Woodley Ram Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 2 hours ago, BramcoteRam84 said: Steve Nicholson is a decent journalist, his coverage of Derby has been exemplary over 4 decades and learning from the best in Gerald. Not his fault the world has moved on from print and is now about click bait articles online. The DET is pretty soulless now but Steve still comes into his own when it comes to match day coverage and assessments. As for the Athletic it does offer something completely different and I think it’s a breath of fresh air, particularly the tactical insight. I think Ryan Conway has written some excellent pieces offering both tactical insight and some really good feature pieces, he’s clearly built some good relationships within the club which is the art of a good journalist. I think it’s well worth the money personally. I have never had a problem with Steve Nicholson, I love his post game vid report, ok he doesn’t get to know things first, but he is a solid reporter and could do better than the DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 4 minutes ago, Wignall12 said: .......with only a Goalkeeper signed Where does Te Wierik play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Where does Te Wierik play? What have facts got to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffLuff Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 16 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said: I have never had a problem with Steve Nicholson, I love his post game vid report, ok he doesn’t get to know things first, but he is a solid reporter and could do better than the DT. Yeah I don’t quite get the importance for a reporter to get the scoop as a sign of credentials. Also that people don’t quite understand that Nicholson and Radio Derby have relationships to maintain with the club so it’s in their interest not to leak anything before the club gives them permission. Percy, Nixon etc are under no such obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACKWORTHRAM Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 1 hour ago, DCFC1388 said: Anyone else think the delay could be us and the EFL coming to a mutual agreement on the amortisation policy? Makes sense thats why we havent submitted this years financial figures as if they no longer like how we do it they will need changing but at the same time they originally signed them off, so if they are to be amended for past accounts it cant be where it results in a huge financial impact to us as we have done years of negotiations off the back of it being ok. So agree a policy, change & work out the figures then a statement to say not guilty as was signed off but we have now changed to fall in line with the EFL agreement. I really hope so. I know it's only David Marshall. But it's a good sign we're signing players. I read an article earlier in which he said that it would likely he would be leaving Wigan and would like to be at the top end of the Championship again. Celtic wanted him. WBA wanted him (albeit as a Number 2) Stoke wanted him. Surely before he's signing he's asking if we're going to be getting a points deduction? If we say yes we're starting the season off on minus 12 points. You'd think one of those other clubs would be a much more attractive proposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plymouthram Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 I see that Sheffield Wednesday are now going to appeal against their award. Interesting to think they may have a case, when you consider they were charged for the same as us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Greenwood Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 20 minutes ago, plymouthram said: I see that Sheffield Wednesday are now going to appeal against their award. Interesting to think they may have a case, when you consider they were charged for the same as us. Their case was different to ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslad1992 Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Wignall12 said: .......with only a Goalkeeper signed 1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said: Where does Te Wierik play? The irony is only one of these has actually officially signed. i said it on the Joe Hart thread and I’ll say it again... good goalkeepers earn you points. Say 7 or 8 points (which isn’t unrealistic when you look at Hamer and Roos last season) would have got us into the playoffs. good goalkeepers earn you points and Marshall is a good keeper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 20 minutes ago, Ramslad1992 said: The irony is only one of these has actually officially signed. i said it on the Joe Hart thread and I’ll say it again... good goalkeepers earn you points. Say 7 or 8 points (which isn’t unrealistic when you look at Hamer and Roos last season) would have got us into the playoffs. good goalkeepers earn you points and Marshall is a good keeper! I bet your sister is relieved that we signed Marshall rather than Camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslad1992 Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 18 minutes ago, RamNut said: I bet your sister is relieved that we signed Marshall rather than Camp. So am I! She’s ugly as anything! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 9 hours ago, plymouthram said: I see that Sheffield Wednesday are now going to appeal against their award. Interesting to think they may have a case, when you consider they were charged for the same as us. On what grounds? i think they were fortunate to get away with back-dating the sale document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, RamNut said: On what grounds? i think they were fortunate to get away with back-dating the sale document. From an accounting point of view they could do it, in the same way we backdated player sales, such as Ince. I haven't seen any P&S rule which says the stadium sale couldn't be backdated for P&S purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 9 hours ago, Ramslad1992 said: The irony is only one of these has actually officially signed. i said it on the Joe Hart thread and I’ll say it again... good goalkeepers earn you points. Say 7 or 8 points (which isn’t unrealistic when you look at Hamer and Roos last season) would have got us into the playoffs. good goalkeepers earn you points and Marshall is a good keeper! Good goalkeepers do earn you points and poor ones lose them for you and I don’t like having to say it but Hamer cost us a lot of points whilst Roos was nowhere near as poor overall but both of them had a fairly poor defensive set up in front of them which cannot have helped with their confidence and Hamer got worse with no fans moaning at him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 41 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: From an accounting point of view they could do it, in the same way we backdated player sales, such as Ince. I haven't seen any P&S rule which says the stadium sale couldn't be backdated for P&S purposes. Don't you think it is one of those rules that requires a clear statement that back dating is allowed? I still cant understand why anybody would think that is an acceptable practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 Only accountants would think it is an acceptable practice. Sheff wed failed because In reality because they did not conclude the agreement within a reasonable time (estimated to be 2-3 months); the sale when concluded involved different parties; and most significantly - this judgement asserts - that the transfer of land cannot be based on a purely verbal agreement. So whatever the accountants thought they could do, it was judged to be not a lawful transaction that could be validated by a subsequent written agreement. Sheff wed stretched the rules beyond breaking point and therefore failed ffp. As for back dating the document, if they genuinely believed that a Supposed verbal agreement in 2017-18 could be subsequently validated by written agreement for accounting purposes (and therefore for ffp purposes) then there was no need to effectively falsify the date Of the written agreement - which was back dated by a year. The IDC was somewhat generous in their judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 19 minutes ago, RamNut said: Only accountants would think it is an acceptable practice. Sheff wed failed because In reality because they did not conclude the agreement within a reasonable time (estimated to be 2-3 months); the sale when concluded involved different parties; and most significantly - this judgement asserts - that the transfer of land cannot be based on a purely verbal agreement. So whatever the accountants thought they could do, it was judged to be not a lawful transaction that could be validated by a subsequent written agreement. Sheff wed stretched the rules beyond breaking point and therefore failed ffp. As for back dating the document, if they genuinely believed that a Supposed verbal agreement in 2017-18 could be subsequently validated by written agreement for accounting purposes (and therefore for ffp purposes) then there was no need to effectively falsify the date Of the written agreement - which was back dated by a year. The IDC was somewhat generous in their judgement. I agree but the only scenario must be that the EFL were complicit in this arrangement which was clearly against all assessment of what is right and proper. I still feel but have no real evidence that the IDC approached their findings from the perspective of the other 21 clubs and not the EFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Spanish said: I agree but the only scenario must be that the EFL were complicit in this arrangement which was clearly against all assessment of what is right and proper. I still feel but have no real evidence that the IDC approached their findings from the perspective of the other 21 clubs and not the EFL. There's backdating something where it was arranged but the final paperwork got finished past the end of the period which I think most people can kind of see as ligit within a common sense kind of way, but the whole Wednesday situation appears to have taken place after they'd reached the end of 17/18 and gone "oh dear" then broached the idea with the EFL they'd sell the ground to comply? I can see the position from outside and I can't see why the EFL said "ok, sure, do it quick and get the paperwork done and you're compliant" without any evidence beyond "yeah, it's totally in the bag just waiting on contracts" being said in a meeting. I genuinely think there were failures on the EFL side which are worse than what Wednesday were trying to pull off. Wednesday then thought OK, we've got the agreement now and dithered to the point where it's taking the Patrick bamford and we'll beyond the (as a person, not an accountant) sense of finish the final contract after the actual account date.... I think the EFL came out of this worse than Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said: There's backdating something where it was arranged but the final paperwork got finished past the end of the period which I think most people can kind of see as ligit within a common sense kind of way, but the whole Wednesday situation appears to have taken place after they'd reached the end of 17/18 and gone "oh dear" then broached the idea with the EFL they'd sell the ground to comply? I can see the position from outside and I can't see why the EFL said "ok, sure, do it quick and get the paperwork done and you're compliant" without any evidence beyond "yeah, it's totally in the bag just waiting on contracts" being said in a meeting. I genuinely think there were failures on the EFL side which are worse than what Wednesday were trying to pull off. Wednesday then thought OK, we've got the agreement now and dithered to the point where it's taking the Patrick bamford and we'll beyond the (as a person, not an accountant) sense of finish the final contract after the actual account date.... I think the EFL came out of this worse than Wednesday. Not really really the EFL Didn’t get a 12 point deduction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoWindscreens Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 7 hours ago, RamNut said: Only accountants would think it is an acceptable practice. Sheff wed failed because In reality because they did not conclude the agreement within a reasonable time (estimated to be 2-3 months); the sale when concluded involved different parties; and most significantly - this judgement asserts - that the transfer of land cannot be based on a purely verbal agreement. So whatever the accountants thought they could do, it was judged to be not a lawful transaction that could be validated by a subsequent written agreement. Sheff wed stretched the rules beyond breaking point and therefore failed ffp. As for back dating the document, if they genuinely believed that a Supposed verbal agreement in 2017-18 could be subsequently validated by written agreement for accounting purposes (and therefore for ffp purposes) then there was no need to effectively falsify the date Of the written agreement - which was back dated by a year. The IDC was somewhat generous in their judgement. Spot on. And by the way, what a shambles Wednesday sound like, according to the judgment. I hope and pray the present DCFC regime is a little more professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 AD 2520 Thread reaches 30000 pages still no news, paint has dried, radio active waste has decayed to safe levels. Owd miner Is so Owd he has mummified, People think A “Roy Mac” is a retro hamburger From the early 21st century. Teenagers think 1884 was when George Orwell wrote a history book. And Croydon Quantum Accelerators win the league again and a statue of a bloke called Mel Morris is thrown in the Derwent by offended folk from a place called Snottingham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.