Jump to content

RamNut

Member
  • Content Count

    20,584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RamNut

  • Rank
    As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,184 profile views
  1. I did say the next two seasons Ed. Try and keep up.
  2. We know ...... ? we don’t know anything except a second hand partial understanding of what the club alleges in response to the charge. the club don’t define what the charges are in detail. The only publicised charge relates to having made excessive losses. https://www.efl.com/news/2020/january/efl-statement-Derby-county-charged-with-excess-losses/ but the statement in response goes straight to the issue of the valuation and amortisation. there is a big gap in the info right there. Let’s wait and see what the EFL actually allege before we get over excited about what we supposedly know.
  3. It’s awful if true. Championship clubs collectively need to work to get wages under some sort of control.
  4. I do hope those wages are not correct.
  5. You seem to know an awful lot despite not having heard the EFL version of events yet. As for @EssendonRam ......you can go back on ignore
  6. We are better - as i said - due to jason knight, a bit of confidence, and one or two other things. I'm just not sure its a huge difference because as i also said the 3-0 at Reading could easily have been 3-2, 2-2, or 3-3 due to the boy wonder.
  7. @EssendonRam haven't really got time to reply in full....but We don't know exactly who asked for what adjustment, we don't know whether their input ratified anything as yet. the point i make is that you can't approve an ffp submission, until it has been submitted, because up to that point there is only partial information. For someone who seems to agree with various points i have made, you seem more curmudgeonly than most.
  8. Knight he is an absolute gem. Hopefully he stays free of injury. he has also scored three goals which is probably more than anyone else in this run?
  9. are we that much better? The results have improved but - bar Reading - there has only been one goal in it max for every result since Fulham. Initially we were losing and drawing. Now we are winning and drawing. I also thought we were unlucky v Reading. (We should have had a penalty and hit the post). i don’t really see a massive improvement in performances. The biggest single player factor is probably Jason knight. The biggest single factor overall is probably just the increased confidence that comes with improved results. (i am far from convinced that the new fellow is adding anything very much but we’ll leave that for fear of awakening the forum ranters and ravers).
  10. your vicarious liability point is interesting, but the employee was not the auditor of the ffp submission. I did say that I don’t know at what point a related party becomes an arms length organisation but I still think this could be the key to the issue, with the EFL advice being based on transfer to an external organisation. I said at the time how I didn’t understand how an asset listed at 56m in our own accounts could simultaneously be valued at 41m and sold for 81m. After all these months that does indeed seem to be the issue. whatever happens happens. A lot of people seem very determined to believe that the club were acting correctly. but the fundamental reality is that the club overspent on dross, and ended up losing ownership of its own stadium as a result. not great stewardship in my book.
  11. If we made a 40m profit by selling for 81m, is it the 41m asset value that is the issue?
  12. I’m speculating like everyone else. But if you care to check back you will indeed find that I was the one who broke the story about the roof. That turned out to be true despite a lot of cynicism and snidey remarks in response to my thread. I also believe what I was told about the second investor. I think if the new company was 50/50 it would be classed as arms length, but that’s not my area of expertise. I was told the second investor was someone who had been involved with Derby county previously. I offered a few names - all of which were rejected: Peter gadsby, Adam Pearson, Tom Glick, Andy Appleby. I still suspect it was one of the Americans or Adam Pearson. It seems plausible. It would explain why the EFL advice would have been correct at the time but wrong in hindsight. It ties in with what @Ramleicester has suggested. we’ll soon find out.
  13. Apparently brum went back to a target of 13m max loss. If it is the same for us, then since we made a trading loss of £25m we could have to “improve” by 12m in one season to avoid another smack on the bottom.
  14. Due to recent revelations, far from spending on incoming deals, we must be looking at outgoing deals . if we are adjudged to have made a loss of 25m for 2017-18 then that gives us an uphill task to avoid further ffp penalties for the following years. we need transfer income ASAP.
×
×
  • 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.