MadAmster

Derby 3-1. Sibs.

I expect them to play their usual dark arts game. Time wasting from the off. Overly physical. Taking ages to take dead ball restarts. Falling over, poleaxed, when you look at them too hard.

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

As at 30 June 2022 it would appear that the stadium was held in Gellaw Newco 202 Limited.

Cannot see anything filed subsequently that would indicate that the stadium has been moved elsewhere.

One of the many Gellaw companies MM had...

14 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I actually have no idea on the set up.

All I know is that DC purchased Pride Park separately from the club.

My other assumption was that he took the Derby County Football Club Limited out of administration.

The 2 may now be under the same umbrella, I have no idea.

Freehold and leasehold valuations would give different results and, Id imagine, both would be significantly north of your valuation. Just my opinion though. 

PP was owned by MM's Gellaw 202 company. DC bought the stadium from them/MM.  He then went about buying the club. Once in Admin, to buy the club he had to negotiate with Quantuma who were running the club for the Courts. Quantuma were charged with getting the best possible deal for the club's creditors. Mr Clowes paid around £28M for the club. That money went to pay off an agreed % of monies owed to the creditors. That is why the 2 deals were separate. It wasn't the same people selling...

DC (UK) Ltd now owns both the club and the Stadium.

24 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The stadium is still owned by MM’s company. Pretty sure though that Clowes’ property company - Clowes Developments (U.K.) Ltd [CDL] - owns both the club as well as the company that owns the stadium. In other words the club thru CDL pays rent to the stadium owning company, but economically the whole lot sits under CDL

Also pretty sure that CDL is primarily owned by the Clowes Family Trust. This is significant because it means DC is answerable to the next generations for every penny that is swallowed up by our thirsty club: it will understandably make him a cautious and niggardly owner because otherwise he’ll get it in the neck from Aunty Mable

It’s possible to imagine a future sale of the club which involves CDL holding on to the stadium for a period - depends a bit on what the clever tax planners are up to 

I just Googled "who owns Pride park Stadium?" It came back with Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd and not MMs Gellaw 101.

Google "who owns Derby County Football Club" and it says Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd. Ergo, CD (UK) Ltd owns both the club and the stadium.

That leads me back to my previous question with regard to rent, namely, who is paying rent to whom? Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd to Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd? It would suggest there is no rent unless DC is taking it out of one of his bank accounts and putting it in another. There is also the possibility that the department charged with running the stadium pays rent, via the Nominal Ledger, to the department running the club.... but I see no point in that scenario.

I just checked on Gellaw 101, which I think was the company that owned PP under MM, and it has been dissolved.

57 minutes ago, Crewton said:

In the first EFL tribunal hearing, that cleared DCFC from the charge of overvaluing Pride Park, the EFL employed an Expert Witness who based his (much lower) valuation on a comparison with Accrington's stadium, assessing PP to be of a similar standard despite never having visited either ground. The fact that DCFC's average attendance was approximately 10x Accrington's didn't feature in his calculations.

Ta.

6 minutes ago, Crewton said:

The 'expert' who based his valuation of PP on Accrington's ground overlooked that!

Do tell more...

20 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not sure why the division that the team is in would make any difference to the value of the ground?

Could only see this being relevant if there were clauses in the lease that meant the rent was increased if the club was promoted.

Rent? Lease? News to me. Could you tell me who is renting to whom, please? I thought David Clowes set up a company and that company bought both the ground and the club. Do you mean DC's company is paying rent to DC's company?

We'll get better gates in the SBC and constant full houses in the PL. That makes the ground a more profitable entity. Even more so when you take account of the ticket prices likely being higher. I am of the opinion that a more profitable stadium would be worth more.

One could be excused for thinking that there are one or two posters who ignore facts, cherry pick words out of context in order to exude the opposite viewpoint. If I get to the point where it's getting to me, I ignore the thread.

Never allow anyone, be they sensible, an eejit or just a WUM, to live rent free in your head. They're not worth it and you deserve better. Draw your own boundaries and stick to them. It's good for your own well being.

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

I'll have a listen again, but what you've written above does not imply he bought the club to 'shore up' the stadium value, only that in buying the club, the value of the stadium was 'shored up' as you put it. That's rather different to stating categorically that he ONLY bought the club to protect the value of his stadium investment, which I think is a somewhat disparaging and unfair observation.

He bought the club as he loves DCFC as much as we do. 

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

MSD lent 20m against the stadium and MM guaranteed the debt. MM refused to allow the stadium and the club to be ‘reunited’ unless MSD was repaid by someone other than him. That’s why DC bought the stadium for 23m - it was the amount needed to clear the MSD debt. 
Bold of you to put a value on the stadium. I’d hazard that if the club is out of business for prolonged period, the stadium is a liability. And that if the club is operational, the value of the stadium turns on the div we are in 
 

If there's no pro club to play in it, the stadium would be bulldozed and the buyer would pay whatever the value of the land is. When you look at what PP cost to build, add in inflation, take away whatever depreciation due to age, add in L1 football and just above £20M is probably about right. Back in the PL, both the club and the stadium would be worth more than DC paid. So, not bold, just massaging figures and thoughts and coming to a possible value.

The title of the thread reads.... You are a legend Mr Clowes. Now, please plan for the next stage

If there is to be a "next stage", Mr Clowes will have the direction of the "next stage" firmly in his head and probably on paper as well. In which case he has already planned for the "next stage". Thinking there isn't a mid term plan in place is, IMO, disparaging towards David Clowes.

IMO, any next stage will require:

1. Promotion to the SBC and staying there the first season otherwise we won't be attractive to prospective buyers

2. Any new buyer having to commit, in the contract, to keep the club financially viable and insisting on the same when they sell it on

51 minutes ago, Old Spalding Ram said:

I saw  Fuertes score his only league goal against Everton.

………………………….I’m part of a very elite club👍🐏

For those who weren't there...  

47 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

So allegedly DC won’t sell unless he continues to be involved. I wonder whether he’d sell the club but not the stadium. It was the stadium he bought first and he got it for a song - in fact at one stage he even indicated he’d bought the club in order to protect the value of the stadium ! 

The Pride Park deal is thought be worth around £23.5m Source thebusinessdesk.com/eastmidlands/news/2060386-developer-acquires-pride-park-and-announces-takeover-bid

I know MM paid £80M and £23.5M is a "song" in comparison but £23.5M (I'd always thought he'd paid £22M) is about the right price.

Is the curse mandatory or can you accept the award but refuse the curse?

Ian Evatt has won it for the 2nd consecutive month and it's not affected Bolton yet...

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think any team would be rightly aggrieved had none of the 4 match officials have seen an incident so close to the ball.

Surely, at least one of them saw "something" or the card wouldn't have been given? Had none seen it, nothing would have been given.

Barks and OB on #RamsTV saw an overhead view and that, they said, showed a definite elbow and that red card was justified.

11 hours ago, MickD said:

Louie for Prime Minister?

Never thought about it but it's likely he couldn't do a worse job than the last 5 incumbents...

39 minutes ago, rammieib said:

A good solid performance today but feel Bird is slightly ineffective in the advanced role.

Doesnt make runs beyond Collins and doesn’t really know when to come and show for it.

Would prefer him deeper but that does leave a dilemma of who to put in the 10 spot. (As I don’t want Korey Smith anywhere near the team!)

You're only as good as your last game. On today's play Sibs at #10

I booked flights for me n er indoors for the Burton game. It's now the Monday so the flights have been cancelled costing me 50 quid. Fortunately I hadn't booked a hotel yet.

Might still come over for a do on the Saturday in Burton and then stay till the Tuesday. Gonna cost me even more money. 

1Wildsmith- 6

23Ward- 6

7 Barkhuizen- 6.5

35Nelson- 7

6Cashin- 6

3Forsyth- 6.5

4Hourihane- 6

22Fornah- 6

2Wilson- 6

17Sibley- 7

5Bradley- 6

8Bird- 7

11Méndez-Laing- 8

39Brown- 6

9Collins- 6

19John-Jules- 7

TV

Well, not the best of displays but 3 points is 3 points.

55% possession, 13 shots to their 8, 9 on target to their 2 are the stats. However, this game has me worried. A better side would have probably beaten us. So often they got past us on our right. Exposing Ward's defensive frailty?. Less fortunate on our left as they had little success there. Some success over and behind the centre halves. They had a succession of chances that they simply couldn't take. One, at 0-0, was one I'd have been angry with myself about, the ball hitting the non-striking leg and being cleared.

We simply can't give that many decent chances away and get away with it.

Wonderful finish from Sibs. Well worked NML goal on the break and idem ditto with Barks' goal. 3 good goals.

The red? Not seen it from the aerial angle Shaun Barker and Owen Bradley saw it from but that view convinced both of them that it was an elbow and thus a deserved red. Down to 10 men they had way too many chances to score and failed.

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not overly relevant to the point of the post, but the club did not owe MM £140m.

In that case, what was the £140M he wrote off when we exited Administration?

48 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Catch all clause?  It wasn’t a catch all clause that tripped us up. It was the rule that requires accounts to be in accordance with the FRSs.

 

The amortisation method used wasn't against EFL rules. The catch all "deemed to be unfair" clause was what caused the accounts to have to be reposted showing linear amortisation and that led to the -9.

On 06/12/2023 at 16:38, Mucker1884 said:

I'm the same mate.

Worried I might miss summat!  🤣

You should be our goalkeeper Mucker me owd.... nowt gets past you 😉

30 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The amortisation figures/workings still weren't written down thoroughly though were they. And although we were 'acquitted' there were still problems. But hey much easier than staying within accepted guidelines, why the need to push the rules? 

My guess is that he saw the methodology he chose to use from 2015 as a way of making exceeding FFP limits more difficult. He was right. He also told the EFL he was going to do it. It wasn't until 2019 when that Smoggie chap got upset that they decided to "investigate". In the meantime they had accepted 4 years of accounts using that amortisation method. If you tell the EFL you intend to change and then do so and they don't complain, you can be forgiven for thinking there isn't a problem...

It's also not impossible that, without the 9 point deduction which we wouldn't have had if the appeal hadn't found that catch-all clause. No 9 point deduction, maybe MM doesn't put us into admin... and who knows what would have happened then?

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

If only the working out wasn't on the back of a fag packet, or nowhere at all?

We were acquitted by the first committee, which contained accountants, of any wrongdoing. The appeal committee contained zero accountants and they found us guilty of breaching a catch-all clause which deems it an offence to do anything that might be construed as being unfair to the other clubs in the division. Nobody else used that 100% legal methodology so the appeal committee decided we were guilty of practice unfair to the other 23 clubs. That led us to having to repost several season's accounts using linear amortisation and that saw us break FFP and the 9 point deduction. That saw MM decide to put the club into admin which brought the other 12 point deduction as he could see us going down and thereby lose any chance of him recouping the £140M the club owed him....