn't a game where he played badly, it's just a game where even Messi would struggle to make an impact for Derby

Diangana really should be playing in the Premier League.

He's picked a team of runners and battlers who are running and battling. Not pretty but they've done alright, ridden their luck and frankly what else can he do?

6 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

He's 31

Jagielka was 31 when Derby signed Chris Martin from Norwich.

(Just checked and to be fair he was 30, didn't turn 31 for another couple of months.)

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I would far rather see Derby attempt to play football and fail than play Rowettball.

That's fine but it could also get us relegated. Plus, it's not exactly either-or: it's not a matter of 100% 'boot it up to the target man' v 100% 'play it around at the back at all costs'. Surely we should be able to tweak our system when the other team starts pressing so at least we aren't so predictable?

Birmingham play fairly pragmatic football. I guess you could call it 'ugly' but their fans are a lot happier than ours today. Our pretty passing isn't bringing as much joy as we think it is!

16 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

As a captain though it's not just his performance,the last thing you need your captain doing is losing his head.

Also I don't think people criticising Lawrence are forgetting how he played against Forest, unfairly making him a scapegoat, or whatever. The fact is Lawrence, like Sibley, looks good if he gets space to run and shoot. In games like this, when better teams press and don't give us that space, Lawrence (like Sibley) often looks bad. They both make bad decisions and Sibley in particular seems to have a poor first touch. They both also have a tendency to get frustrated, make even worse decisions, and risk getting sent off. I've been a big supporter/defender of Lawrence over the years but in games like this he doesn't offer very much. He gets singled out by some because when he plays in a game that suits him he can look so good that it's easy to forget he can be (and often is) completely nullified. That's not necessarily his fault - he's just got his limitations 

Grim. They figured us out quickly and we have had no answer. Outplayed, out-thought and out-muscled. A lot of the players we are putting so much faith in - Sibley, Lawrence, Shinnie, Bird - have looked a couple of levels short of what we need. 

I don't mind the passing from the back. I like it. The problem is we have no plan B when the other team start pressing. Just keep going and going and getting into more and more trouble 

Jeez. That goal was a horrible echo of last season. Obsession with playing it out from the back which gets us into trouble as soon as the other team decides to press. Just giving goals away. 

Lawrence and Sibley really need to find a way into this game. 

1 minute ago, vonwright said:

Morrison is such a good footballer. 

In an alternative universe where Rooney stayed fitter for longer and Bielik didn't get injured we are playing the Prem with a Rooney/Bielik/Morrison midfield, and doing pretty well. 

Morrison is such a good footballer. 

2 hours ago, angieram said:

No problem. They might have been asked, they might have been answered. We don't know because the club never released the said notes, or approved other's notes to be released. 

It felt like things had moved on since the meeting, especially given the number of tweets from Nixon about discussions with the EFL progressing. I think fans thought we would hear something by deadline day (we didn't). The additional charge then being added to the EFL charge sheet a couple of days later seems to have sparked another wave of criticism across social media, and I think this might have prompted Rams Trust's latest letter. 

Maybe they were asked to be patient, but for how long? 

 

Exactly. They all seem completely fair questions (as does 'Have the accounts been filed?'). They all could be answered without 'prejudicing' any discussions with the EFL (whatever that is supposed to mean), or more to the point annoying the EFL. They are all things fans really, and not unreasonably, want to know. The club could quite easily have released notes from the meeting after thinking about their wording, and even running it by the EFL. I find it really hard to believe that the EFL have said 'Don't tell fans ANYTHING about ANY financial aspects of your operation or we will give you a harsher punishment than the facts of the case deserve'. That would be ridiculous, and probably illegal, and if they have said that then all football fans (and the government) should know. 

It is a shame but football journalism has changed a lot. Partly due to changes in journalism (less time to develop stories and contacts, more pressure to write more things and rack up page views). But mainly due to changes with football. In the old days the clubs needed the local paper much more as the main way it could speak to fans. The paper shaped opinion of the club. So the paper could demand things. Plus the clubs were fairly unprofessional in their communications so journalists would have the numbers for players, staff, relatives... loads of people. The clubs couldn't realistically stop stuff coming out, and knew it. These days the journalists have none of the power - the clubs don't really need them and can threaten to cut them out, stop them coming to the ground on match days and being at press conferences, etc. It's actually quite a thin threat (do you really get great stories from press conferences?), but why rock the boat? 

It's a bit easier for the journos who aren't local and cover Derby as part of a wider beat, since they can risk their relationship with an individual club, and probably have a wider range of contacts within umbrella organisations like the EFL, or among agents who work with several clubs, etc.

Long story: don't blame the journos. (And Steve Nicholson is a good one.)

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

seems an odd statement, I thought the DC stuff had ended.  It was now up to the club to present restated accounts and the EFL to decide on any penalty based on the standard points per breach?

Exactly, and it is disappointing if journalists are simply repeating this and not challenging it. It's their job to try to get information out! The only thing that is 'ongoing' is the process of deciding punishment and surely we have no formal role in that (a club doesn't decide its own punishment). And 'the EFL doesn't want us to make them look bad while we informally negotiate an acceptable punishment' isn't an excuse for complete radio silence, either. If the EFL doesn't want the club to mention things that are in dispute, that's one thing. But that leaves plenty that they could say. 

5 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Because, as @Charlotte Ram illustrated, maybe the club have agreed to a blanket no further comment in order to avoid potentially making the relationship with the EFL even worse. What we might consider a fairly innocuous comment could be perceived as passive aggressive. Having said that, the club probably should (and maybe have but had it declined) run a brief statement past the EFL for approval. With regard to your question “do you think the EFL will punish us harder”, maybe they will. The last thing you want to do when negotiating, especially if you have a weak case, is antagonise the people you’re negotiating with.

I’m certainly not happy with the lack of information, and don’t believe it can continue much longer, but I am open to the theory, however unlikely it might seem, that the club can’t say anything.

Yeah I read that and I repeat: if there is any sort of positive story to tell about any of this, then to agree to say nothing at all about anything financial, however anodyne or unrelated to the points of contention, is something no good lawyer would suggest and no good owner would accept. There's a world of difference between 'not pouring gasoline on a fire' and not saying anything about anything.

9 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

You don’t know that. As I said in an earlier post, maybe they have agreed with the EFL that they’d make no further comment until the matter is resolved. 
 

I hate the fact that we don’t know what is going on but I don’t believe for one minute it’s simply because the club don’t want to communicate. 

Why on earth would they agree to 'make no further comment' if this includes, for example, not saying they have submitted the accounts once they have done so? Or telling fans why the non-payment of transfer fees has appeared on our charge sheet again? Or saying anything, however non-specific, about their commitment to paying money owed and protecting the long-term financial future of the club? Why not respond in kind to the anonymous briefings one assumes are coming from the EFL? Who agrees to something like that? It would be crazy. And what would it get us? Do we think the EFL will punish us harder if we tell fans what's going on with filing the accounts, or why we haven't paid the taxman? Why, if there's a positive story to tell? Harder than what exactly? This feels like it's going to a hearing anyway. Why would the EFL tell the owners 'You aren't allowed to say anything reassuring to fans about the club's finances', and why would the club agree? I could understand the EFL not wanting a war or words, and the club agreeing to this, even agreeing to run statements by the EFL.

But complete silence? At a time like this? It's just not plausible. 

2 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

Time for some communication with the fans please Mel.

Exactly. The idea that we might have agreed to say nothing on the matter - literally nothing, not even 'we can't say much about this while negotiations are ongoing but want to reassure fans that X, y, z' - is frankly absurd. They know how worried fans are. They aren't talking because they don't want to. You can hardly blame people for assuming this means the situation is pretty bad. The only alternatives are that the club has signed a ridiculous one-way gagging clause with a party with which it's in dispute; or the club doesn't care that fans are worried; or the club is just terrible at communicating. 

The fact is the only communication the club has done is a mandatory meeting, a fair time ago now, and whose participants were slapped with an NDA. At a time when the fans most need to hear from the owners, where are they?

7 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Isn’t the “disgusting lack of communication from the football club” another assumption that they are at liberty to actually tell us everything we want to know?

I appreciate they might not be able to tell us everything but the issue is that they aren't saying anything. What process or agreement would stop them saying 'We have provided x and y and are confident that blah blah'? It's just terrible communications. 

Hopefully some of our younger players learn from watching him play. As someone said elsewhere, a player like Sibley is currently limited by the fact he needs space to look dangerous, and he doesn't get that at Championship level now he's a know quantity. Morrison on the other hand always seems to have time, he makes it with his positioning and first touch and then makes quick decisions about what to do next. It's a mark of real class and rare (maybe Will Hughes has something similar). Maybe it can be taught/learned, maybe not, but I'm glad he's around.

Lots of positives, but once again no win.

Things we need:

A stronger bench/squad

A bit of luck

Energy levels dropping a bit - bench has got a big role here 

Such a committed press. Attitude looks absolutely spot on (credit to Rooney as well as the players)

There's a lot to like about Lawrence as a striker if we are going to play this style

Some of Morrison's touches are different class