Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DCFC1388

Soft Transfer Embargo

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, richinspain said:

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?

Agree, but in theory that could be down to the owner to maintain 

which could be to Derby’s benefit 😉 

or vice Versa

I’m sure mel is aware this a grey area and there to be manipulated as he see fit ... clever accounting and all that 

Share this post


Link to post

Loopholes in FFP have been around since it came in. Forest were sponsored by its owner's company, Villa have written off loans as equity, Wolves made some absolutely bizzare loan signings and Watford used a sister club. we've just found yet another loophole and exploited it. 

No doubt it'll be outlawed after we've gotten away with it this year like more of the loopholes were. Admittedly it was a sneaky move maybe even unethical, but any club in the position to do so would have done the same thing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nick_Ram said:

All the posts regarding finding loopholes and exploiting them, not necessarily breaking rules etc...

 Did you have the same views on spygate? 

I personally did. You can scrutinise the ethics behind it, and I understand if you do, but until there's a specific rule against something then I'm not going to question you that much (and I thought the rule they got done on, bringing the game into disrepute or something along those lines is too vague anyway) .

Edited by LB_DCFC

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LazloW said:

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.

It’s not the nature of the transaction (stadium sale to a connected party) that is in question; its the highly dubious hike in value and extremely handy profit that has been thus manufactured. Other clubs like Boro and Bristol City have sold major players to keep within the FFP rules, while Derby and Villa seem to be allowed to take the mickey and get away with it.

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.