cheron85

Holy bat-legal writs batman!

Cool - We'll get the money off QPR circa 14/15 then

Cool - We'll get the money off QPR circa 14/15 then

Cool - We'll get the money off QPR circa 14/15 then

Agreed
Outside of Gotham I can't condone any forms of vigilante justice
Dner dner dner dner, dner dner dner dner, taking action through the proper channels of justice through league regulations 

Cool - We'll get the money off QPR circa 14/15 then

At the moment I'd rather have him as a player for the championship thanks

Won't be long before Horton hears a boo. 

When did negotiations start?
When was they offered the contracts?
Were they interested in staying?
Did they have better offers elsewhere?
Did they receive offers that would have given them first team football?
Did Rooney want them to play more academy football, didn’t think they were quite ready and they disagreed?
I mean there’s so many unknowns to say it’s a poor show from us. 
Rooney, Mel, Pearce, Brown, Agent, Family
There’s so many pieces involved with signing new contracts, if they do leave it could be easily any one of those pieces.
I get it’s frustrating, but that’s part and parcel of being a football fan. Seen highly rated academy players leave before, fans unhappy but they spend careers at lower leagues.

That was how I took the Birch interview from a couple of weeks back, not that anyone agreed on here.
It sounded as though having the funds wasnt the issue, just that the EFL werent satisfied with where the funds come from.

It's an interesting one this. Anti Money Laundering (AML) regs do require you prove the source of funds.  It's in the EFL's interest to be absolutely certain they're happy that the source of those funds is legit, fully traceable etc, plus of course sustainable.  If in any doubt then they'd be in breach of AML regs to accept this where doubts exist.  Love or hate them, in this respect I would expect they need to follow British law. 
In a previous role I worked with a Spanish bank and their approach to things was very different to ours.  Yes they too have AML laws etc but interpretation is, I believe different.  Their working ethics / practices most certainly were, not least a huge element of deniability, maintaining face and cover your ar5e mentality. It made working with them extremely difficult.  Appreciate this is my experience only.
I remain unconvinced that Alonso had all the backing and transparency required under UK law and since Derby /EFL is in the UK that's the law that applies, even if, apparently his lawyers believed it was all OK.  Like many here have regularly called out, there appeared to be loads of holes in his case.  This latest interview, the principles of which may be true (i.e. had meetings etc) smacks of him trying to save face, cover his ar5e and apportioning blame, something I've seen more than once as referred to above. Is he working with the latest US consortium? I doubt it personally - I see it as a clever use of words saying he supports the takeover whilst hinting he's involved when in likelihood he's nothing to do with it.
 

Just the DET said and I quote.
“Does his comment suggest he is still part of a potential deal?”
Maybe reading too much into it and your explanation makes sense. 

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:
“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.
I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense
However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself
Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:
“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.
I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense
However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself
Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:
“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.
I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense
However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself
Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

That was in the Athletic article too
I think maybe that's him trying to save face - I'm 'by their side' too - Doesn't mean they know who I am or that I have any influence whatsoever ?
Also - Could just be a second language, phrasing thing - Colloquialisms are some of the hardest things to learn in a second language and phrases like "I've got your back" often get confused - I wonder if he's just expressing his support for them in general terms - Whether he meant to say "they have my full support" or something similar - Which wouldn't mean he had anything to do with the deal, but that he had no bad feeling towards them

Alternatively it could be that the EFLs systems/checks aren't up to date enough to deal with modern business practices? Or they've decided they're so annoyed at Derby at the moment they'll take any excuse to screw with us? We don't know...
None of us were in the room with Morris and his people when the proof of funds was made - He employs lawyers who check these kinds of deals (and work with a lot of other companies to do similar) - So we have no idea what the decision he made was based on
Morris decided by his standards the money was there - The EFL decided by their standards it wasn't - Nobody has come out and said what either of those standards were - So to point the finger at either side being right or wrong is daft

In all fairness - Baird was a class above at times - His legs may have gone a bit but his mind was sharp as ever and he had many quality wingers in his pocket for a couple of seasons with us

Oh I got that yours was Electronic - Just thought I'd come back with another Marrvelous project 
I hadn't punned anything in my post that I was aware of so wasn't sure why you were quoting me! ? 

I don't personally think this should be taken so literally 
When you're in a leadership position - Especially one which is more 'political' than practical (football chairman being in that camp) - You tend to make statements which are indicative of ambition rather than being an actual goal
I don't think Mel was ever intending for half the team to be from the academy - I just think he meant to showcase how important the investment is, showcase the ambition to be a top academy and justify the amount of money we were throwing at it

I don't personally think this should be taken so literally 
When you're in a leadership position - Especially one which is more 'political' than practical (football chairman being in that camp) - You tend to make statements which are indicative of ambition rather than being an actual goal
I don't think Mel was ever intending for half the team to be from the academy - I just think he meant to showcase how important the investment is, showcase the ambition to be a top academy and justify the amount of money we were throwing at it

Yeh but he's probably leaving to try and get a higher level of football...

Alternatively it could be that the EFLs systems/checks aren't up to date enough to deal with modern business practices? Or they've decided they're so annoyed at Derby at the moment they'll take any excuse to screw with us? We don't know...
None of us were in the room with Morris and his people when the proof of funds was made - He employs lawyers who check these kinds of deals (and work with a lot of other companies to do similar) - So we have no idea what the decision he made was based on
Morris decided by his standards the money was there - The EFL decided by their standards it wasn't - Nobody has come out and said what either of those standards were - So to point the finger at either side being right or wrong is daft

In all fairness - Baird was a class above at times - His legs may have gone a bit but his mind was sharp as ever and he had many quality wingers in his pocket for a couple of seasons with us