Are Derby an attractive investment?

[Uptherams]

Fielding

Legolas

Brayford,

Oconnor

freeman,

Roberts

Keogh

Buxton

Obrien

Bryson

Hughes

Hendrick

Coutts

Davies

Ward

Tyson

Robinson

Sammon

Jacobs

that's the 19 I can remember making appearances

Cheers.

Least in the championship maybe? Does this prove that with Clough in charge we have too many players and that wages can be reduced further?

[AndyB]

Doyle started at Huddersfield!

[ramblur]

Yes he said the owners hadn't done what they had promised. He still ditched the club to the yanks. For that aloan he was not a good owner but from what I could see is he wanted to get rid of the club while in the PL.

I'm only guessing,but I'd imagine the LOG didn't have the financial clout (in liquid assets) to overcome the perennial problem that Prem tv cash doesn't come at the start of the season,when it's needed.If they'd repaid the loan (if they'd still been in charge) out of the later tv cash,then if we'd stayed up the same problems would have arisen at the start of the following season (although player investment might have been less).As they didn't know which division we'd be in the following year when they took out the loan,it must have been a complicated arrangement,made somewhat simpler(i.e. straight 1 year loan) when we were relegated.

If we'd stayed up,we'd have been able to use the back loaded tv money,and my suspicion is that the loan would have rolled over after partial repayment.Repeat this process and the loan eventually disappears.The LOG weren't the pioneers of this strategy-it's obviously niche financing designed to overcome this problem.

If you had an ownership group that could front load the season with investment,then the problem disappears.Looking at what our owners have done,I suspect that the £14.3m they put in via equity in the first two years was supposed to attain promotion,and that the subsequent loan capital (which they could gradually claw back) may have been earmarked to front load the Prem season.Thus the LOG may have acted responsibly in handing the club over to a grouping better placed to handle the Prem problems,but you could hardly blame them for what happened afterwards.

[Gritstone Ram]

I'm only guessing,but I'd imagine the LOG didn't have the financial clout (in liquid assets) to overcome the perennial problem that Prem tv cash doesn't come at the start of the season,when it's needed.If they'd repaid the loan (if they'd still been in charge) out of the later tv cash,then if we'd stayed up the same problems would have arisen at the start of the following season (although player investment might have been less).As they didn't know which division we'd be in the following year when they took out the loan,it must have been a complicated arrangement,made somewhat simpler(i.e. straight 1 year loan) when we were relegated.

If we'd stayed up,we'd have been able to use the back loaded tv money,and my suspicion is that the loan would have rolled over after partial repayment.Repeat this process and the loan eventually disappears.The LOG weren't the pioneers of this strategy-it's obviously niche financing designed to overcome this problem.

If you had an ownership group that could front load the season with investment,then the problem disappears.Looking at what our owners have done,I suspect that the £14.3m they put in via equity in the first two years was supposed to attain promotion,and that the subsequent loan capital (which they could gradually claw back) may have been earmarked to front load the Prem season.Thus the LOG may have acted responsibly in handing the club over to a grouping better placed to handle the Prem problems,but you could hardly blame them for what happened afterwards.

I do blame them cause they pumped some cash in and got us up. Then couldn't improve the team to compete in the PL. They didn't have the financial clout. Now are the current owners demonstrating that they have learnt a lesson from that. I'm not in favour of this lot either.

[ramblur]

I do blame them cause they pumped some cash in and got us up. Then couldn't improve the team to compete in the PL. They didn't have the financial clout. Now are the current owners demonstrating that they have learnt a lesson from that. I'm not in favour of this lot either.

What do you mean "then couldn't improve the team"? Are you suggesting that owners should interfere in the business of signings identified as being needed by their managers?Should the LOG have ordered eye tests all round?

It was BD's signings that didn't improve the team.The LOG backed their manager with a sum that wasn't unsubstantial (and far greater than many subsequent clubs have spent).BD got us up 2 years earlier than planned-on that basis how could any ownership group have had doubts about his ability to select targets?

[curb]

What legacy has gadsby left at the club???.

Restructured all the debts (around £70m I believe) left by the three amigos, renegotiated a very low mortgage rate on the stadium (which GSE are still benefitting from today), turned around a team that was on it's knees when they took over, without a striker on the books, and won promotion to the Prem within 1 season, left us with a parachute payment still to come, and placed us in the hands of a company prepared to invest another £50m in the club.

Yeah, you're right, not much.

[Gritstone Ram]

Restructured all the debts (around £70m I believe) left by the three amigos, renegotiated a very low mortgage rate on the stadium (which GSE are still benefitting from today), turned around a team that was on it's knees when they took over, without a striker on the books, and won promotion to the Prem within 1 season, left us with a parachute payment still to come, and placed us in the hands of a company prepared to invest another £50m in the club.

Yeah, you're right, not much.

So you call that success then.

[ramblur]

So you call that success then.

Do you think the current owners would have paid £16m for the club the LOG bought (with no big banks of cash to come)?They could have bought it for the few quid the LOG paid (as opposed to later invested into),and even that looked overpriced to me.Pittance to £16m in such a short space of time says something to me (and even the £16m was at a hefty discount to net assets).

[davenportram]

Do you think the current owners would have paid £16m for the club the LOG bought (with no big banks of cash to come)?They could have bought it for the few quid the LOG paid (as opposed to later invested into),and even that looked overpriced to me.Pittance to £16m in such a short space of time says something to me (and even the £16m was at a hefty discount to net assets).

why such a hefty discount - because of the funding necessary to maintain in the champ or get back to the Prem.

[Gritstone Ram]

Do you think the current owners would have paid £16m for the club the LOG bought (with no big banks of cash to come)?They could have bought it for the few quid the LOG paid (as opposed to later invested into),and even that looked overpriced to me.Pittance to £16m in such a short space of time says something to me (and even the £16m was at a hefty discount to net assets).

You've avoided my question and come out with a load of financial ******.

[Gritty]

Good post,feisty.I should point out that you're probably referring to the underlying cash loss,rather than the headline loss?

Nobody is likely to want to pay over £50m for a club in our position,which is a good reason why it may have not changed hands-the window of opportunity that the likes of Leicester had has now probably closed.Any recruitment made next year on 3 year contracts will impact on FFP when it's at its most stringent (I'll have to check that,but I think it's right).

I was fascinated by the £3.9m put in this year.If the underlying cash loss were to turn out to be £2m,and the swings and roundabouts of creditor etc movements were broadly neutral (after 2 consecutive fairly heavy adverse swings,this might be likely),then £1.9m would be left of cash put in.

From this,you'd have to deduct around £450k for interest payments,leaving about £1.45m to cover capital investment.There's something left to pay on tangible assets bought the previous year,and there'd be something for the screens this year (partially offset by any extra revenues gleaned.)

On players' regs,what we owed v what we were due at the end of 11/12 was neutral,so you're looking at the difference between the £3.6m paid and the c£2m we possibly received (£1.3m net,but any amounts owing to other clubs paid out of the gross amount would reduce what had been shown as owing at the close of 11/12 and turned a neutral position into a favourable one). The £1.6m gap might be instalment based,so we would possibly have had to fund less than this during the year.

All in all,unless the £3.9m had been added to during the year,it looks like the revolving loan may have moved up again (thus increasing interest).We also don't know what effect the price rise had on match receipts.

Unfortunately,it's impossible to gauge what might have been paid on tangible assets.

Thanks Ramblur. That's very helpful. Hadn't thought about FFP implications!

[eddie]

You've avoided my question and come out with a load of financial ******.

I daresay your answer is just to throw huge amounts of money at the club? The financial situation is only '******' (I suppose you are implying that it is unimportant) to a short-sighted fool.

.

Specsavers might be able to sort out the first part of your problem - the second part is entirely down to you.

[ramblur]

Thanks Ramblur. That's very helpful. Hadn't thought about FFP implications!

I suspect that this may lie at the heart of the gumps' fiasco.Everything done from now on will have implications further down the line ,in relation to permanents (loans only impact on current season).Possibly why BS went on loan.I suspect the gumps are in for serious disappointments

[ramblur]

You've avoided my question and come out with a load of financial ******.

Oh,I can talk football ok.

The LOG inherited a squad (without a striker) that had battled against relegation,and delivered a squad that gained promotion.However bad you might have considered that squad,you could hardly consider it to be worse than the one fighting relegation,so I'd consider that to be a certain measure of success.If they'd handed over the reigns to a grouping that invested £36m into the club and got us promoted,would you have considered the LOG a success then?

[Gritstone Ram]

I daresay your answer is just to throw huge amounts of money at the club? The financial situation is only '******' (I suppose you are implying that it is unimportant) to a short-sighted fool.

.

Specsavers might be able to sort out the first part of your problem - the second part is entirely down to you.

I think you have me all wrong. I would rather be competative through good signings bringing through youth finding the unpolished diamond. If you check any of my previous posts you will see. I don't really want to see a boom and bust legacy at Derby which we have seen in the past. I just put an objective reply to a post who said we have gone up when we have had good owners with a good manager. I think Gadsby and co. bailed out on us. There have been a few good points since then regarding poor signing BD made. So gadsby and co may have had there reasons such as the task was too big for them. Then when people are saying he wanted to buy them back 7 months later. Why did he sell then? I don't need to be bamboozled by financial ****** I just say it as i see it.

[ramblur]

why such a hefty discount - because of the funding necessary to maintain in the champ or get back to the Prem.

I can't work out if that's meant to be a question,or an attempt to state something as fact?

For those who don't know the situation on takeover,these facts come from the 07/08 GS Derby (UK) Ltd accounts:-

Assets £91.781m ,Liabilities £57.347m,giving value (stated as fair) of net assets at £34.434m (representing 100% of Gellaw assets,the company owning DCFC).

Because they initially only bought 93% of the club,the fair value of these net assets amounted to £32.024m.

The total consideration (not all paid up front) for this 93% was £14.808m,which meant the net assets were acquired at a discount (termed 'negative goodwill') of £17.216m.

The term 'fair value' can be a little misleading.If you don't accept the valuation you can always haggle to try and come up with a 'fair value adjustment'.It perhaps looks a little more amicable to do it on the discount basis.

In short,I suspect (though I don't know) that the discount probably relates to a perception that the ground and the intangible assets represented by players' regs were substantially overstated.I won't go into the arguments over what PP is actually 'worth' again,but they would have had a point about players' regs (including their own 'Three Musketeers'.)

You can discount your own suggestion.Net assets would have represented the debt (at the time) in full,but couldn't reflect the Prem payments still to come.The £7.9m in cash at the year end,allied to the 2 parachute payments to come,would equate to ALL of the £31m debt included in net assets(PP loan and all),and seems to be a reasonable starting amount to tackle the little problems you talked of.

[ramblur]

I think you have me all wrong. I would rather be competative through good signings bringing through youth finding the unpolished diamond. If you check any of my previous posts you will see. I don't really want to see a boom and bust legacy at Derby which we have seen in the past. I just put an objective reply to a post who said we have gone up when we have had good owners with a good manager. I think Gadsby and co. bailed out on us. There have been a few good points since then regarding poor signing BD made. So gadsby and co may have had there reasons such as the task was too big for them. Then when people are saying he wanted to buy them back 7 months later. Why did he sell then? I don't need to be bamboozled by financial ****** I just say it as i see it.

He wanted to buy the club back because (at the time) he didn't think the new owners had put in the investment needed to drive the club forward.Again (at the time) he may have had a point,because nothing was put in during 07/08 and over £9m of new secured borrowing was taken out fairly early in 08/09 (judged purely on the basis of the date on the charge document).Now the owners did eventually put in £7.7m,but it's impossible to say whereabouts in the year it came.If I haven't got facts,my next resort is always to try and find strong logic.If the £7.7m had been put in early in the year (to add to the £7.9m on the books at the start of the year),why would they borrow (and pay interest on) £9m? Too much at the time Gadsby was speaking.

I'm sorry if you find this financial ******,but seeing as Gadsby was bringing up points of a financial nature,I don't really see any other way to respond (unless you want me to give you some 'Beatrix Potter' ?

[Gritstone Ram]

Oh,I can talk football ok.

The LOG inherited a squad (without a striker) that had battled against relegation,and delivered a squad that gained promotion.However bad you might have considered that squad,you could hardly consider it to be worse than the one fighting relegation,so I'd consider that to be a certain measure of success.If they'd handed over the reigns to a grouping that invested £36m into the club and got us promoted,would you have considered the LOG a success then?

When LOG took over i was quite pleased and excited they showed some comitment but it was like a mini boom and bail out at the earliest oppertunity. Now may be they had good reason to. Some of the posts have been quite good and i am open to other opinions. The claud davis mo camarra rob earnshaw signings may have knocked the wind up them but they got out all the same. That to me is they weren't prepared to take on the club cause we were going back down. After that i felt we had took one step forward and three back.

[ramblur]

When LOG took over i was quite pleased and excited they showed some comitment but it was like a mini boom and bail out at the earliest oppertunity. Now may be they had good reason to. Some of the posts have been quite good and i am open to other opinions. The claud davis mo camarra rob earnshaw signings may have knocked the wind up them but they got out all the same. That to me is they weren't prepared to take on the club cause we were going back down. After that i felt we had took one step forward and three back.

But don't you think it was a responsible thing to do to try and pass the club on to a grouping with more financial muscle?Can't you see that they'd moved us on from the starting point they inherited? You also have to factor in the fact that we got promoted one year into a 3 year plan.It takes time to get finances organised and turn assets into liquid assets,if needs be.We'll never know what would have happened if they'd stayed the term in the Championship.Who knows,they may have had plans to try and bring more investment in when reaching the Prem.A straight promotion gives you more time to organise than a Wembley win.In many ways,they may have been victims of their own premature success?

[Cisse]

I would invest in a heartbeat if I had something to spare.