Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DCFC1388

Soft Transfer Embargo

Recommended Posts

Always a concern to be under investigation, naturally if we were to be pulled up quite rightly all hell would break lose over the running of the club and we’d be in a serious situation. Fortunately the update to that article suggests this ain’t too much to worry about and everything will be cleared soon enough to allow shinnies arrival. Seems to just be Gibson talking out his arse from what I can see, have we not also had to sell players? Vydra? Hendrick? Hughes? Ince? They all still here? Exactly, we’ve barely made a transfer loss for years so no idea what he’s on about.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Lets be honest......it is sort of cheating.

for a start the price paid is summat like £20m more than the asset was previously valued at.

 

I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny.  It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said:

I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny.  It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?

FFP (P&S) isn't exactly 'ethical' though, it's sold on the premise that it will stop clubs from going under, yet it creates a huge financial gap between those teams that have parachute payments and those that don't. Consequently, in my opinion, it's stopped Championship and lower league clubs from being an attractive proposition for potential buyers, who potentially would invest money to gain promotion. They can't invest the money due to regulations, so it makes it difficult. We've got it good with a local fan, decent size following, etc. 

All said and done, I'd imagine this 'soft embargo' which will be lifted by the end of the week is simply due process for the P&S overlords to go through our processed accounts. I wouldn't believe it's anything to worry about. 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said:

I'm pretty sure that Derby would've got the ground independently valued and sold it for that, otherwise it does leave the club open for some scrutiny.  It is sort of cheating, and you can criticise the ethics behind it I guess, but if isn't explicitly against the rules, what's the point of adhering to a rule that isn't there?

We’ve found a loophole and exploited it... a new rule will probably come in to force to stop it happening again but if we hadn’t have exploited it another team would have. Pleased it was us personally.

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, and please correct me if I am, but isn't the scenario effectively as follows:

  • Mel Morris owns Derby as a company
  • Mel Morris also owns a separate company
  • Derby used to own the stadium as an asset
  • Derby have sold the stadium to Mel's other company
  • Derby now make no money off the stadium and have lost it's worth as an asset from their accounts
  • Mel's other company now makes the money from the stadium, but must also provide for it's upkeep
  • The money made from the other company cannot just be pumped back into Derby, either directly as the stadium-owning company is a separate entity to Derby, or indirectly through Mel as there are limits put in place by the governing bodies on the level of investment an owner can make into a club
  • As such Mel's ownership of both companies is irrelevant as they are separate entities with restrictions in place to stop the free flow of money between them

Because if that's right, then I can't really see any difference between what Derby have done and what countless other clubs have done when they have sold their ground to other parties, and can't really understand why it should be stopped or how it could be stopped. I don't see selling an asset to another company as a "dodge" of the rules just because the owner owns that other company when he's restricted to what he can invest from that other company into Derby.

If there's something I'm missing here though, then please someone run it by me.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.