Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DCFC1388

Soft Transfer Embargo

Recommended Posts

Oh gawd. Here we go again.

If leveraging an asset is cheating then presumably it would not be allowed. If it is allowed, then how can it be cheating?

Furthermore, the valuation will clearly be independently assessed and scrutinised as part on the ongoing investigation, so before we start bandying around words like 'cheating', how about we just sit tight and await the outcome? 

Share this post


Link to post

The purpose of ffp is get finances to be sustainable. We have increased our wages and made a £25m loss prior to this move.

(The value of the asset was recorded at a lot less than £80m). 

image.thumb.png.c8458e606a4301d9f98090a67241e065.png

image.thumb.jpeg.1769a3dfcc03e0a5a945a5f65f031b94.jpeg

Edited by RamNut

Share this post


Link to post
6 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.

I'd be absolutely amazed if the money made from the stadium now went through the company in which the stadium is held. 

That money will continue to be through the club with the club paying a rent of what looks to be in the region of  £1m per year to their new Landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RamNut said:

The purpose of ffp is get finances to be sustainable. We have increased our wages and made a £25m loss prior to this move.

(The value of the asset was recorded at a lot less than £80m). 

image.thumb.png.c8458e606a4301d9f98090a67241e065.png

image.thumb.jpeg.1769a3dfcc03e0a5a945a5f65f031b94.jpeg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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....

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Edited by NottsRam77

Share this post


Link to post
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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.