Geoff Parkstone

1 hour ago, HorsforthRam said:

Matt Slater from the Athletic says having spoken to numerous people involved in football finance, the consensus appears to be that no sensible person would by the club until after it’s been into administration. Currently it has too much debt. Administration means screwing jobs, local suppliers (25p in the pound) and losing any goodwill as well as a 12 point deduction that would probably end in relegation. 

Dont forget the 25 pence in the pound on any season ticket refunds yet to be made......

The £ 4000 down payment for the share isn't really the problem though, is it?  Its the extra £ 1-2,000 annual call for more capital to cover the operating losses and provide a bit of a transfer kitty that would hurt more! 

1 hour ago, EraniosSocks said:

The only things I've read regarding it is that Rush and Appleby merged to make a new company, then supposedly was interested in Derby County. But got told by Melvyn to politely “do one” 

 

I just can't fathom, whoever Morris’s advisors are, that they simply think to keep going for these chancers. After the last charade surely you would have looked at the business set up by the Ex Wolves chairman who acts as a Football estate Agency and does the proper tests to assure the football club will be in the best hands. 

As a fan Melvyn, come on mate. Let's start being sensible and do the best for Derby moving forward.

 

 

366 Group Limited?

1 minute ago, Taribo said:

Sorry if this has been covered before but don't EFL rules state that agents can't run a club? Alonso is an agent is he not?

Surely if I, a complete imbecile, knows this then Alonso/his team/Mell/Mel's team must too? 

EFL seem to be taking their sweet time about approving him - especially given that the Fake Sheikh was approved quicker than a Wonga loan.

 

I recall seeing somewhere that he had ceased to bean agent as part of the "takeover".  This could explain why its website was down when I last looked

12 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Mel ('s other company) also owes the club up to £80m for the stadium. Essentially, anyone buying the club, gets the stadium for free, just by agreeing to wipe off that debt owed to the club.

It's no secret that Mel's struggling to free up enough cash to keep the club running. He'll want rid of that debt ASAP.

I think you need to look into the structure more deeply.  Sure there are intra group loans between various companies, but for the whole thing to work, they do NOT extinguish themselves.  One company somewhere in the pile will have the asset of ground and liability to another controlled company (Gellaw 204 IIRC)

1 hour ago, Brammie Steve said:

Surely it's best to wait till next season.

If buying anything connected with "Derby" you need to know:-

Is it The team that won the League twice in the seventies?

A thoroughbred winner of the Epsom Derby

Or a runner in the Donkey Derby at Southend?

In other words is it a team newly relegated to League One

or a Championship team by the skin of its teeth?

Either way the investment can hardly be called gilt-edged can it?

Furthermore the price will depend on the ESL breakaway plans which couldn't have come at a worse time for Mel.  At the time of negotiating the price we were moving away from relegation and there was a premiership pot of gold as a lure.  Now we are heading to League One and the reward at the end of the premiership rainbow has suddenly been slashed in terms of TV money and sponsorship/merchandising money heading off elsewhere.

The amount due to be paid must surely have fallen (if such a clause exists) and so Mel would probably get less for DCFC.  In many ways the "deflation" impact on the English football structure will be positive as transfer fees and wage expectations will fall, but the transition for the remaining PL teams that are invested to a higher reward level will be painful.  At the end of the day, if it goes forward, english football may be in a better place (although without masses of overseas high grade talent) - a more level playing field.

But the transition will be painful as clubs will be worth less, have less non spectator income yet still have highly paid players on the tails of contracts.  It will be most painful for those selling clubs during this interregnum.

I imagine they will wait and see - if we escape relegation by less than 6 points they will seek to impose the points deduction (if they win the appeal) this season and thus relegate us.  If we escape by more than 6 they will impose a points deduction in 21-22 as that way would hurt more; equally if we are in the relegation places already by the end of the season they will hold the penalty over so we start at minus 6 in the lower division.

Alternatively they may just wait to see the positions after 46 games and apply however many points are need to relegate us

Or am I being too pessimistic here

3 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Why don't we just wait and see what happens.

Fair point but on that basis let's not speculate about possible relegation?  Where's the fun in that - would be a very quiet board!!

26 minutes ago, RedSox said:

And by default, taking ownership of the asset against which the debts are secured, presumably. Can you be responsible for a loan against an asset if you don’t own it, I wonder?  2 glasses of Shiraz can do odd things to my brain! 

I'd suggest not, but if you can, I think I will secure my mortgage on your house???

Assuming the ground is not included in the sale, the security over it will have t be redeemed and the new owner provide suitable new security, or pay off the loan.

53 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Not heard anything specific, but logically the MSD loan is secured against various assets including the stadium. If the new owners are taking over the debt, they must surely be taking over the security for that debt.

Yep because you couldn't secure Jack poo against the club itself now it doesn't own any substantial assets aside from the capitalised value of player contracts

12 minutes ago, Geoff Parkstone said:

So it would have meant Mel retained the ground............

Still I suppose its better than playing in a council ground!

IF this is the basis for the Spandonesian deal then:

Separation of the asset from the club means no more financing can be secured against it, which seriously cramps the clubs ability to borrow.  No more revenue from other activities such as concerts or other sports.

We started the Morris tenure with a pretty much paid off ground, with a small mortgage and mired in footballing mediocrity.  We end it with no ground, still in football mediocrity, but still alive.  Was the adventure worth it?

25 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I'm led to believe that the agreement with BZI was something like £15m to Mel, an agreement to take over the £15m debt to MSD and proof of having £25m to fund the club for next season and £15m for the season after. Mel just needs out and has written off the vast majority of his investment. Obviously some more funds were put in over the Christmas period, so there might be a larger loan, but I doubt that the deal would require more than £20m upfront and the ability to service the MSD loan.

Someone with ready access to £30m and the ability to show further backing should be able to secure a deal if the EFL approve.

 

So it would have meant Mel retained the ground............

32 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Why can’t people get their head around the stadium situation! It was an illusion. It was still part of the club! It’s like taking a tenner out of your money pocket and stashing it in a different pocket (to pay for a taxi) ! It’s still there. The fact it was “security” for a loan makes no difference. 

in practice, perhaps its part of "the club" as more widely defined.  In legal terms its not.  The security / charge for the MSD loan was attached to every asset in each company in the wider group, fixed and floating.  However in legal terms ts perfectly possible to sell the club and not the ground and vica versa

31 minutes ago, enachops said:

Since when did football fans become so precious? What right do we have as fans to know how this guy is being financed? Who cares. As long as he has the money and can fund wages/ incomings I couldn’t give a monkeys where he gets the money from.

All I care about is what happens on the pitch. I’m finding all these question marks pathetic quite frankly.

whereas those of us looking at things a little more deeply find your unquestioning acceptance of the deal as being naive at best, quite frankly 

15 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

It will be interesting to know the situation of the stadium. As I understand it, the ground was purchased by a separate company owned by Mel Morris. Will he continue to own it, I wonder? Rent it to the club? Or is it part of the deal?

At the moment the ground is owned by one of Mel's Gellaw companies.  It's then leased back to the club on a long term underpriced deal.

The new owners might buy it, or they might not.  We will have to see.  If they buy it, they may keep it in a separate group or put it back in the club or a subsidiary.  Who knows but I guess all options are open.

But Mel's going to want 80m and if he sells it for significantly less, can the EFL use that to reopen the "valuation" argument?

If he keeps PP, I wonder what nasties lurk in that cheap leaseback?

18 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Is it because the investors are possibly Indonesian that you have an issue with? I would imagine that if they have access to a few million to by a football club, they are probably smarter than you are giving them credit for. Would you feel better if they were Swedish or Canadian?

It's not the "50m" to buy the club, but the "80m" to maybe buy the ground, the monthly burn of, what, "2m" on operating costs then of course there is the required investment on the playing side.  How deep is that pocket is my issue, and do the financial backers really understand the full implications?  Don't care where they come from.

They wouldn't be the first overseas investors "sold a pup" and they won't be the last to realise that the pup is for life, not just Christmas

10 minutes ago, JfR said:

The "Indonesian backers" theory is based on the fact that last year it was reported that he'd approached Sheffield Wednesday backed by an Indonesian consortium. It's possible, but not confirmed, that the takeover here involves the same group.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/football/news/erik-alonso-wednesday-Derby-takeover-20057316

Saves me repeating it.  Understand that he was an interest in an Indonesian football club, has dual Spanish Indonesian nationality and the consortium previously pulled together was majority Indonesian (some Thai).  It's seems logical that the same group of money men are involved although I have no incontrovertible evidence

I really hope I'm wrong but I can see little positive in this deal.  It seems to be backed by an Indonesian consortium of investors who I fear are biting off more than they can chew.

Frying pan....fire springs to mind.

But at least it means that we might finally be able to file one of our overdue sets of accounts - the June 19 ones and then maybe the June 20 ones so we can see what sort of a disaster we are looking at.