Ramtastic ones

18 hours ago, davenportram said:

Doesn’t sound like the football club has any ownership of the stadium 

“

Now, if I waited, and let's say I left that (the stadium) in the football club just for a second, and now was bringing in an initial 12 million pounds a year from running concerts and then chose to pull the stadium out to sell to someone else for 180 million pounds, and then booked that profit, then people would have had an even bigger issue with it.

"We had the stadium valued and the valuation came back. Once it came back, if I had paid a penny less, HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) would have rang me up and said: 'By the way, you have just sold yourself an asset at under value'.

"So on the one hand, I am either going to have to have a debate with HMRC and pay them a cheque, or I am going to have the EFL moaning, or some other club, saying this isn't fair, on the other side."

 

ge sold it from the club to himself - his own words 

 

If the administrators don't pay the ground rent to Morris, I wonder what his stance would be? True colours may well be shown! Anybody worth £100's of millions would surely say "forget the rent" you can play there for free if they really cared. After all he still has the asset value.

22 hours ago, atherstoneram said:

Hope they don't take anything of value with them if they go to train on the racecourse

The old training ground on raynesway is still available, though a little overgrown.

1 hour ago, simmoram1995 said:

So first of all they’ve got rid of Darren Wassell

as for assets 

every player will be put up up for sale 

roos = £200-300,000

marshall= free 

Byrne = £250-300,000

jagielka= End of contract 

davies = end of contract 

forsyth = £100-150,000

Buchanan = £400-800,000

sibley =£ 500,000 - 1 m 

Bird = £ 500,000- 1.2 m

shinnie = £300-450,000

lawrence = £750,000- 1.25 m

Joz = £ 1.5- 1.75 m- 2 m

knight = £500,000- 750,000

bielik= £500,000- 1.5 m

baldock= end of contract 

CKR = £100,000

Obviously some of these figures are ludicrous but as administrators I think they’ll take what they can 

 

 

The administrators role is to keep the company going until a buyer is found or put the club into liquidation if it can't be maintained as a going concern. Selling players does not keep the company going, or maintain it as a going concern. The player sale would be part of the liquidation process.

24 minutes ago, Tombo said:

Never trust a multimillionaire

They don't get rich by being nice guys. They always crush a few along the path and become immune to their adverse impact on those trying to earn a crust.

He's worth a few hundreds mill. Do the maths, if he really cared 1.5 a month doesn't even make a dent. It's like most of us buying a round down the pub.

4 minutes ago, Philmycock said:

Wonder if Mel has ran off to his Sandbanks home or is he planning to come to match tomorrow?

Let's pray for tsunami

6 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

Could any sanction be appealed?

Are there different types of appeal?

Appealing matters of "law" and appealing sanctions?

Maybe, both sides gets one chance to identify a significant misinterpretation of the rules - and then get a last chance to argue their position.

And then, guilt or otherwise, has been determined.

But, then there is the sanction - and perhaps that can be challenged too if there are grounds that the reasoning for determining a sanction were flawed.

To take a crass example, if the panel said, "We are imposing the maximum sanction, because Derby have broken the rules three times in a row," we could challenge it because the breach was wrongly being seen to cover as the separate breeches. 

Presumably, because errors in sentencing can occur, the process would include the ability to correct errors.

Or maybe not!

Various posts refer to" the vindictive nature of the efl's actions". I would say it is worse than vindictive in that they failed to act upon information submitted to them and only raised issue when wonky 'boro started crying. Lacking any real fortitude, instead of telling said parties to go fourth, they acted. Were they (the efl) a compitent organisation, they would have and should have, challenged Derby when the first set of accounts showing this practice were submitted and nipped it in the bud. 

All this talk about retrospective retribution going around, with penalties applied to this season is rubbish. If its retrospective it needs to be applied to the season when the transgression occurred, not when the efl got its act together. And if we're in to retrospective penalties less see them for the breaches of FFP by Wolves and Leeds in their promotion season. 

Personally, I'd take retrospective to the relevant season - we finished top 10 each year, failed to get promoted, so just as there were no real benefits there will be no real penalty.