ThePrisoner Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said: I also don't think Shinnie will be here much longer. Not a Cocu signing and not sure he'll get any chance next season. I disagree. Cocu told him what he needed to do to get in the squad and he did it. I think Cocu likes him as an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACKWORTHRAM Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 minute ago, ThePrisoner said: I disagree. Cocu told him what he needed to do to get in the squad and he did it. I think Cocu likes him as an option. That's fair enough mate. Didn't get much of a look in when we came back. Seems down the pecking order to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 57 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: I remember there being something about Bielik when Lampard was here. We know that Rooney was a Lampard signing, Shinnie, we had Ethan Pinnock lined up, but he signed for Brentford due to the wait, and I think Bielik was lined up too. It’s been made very clear Rooney was NOT a Lampard signing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie George Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Archied said: It’s been made very clear Rooney was NOT a Lampard signing There was talk that Lampard wanted him when he arrived but couldn't get him out of his DC United contract. Whether it was Lampard's choice or another Mel PR stunt we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Archied said: It’s been made very clear Rooney was NOT a Lampard signing But it was. Lampard spoke to Rooney and asked him if he fancied coming to play for Derby. Clearly Lampard didnt sign him, he had gone, but if it wasnt for Frank Lampard, not a cat in hells chance the talks would have even got off the ground. There was an interview at the time of the signing that confirmed the above also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 46 minutes ago, Rampage said: I am pretty much resigned to -12 points then an unsuccessful appeal lasting up to six months. We may start on -12 points and then have all season to argue about it before the season ends. Would we still have broken the ffp rules if we had sold it for £60 million as sort of accepted at some level by EFL. It is difficult to argue that we got very good value on quite a number of signings that we made for a variety of reasons including managerial changes. Lampsrd got a lot out of the players but we relied too heavily in our loans. Villa did the same with more loans, were promoted and have stayed up for next year. Brentford should have got promoted but did not. So many factors in the equation, luck being one of them. Rams were not good enough and we do not have enough good players at present to get automatic promotion or maybe even top six this year. We possibly have a weaker squad now than when Lampsrd arrived. It's not a standard 12 points like with administration though. I know Sheffield Wednesday have been deducted 12, but the assumption with that is because the stadium sale wasn't accepted for 2017/18 at all, then they went over by £15m or more which means 12 points on the sliding scale. They were found not guilty of the second part, related to deliberately concealing information, which means no additional (up to) 9 points were deducted, for aggravating factors, which means the absolute maximum possible deduction is 21 points. Our case doesn't mean a straight 12 point deduction unless we would have gone over by £15m or more. If the sale is accepted at a lesser value, and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case (at the very least) as both Villa and Reading's sales seem to have been accepted and ours took place in the correct financial year, we still make a profit from the sale, so that reduces the loss that would have been made without it. The amortisation method makes it more confusing in our case, as that changing changes more than just the incomings, it changes the profits made on outgoings as their book value would have been lower when we sold them, so more profit made and not as simple as just adjusting one and not the other. The EFL statement doesn't make any reference to misleading them or concealing information, the club one says we have acted transparently and there has been no allegation to the contrary by the EFL. This would suggest the additional (up to) 9 points, for aggravating factors, has never been 'in play' in our case, as there are no aggravating factors. Also meant to say, we may be found guilty of both changes, not guilty of both charges, or guilty of one and not guilty of the other, either way around. It's also possible we may be found guilty on a technicality, but that mitigating circumstances, like the EFL claiming to have made a mistake (whilst simultaneously not accusing us of doing anything underhanded), may come into play to reduce any potential punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 https://www.skysports.com/app/football/news/11696/11779498/wayne-rooney-frank-lampard-suggested-Derby-county-sign-striker-a-year-ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 Just now, MackworthRamIsGod said: https://www.skysports.com/app/football/news/11696/11779498/wayne-rooney-frank-lampard-suggested-Derby-county-sign-striker-a-year-ago Unfortunately the link doesnt work when you click it, but if you Google, Frank Lampard suggests Wayne Rooney to Derby, the articles are easy to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 39 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said: That's fair enough mate. Didn't get much of a look in when we came back. Seems down the pecking order to me. I think it's up to Shinnie himself, I think Cocu likes having him as a squad player, but if he wants to be a regular starter I think he would get a move to another championship team who play a more rugged style. I don't think we'd stamp on a transfer for him as long as it was a reasonable fee. Bit of a shame for him, I think hed have had a much bigger part in a Lampard style of team, but I credit him for working hard to adapt to what Cocu wants and making himself a useful part of the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsRam77 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said: It's not a standard 12 points like with administration though. I know Sheffield Wednesday have been deducted 12, but the assumption with that is because the stadium sale wasn't accepted for 2017/18 at all, then they went over by £15m or more which means 12 points on the sliding scale. They were found not guilty of the second part, related to deliberately concealing information, which means no additional (up to) 9 points were deducted, for aggravating factors, which means the absolute maximum possible deduction is 21 points. Our case doesn't mean a straight 12 point deduction unless we would have gone over by £15m or more. If the sale is accepted at a lesser value, and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case (at the very least) as both Villa and Reading's sales seem to have been accepted and ours took place in the correct financial year, we still make a profit from the sale, so that reduces the loss that would have been made without it. The amortisation method makes it more confusing in our case, as that changing changes more than just the incomings, it changes the profits made on outgoings as their book value would have been lower when we sold them, so more profit made and not as simple as just adjusting one and not the other. The EFL statement doesn't make any reference to misleading them or concealing information, the club one says we have acted transparently and there has been no allegation to the contrary by the EFL. This would suggest the additional (up to) 9 points, for aggravating factors, has never been 'in play' in our case, as there are no aggravating factors. Reading what you’ve said which mirrors every other logical explanation of the scenario im still totally baffled as to how there’s even a charge against us. the club claimed everything has been signed off and it appears almost a retrospective punishment now that “they made a mistake” as far as I’m aaare in business ... if u make a mistake it’s your responsibility and u carry the can for it in the EFLs case that would be to stand up and say yer we ducked up and then have to deal with whatever that twit Gibson has to throw at them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: But it was. Lampard spoke to Rooney and asked him if he fancied coming to play for Derby. Clearly Lampard didnt sign him, he had gone, but if it wasnt for Frank Lampard, not a cat in hells chance the talks would have even got off the ground. There was an interview at the time of the signing that confirmed the above also. Nope there were interviews at the time that stated Lampard was long gone well before any sniff of Rooney poss joining , Rooney interview which he stated he had zero contact with frank regards Derby ,,,look it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 minute ago, NottsRam77 said: Reading what you’ve said which mirrors every other logical explanation of the scenario im still totally baffled as to how there’s even a charge against us. the club claimed everything has been signed off and it appears almost a retrospective punishment now that “they made a mistake” as far as I’m aaare in business ... if u make a mistake it’s your responsibility and u carry the can for it in the EFLs case that would be to stand up and say yer we ducked up and then have to deal with whatever that twit Gibson has to throw at them Yeah, that's what I've always struggled to get my head around. There are many theories swirling around, some saying the club said one thing and did another. That doesn't make any sense at all with the two statements (EFL's and club's) that were released at the time. The EFL's statement on Sheffield Wednesday, and a further supplementary one that an EFL spokesman made (which said about seeing documents for the first time during their review) after SW's reply statement, went into more detail about the charges. Ours just said recording excess losses, nothing else, it was short compared to theirs. It was the club that detailed the two charges, and there was no further statement from them reiterating their stance after our reply statement like there was in SW's case, and ours detailed that they'd claimed to make a mistake. Why wouldn't they do the same thing as they did with SW in our case? https://www.efl.com/news/2019/november/efl-statement-sheffield-wednesday-charged/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50662764 https://www.efl.com/news/2020/january/efl-statement-Derby-county-charged-with-excess-losses/ And why would the club have said anything that could be easily disproved (when they didn't need to release such a detailed statement), giving ample time for the EFL to effectively counter the points made, unless the club have the evidence to prove every word? It would be total madness and I just cannot see that being the case. So what could the EFL's case be based on? Are they just saying to angry clubs 'look we tried our best' so they have no case to sue them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SECornerRAM Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 3 hours ago, dcfcreece1601 said: I can see us making no transfers until this is over and I bet it will be after the transfer window closes , so no signings and another transition season watching all the 18 year olds improve but getting best comfortablely by the top 6 worth noting the domestic window doesn't close until October 16th …. anyway - that tribunal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U.M. Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 1 hour ago, NottsRam77 said: the club claimed everything has been signed off and it appears almost a retrospective punishment now that “they made a mistake” in the EFLs case that would be to stand up and say yer we ducked up and then have to deal with whatever that twit Gibson has to throw at them The best explanation I can see is to remove any precedent on the matter. We get found guilty, not punished due to mitigating circumstances, EFL have established what the rules are. Prevents anyone copying us claiming it must be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcfcJG Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 Derby’s twitter and website is unusually quiet. Makes me think something is happening with the charge, maybe today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 12 minutes ago, DcfcJG said: Derby’s twitter and website is unusually quiet. Makes me think something is happening with the charge, maybe today. Or there is just literally nothing to talk about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erathirea Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 More likely it's first day of pre season so we'll all get a load of pictures at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 3 hours ago, angieram said: Ill-discipline! And some of them moan about our players' records. ? Yes, but they don't get paid three million squillion quid a week to post! (apart from @Davidobviously) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 2 hours ago, U.M. said: The best explanation I can see is to remove any precedent on the matter. We get found guilty, not punished due to mitigating circumstances, EFL have established what the rules are. Prevents anyone copying us claiming it must be ok. Said similar a while ago. Gibson formally complained, and as an equal member of the EFL, they couldn't be seen to be ignoring him. So it always felt to me like the independent tribunal was a way of 1) shutting Gibson up if the decision is made independently 2) closes the loophole for anyone else going forward The stadium valuation charge has always been a joke. We didn't need it to be that high to clear FFP. That was just the valuation we got. We asked the EFL if that valuation was OK. They said yes. We went ahead. If they'd have said no, needs to be £40m not £80m (or whatever) we'd have cut out cloth accordingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: Said similar a while ago. Gibson formally complained, and as an equal member of the EFL, they couldn't be seen to be ignoring him. So it always felt to me like the independent tribunal was a way of 1) shutting Gibson up if the decision is made independently 2) closes the loophole for anyone else going forward The stadium valuation charge has always been a joke. We didn't need it to be that high to clear FFP. That was just the valuation we got. We asked the EFL if that valuation was OK. They said yes. We went ahead. If they'd have said no, needs to be £40m not £80m (or whatever) we'd have cut out cloth accordingly Agree with all the above wholeheartedly...…..Just cant figure what's taking the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.