£10m FFP Bill

[ramblur]

35 minutes ago, eddie said:

Basically, we are living on a nuclear reactor. The planet is only inhabitable because of U-235, U-238, Th-232 and K-40 present within the Earth - without it, the mantle would have solidified, plate tectonics come to a premature end and the world would have frozen a couple of billion years ago. Radiation is a good thing, by and large. It's too much radiation in the same place that causes problems.

You seem to know rather a lot about rather a lot of things, old bean. I'm very impressed. 

[eddie]

7 minutes ago, ramblur said:

You seem to know rather a lot about rather a lot of things, old bean. I'm very impressed. 

Nothing much about accountancy though, although I did spend a year writing accountancy applications on a mainframe. Basically the accountant defined the rules, he told the business analyst, he told the systems analyst, he told me, and I performed the witchcraft to make it happen. My bit was easy - I only had to understand the components and I then assembled the algorithms and fitted the handle to the sausage machine. I understand a bit, e.g. what constitutes Net Income, Liabilities & Equity etc, but the most valuable knowledge I had was who to ask.

[ramblur]

3 minutes ago, eddie said:

Nothing much about accountancy though, although I did spend a year writing accountancy applications on a mainframe. Basically the accountant defined the rules, he told the business analyst, he told the systems analyst, he told me, and I performed the witchcraft to make it happen. My bit was easy - I only had to understand the components and I then assembled the algorithms and fitted the handle to the sausage machine. I understand a bit, e.g. what constitutes Net Income, Liabilities & Equity etc, but the most valuable knowledge I had was who to ask.

So often the case in this life.?

[eddie]

37 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I know that some reaction products have been found in certain geological layers, suggesting a bit of fizzling has gone on. My understanding is the heat and pressure in the earth's core is "legacy" rather than ongoing reactions such as the sun. But much as I've decent knowledge on certain wastes, I'm not a geologist.

And yes, there's radioactivity all through the planet and coming through the atmosphere, hence the background does we'll all be getting.

And too much in the one place, in rad protection terms, is exactly right.

The question of residual heat v radiation is one that has perplexed geologists for a long time. A study in 2011 has concluded that around 54% of the earth's heat comes from radiogenic sources (radioactive decay of the isotopes I mentioned previously).

I stress that my education in this area comes from an interest in volcanology in particular, as opposed to geology in general, so I could be wrong.

This is a rather straightforward article for anyone who would like to know about why igneous rocks (e.g. granite) are far more radioactive than sedimentary rocks (e.g. limestone)...

https://cemp.dri.edu/cemp/workshop2009/presentations/Hurley-Radioactivity_Geologic_Environ.pdf

[Bob Gnarly]

8 minutes ago, eddie said:

The question of residual heat v radiation is one that has perplexed geologists for a long time. A study in 2011 has concluded that around 54% of the earth's heat comes from radiogenic sources (radioactive decay of the isotopes I mentioned previously).

I stress that my education in this area comes from an interest in volcanology in particular, as opposed to geology in general, so I could be wrong.

This is a rather straightforward article for anyone who would like to know about why igneous rocks (e.g. granite) are far more radioactive than sedimentary rocks (e.g. limestone)...

It's a very boring closed season for us Rams fans I take it.

 

[eddie]

7 minutes ago, Mr Giggles said:

It's a very boring closed season for us Rams fans I take it.

 

Do you find education boring?

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, eddie said:

Do you find education boring?

Depends on the teacher, subject and student.

 

[archied]

2 hours ago, curtains said:

If I was MM I’d sell the club to a rich investor. 

Either that or continue as he is supporting the club. 

Sorry mate but you are living in a fantasy land ,, you can’t just magic up a rich investor out of the ether to sell to when you fancy and said rich investor will be bound by ffp rules just the same as mel Morris is ,, 

the bit people are not getting is that Morris is being / having to be responsible in terms of not gambling poo for bust and getting the club fines , transfer imbargo s and god knows what else if it doesn’t come off ,,, he took a gamble pumping money into the Wembley losing side as most felt at the time that if we had more depth the injuries would not have destroyed us the season after , it didn’t come off , mistakes were made but the gamble it seems was not to the extent that we are in it up to the knock but rather we need to cut back , get things in order before we can go at it big style again 

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

How much do you think a rich investor would pay for the club,though, curtains? Including his original 20% purchase and subsequent buy out of the rest, allied to close on #100m (that we know of) ploughed in subsequently, then he must surely be in up to #150m. Who's going to pay that for a Championship club?

There lies the problem. 

Mel needs Premiership more than any of us Fans. 

Speculate to accumulate maybe ! 

[ramblur]

2 minutes ago, curtains said:

There lies the problem. 

Mel needs Premiership more than any of us Fans. 

Speculate to accumulate maybe ! 

I've seen gamblers speculate to disintegrate, especially when she who should finds out?

[Curtains]

8 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I've seen gamblers speculate to disintegrate, especially when she who should finds out?

So what should Mel do just hope for the best and if it fails leave the club with a personal loss to himself 

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, ramblur said:

I've a suspicion, and only this, that the debt might only become payable if we were to become established in the Prem.

Should this ever be waived/ written off and converted into exceptional income, I'll truly start to believe in Santie again.

So afterall that, you have finally admitted that there is a debt that could in the future become payable.

Alleluya 

give yourself another gold star.

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, curtains said:

The big question is do we have to sell to be a  sustainable Championship side and if we don’t and the club is healthy why did MM say we needed to cut costs recently!

The big answer is we are selling £9m in 15-16, £7.2m in 16-17 and further sales tbc.

and we are nowhere near sustainable.

for every pound we earn, we are spending two.

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, ramblur said:

 The Sevco accounts ( consolidated and company) spanned the period (10 months) from 1 Sept 16  to 30 June 17, and thus exclude the summer 16 transfer window. 

As you keep saying. Who cares?

the transfer income from summer 17 will turn up in the next years accounts.

the point is £15m loss in 15-16 is £24m excluding player sales

the £21m group loss in 16-17 would be a £28m loss without £7m of player sales

 

[cheron85]

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

So afterall that, you have finally admitted that there is a debt that could in the future become payable.

Alleluya 

give yourself another gold star.

To be fair - That debt has essentially nothing to do with any of the points you were grilling him on...

Maybe leave @ramblur to be our resident expert on accountancy - rather than speculating yourself - I don't know your background but I think he has a better understanding of it than you/I/most anyone else does

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

The big answer is we are selling £9m in 15-16, £7.2m in 16-17 and further sales tbc.

Not sure that sentence actually means anything

 

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, ramblur said:

What do you expect when you stick your huge untrained beak into something you don't understand. Of course the consolidated figures are going to be different to the Club's figures. The group accounts aren't the Club's accounts.

the group figures are relevant.

[Carnero]

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

So afterall that, you have finally admitted that there is a debt that could in the future become payable.

Alleluya 

give yourself another gold star.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN - THERE IS A DEBT REPAYABLE BY SEVCO 5112 LTD, NOT BY DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL CLUB.

It's really not that difficult to understand is it?!

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

To be fair - That debt has essentially nothing to do with any of the points you were grilling him on...

Maybe leave @ramblur to be our resident expert on accountancy - rather than speculating yourself - I don't know your background but I think he has a better understanding of it than you/I/most anyone else does

Not sure that sentence actually means anything

 

What points am i supposed to be grilling him on?

Its wierd that people are more interested in responding aggressively than recognising a few simple facts. Do we really want to sell our best players every season in order to offset losses incurred by overspending? we would have to double the sales we've made so far if to cover the losses. 

 

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, Carnero said:

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN - THERE IS A DEBT REPAYABLE BY SEVCO 5112 LTD, NOT BY DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL CLUB.

It's really not that difficult to understand is it?!

The problem is if Mel wants his money back if we get to the Premiership.

Why can’t you understand that. 

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, Carnero said:

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN - THERE IS A DEBT REPAYABLE BY SEVCO 5112 LTD, NOT BY DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL CLUB.

It's really not that difficult to understand is it?!

So what? There is a debt. 

and anyway i'm actually trying to talk about trading losses.