Ewe Ram Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 7 hours 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? I can sort of hear Leeds saying the same about the spying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BramcoteRam84 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I think we have to equally look at Boro’s motivations here. They have spent big, huge in fact on transfers and wages and let’s get it right, they have ducked up despite parachute payments enabling them to spend more. Had to sell Traore (he wanted to go anyway), had to sell Bamford (Pulis didn’t play him) still kept Assombalonga on £60k per week wages, signed mo besic, George saville for big money, they were in for Waghorn as well. They should be walking the league, except they’re not and now they are trying to find ways to disadvantage other teams competing with them because they are worried they won’t make top 6! Its an absolute disgrace what they are doing and takes Middlesbrough to new lows as a football club! This will become a non-story because I’m struggling to see what (if anything) Derby have done wrong here, and given the embargo is already going to be lifted would seem to suggest the league have no issue with it either. Hopefully the story will become around what a negative miserable spiteful poo club Middlesbrough are! bankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikh n Bake Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 7 hours 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? 7 hours ago, Ramslad1992 said: 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. All the posts regarding finding loopholes and exploiting them, not necessarily breaking rules etc... Did you have the same views on spygate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsRam77 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 7 hours ago, JfR said: 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. If a business rents premises from a landlord, the landlord gets his/her rent but the business /shop/ restaurant takes the turnover, profit and monies the stadium is now merely a shop for derby to air their goods in. what they make from it is of no concern of the landlords providing they pay their rent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 8 hours 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. let's be honest, it is not cheating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 9 hours ago, JfR said: What exactly is a "soft" transfer embargo? the club agrees not to sign anybody based on a suggestion from EFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said: The ground was last valued in 2013, I assume if you was selling your house you'd go on its current valuation rather than its value 6 years ago? Not going to argue with the ethics of what we have done but I'm pretty sure the valuation will have had to have been carried out independently and in accordance with RICS practice plus the auditors would have to have been satisfied with the evidence of this or made comments to the contrary. It says that the value has been updated accordingly..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 9 hours ago, JfR said: What exactly is a "soft" transfer embargo? 6 minutes ago, Spanish said: the club agrees not to sign anybody based on a suggestion from EFL. Pretty sure it's a short term thing while a minor investigation takes place. A "we'd rather you didn't sign anyone while we look into this" situation. If it's being lifted later this week that means that whatever they've looked into has been determined as being above board, I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I've got a hard Um Bongo going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, RamNut said: It says that the value has been updated accordingly..... To bring it up to its current value then? Looked in the club accounts and can't see where it says that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: To bring it up to its current value then? Looked in the club accounts and can't see where it says that? The 2016 value is stated. Can't have gone up £22m in 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenBr Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Lets see where Boro are in a couple of years then if they dont manage to go back up. I assume Boro still own their own stadium? Hopefully after this the EFL bring a regulation in to stop the club selling their stadium to themselves. Remove that avenue for Boro if they need it when their parachute payments start running out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 15 minutes ago, SaintRam said: Pretty sure it's a short term thing while a minor investigation takes place. A "we'd rather you didn't sign anyone while we look into this" situation. If it's being lifted later this week that means that whatever they've looked into has been determined as being above board, I assume. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, RamNut said: The 2016 value is stated. Can't have gone up £22m in 2 years? The 2017 accounts stated that the ground was last valued in 2013? I don't know what basis the ground was valued on prior to sale. If it's been valued after planning permission for the extension and the roof and projections provided showing that will significantly increase income it could have increased quite substantially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, RamNut said: It says that the value has been updated accordingly..... I thought the value of the stadium in the accounts was linked to the total build/upgrade/maintenance costs of the stadium? (Couldn't be higher than the total) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: The 2017 accounts stated that the ground was last valued in 2013? I don't know what basis the ground was valued on prior to sale. If it's been valued after planning permission for the extension and the roof and projections provided showing that will significantly increase income it could have increased quite substantially. "Based on this valuation the directors have assessed.......the current valuation" a pretend roof won't make any difference. Nor an imaginary planning permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Again the backdrop to this is that the club have spent our owners money very badly the future has to look at selling wanted assets and signing cheap - free - and loan players. always a turning world at Derby county Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazloW Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 To echo previous comments... while I’m not particularly comfortable with the stadium being in separate ownership to the club, I can’t see how selling an asset to ensure financial sustainability can be against the rules or even considered to be a loophole. If we sold a player for £10m to balance the books then we would have sold an asset. Essentially the same thing as selling the ground (at least as far as the EFL are concerned I should think). Leeds spying on training has however been found to be against the rules (rightly or wrongly), so it is a bit different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, NottsRam77 said: If a business rents premises from a landlord, the landlord gets his/her rent but the business /shop/ restaurant takes the turnover, profit and monies the stadium is now merely a shop for derby to air their goods in. what they make from it is of no concern of the landlords providing they pay their rent I was thinking pretty much the same. What is earned by a business renting a property isn't split with the owner, however maintainance costs may be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, RamNut said: "Based on this valuation the directors have assessed.......the current valuation" a pretend roof won't make any difference. Nor an imaginary planning permission. May be wrong but I am pretty sure planning permissions can significantly increase the value of land and buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.