Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, and please correct me if I am, but isn't the scenario effectively as follows:
Mel Morris owns Derby as a company
Mel Morris also owns a separate company
Derby used to own the stadium as an asset
Derby have sold the stadium to Mel's other company
Derby now make no money off the stadium and have lost it's worth as an asset from their accounts
Mel's other company now makes the money from the stadium, but must also provide for it's upkeep
The money made from the other company cannot just be pumped back into Derby, either directly as the stadium-owning company is a separate entity to Derby, or indirectly through Mel as there are limits put in place by the governing bodies on the level of investment an owner can make into a club
As such Mel's ownership of both companies is irrelevant as they are separate entities with restrictions in place to stop the free flow of money between them
Because if that's right, then I can't really see any difference between what Derby have done and what countless other clubs have done when they have sold their ground to other parties, and can't really understand why it should be stopped or how it could be stopped. I don't see selling an asset to another company as a "dodge" of the rules just because the owner owns that other company when he's restricted to what he can invest from that other company into Derby.
If there's something I'm missing here though, then please someone run it by me.