vonwright

LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE KNOWS HIS FOOTBALL
(Great strike Jason Knight!)

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?

Pass to a defender, let the opposition press and move up the pitch, smack a ball over the top and win it, thus leaving them less able to defend it properly as they are more likely to be out of shape.
OR
Fanny about, lose the ball, maybe concede a goal.

LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE KNOWS HIS FOOTBALL
(Great strike Jason Knight!)

LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE KNOWS HIS FOOTBALL
(Great strike Jason Knight!)

LISTEN TO THIS GUY HE KNOWS HIS FOOTBALL
(Great strike Jason Knight!)

Good feeling now !

Doesn't the manager even read this forum? Totally unprofessional.

Doesn't the manager even read this forum? Totally unprofessional.

I'm not sure you can say the 'historic chain of events' will be irrelevant. It will be up to us to prove that COVID was the proximate cause of a forced administration. The EFL will argue that our COVID losses alone were not sufficient to force us into administration, that they at most exacerbated the losses and debts we recklessly incurred, and that that behaviour ('normal business risks') was the effective cause. A proximate cause isn't just the most recent contributory factor, and since this will come down to interpreting the rule book anyway, the EFL's wording is pretty clear: we will need to prove it was the sole cause of our (forced) administration.I  think we will fail, although a) I'm not a lawyer, and b) I fully accept it would be an interesting case.
On the other point, the Wigan case suggests the EFL will expect some explanation of why these specific COVID losses necessitated administration, above and beyond Mel just deciding he'd had enough. And the fact he'd willingly racked up bigger losses pre-COVID does seem relevant there. The EFL explicitly talked about how owners getting bored of losing money was sad, but their choice, and nothing to do with the FM clause.
 

I think the EFL's position will be that football owners are generally willing choose to cover losses, which may put them and their clubs in a precarious position but is done by choice. The extra financial burden of COVID was very real, and might have led Mel (or any other owner) to decide they wouldn't (or couldn't) cover the losses any more. But that wouldn't mean COVID was _solely_ responsible for us going into administration, since if we hadn't willingly run up huge debts before, we would have been able to absorb it. I don't think we have a good answer to the question why COVID losses were entirely responsible for forcing us into administration, and the (bigger) debts we had already run up before weren't responsible at all.

Yeah, it will be interesting to hear it played out, and we might learn a bit more about how the club was run. My feeling is that when the debts and spending and so on are laid bare it's going to be hard to show we were an essentially sound and sustainable business that was flattened by COVID (and COVID alone) to the point where we had no choice but administration. But freely admit I could be wrong! 

I'm not sure it works to argue 'Yeah we were completely reckless and had run up huge debts but Covid tipped us over the edge and forced us into administration'. Putting aside the fact we weren't _forced_ into administration (which will be a massive issue in itself), the force majeure clause as drafted by the EFL states that we need to prove adminstration occurred 'solely as a result of a FM event'. 
It's not a great analogy but imagine our house is the only one on the street that gets destroyed after a hurricane. Turns out our house was built on terrible foundations and for years we'd failed to carry out the structural repairs necessary to make it more secure (in fact it had got worse). Plus the house didn't actually fall down - we just decided that the extra damage caused by the hurricane has made it too much of a money pit for us to continue with it, and we decided to pull it down ourselves. In that case saying the hurricane was the sole reason for the house coming down just seems... wrong. (And arguing that the other houses on the street were on almost-but-not-quite-as-dodgy foundations doesn't help either!)

Think we'll struggle to win this one, but it's an interesting question and I don't blame the administrators for trying.
On the written reasons for rejecting Wigan's (similar) appeal the EFL dwelled a bit on their interpretation of a "force majeure" event re football clubs (which are almost always run at a loss, and often on the whim of a rich owner prepared to underwrite losses).
First, we are satisfied on the evidence we have seen that the Insolvency Event arose because Mr Kay, the effective owner, made a commercial decision to choose to go back on promises of continued support and stopped putting money into the Club. That cannot be regarded as a ‘Force Majeure’ event.
"In circumstances in which it is by no means uncommon in football generally and in the Championship in particular for a Club to depend on external support from its ultimate owners to bridge the gap between income and expenditure (at least without disposing of assets such as the playing staff), it is, we consider, a normal business risk that an owner will lose interest or run out of money and/or choose to deploy its resources elsewhere. This is what happened here."
I guess we need to clear a pretty high bar here. It's true that one key difference is that we had the same owner before Covid devastated our revenues (and he'd proven willing to sustain losses in the past). The problem we are likely to have is that our finances were a train wreck even before Covid, and that Mel ultimately chose (rather than was forced) to walk away.
It would also set a _very_ dangerous precedent for the EFL given that it's probably the threat of a 12 point deduction that is stopping other clubs following us into administration.
 

Think we'll struggle to win this one, but it's an interesting question and I don't blame the administrators for trying.
On the written reasons for rejecting Wigan's (similar) appeal the EFL dwelled a bit on their interpretation of a "force majeure" event re football clubs (which are almost always run at a loss, and often on the whim of a rich owner prepared to underwrite losses).
First, we are satisfied on the evidence we have seen that the Insolvency Event arose because Mr Kay, the effective owner, made a commercial decision to choose to go back on promises of continued support and stopped putting money into the Club. That cannot be regarded as a ‘Force Majeure’ event.
"In circumstances in which it is by no means uncommon in football generally and in the Championship in particular for a Club to depend on external support from its ultimate owners to bridge the gap between income and expenditure (at least without disposing of assets such as the playing staff), it is, we consider, a normal business risk that an owner will lose interest or run out of money and/or choose to deploy its resources elsewhere. This is what happened here."
I guess we need to clear a pretty high bar here. It's true that one key difference is that we had the same owner before Covid devastated our revenues (and he'd proven willing to sustain losses in the past). The problem we are likely to have is that our finances were a train wreck even before Covid, and that Mel ultimately chose (rather than was forced) to walk away.
It would also set a _very_ dangerous precedent for the EFL given that it's probably the threat of a 12 point deduction that is stopping other clubs following us into administration.
 

Think we'll struggle to win this one, but it's an interesting question and I don't blame the administrators for trying.
On the written reasons for rejecting Wigan's (similar) appeal the EFL dwelled a bit on their interpretation of a "force majeure" event re football clubs (which are almost always run at a loss, and often on the whim of a rich owner prepared to underwrite losses).
First, we are satisfied on the evidence we have seen that the Insolvency Event arose because Mr Kay, the effective owner, made a commercial decision to choose to go back on promises of continued support and stopped putting money into the Club. That cannot be regarded as a ‘Force Majeure’ event.
"In circumstances in which it is by no means uncommon in football generally and in the Championship in particular for a Club to depend on external support from its ultimate owners to bridge the gap between income and expenditure (at least without disposing of assets such as the playing staff), it is, we consider, a normal business risk that an owner will lose interest or run out of money and/or choose to deploy its resources elsewhere. This is what happened here."
I guess we need to clear a pretty high bar here. It's true that one key difference is that we had the same owner before Covid devastated our revenues (and he'd proven willing to sustain losses in the past). The problem we are likely to have is that our finances were a train wreck even before Covid, and that Mel ultimately chose (rather than was forced) to walk away.
It would also set a _very_ dangerous precedent for the EFL given that it's probably the threat of a 12 point deduction that is stopping other clubs following us into administration.
 

Think we'll struggle to win this one, but it's an interesting question and I don't blame the administrators for trying.
On the written reasons for rejecting Wigan's (similar) appeal the EFL dwelled a bit on their interpretation of a "force majeure" event re football clubs (which are almost always run at a loss, and often on the whim of a rich owner prepared to underwrite losses).
First, we are satisfied on the evidence we have seen that the Insolvency Event arose because Mr Kay, the effective owner, made a commercial decision to choose to go back on promises of continued support and stopped putting money into the Club. That cannot be regarded as a ‘Force Majeure’ event.
"In circumstances in which it is by no means uncommon in football generally and in the Championship in particular for a Club to depend on external support from its ultimate owners to bridge the gap between income and expenditure (at least without disposing of assets such as the playing staff), it is, we consider, a normal business risk that an owner will lose interest or run out of money and/or choose to deploy its resources elsewhere. This is what happened here."
I guess we need to clear a pretty high bar here. It's true that one key difference is that we had the same owner before Covid devastated our revenues (and he'd proven willing to sustain losses in the past). The problem we are likely to have is that our finances were a train wreck even before Covid, and that Mel ultimately chose (rather than was forced) to walk away.
It would also set a _very_ dangerous precedent for the EFL given that it's probably the threat of a 12 point deduction that is stopping other clubs following us into administration.
 

Think we'll struggle to win this one, but it's an interesting question and I don't blame the administrators for trying.
On the written reasons for rejecting Wigan's (similar) appeal the EFL dwelled a bit on their interpretation of a "force majeure" event re football clubs (which are almost always run at a loss, and often on the whim of a rich owner prepared to underwrite losses).
First, we are satisfied on the evidence we have seen that the Insolvency Event arose because Mr Kay, the effective owner, made a commercial decision to choose to go back on promises of continued support and stopped putting money into the Club. That cannot be regarded as a ‘Force Majeure’ event.
"In circumstances in which it is by no means uncommon in football generally and in the Championship in particular for a Club to depend on external support from its ultimate owners to bridge the gap between income and expenditure (at least without disposing of assets such as the playing staff), it is, we consider, a normal business risk that an owner will lose interest or run out of money and/or choose to deploy its resources elsewhere. This is what happened here."
I guess we need to clear a pretty high bar here. It's true that one key difference is that we had the same owner before Covid devastated our revenues (and he'd proven willing to sustain losses in the past). The problem we are likely to have is that our finances were a train wreck even before Covid, and that Mel ultimately chose (rather than was forced) to walk away.
It would also set a _very_ dangerous precedent for the EFL given that it's probably the threat of a 12 point deduction that is stopping other clubs following us into administration.
 

Just thought I'd say hi. 
Been a long time visitor to this forum and enjoyed reading your comments (most of them anyway!). Decided to finally become a member so I can share my own thoughts, after what has been a whirlwind couple of weeks for the Rams (not to mention the couple of years leading up to it). Whether you enjoy my comments remains to be seen...
A bit about me – I was born in Burton but have spent the most of my adult life living and working in the East (Anglia that is). One of my earliest memories of the Rams was watching the Tin Man warming up at the BBG by nonchalantly curling the ball into the net from the corner flag, which to my 10 year old eyes was very impressive. The only thing I remember about the game itself was that it was 0-0, so McMinn's corners were probably  the most exciting thing about it.
Currently living near Ipswich so would be good to meet any fellow Suffolk Rams over a pint (ale not lager please). Not seen many Derby shirts down this way but know from this forum that there are a few.
Regardless of the situation we're in, loving the fight we're showing this season (and better football). Hope things get resolved soon so we can look to the future, whatever division that may be. 
COYR!

Tomori, Mount and Martin in his prime because we need a goal scorer. 

I don't think anyone's painting him as a crook or suggesting his heart hasn't been in the right place. Its inevitable the ending place of an ownership will colour people's judgements though.
The reality is he has condemned us to League One football as we won't overcome the 12 point penalty for administration plus the likely FFP 9 point penalty (brought about by his gambling). Yes, potential buyers have come out of the shadows now we're in administration but was there really no cheap deal Mel could have facilitated whilst he was still in charge? 
We talk about his financial gambles as a desire to get us into the Prem but there are gambles & then the kind of gambles that lead to the existential crisis we're now facing. He recognised back in spring 2018 that we needed to rein it in & as a consequence, Rowett left thinking there was to be no more big spending. Little more than 3 months later, we hired Lampard, threw millions around & brought in unbelievable loans for this level - that to me was irresponsibility far beyond a desire to do well. It was this period that incited the attention we now have from the EFL & the rest of the division & to bring in Cocu on a 4 year deal on massive wages, Rooney & spend £10m on Bielik after Wembley 2019 was just astonishing given he was already actively trying to sell the club.
To my mind there's the morality of clearing up a mess you've created - he hasn't done that & is trusting the 'market' of buyers to pick us up & rebuild us. Whether that leads to a brighter future will only become clear in the fullest of time but I will never support his decision to put us into administration - its reckless, shirks accountability & seems entirely in keeping with how he ran the club.
As to the general sentiment of your post & not withstanding my criticism of him above, I do agree with others that we do need to maintain a mature relationship with Mel given his control of PP & loans to him.

Is your point that in the 'real world', someone who has spent a fortune on a football club, saddled it with huge debts and completely unsustainable wages, who then finds out no one wants to buy that club, might one day decide to dump the club into administration and walk away if the EFL refuse him a loan to add to all the club's other debts? Even if he told the fans who cared deeply about his club that he'd protect it, and explicitly said he wouldn't walk away until he'd found a buyer?
Okay. Maybe that happens in the 'real world'. In which case what also happens in the 'real world' is that people like me judge people like him. With good reason. 
All the choices he made that put us here were his, all the reassurances he gave he chose to give. Or perhaps he wasn't living in the 'real world' when he did the reckless things he did, and gave the reassurances he wouldn't keep?
 

So, imagine you’re Ravel Morrison. You have just made a bit of time for yourself via a trick or just good positioning and you look for attacking options.
Who will you see from the current squad who has made room for a pass?
 

They all run together. Arguably the risk-reward in the Lampard season was justified only if we had immediately slashed expenditure to make ourselves more sustainable once it failed. Otherwise you might find no one wants to buy your debt-ridden and loss-making business, and eventually end up with a huge points penalty for going into administration. 
The reason he couldn't find a buyer was because of the way he'd run the club. 

I am hoping Lawrence breaks into a walk soon