Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EssendonRam

  • Rank
  • Birthday September 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,347 profile views
  1. Leeds 1 - Derby 2 Wilson (Aggregate Leeds 2 - Derby 2 ✅)
  2. Are we still talking about football? That’s just how unwanted pregnancies happen.
  3. To be fair, 2007-8 proved that Derby fans are among the most committed in England.🐏
  4. Be still, my beating heart🐏😍
  5. Derby 3 - West Brom 1 Mount
  6. I died in 2007. Was dead for 45 minutes apparently. Then comatose for over a month. Awoke on the Thursday before the Saturday home match against the then 19th placed West Ham...The nurses reluctantly let me wander around the hospital at midnight on the Saturday night trying to get reception. So, yeah, I remember...and, even when I was dead or in a coma, I had more life in me than our season 😂. But, as others have said, you take promotion whenever you can. Fulham are the wrong comparison to make. Others have been promoted in a worse position than us and survived. They’re the precedent we follow.
  7. The way I see it, we’ve left ourselves virtually no wriggle room such that it’ll come down to the final day between us and Bristol City...as the best case scenario for us. Even then, I struggle to see a scenario whereby we gain points viz Bristol City on the final day given we host WBA and they’re visiting Hull. So we must at least draw Bristol City away or we’ve expended our last bit of wriggle room. Bristol, for mine, are likely to earn at least 7 points (Reading (H)-W, Wednesday (A)-D, Derby (H)-D, Milwall (A)-D, Hull (A)-D) while we’ll be doing well to pick up 9 (Birmingham (A)-W, QPR (H)-W, Bristol City (A)-D, Swansea (A)-D, WBA (H)-D). While both clubs’ remaining fixtures are tricky, if I was a betting man (which I’m not), I’d think there’s more upside in their draw and a greater risk of downside in ours. That said, it’d be just like us to suddenly string together a run of 8 wins to finish the season...
  8. I suggest you need to think through your own rationale there. If you’re suggesting that a club that’s invested in its own stadium and owns the asset either wholly or with substantial equity should be treated exactly the same in regards to FFP viz clubs that don’t have equity in any tangible assets, you’re actually suggesting they be disadvantaged for sound forward planning. FFP is premised on preventing clubs from gaining an unfair advantage, not permanently impoverishing them. If, however, you’re questioning the bona fides of the transaction, that’s even less likely. Independent valuations are just that; if the transaction is ‘dodgy’ (ie the valuation is artificially high - or artificially low which it would have to be for any sell back to the club to make any sense), the valuer’s liability to any parties who might rely upon it in the future would kick in. These sorts of related transactions are scrutinised incredibly closely.
  9. The way I see it, this can only be a good thing for both Mel and the club. It seems to me that it gives the club a fresh start in relation to FFP at least for this year and the next three. (How ridiculous is it if FFP doesn’t allow clubs that own their own stadium to spend more freely than a club that doesn’t though?) As others have said, that allows Frank to enter the summer window without the constraint of first having to sell. Not only does it give Frank the ability to chase targets more effectively, it means that other clubs can’t hold us over a barrel any longer; at least not as much as they have been able to do. That’s possibly critical, too, in terms of keeping Frank, if we’re honest about it. The second reason it’s a positive is that it allows the club the leeway, once some of the player contracts expire at season’s end, to start operating on a more commercial basis without Mel needing to chip in every month. Not only would Mel and his bankers appreciate the end of the haemorrhaging from his pocket, it’ll allow potential new investors a cleaner slate too. I suspect that will make the prospect of new investment more likely; whether it makes it more likely to be a full or partial sale, I’m unsure. Intuition tells me that it means Mel’s more likely to at least retain a minority interest but, on the other hand, it probably makes a “peppercorn sale” of the club easier and might be (again, as others have suggested above) Mel’s insurance policy to flesh out potential asset strippers (although, obviously, the club’s a better asset with the stadium). Of course, it may mean that the new investment comes in the form of the expansion of PPS. If FFP is purely on annual profit or loss, that may’ve been a constraint of stadium redevelopment if the stadium is owned by the club. Even though capital expenditure shouldn’t affect annual profit performance, distinct (albeit related) ownership of the stadium could avoid any risks associated with a redevelopment affecting the club’s operations, especially our ability to stay comfortably within FFP constraints. Think Spurs’ cost overruns and Arsenal’s stadium financing charges coming straight off a Championship club’s bottom line by way of example. Any way you slice it though, it has to be a good move for Derby.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.