- Oct 17, 2008
- 10,843
Very low interest loans aren't they?
Besides, not gonna happen. Completely different situation.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Derby County facing potential 21-point deduction
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Very low interest loans aren't they?
Besides, not gonna happen. Completely different situation.
It isn't completely different.
Both have / had wealthy owners bankrolling the club. Which is all great, until said wealthy owner decides not to keep throwing money at something. Neither club would be able to service its debts for long without said wealthy backer
TB’s loan is interest free and he’s already converted £88m of it into share capital. Meaning he couldn’t seek repayment of it, even if he wanted to.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Yep.
And it is a different scenario from Derby. Morris got Derby to borrow from Michael Dell’s MSD UK Holdings (who also lent money to Sunderland), secured on the club, at a time when Morris thought he had an Arab billionaire buyer.
Guess who covered it?
https://thisisfutbol.com/2021/01/blogs/championship/derby-county/derby-county-kieran-maguire-discusses-the-clubs-loan-with-msd-uk-holdings-limited-mel-morris-takeover-wayne-rooney/
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,751
They had the same points tally as two of those teams, and were one behind the other three, and they had at least one game in hand on all of them. Getting a point in their game in hand would have put them in the play-off positions.
It is impossible to know who would have actually made the play-offs, but they had as good a chance as anyone at that stage of the season, and certainly earned their place as much as Peterborough would have done.
Saying they didn't earn it, and were basically a 'mid-table' League 1 team is disingenuous. And had Derby been punished last season, as they should have been, 43 points would have been enough to keep them up.
I think they have every right to be furious.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Its not disingenous at all. Wycombe were propelled into the Playoffs with a quarter of the season left to play:
Please don't tell me having a game in hand (that was never played) should be a major factor in this. They stole into the playoffs via some herbert with a calculator, despite a quarter of the season to go. Luckiest promotion ever, so I have little sympathy in their whining tbh. Yes Derby gypped the division, but Wycombe shouldn't even have been there in the first place.
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,751
Its not disingenous at all. Wycombe were propelled into the Playoffs with a quarter of the season left to play:
Please don't tell me having a game in hand (that was never played) should be a major factor in this. They stole into the playoffs via some herbert with a calculator, despite a quarter of the season to go. Luckiest promotion ever, so I have little sympathy in their whining tbh. Yes Derby gypped the division, but Wycombe shouldn't even have been there in the first place.
So, with Covid curtailing the season it was decided by points per game.
Is there a fairer way that you can think of?
Did the teams that played 35 games have 1 extra home or away game ?
Much fairer to work out average home points and average away points and calculate ppg to reflect that.
Also they really need to factor in the league position of teams played in the calculation.
A complex algorithm should have been developed not the crude method used.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
There was clearly no ideal way, but Wycombe were the big winners (and Tranmere the big losers, slipping down into the bottom 3 under Wimbledon to get relegated). Appalling.
Wycombe lucked out. They should be grateful they got a season in a division above, despite not properly earning it.
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,751
I see your point, but wow, the maths involved in that would be mind boggling.
Especially in a season where home advantage didn't prove to be an advantage at all.
But to me, it's beside the point. The rules were made, and Wycombe got promoted. Whether you believe that they should have been in the Championship or not, that is where they found themselves. They started appallingly, and then made a heroic charge to try to avoid relegation.
They were then shafted by Derby County's financial misdemeanors
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,751
Tranmere were already in the bottom three, weren't they?
No, not having that. They were extra fortunate to be promoted, granted, but that doesn't mean it was unfair. As you said, there was no perfect way to settle it.
Regardless, none of that means they should be grateful for ONE season there when they were ultimately diddled out of at least another. They were promoted fair and square, they were relegated because Derby CHEATED.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Yes, within 3 points of Wimbledon with a game in hand having won their previous 3 (Wimbledon were - of course - amongst the clubs who gratefully voted to end the season right there and then, they also still had Tranmere to come).
The PPG calculation even involved there being more than 3 points available in some of the games, with each team forcasted to get more than 1.5 points each from the same fixture. It was a nonsense that warped the final table.
I'm not saying there was an easy way to sort it out, but Wycombe were the big benefactors, moving from 8th up to 3rd via a calculator. Thats why I carry little sympathy for them dropping straight back down.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Yes Derby cheated, but we'll have to agree to disagree re Wycombe. I don't think Wycombe were promoted fair and square at all, it was a travesty IMO to send them from 8th place up to 3rd, with a quarter of the season left unplayed.
It wasn't a travesty though, not by any measure. They got lucky that the proposed way of deciding who finished where meant they finished in the playoffs, but that's hardly a travesty. There was bugger all between 3rd and 8th that season, so it stands to reason that by most methods of deciding final standings they would get into the playoffs. I suppose you could arrive at a method that meant they didn't finish top 6, but I'm not sure it would have been any fairer. Perhaps given the close nature of the teams between 3rd and 8th,expanding the playoffs to include all 6 clubs would have been fairest, but then the EFL would have been open to accusations of changing the playoff rules half way through the season.
Regardless, as far as I'm concerned a travesty describes a situation when something is blatantly, indefensibly unjust. Say, Derby staying up by a point purely by cheating, and then not being punished. That would be a travesty. Not Wycombe's fortunate promotion.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Tell that to Peterborough, nudged out of 6th spot by a calculator (they'd also dry-humped Wycombe 4-0 just a few weeks prior, and had taken 4 points off them overall that season).
Derby deserved to go down, Wycombe hadn't deserved to go up is how I view it.
But what made Peterborough any more deserving when over the course of the season, they had accumulated fewer points per game? Without looking at results, I'm sure Wycombe could point to results against another promotion rival and say they were more deserving than them, who in turn look at their own results against Posh having spanked them. That's the whole point of a league isn't it? That we don't take isolated results as meaningful on their own.
I'm really not sure why you describe Wycombe's promotion as a travesty as opposed to fortunate.