BTRFTG

As he was 'behind' I didn't think he had any chance of playing the ball and thought the ref would go red. I think as the pen was quite 'soft' and Atkinson didn't contest the call the ref took the easy option.

Interesting to know when would be a good time to concede a penalty? Also, at no point last night were we 'well on top'. There only ever looked like one team scoring and it wasn't us.

He was lucky to just get a yellow...

Great report again Ole. The old joke runs 'we were lucky to get nil...' but last night, as a statement of fact, I and those around me weren't laughing. Two current and two ex City 'strikers' on the pitch and only the one with multiple ACL failures looked anywhere near deserving of such title. When 'The Wardrobe' covers marginally more turf and is a tad more threatening than Martin you know you've serious problems. The latter being devoid of pace, touch and an ability to hold the ball up, he also contrived to squander his only chance by again showing a reluctance to shoot, then easily losing the ball when struggling to tell left foot from right. Flappy again flapped, pointed, moaned and Martinesque wasted a decent chance by refusing to strike the ball early. His late blocked shot the only thing of note he delivered all night. Folks should also not downplay the impact of his petulant, misguided and constant griping to the officials (in short cheating.) No complaints about their penalty but we should have been awarded one late on for the blatant shirt pull on Atkinson. But why would officials listen to his late protestations when, like Corbyn's demented brother or Johnson and Starmer at conference, he's been making false and imbicilic claims all evening? For all his pointing, flapping and moaning he'd have been more effective glueing his arse to the centre spot whilst pointing at an old Poplar Insulation logo. Albeit the strikers are useless they didn't get support from the supposed 'creative' side of midfield. James was excellent doing what he does best in breaking up play and in equal measure poor by giving the ball away such he could once again compete to retrieve it. Williams, by far out best outfield player, struggled without support to influence the game our way, but without an ability to hold it upfront that's a Sisyphean task. Like crane flies Bakinson comes into his own this time of year. All legs, uncoordinated, slow to react and easily squished. He was so far off the pace last night as to be untrue. Ball watching, adopting the Bryan school of standing-off (i.e. might as well not compete,) giving the ball away at will. Forget his error for their pen, his lack of competition first half leading to Afobe's gilt edged chance shows why he will never be one around which to build a team. Ditto KP. Interesting that which the generations have in common but with different interpretation. A younger friend, en route back to the Dark Continent such he won't be around for a few seasons, produced a theory that will live long in the memory. He opined that KP shows altruistic and generous leadership in abundance. 'I'll needlessly give the ball away such you don't have to;' not even such generosity saved Bakinson last night. The Mock Mick's introduction served only to remind he still exists and once thought himself good enough for Leeds. I rather wish it hadn't. Defence did OK against the tide of relentless ball coming their way. Bentley ever excellent at keeping us in it, his late save, deep down left the pick, but it's not difficult to keep giving performances of that quality when it's one way traffic. BOHICA. Baker, ever the enigma. Does what he does well whilst delicate as a Bee's wing. I've never seen a player who, with such regularity, mid match sits down, reviews his socks, requires assistance and then goes off, never hobbling, never limping, never clutching his hamstring, never on a stretcher, but who's unable to continue yet who in all probability will be fit for the next game. Nobody watching will fail to know what needs to happen to make this side competitive. We didn't so much lose, we handed it to them on a plate.

And they say all the fun and enjoyment's gone out of the game..... And if you must quote the Laws of Football at least take the trouble to get them right. Players leave the field of play for all sorts of reasons without the referee's permission yet are not considered to have committed an offence. Ever seen players asking the ref to leave the pitch at half-time or full-time, or a player writhing in agony with a broken leg on the stretcher asking if he may exit, or any player leaving the park when substituted? Taking a corner, goal kick or throw in IS leaving the pitch, though are considered normal playing motions, as would be running back in from the sideline if forced out, none of which are offences. A player exiting the pitch via the goal line and without permission may no longer physically be on the pitch but is considered to remain ON the pitch at the goal line. Law 12 explicitly states players DO NOT commit an offence for leaving the pitch to celebrate a goal and prescribes those offences that may occur under such circumstance. On Saturday no Fulham player committed an offence.

Never trust a website that makes reference to the offside 'rule'. They're Laws (in this case Law 11) and for good reason. Laws are defined and not subject to debate; Rules are subjective and open to interpretation.

Loan signings that came with decent arrangement fees I recall.

Yep it was wrong, as some of us said at the time. My pennyworth though is akin Shankly (later adopted by Doherty & Clough,) in that if an attacking player is in an offside position then he should be given offside, particularly if in the opposition box. Of course in those days players had to be 'interfering with play' and as adage ran, 'if he's on the pitch and not interfering with play what the hell is he doing?' I think Law 11 disadvantages defenders who when running a line have to consider whether or not the officials might conclude a player to be or is to become 'active'. Too many ifs and buts' for me.

Wrong. KP was in an offside position when the shot was taken, but he wasn't at that point deemed to have committed an offence. As soon as he touched the rebounded ball he becomes offside for the previous indiscretion. All would be much easier were they to flag offside players 'offside' immediately, not let play progress then pull them up.

They took Mitrovic on loan and signed him with Premier money once promoted. The other clubs you list succeeded as they took talent on loans but paid high wages. We took the option of signing coachloads of crap on decent money. Stats don't lie, we're top of the tree when it comes to clubs who could have made The Premier but haven't. Minnows have overtaken us in the interim. 50 clubs have played there, strip out clubs who because of size and resource are unlikely ever to have the chance and who does that leave? City could have received parachutes payments but weren't good enough owing to poor investment decisions. Odd also you've an issue with parachute payments but daren't mention the disproportionate sums Championship clubs take in solidarity payments from The Premier. Is that fair to lower league clubs?

Parachute payments are a Red Herring. When Fulham signed Mitrovic (albeit on loan) we were all set for promotion/playoffs, they were squarely mid table having started the season woefully. Boxing Day we beat Reading to go into the automatic spots but the run of luck for the non-striker Reid was running out. Despite respective positions both were struggling upfront to push on. Winter transfer window they took punt in paying Mitrovic's extortionate wage demand, we signed Liam Walsh (having already signed the likes of 'The Bloke From Knowle, Elliason and Baker that summer for big money.) And the rest is history. Mitrovic scored 11 goals to get them to 3rd (only 2 fewer than TBFK scored all season.) They finished 3rd, 21 points above us in 11th. We took 20 points from a possible 66 and rarely looked like scoring once the cup runs were done and dusted. Recall Fulham beat Villa in the playoff final that year. Occasionally fortune does favour the brave.

I think NP's mellowed with age and his raw arrogance has dissipated, he comes across as less edgy. Read his reaction how you may, he's saying all they right things, but I get a sense that whilst he's pleased with what he's achieved with these players he's decidedly frustrated at where he and we are in the game. For me that's great. He speaks with a resigned air of could/should be doing better, with the big, 'but' , it's a work in progress because of.......and we all know what those factors are. I like his slightly gritted teeth realism, not going overboard, keeping it balanced. He's a 'serious' manager, the likes of which we've rarely had at AG.

Ah, not sure I saw anybody out wide playing him on but will look at the replay. Nevertheless, quality finish as I thought he had no chance of turning it in.

Real time I thought it was too but haven't seen any replays other than that shown at the ground which had me conclude we were deservedly fortunate to be level.

Lots to like about that performance against higher class opposition. NP's organisation and the players buying into his methods is begining to pay off. More game time for the kids and though this season is probably a step too far, things bode well for next season. However, let's not kid ourselves. We're woefully lacking in certain areas, notably upfront, but we and NP know that and he'll hopefully be in a position to do something about that once resource constraints improve. Best of all, it was another decidedly entertaining affair, not something we've been able to say in a long time.

Just don't get me started on the fact for some rounds you'd need to queue at 3 bars to get the drinks you'd like.

Well my, I've never encountered a freeholder who'd be interested in that type of deal and if that's really how they contrived to move the FFP numbers they should have the full version of the OED thrown at them.

I'd assumed Gellaw's accounts reflected that they'd purchased the asset but had creditors within the year in a similar sum who I assumed to be loan repayments (i.e. a short-term mortgage flip.) Are you suggesting in reality they've claimed ownership but haven't yet paid for it? I've done plenty of property deals in my time but never one where a freehold was transferred on the basis of a future payment commitment. Legally, how the hell might that be structured?

As was reported the last time you published accounts but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, who knows what you've done since? Recall the amortization policy you claim likely kept you within FFP limits was, er, changed from flatline to something that allowed you to dodge a bullet. The list of Commercial Activities broken down is just that. Merchandising, flogging programmes or shirts , like selling Sponsorship, is a Commercial activity.

On the match purchase TV income: it'll be interesting to see how clubs account for it but it wasn't any part of existing deal, not Sky, nor EFL. Clubs were allowed to sell via their own arrangements and keep revenues, hence would have replaced to some degree matchday income. Sponsoring is invariably rolled up as Commercial Activity (for that is what it is,) but with Derby who knows? So one assumes there was no perimeter advertising at Pride Park last year, no use of trademark or copyright for intellectual property, that Derby laid off/furloughed all its commercial department? Bet it didn't. As for remaining within FFP limits, even your beloved Chairman has now conceded you haven't done that despite attempting, using the most contrived practice, to pretend you had. The quicker Derby fess up, show the numbers and take their punishment, the better for them as their protracted pleadings are making the average fan, who couldn't normally give a flying about them, begin to wish their existence is short lived, better for the benefit of the game.

Or the club could pre-order pour drinks for fans to collect straight away rather than the farce there is now.

But that's exactly what you are suggesting, that revenues were severely hit by Covid. I know Derby think themselves an exception and love so to do but you can't have it both ways. Whilst TV & EFL fundings are less volatile, as Covid demonstrates ticket & commercial income may be. The point of accounts being to be able to see what you've banked and when? Who knows whether Derby front loaded commercial arrangements to suit in any given period without them being reported? Rangers did it for years, banking 'income' (sic) from deals secured against future revenues. Why would commercial and match revenues be zero in 20/21? Didn't you play, didn't you sell online subscriptions to punters, did all your commercial punters pull out? That's not what 32Red's accounts are likely to say or what their commercial director has spoke of this week re Rooney. I think had you published your accounts when you were required so to do you would have been found to have contravened FFP, been deducted points, faced sanctions and wouldn't have benefitted from the prize money you did. Maybe that would have put you under? All conjecture as we won't know until, like all other clubs are required to, you publish your accounts, in full, non-impaired.

Stupid idea. Bad enough the constant interruptions of folks disrupting watching already, let alone exacerbated by those carrying drinks. So what's the proposal - drinks have to be in an open/closed container? Will it be non-carbonated drinks only as if in a closed container imagine what all that shaking up and down will do when opened? Not we get too many at AG but imagine what happens when a goal goes in and the inebriated numpty next to you celebrates? If you cant go 45 mins without a bevvy, don't go.

Save, as previously highlighted and historically evidenced, they weren't. FFP should be scrapped.

You just don't get it, do you? How can you state there was a drop in income when you've no idea what the income was in the preceding periods? What purpose do you think accounts play? Why are they important? You claim you were driven to administration by 'cashflow' problems associated with Covid yet that doesn't accord with the numerous dodgy dealings obvious in the numerous accounts pre June 2018 and since then? Yeah, nobody knows as accounts haven't been filed since and that, if for no other reason, should see strike offs. You don't need to be an accountant to see Derby gambled sums far, far beyond their means. Covid didn't turn Ince's mother into a scout, or pay ransoms to dodgy associates for scouting reports highlighting Mbappe & Dembele are 'useful', or sign a succession of expensive & overpaid chancers. And that's the problem with gambling, when you lose you lose. You don't get your stakes returned. If Derby fans, like Morris, are looking for sympathy because they are/were weak and addicted to the prospect of success I give you the immortal prophecy of Jim Bowen:" Look what you could have won." That you also appear to have done your BFH; deserving of cheats, I'd say.