StarterForTen

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

Apologies if this has already been said but it looks to me like Mel and Erik have struck a 'hand-in-hand' deal, whereby the purchase of the Club (probably for a relatively nominal fee given its dwindling assets and loss-making status) is linked to the separate purchase of the real estate (stadium, training ground, or any combination of these!) for a far greater amount - for the sake of argument (as I have not a clue) lets say that is for the amount Mel bought it from the Club for at £80m
If that is the case, then Our Erik may well be able to 'fund the deal' for the Club out of cash. Probably be able to do so by emptying the change out of his pockets because its likely to be (relative) peanuts.
But he would then need to raise funds against the stadium to purchase that. And how will that debt be serviced? Most likely through a lease/rental/service charge fee levied by Erik on the Cub for the use of the stadium. An £80m asset at 4% rental, that's (a hypothetical) £3.2m per year straight out of operating income.
By most sensible definitions, this scenario would be the club paying for itself, albeit through a circuitous route.
But then it might be the only way the Club can move forward because until the ownership changes the Club remains in the quick sand up to it's neck.
And if this model allows Erik to spend a bit of cash on revamping the playing squad over the short term, it might even pay dividends.
 

Apologies if this has already been said but it looks to me like Mel and Erik have struck a 'hand-in-hand' deal, whereby the purchase of the Club (probably for a relatively nominal fee given its dwindling assets and loss-making status) is linked to the separate purchase of the real estate (stadium, training ground, or any combination of these!) for a far greater amount - for the sake of argument (as I have not a clue) lets say that is for the amount Mel bought it from the Club for at £80m
If that is the case, then Our Erik may well be able to 'fund the deal' for the Club out of cash. Probably be able to do so by emptying the change out of his pockets because its likely to be (relative) peanuts.
But he would then need to raise funds against the stadium to purchase that. And how will that debt be serviced? Most likely through a lease/rental/service charge fee levied by Erik on the Cub for the use of the stadium. An £80m asset at 4% rental, that's (a hypothetical) £3.2m per year straight out of operating income.
By most sensible definitions, this scenario would be the club paying for itself, albeit through a circuitous route.
But then it might be the only way the Club can move forward because until the ownership changes the Club remains in the quick sand up to it's neck.
And if this model allows Erik to spend a bit of cash on revamping the playing squad over the short term, it might even pay dividends.
 

Apologies if this has already been said but it looks to me like Mel and Erik have struck a 'hand-in-hand' deal, whereby the purchase of the Club (probably for a relatively nominal fee given its dwindling assets and loss-making status) is linked to the separate purchase of the real estate (stadium, training ground, or any combination of these!) for a far greater amount - for the sake of argument (as I have not a clue) lets say that is for the amount Mel bought it from the Club for at £80m
If that is the case, then Our Erik may well be able to 'fund the deal' for the Club out of cash. Probably be able to do so by emptying the change out of his pockets because its likely to be (relative) peanuts.
But he would then need to raise funds against the stadium to purchase that. And how will that debt be serviced? Most likely through a lease/rental/service charge fee levied by Erik on the Cub for the use of the stadium. An £80m asset at 4% rental, that's (a hypothetical) £3.2m per year straight out of operating income.
By most sensible definitions, this scenario would be the club paying for itself, albeit through a circuitous route.
But then it might be the only way the Club can move forward because until the ownership changes the Club remains in the quick sand up to it's neck.
And if this model allows Erik to spend a bit of cash on revamping the playing squad over the short term, it might even pay dividends.
 

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

True, but the football debts gets paid before HMRC and hardly ever is there much left in the trough after the gravy train brigade are sated.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

I don't mean to be pious but some football fans see Administration as the 'short term pain for long term gain' approach to seeing a their club become a better football team. Sorry, but advocating administration is morally corrupt.
Any business that goes into administration has a knock-on effect for other businesses that don't get paid what they are rightly owed; quite often leading to a few people losing their own livelihoods for no fault of their own. At the very least it deprives entities like HMRC of revenue.
To suggest that pathway is right because it will wipe out debt - and by obvious inference, allow a football club to spend on players again - is wrong on every level.

A little bit of spreadsheet analysis came up with the following probabilities of relegation:
00.3% Huddersfield Town
22.2% Derby County
82.2% Rotherham United
95.3% Sheffield Wednesday
100% Wycombe Wanderers
 
If we just base it on recent form, then I think the bottom three clubs get relegated.
But because the outcome of matches can be more variable than recent form, I used the season's home and away form to calculate the probability of each outcome for each of the final matches involving the bottom five clubs.
I ran all of the matches 10,000 times, resulting in 10,000 versions of the final league table.
And then I asked Google very nicely to count how many times each team ended up in the bottom three.
Some good news (for Derby) is that the mathematical possibility of being overtaken by Wycombe Wanderers didn't arise once.
The surprising news for me was that the chance of Derby being relegated was higher than I had expected.

I must have a masochistic streak because a bit of me would now feel short changed if this didn't go down to the last minute of the last game...

I must have a masochistic streak because a bit of me would now feel short changed if this didn't go down to the last minute of the last game...

Remember that time Forest only needed to not loose by 3 goals to qualify for the play offs, and then went and lost by 3 goals. Not really relevant, but always makes me happier to think about that. 

We don't have to win on Saturday, we just have to match Wednesday's result - if we do they are relegated no matter what they do against Forest. As they kick off early, we'll know what is needed before we get underway.
If Wednesday lose to Forest, then we can lose both of our remaining games and will still finish above them. Of course Rotherham might put us both down if we do!
For what it's worth (very little!) I think both Derby and Wednesday will draw on Saturday; Owls will then be relegated and we will beat them last day to relegate Rotherham with them. They would rather be competing with Rotherham next season for automatic promotion than a Derby that has most likely undergone a change in ownership, management and playing squad.

I'd take issue with JP's verdict that the club face 'serious punishment' if the appeal finds in the EFL's favour. My take is that the complaint surrounds how the change in amortisation policy was incorrectly reported, not an issue with the policy itself.
Let's be honest, if that is the case, anything more than a slap on wrist would be grossly unfair.

Apart from Alonso has only ever said that the money is all his and not from third-party investors?
I think it is only media commentators that have suggested the Far East money men link.

I suppose there is some merit in aiming for the stars.
After all, if you only make it 0.0001% of the way there you've still gone further than any other human being!

Isn't that just describing what the EFL process is for taking over a club? 
Ie, when they get a proposal, their standard questions start with.... 
1. Where's the money coming from? 
I suppose a headline such as "efl subjecting Erik Alonso to standard due diligence process with no additional questions whatsoever" is a bit dull tbf ?

Seven years before Gibson was even born, and we still liked to stuff 'em...!

MORE BREAKING TAKEOVER NEWS...
The Peter Stilton consortium have been outbid by a group of American investors. They are from Philadelphia....

MORE BREAKING TAKEOVER NEWS...
The Peter Stilton consortium have been outbid by a group of American investors. They are from Philadelphia....