Jump to content

G STAR RAM

Member
  • Content Count

    18,013
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About G STAR RAM

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 27/04/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Derby

Season Ticket Holder

  • Season Ticket
    East Upper - Block F

Recent Profile Visitors

7,112 profile views
  1. So by decent owners you actually meant cheats?
  2. I take it you are aware that both of your examples just basically laughed at the EFL rules on their way up to the Premier League?
  3. Looking at the players that left in 2018/19 I cant help but think this was a case of buying bad news after we had got the 2017/18 accounts out of the way.
  4. I disagree, think it is relevant to proceedings. As I stated previously there are indicators that should assist the auditors in assessing whether we were using appropriate accounting policies and estimates. If we had say 3 years of £1m amortisation followed by £10m in year 4 then this would obviously be a red flag. Likewise if every time we sold a player we were making a loss as their ERV at time of sale was too high. Of course if we only started using the policy in 2015 then we would possibly not start to see anomalies until 2018/19 so that could be a mitigating factor. A
  5. Its completely an accounting issue as that is what the EFL are saying is wrong. Now the auditors may use external experts in their assessment of residual values but there will be other indicators of whether the club were using appropriate residual values. Pretty sure I read, maybe in the original case document, that Derby were applying a specific model used by other clubs for assessing residual values and amortisation amounts, I may have just dreamt that though, will do some digging.
  6. Are you sure? If so, you havent been following his last few posts on this thread!
  7. I struggle to remember dates but I imagine that we must have had £20m income from sales in that period, plus compensation for Rowett and Lampard
  8. Yes not sure on amounts or by who though
  9. Yes I know but the deal supposedly includes the ground if reports are to believed. Take on £40m debt and receive an £80m asset in exchange. I dont see why this transaction is supposedly so unattractive to buyers. There must be more to this than we are being told.
  10. Mel (or another of the companies that he controls) actually owed the club £75m at the time of the last accounts. So unless he has put more than that amount in to the club in the last 3 years then I cannot see that we could have any sizeable debts to MM or his companies. I personally think that the debts are also in companies (with guarantees from the club) but cannot be sure on this.
  11. If reports are to be believed we have £40m borrowed against an £80m asset (the ground) plus the lease on the training ground. Obviously the reported interest on these loans sounds ridiculously high. However, if the purchase price has been adjusted down to £2.5m to reflect these debts, you would assume that any credible prospective buyer would have the funds to clear down these loans.
  12. Certainly up until 30 June 2018 the money was put in the club via equity. If reports are true, somehow, despite being owed £80m for the ground, we have managed to accumulate huge debts in the space of 35 months.
  13. What is your understanding of debt in the company? Ive seen this mentioned by the Daily Mail but nobody has managed to explain what debt we have yet?
  14. The ones about you being one of this forums funniest posters?
  15. I would imagine the Keogh issue is far from done. Hopefully we can appeal and then neither the EFL nor Keogh can challenge the next ruling. I imagine we can even appoint our own people to hear the appeal. This is how it works isnt it?
×
×
  • 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.