BTRFTG

It's ignoring, not interpretation and the finest example about which folks get het up each week is Law 15 - The Throw In. The Law is exact. The ball must be returned to play from the spot it left the field of play either on the ground or in the air. Couldn't be clearer. And does that happen? Like **** does it. And why is that? IFAB and the other authorities demand officials officiate within what is nebulously termed 'the spirit of the game', whatever that means. They don't want each and every minor infringement punished. IFAB went so far as to produce analysis showing in the majority of cases the team returning the ball to play cedes possession within two touches (in City's case it's one.) They concluded taking a throw-in from the wrong spot or occasionally seeing the thrower having the whole of one of their feet over the line no longer matters and shouldn't routinely be punished. They've given up on Law 15 but haven't rewritten the Law. Try telling that to the crowd berating the officials when the officials know they've been asked not to implement The Law as written.

It's actually called 'guidance' and here's what it says: These guidelines contain practical advice for match officials which supplements the information in the Laws of the Game section. Reference is made in Law 5 to referees operating within the framework of the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’. Referees are expected to use common sense and to apply the ‘spirit of the game’ when applying the Laws of the Game, especially when making decisions relating to whether a match takes place and/or continues. This is especially true for the lower levels of football where it may not always be possible for the Law to be strictly applied. For example, unless there are safety issues, the referee should allow a game to start/continue if: • one or more corner flags is missing • there is a minor inaccuracy with the markings on the field of play such as the corner area, centre circle etc. • the goalposts/crossbar are not white In such cases, the referee should, with the agreement of the teams, play/ continue the match and must submit a report to the appropriate authority. Officials are NOT at liberty to amend The Laws.

That's rank bad officiating. The 'I won't book you because were only 5 minutes in... 'I'll give you a second bite at the cherry'. Ditto failing to blow when time's up instead waiting for play to come to a neutral point. There was a time Refs did just as you correctly suggest and the authorities didn't like it and accused them of spoiling the game. The Lawmakers can't have it both ways

Any therein lies the problem. IFAB love to provide guidance on how Law should be interpreted and regularly change that, including in season when it's found not to work, but the simple fact is Laws are Laws and rules are rules and only rules are interpretive. For example, they've made mockery of Law 11, it's no longer enforceable without a microscope and multiple TV replays, so God help kids in the park. We were punished Sunday for an advantage that was interpreted no advantage, Semenyo scored Wednesday using the same interpretation. The Laws should be in the 'opinion of the officials', then you may call them out as to whether or not they've done a good job. A few years ago IFAB went big on sanctions first few weeks of the season which saw multiple sendings off and rather than reinforce the message to players they did a quick reverse ferret. What message does that send?

Wholly agree though in that case it's usually adjudged that the striker halts with the defender running into him as few jump straight up and down. In that case its a tad like driving, matters not who's caused the incident, stupid Law 12 forbids challenges from behind save where one is able so to do without contact - yeah, go figure... Strikers backing in should be punished but rarely are and that's just bad officiating. In respect of physics the worst is the commonplace interpretation that players must jump with their arms by their sides- barmy. In respect of culprit and recipient my bugbear is the protection of players not in control of the ball nor seeking to control the ball who then obstruct opponents. Usually seen with defenders marshalling the ball into touch. Law 12 has this covered but it appears the authorities have dictated it should not be applied in certain circumstance. That's barmy. Again that's not the officials, it's FIFA, UEFA and their diktat.

It doesn't and never should (though Ferguson would disagree). There are Laws. Laws are not subject to interpretation. The officials implement those Laws. If managers and players don't understand The Laws, they should. If players transgress The Laws they must be punished in accordance with those Laws.

Given managers and players struggle with The Laws what use might this be? Better pre season and pre match (as in theory they do now,) they remind The Laws and, most importantly, of their intention to apply them. Two weeks of chaos and things will settle down save when English clubs play in Europe or England in international events.

Again that's harsh on officials. The problem lies with The Laws and the way in which officials are asked to implement them. Your point about the Laws of Physics being wholly valid.

I don't think it's reflective of the standard of British officiating, plenty of leagues seek ex British officials, more to do with FIFA & UEFA politics plus England's improved performances over the recent past. It's a bit like saying British music isn't what it once was because we regularly get thrashed at The Eurovision Song Contest. FIFA don't help with the constant tweeking of The Laws nor their guidance which sometimes runs contrary to the The Laws they've enacted. VAR for example, is a badly conceived idea woefully executed. It should be dispensed with immediately. Whether or not one believes the standard of officiating has declined the knowledge of The Laws by fans watching certainly has. As a kid once one had memorised all clubs, their nicknames, stadia, badges and records, The Laws of The Game was digested cover to cover and was weekly tested via 'You Are The Ref'. Every game these days it seems some numpty incorrectly berates the officials when they've called it right - usually ball overhanging the corner quadrant or application of Law 11. "You don't know the rules ref..." "They're Laws not rules..." "Same thing, innit..." "They aren't, The Ref understands the difference, you don't...."

Not sure I'd describe their behaviour as 'managing' the officials, rather 'irritating' the officials. It's the reason City pick up so many needless bookings during cessations in play for what is tantamount to harassment. It's also why some decisions City should be awarded aren't given their way. Weimann, in particular, is a downright cheat. He knows he's knocked the ball out of play, he appeals for it to be awarded a City ball. He appeals for everything irrespective of whether or not there's merit in his pleading. He's done it so frequently, over so many years, it's become an autonomic response. He gets bested in the challenge, falls over and believes that gives him the right to claim foul. The kids are following his example. There are plenty of morally bankrupt on here who'll claim it's 'harmless' else 'everybody does it'. Latterly, they don't, it's cheating, in extremis is simulation or unsportsmanlike conduct and should be punished. It also isn't 'harmless' as cry wolf once to often and you discover folks long since stopped listening. Add in a fickle AG mob and cheating pleadings quickly transfer to the stands. I've witnessed many occasions where the officials have called decisions correctly, though not to the liking of the likes of Weimann whose behaviour whips up the fans. A couple of rapid, back to back incidents and the hysterical crowd gets on the officials backs, though they've done nothing wrong. And you think they'll likely give the next 50:50 City's way? And from that position we witness games get away from us.

Fully appreciate that but during my time in dealing with such matters I never once experienced somebody banking profit (sic) from a bespoke asset by suggesting it changed hands at market value at or near DRC value. Bespoke assets necessarily come with discounted impairment, it's usually how much that is that's open to debate. As you highlight this is only material to P&S / FFP and it makes no sense if theoretical (not realisable) profits are permitted to be included. One might as well not bother with the whole charade of supposed regulation.

Wow, in which case it's worse than I thought, but I am totally befuddled. I get the principle of the various holding companies having effectively nil circulating debt, but they've also minor, negative assets. Pride Park must have had a book value when owned by DCFC (I naively assumed that was the sell price minus the banked profit.) DCFC may have had equivalent debt on its books against that asset but they're separate items so where's the stadium asset value (as reflected pre sale) now held?

Sounds like double jeopardy but I still can't get my head around somebody arguing the value of an asset and shortly after having disposed of it it bring established the valuation was wholly contrived. The value is immaterial but what isn't is Derby's insistence their accounts were an accurate record when demonstrably they were not.

Ah. Was it structured that way such if they so wanted the football club could satisfy the charge via their lease, whilst MSD retained the ultimate backstop via the freehold being sold? Is it Morris is looking for the new buyer of the club to pay off the MSD loan such the charge is removed that way? Presumably, if he wished to be as helpful as he suggests he himself could satisfy the charge and give the new owner necessary protection by issuing a new long-term lease for the stadium perhaps with buy-out options?

If only there were accounts to review. This might be an oversimplification but wasn't the essence of the stadium deal this: Derby County FC sold the freehold title of Pride Park to Gellaw Newco 202 for £81.1m. The purchase was funded by around £20m in the form of a cash loan from MSD (secured by charge against Gellaw/Pride Park) and £61m in loans from Derby County FC to Gellaw Newco 202. Derby County FC recorded a profit on the deal of £39.9m, presumably the book value of Pride Park previously was around £41m. So whilst Morris might argue he owns the stadium and that has nothing to do with the football club, surely the administrators are looking to have Gellaw repay the loans they undertook? Unlike MSD is the suggestion the Gellaw loans were all unsecured? How possibly could the EFL sanction a disposal in this form without any underpinning guarantee that asset values might, to the most part, be recoverable by those issuing the loan?

Indeed it is, though with amortization Derby clearly thought otherwise. So if any deal has to be conditional on the new buyer getting their hands on the stadium might it be the case Derby would incur further penalties for understating the quantum of their losses for which they've already been punished?

In respect of P/S & FFP perhaps somebody might explain the following: Derby went to very great pains to argue the valuation of Pride Park for purposes of disposal as included within their accounts was £81m (though as I wrote elsewhere this might only ever be an insurance value, not market value.) Derby successfully argued that it was market value and one presumes that sum appears within their accounts now submitted (though presumably unseen by any save the EFL.) Now if a new buyer of the club acquires (or is given) the stadium as part of the deal it won't transfer at £81m, yet nothing significant has moved in the property market. In which case might the EFL revisit their initial argument that the stadium value appearing in the accounts was over-inflated, else if Derby maintain the stadium was worth that yet it now transfers at a significant discount, is that counted as a gift to the club?

From memory the initial MSD loan yet to be satisfied is against the freehold title of a number of properties, Pride Park included. I don't believe it's against a lease. I think there were 5 or 6 titles listed in the schedule. There is a secondary and more recent charge MSD hold against the lease held by the football club buts that's for use of the training ground, not stadium. One assumes this was for further monies loaned to keep the club afloat which, of course, couldn't involve the stadium as that had already been 'sold' (sic).

Nevertheless and as you consistently demonstrate, you and the truth make uncomfortable bedfellows

It would be wrong to pick Scott out but many of our kids appear to have learnt from CoD the master.

There are quite a few reasons we aren't getting penalties at the moment: We rarely have the majority of possession; We don't have the personnel with courage or skill to attack players at pace; Our players have poor touch and close control when in possession; We've a known bunch of 'cheats' who in all areas of the park either look to go down or do fall over at the faintest of touches - it fools nobody, they've developed a reputation and when they are occasionally fouled their reputation precedes them, hence don't get as they should. In comparison, other teams don't appear to have as many players willing to make unnecessary and reckless changes in their own area. T'was ever thus. The harder you work, the luckier you get.

Vyner took his performance to a new level today. Best I leave it there .....

My point being there's no reason one CAN'T have disclosure (full or partial.) For reasons unknown they agreed to keep things confidential. It's said there are 'interested parties' - who they and how would they know whether or not they should have been provided access to the detail? I sued a former employer who decided to settle on the steps of the High Court and I told them where to stick the few additional grand offered for me to sign the confidentiality agreement they demanded, in addition to the actual settlement (forget the technical name it takes.) That allowed me to continue to tell the truth about them to all and sundry. They could threaten all they liked but truth would have outed either way, in Court and in the papers or with much lesser publicity.

I'm afraid Dave when it comes to selectively choosing to make a point you must be in contention for Sky Bet Stato of The Month. Semenyo's record is what it is, whether or not you seek to decide that forever impairs his record is ridiculous. All players start at the same place, so why should allowances be made for an individual? Youth? We all were once. Slow Starter? Perhaps, perhaps not and that's what we'll find out. We should focus on what he's delivered to date and the potential he holds. In my opinion ( and that's all it is, my opinion,) that in no way accords with the hype fans love bestow on anybody who these days crosses the white line. Fans who vent their anger at those who fail to subscribe to their blind and shallow hysteria. I may have been facetious citing Fairclough but somebody is the greatest goal scorer per minute in the history of the game. Probably somebody few have ever heard of who notched a second half double hat-trick in his only ever appearance. Now you love to analyze games to the nth degree. So what stats have you in support of where I think Semenyo is at present and how he might improve, for some at present appear to suggest he's little upon which to improve? Let's just look at Wednesday's game. His finest moment was the rapid chest trap, turn and shot in which he was unlucky to hit the post. Great skill and hopefully a sign of things to come. But history books won't record that. Nor his run into the box where, as he is wont, he held onto the ball too long, running out of options and finding his shot blocked. That's something he does often, perchance you've stats to show where City would likely have been better off had he shot earlier or passed the ball? Ditto (and I'd never criticise a striker for being selfish,) those occasions when, on the break, he appears somewhat blinkered in his vision, failing to identify those teammates in space. Now both those traits come from positives on his part, getting forward, looking to press but they're areas I'm sure the coaching staffs are working on with him as they do not lead to as many positive outcomes as they should. Hopefully he'll learn and do better. What history will record is his goal. What it won't record is when City gained possession Semenyo was half way down the Long Ashton Bypass ( I've no idea what he was up to but he was out of the game, never good for a striker.) History won't record that had Weimann passed to him he'd have been given offside. History won't record that City were fortunate in Weimann's shot rebounding straight back to him having touched an opponent allowing him to pass to Semenyo. History won't record that, owing to the utter stupidity of the interpretation of Law 11 these days, that the 2nd passage of play negates all advantage gained in coming from an offside position. Semenyo took his chance well, that's in the history books. But were you to Monte Carlo scenarios from that break 1000 times City'd score very few times. As with your goals per minute it's indicative yet meaningless. There is only ever one break. There will only ever be one goal. Semenyo has scored 7 times in the league for us. That's fact, not opinion.

There's a reason history records what players do, rather than what might be selectively extrapolated as to what they might have done. It's for that reason David Fairclough isn't the greater goalscorer of all time. I appreciate you're one for predicted goals and suchlike. Sadly games aren't decided by them.