San Fran Van Rams

Just been on the RamsTV website to see what the price of tomorrow's stream will be. GBP10.

However, the monthly membership is stated to be GBP17.50 as opposed to the GBP25 that the email sent out to all subscribers had said. Wondered if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick or whether the EFL/club have revised their prices back to GBP17.50?

When does the transfer window close? As we're looking at signing free agents, is there any restriction (other than the embargo) on when these players could be brought in?

Sorry, I've lost track of all the changes to the transfer window regs.

4 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

It may be worthy of noting that the accountant we used is a huge DCFC Fan, nothing wrong in his accounting methods which are compliant within UK accounting regulations, but, assigning residual values to players at the ends of their contracts was against FFP P&S rules.  How many players have walked away with no transfer fee at the ends of their contracts?  Lots and therefore we do not know if they have any residual value so its a fair of the EFL to expect us not to do this.

I don't think we did do that. I thought that was a misunderstanding the EFL had and that we actually accounted for players having a residual value of 0 at the end of their contracts.  It was just the non straight line depreciation which was found in non compliance?

3 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Interesting - I watched that but don't recall that point, although it's undoubtedly true for them. 

Ironically, I'm working in a private equity backed venture now and my job (CRO) is to do just that. Let's see if I last till Christmas..... ?

But seriously, the point is not to avoid taking any risk, but to be aware of the possibility. So you get "no regrets" decision making. From the snippets of the meeting reported so far, it sounded like Mel was full of regrets. 

Great to see another Risk professional on here ?

6 hours ago, ShoreRam said:

I see some people have moved on from googling 'NDA' and are now pontificating on the job function and performance of the club's CEO. I always knew that if I wanted sound business advice, I should first seek the wisdom of the good people on a football club forum ?

Funny cus I thought a forum was for voicing opinions and discussing related topics. Not everyone on here has coaching badges, yet here we are discussing starting line ups and tactics. Plus you don't even know what knowledge and experience people are speaking from. Give it a rest.

Yes, the buck stops with Mel, but I actually think a lot of the blame also needs to go on Pearce's doorstep.

As CEO, Pearce should be responsible for the day to day management of the club. He is responsible for managing the clubs finances responsibly and making sure we remain a viable business. The whole accounts fiasco is his to clean up, so is the communication with fans, so is the relationship with the EFL. Its his responsibility to ensure that players get paid on time, for making sure that contracts can and are provided to players. For making sure the strategy set by the board/ownership is implemented effectively. None of that he has done. I see nothing from his tenure as CEO to suggest he has been successful and meet whatever objectives he's been set.

I can't actually believe he's kept his job through the whole fiasco. It seems to me that Mel has had to perform the CEO position. 

9 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

The club is in crisis. On the eve of a new season without a squad.

Steve Nicholson regurgitates Alan Nixon's stories and the Punjabi Rams tweets. With nothing added, no investigative journalism at all.

Ed Dawes from Radio Derby is asking for mock ups of Messi in a Derby shirt.

That's our local press. The ones we should rely on to get answers.

We're a joke.

Completely agree. Haven't seen an exclusive out of the local journos for years. The majority of the DET is clickbait/ regurgitated tweets/ info on ex players/managers. They should have been all over this. How Nixon (if he indeed does) knows more than these guys is beyond me. The only thing they do that is somewhat useful is the match write ups/live commentary and interviews, but even those are superseeded by this forum, Rams TV and Twitter.

5 hours ago, ram59 said:

If and it is a big IF, the club is about to get new owners, maybe these new owners don't want us to waste money on new players that won't be part of their plans, just to play them in 3 or 4 games, before the sale goes through?

This was my thought. They may not want to drop a few million on players and could perhaps be wanting to see how the academy products get on, and by January probably know whether we've got enough to stay up. Anyone coming in now is going to be hounded to put their hands in their pockets and will be instantly vilified if they don't, with no guarantee we won't be getting a points deduction or that a new player or two is going to keep up us. Seems pretty unprecedented to buy a club with only 7 senior outfield players.

What is your relationship like with Mr Gibson at Middleborough? How about the other chairman in the league, e.g. Wycombe, Preston, Sheff Wednesday?

Can you provide more insights into your and the club's relationship with the EFL? There is a strong perception amongst fans that it is poor, with the EFL out to get Derby. Is this your view too, what are you and the club doing to amend that and what changes would you like to see amongst the EFL/Championship?

What are the expectations for this season?

With the current thread bare squad, reliance on academy players and a number of trialists, is the aim just to stay in the championship, positions ourselves for a more successful 22/23 and remain attractive to a potential buyer? Or do you expect more from Wayne and team?

On its own, Rooney being pictured in a hotel room with women would just be a matter for him and his family. It's embarrassing for him.

Thing is, the timing of this is shocking. We're at our lowest ebb for a number of decades. Both on and off the field. The last thing Derby need is more negative press. We've got an owner trying to sell the club, negotiate with the EFL and deal with increasing debts at an uncertain time for revenues due to COVID. Add this into the mix, on top of this Jason Knight debarcle and you've got to ask yourself, what was he thinking? Or not thinking.

We're less than two weeks away from the first game of the season and our manager thought it a good idea to go and get rat arsed after loosing a friendly. That's the bigger problem for me, I don't care about the photos and hotel room. I care more about the complete lack of professionalism and focus at a critical juncture in the clubs history. Whether its Rooney's fault or not that we're in the mess we're in, he should be making sure his actions are only for the better of the club. His have not been.

58 minutes ago, ramit said:

Alright, you win, i am mad, i will let you have the last word

Oh

Great points, well made

9 minutes ago, ramit said:

If the party you voted for and defended runs your country into the ground, you are partly responsible.  If you trust someone who lets you down, you are responsible for that decision.  To say hindsight is a wonderful thing is just another way of saying i refuse to learn from mistakes.  Unforeseen incidents occur, especially when you cannot afford them. 

Football fans are the untouchable bunch according to many here, but i think they protest too much.  To reiterate, folks get the leaders they deserve.

This is completely different. You vote for a political party. Please tell me where I could have voted for or against Mel and his decisions? Saying we'd deserve the capitulation of our club when we had absolutely no decision making authority in it's running is madness.

Are you saying the Blackpool fans deserved the Oystons? That Bury fans deserved the loss of their club? I could go on. Football is not a democracy. It's an entertainment business ran by people who want to make as much money as possible from a club that we've all got far too invested in without any actual power.

1 hour ago, ramit said:

We all knew that the club was being run at a considerable loss season after season and most were fine with it, some even calling that sustainable.  Well, it wasn't, was it.  Could've Would've Should've are an unreliable trio, but we could've and should've seen the danger on the horizon if we would've looked logically at the situation developing, but too many had stars in eyes gazing at the possible glory of returning to the PL.  Fans cheering on a fan owner to overspend and in the end half bury us, but no, lets not point to that uncomfortable scenario, we are only fans, to expect common sense from us is lunacy. 

So what as fans should we have done about it? Booed at Mel when we were in the stadium? Protested the signing of Blackman? Invaded the pitch when we unveiled Rooney? As others have pointed out, we didn't know the ins and outs of every deal, didn't know we'd been using a potentially non compliant amortization method, didn't know COVID was about to wipe out two years worth of ticket revenues. The only thing we as fans can be blamed for is passion in supporting the club we love. We have zero control and decision making authority.

As a mere fan, we have a few ways of influencing the direction of our club. The biggest way is buying tickets to attend games and cheering the lads on. Unless a fan owns a controlling stake, we're consumers of a live entertainment service. We cannot directly influence the actions taken by management, although can shout our displeasure by booing in the stands, holding up home made banners or simply not turning up.

Yes, there is an expectation from fans that your club should do well and that those making the decisions do so in a manner that puts the club in the best possible position in the table. It's not fans fault how management make such decisions as running a football club is not a democracy, and Derby County is not a public share holding. We cannot vote at an AGM. We can only vote with our chants and feet. 

Mel is a fan of this club and bought a controlling stake. He invested heavily. He nearly got us into the EPL. However, it is his decisions, and some bad luck, that have also got us to where we are now. No other fan had a say in any of the decisions he or his employed management team made. 

My personal opinion on Mel is that he's always operated with the clubs best interests at heart. I believe he still does. That doesn't mean he's made all the right decisions.

9 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Posted this in another thread but more  relevant here.

If none of the trialists are signing why on earth are we giving Morrison game time ahead of Sibley?

Either this isn’t true, or we are screwing over one of youngsters!

Wonder whether its a way to keep them interested and around until we can actually sign them. We can sign free agents at any point in the season right?

Can we calm down a little? This is an early preseason game where we need to both try out trialists as we can only sign four and attempt to change our woeful playing style from last season. Rooney said after ManU that this game was going to be how we deal with more possession with a different style from the season before. Bird said in an interview it's a change up. Can someone who watched the game give me some idea of what this lookes like today without just shouting we lost 2-1 to a league two side?

6 hours ago, DCFClks said:

and if CKR gets injured?... we need another striker.

Agreed we're light if we get injuries.In fact, if we get any injuries in any position we're going to struggle. We're paper thin, just saying that a fully fit squad doesn't look that bad on said thin paper.

3 hours ago, Rampage said:

Looks like a half decent side developing in my opinion.

Agree. 

A side with Bielik, a fully functioning Morrison/Sibley, Carroll/ Knight, Jozwiak/Aluko, Lawrence and CKR isn't a bad attacking force at all. Defense still a worry but Jags and Wisdom would be a pretty potent pairing too. Its not looking all that bad this season if we can actually sign these lads.

8 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

The rich and famous including senior business people seem to be able to travel still and can get through the loops and unless @charlotteram really does work for the state department we dont really know whether someone has been given an exceptional visa to travel to the USA or not under current restrictions.  If they published circumstances in which they were allowed people would ensure they fit the circumstances. As they dont requests would presumably be considered on a case by case basis. It would seem odd for the BBC to mention someone is in the US if they are not. Not sure if to save the greatest football ball on earth  managed by that DC United hero Wayne Rooney from administration would be a good enough reason for an exceptional visa! We would say yes but probably most would get out the big rubber stamp saying "visa denied". I guess all will hopefully become clear at some point but in the meantime discussions and learning about USA travel restrictions has passed another day of nothing happening

To be fair on Charlotte Ram, its extremely difficult to get into the US without having an existing US visa. Getting a US visa (e.g. H1B, B1, L1 etc.) was made difficult by Trump, who then suspended the visa programs for sometime. This created a big backlog so even when Biden came in and released the brakes, it still takes a long time to get one. This is on top of the COVID restrictions which mean that even if you have a visa you still can't enter if you've been in certain countries 14 days prior (this incl. UK, EU etc.).

That being said, Mel may already have a US visa or green card (I wouldn't be surprised if he did) so the only real blocker to him getting into the US would be travelling from a banned country. Even then, a quick two week stop over in Mexico or the Caribbean would mean he could get in.

18 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Businesses are normally sold on a debt free cash free basis with purchaser coming in covering overheads as soon as contracts are exchanged. They also would have to open their own bank accounts for the business which as we all know is very difficult with current money laundering regulations, it is clear a date for signing completion and exchanging contracts had been agreed and bank accounts emptied prior to that taking place. It is also clear that on the other side, the fake Sheik has a case to answer, although suing him like his own lawyers are doing, is probably throwing good money after bad. 
Regarding due diligence although in this case probably due negligence is a more apt description, would NOT have been carried out by Mel and Pearce, the selling party on a deal as complex and large as this would have definitely been outsourced to an M&A specialist of which there very many, and I have lifted their sales role from a company I have dealt with in the past when selling a business.

“Privately-held and public companies, and private equity firms around the globe count on our mergers & acquisitions (M&A) team for comprehensive financial advisory services and expert guidance. We assist buyers and sellers by providing in-depth financial and strategic analysis, identifying optimal potential transaction partners, developing creative deal structures, and negotiating complex M&A transaction terms.

Your business is unique. You don’t want an advisor who just shows up when it’s time to sell, you want an advocate. Selling companies for private business owners, corporations, and financial sponsors is our specialty. Our commitment to clients is consistent and simple: get the deal done right and deliver the highest quality outcome – both qualitatively and quantitatively.”

As you can see DCFC would not have the resources to do a full DD on the purchaser, it would take a specialist company to do it, therefore the comments about DD on here are misinformed and not accurate. 
I think when all the dust has settled Mel will have a number of lawsuits outstanding, as he has been seriously let down by his advisors.

Regardless of whether DCFC had advisors or not (and I would hope he did), ultimate accountability for buyer DD rests on Mel's and Pearce's shoulders and no-one else. Granted the DD will be less than the buyer will be doing, but given track records I'd have hoped DCFC would have ensured they were damn near certain they were going to get the deal closed. 

You can't just absolve all at DCFC of accountability because they may have had an third party advise them. The Board, Pearce et al were and still are fully accountable and responsible for all matters at the football club. This includes remaining solvent with sufficient liquidity to pay outgoings. Don't quite understand how you can argue against that?

I'm not saying by the way that the Sheik/BZI haven't got a case to answer, but we're talking about the club having sufficient funds to pay wages. As you say, the buyer will cover overheads once a deal has closed (not signed) but the seller still has to remain solvent with sufficient liquidity before that.

Don't especially appreciate your snarky comments that my view is misinformed and not accurate either. Reading your post, you clearly don't understand how accountability works.

5 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

Do U think Mel went into this totally blind then ? 
I highly doubt it 

No - there a different between blind optimism (which resulted in Derby County not having enough liquidity to pay players' wages) and going into this blind. This is the point I'm trying to make. And looking at your other posts you are too? Not quite sure what your gripe is.

Mel and Pearce et al put far too much faith into BZI coming in and saving the day. The same then happened when Del Boy Alonso came in. I've even read recent articles that state that Mel never even met BZI. Any due diligence that was done on the prospective buyers during the process obviously wasn't good enough.

Why run a business so close to the wire on the presumption that an investor with a track history of pulling out of deals will magically come in pay your players? COVID definitely didn't help and I'm sure he was being told all the right things but the fact of the matter is, the club didn't have sufficient cash flow to pay its wages. 

11 hours ago, NottsRam77 said:

We’re all very wise with hindsight arnt we … the dodgy shiek only become dodgy retrospectively 

 

Completely disagree. There were historical examples of BZI not pulling through on similar deals. We should have made sure we had sufficient liquidity in the event that happened again. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But that wasn't hindsight, it was blind optimism.

Mel's issue was liquidity at the time we didn't pay the wages, hence why we had to get a short term loan to pay them. 

In an acquisition you normally agree a networking capital position that the acquiring company will furnish the target with once the deal closed, and is taken into account in the purchase price. Before that, the target has to pay all creditors as per normal. If Mel was short on liquidity he should (and probably did) ask for a loan from the acquirer. This obviously didnt come through as expected which left us scrambling. 

The cash flow projections we're obviously considered in light of the acquisition and being provided the net working capital at a point in time. I can't remember the timeline but it seems whatever cash buffer there was, it was eroded too early. COVID obviously didn't help matters. 

Not paying wages shouldn't happen. It was a naive business move to trust that dodgy sheikh. It should not happen again. Being that close to the wire is poor financial management and I hope the CEO has learnt from that. How he still has a job is anyone's business. Must be a family friend of Mels.