ExiledAjax

Oh be still my beating heart.

Yeh, and I think prior to those two games we'd have probably predicted a hefty number of incoming shots from QPR and Fulham. It's not unreasonable at all that we conceded nigh on 40 shots over those two games. Tomorrow is game number 10, roughly 1/4 through the season and with a wide range of opponents played. Let's see where we are then. With a gun to my head I probably go for a draw with Millwall. That gets us 14 after ten. Solid mid table form.

Sure, come May the division is ranked on points, GD, etc. However, that doesn't stop some of us (I'd not claim to speak for any number of fans, let alone the majority) from trying to look beneath the current league table in an attempt to discern why we are 8th, and whether or not it is at all likely that we can continue or replicate our current unbeaten run. There isn't any harm in doing that. Don't worry, we aren't saying nasty things about St. Nigel.

In terms of measureable product we've improved as an attacking force. We're taking more shots, that are more threatening, than we managed over the whole of last season (Holden and Pearson). The numbers don't suggest that we've transformed into a relentless attacking machine - but I can't see anyone saying they think we've done that either. It's an improvement, and that is good. The defensive side of the game hasn't improved as much. As @Davefevs says, the past 3 games have skewed that a little as in those 3 games we've allowed 66 out of the total 126 shots that we've faced so far. So about 50% of the shots against have come in just 33% of our games. Still, if we keep allowing an average of 14 shots against each game, 5 of which force Bentley into action...well we're going to have to make sure we keep scoring ourselves. @Davefevs' data also shows that we tend to be on the wrong side of the divisional average for most metrics. We take fewer shots than the average side, allow more than the average side etc. That's broadly why, despite a decent start to the season, I still think that the preseason predictions of lower midtable are fair and remain reasonable.

Up the ******* media team.

I think the result could be any of the three. The performance is likely to be similar to the QPR game though. I expect Fulham to dominate, particularly in terms of chances, shots, and with much of the game played in our half. Fulham have taken 139 shots in just 8 games, with 54 hitting the target. Those are some very impressive figures and we will have to work incredibly hard to keep a clean sheet today. If Bentley is on form and we take one or two of the few chances we get - well then a result is possible, as we saw in the last game. However, if we go behind early then I fear a 3-0 loss could be on the cards. I feel like today that first goal is more important than it ever is.

Precisely. Others have set out the black and white rules, so this is more of a common sense/golden rule approach. I don't see how Derby could claim that they went into administration solely because of Covid-related losses when there are literally dozens of other clubs in the EFL, the Premier League, non-league, France, Italy, the USA, Sierra Leone etc that have suffered similarly due to Covid and yet have somehow managed to not enter administration. Any particular sensitivity or exposure that Derby had that caused Covid to hit them harder than other clubs immediately defeats the FM argument as it intrinsically means that their administration is not solely down to Covid - it's down to that pre-existing financial sensitivity or over-exposure that was then compounded or exacerbated by Covid. It's only made worse by the fact that those sensitivities were created through the flouting of the P&S rules. Logically it just isn't an argument that holds any water.

Interesting move by Bolton here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-58672469 Bolton Wanderers Football Club has said it will no longer provide facilities for online betting at its stadium. The League One club also said it would not sign any new sponsorship deals with gambling firms, but it would respect existing commercial partnerships. It said the move followed concerns over growing levels of gambling addiction. Club chairman Sharon Brittan said "problem gambling ruins lives" and the move was aimed at showing support to those affected. The club said it would not enter into any new partnerships with firms representing the gambling industry and instead "look at supporting charities and organisations that seek to provide help for those suffering from betting addiction". Chairman Sharon Brittan said: "Latest research shows that there are between 340,000 and 1.4m adult gambling addicts in the UK and over 60,000 young people aged between 11 and 16 are addicted. "We as an industry must do more and, through our work with Bolton Wanderers in the Community, Bolton Wanderers Football Club will support outreach programmes for those who experience gambling problems." The club's chief executive Neil Hart said: "We will not take part in any activity to promote gambling outside the existing EFL [English Football League] contractual requirements." "This means we will not provide match day betting kiosks or enter into any new agreements with gambling companies." He added it would continue with its club lottery as the fundraising income supported "good causes and supporter engagement projects".

Just to say, I currently live in a country where gambling is illegal. The whole thing. There are no bookies, no lottery, no casinos. The closest you can legally get to gambling is a raffle at the local fete or charity dinner. However, I can ask the right person and quickly get on the phone to "a man" who will enter my name into an underground lottery. There are a few places that run cock fights and the like that will take bets. Alternatively in the modern age I can also access any UK or US website or app via a VPN and gamble on there, using my UK bank account that I can freely transfer cash to/from if I want to. Gambling still goes on, quite widely as well, it's just totally unregulated and unobserved by any local government. My point is that it is human to speculate, gamble, and bet. It's a vice, and has the capacity to destroy a life, but it will always happen. In my opinion it is better to have it regulated, taxed, and monitored, and for there to be support available (paid for by those who profit from it) for those affected by it rather than to outright ban it and drive it underground where it can be exploited by unregulated people. Simultaneously I'd say that you can have all of that and yet still ban the active promotion of it, and without making it seem like it is a natural part of sport. I would ban it from being advertised, I'd probably do the same with alcohol. These businesses just don't really need advertising IMO, humans will seek them out regardless.

What is this argument? Could you kindly summarise? I cannot for the life of me think of a way that dodgy accounting, failing P&S, or anything else that I know of this case could possibly ever fall under the kind of stuff normally set out in a force majeure clause.

The Guardian podcast? I've not got to it yet. I mean if he was being paid in more "creative" ways then the book should be thrown at them with the full force of the law.

I don't think it is this. I think it is sloppy wording on the BBC's part. There's no doubt the Derby/Rooney/32Red deal was a bit grubby, perhaps 'creative', but it would seem that it wasn't the case that Rooney's wages were being paid directly by 32Red. This article - https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/why-32red-is-betting-big-on-wayne-rooney/ - sets it out quite well, complete with ludicrously worded quotes from people in the know. The key line is: "As for claims 32Red is making a mockery of financial fair play (FFP) by paying Rooney’s weekly wages, reported to be around UK£90,000 (US$109,000) a week? “To be clear, 32Red did not sign Wayne Rooney and 32Red is not paying Wayne Rooney’s wages. Our agreement is solely with Derby County,” Banbury [Neil Banbury, 32Red’s general manager] asserts. “Our commercial agreement with Derby is sensitive, but it is a significant additional investment on top of our original sponsorship agreement with the club.”" Apparently the signing did lead to the bigger sponsorship deal, Banbury admits that when he says "“When Derby told us they were signing Rooney, we again decided to deepen our relationship with the club."" but I'd be amazed if even Morris et al were stupid enough to have a concrete flow of cash from 32Red to Rooney. As I said, it's shady, 'creative', and I certainly would not want Bristol City to do similar...but from what I know, I doubt it is something Derby can be punished for as part of all that they are currently going through.

On the Rooney/32Red thing. It's bit weird, and I don't like the precedent it kind of sets...but I can't see how it is something they should be punished for. Is it so different from what many, many clubs (including our own) do (or used to do) with inviting local businesses to sponsor certain players? The profile of the player and the sums involved might be bigger, but the principle is surely the same - that the club get money to pay for a player, and the business gets the kudos of being associated with that player. That Rooney wore 32 as part of it is just an element of the agreed contract. Perhaps there is an argument that if the 32Red 'sponsorship' was the defining reason that allowed Derby to sign him, and that without it he would not have signed, then maybe there are more questions to ask...but I suspect it would still be broadly ok. I'm also really not sure that it is true 'third-party ownership' as we understand it, and as we have seen used in S. America, and at times in high profile cases like Tevez and Mascherano. To my knowledge 32Red have at no point owned any of the economic benefit of Rooney's contract. For example had he been sold they wouldn't have benefited from that sale, and got no benefit from the licensing of Rooney's image rights or other economic assets. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, especially given the industry that 32Red are in, but I'm not sure this is the thing to be trying to punish Derby over.

Perhaps. I'd be betting they don't have enough.

As it's an EFL issue I assume that punishment could potentially continue to be dolled out to Derby even if/when they are in L1? Presumably it isn't confined to the Championship just because that is the division within which they committed their sins.

Agreed. Sheff Wed came close to pulling it off last season but couldn't quite do it, same with Wigan the season before. Note as well that Derby themselves survived finishing on only 44 points last season, so 50 is not the be all and end all (a bit like 40 points in the Prem - it all but guarantees safety, but in most years you can survive with fewer points). In a way it would be a shame if Reading join them down there with their own -12 deduction. Being down there alone almost guarantees relegation but every club that joins them increases the chance that one will survive.

Prior to the -12 they were on 10 points from 8 games. 1.25 ppg. Keep that up and they would get another 47.5 points from the remaining 38 games (lets be generous and round that up to 48). Sees them finish on 46, and likely relegated. As you say, a further -9 and they're done. They need to improve their early form if they are to survive.

Excellent if true. That suggests wages are now at c.22m. I assume turnover has also dropped though? Match Day and Operating Income will definitely be down. By a similar %? I don't know, if turnover is also down by 1/3 then that's c.18m. Others may know more but I'd be pleasantly surprised if we had a wages/turnover ration under 100%.

From Swiss Ramble at the end of last season. 123% apparently - see the centre of the image. You can see that's a pretty average figure as it ranked 13th in the division. Could be slightly less now though after letting so many go in the summer...maybe. We're likely to be over 100% regardless.

Some great and valuable context here. Glad to hear he was decent and will surely push on.

Hang on. We won!? I've been at Norwich v Watford. I thought we were doing shit. Well cooked. What happened?

It's Massengo v Weimann for player of the season so far isn't it. Thank you.

Sorry to hear about your grandmother. I hope you can enjoy some more time with her before she dies. On your other point, I am also in my early 30s. I had a private health check when I was 25, and get one every few years now as well. I get mine free through work so am in a slightly odd position. However I'll give you the following advice. If you can be honest with yourself then at our age you (with a little help from NHS online) can probably do a fair self-assessment. A private assessment will mainly be asking about lifestyle - how much do you drink, smoke, exercise etc. What's your diet? Do you do drugs? It's that kind of stuff. If you're honest with yourself then you likely know your vices and paying a Dr to tell you them may jot be useful. On top of that they'll weigh and measure you, and do some basic tests to see how your flexibility is holding up. Height and weight you can do at home and the Internet can advise on what is healthy. With flexibility - can you touch your toes? Can you do a beginners yoga video on YouTube? Can you touch your hands together behind your back. Oh the other good test is can you stand up from a cross-legged seating position without touching anything with your hands? Anything above that, stuff like bone density scans, full heart rate measurements, prostate stuff, gastro checks - all that is extra and will only be done if you or the Dr have any particular concerns.

Will be pretty low so long as Sunderland are top.

You're jealous of the guys on Arsenal duty aren't you?