Jump to content

Trouble ahead?


BuckTaylor64

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BuckTaylor64 said:

Source Derby Evening Telegraph and the Times

 

Mel Morris is reportedly considering selling Derby County for £1 as he steps up his search for fresh investment in the club.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

According to The Times , the Rams owner may be willing to sell for the nominal price, as long as his debts are repaid in the process.

Morris has previously revealed that he has invested more than £100m in the club since becoming sole owner in 2015. The Times says that figure is understood to now be £161m.

Asking for the debts to be repaid and asking for his money back are 2 different things. He may well have put £161 million into the club, but that is not all debt. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the money put in, was converted into shares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, BuckTaylor64 said:

Source Derby Evening Telegraph and the Times

 

Mel Morris is reportedly considering selling Derby County for £1 as he steps up his search for fresh investment in the club.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

According to The Times , the Rams owner may be willing to sell for the nominal price, as long as his debts are repaid in the process.

Morris has previously revealed that he has invested more than £100m in the club since becoming sole owner in 2015. The Times says that figure is understood to now be £161m.

I still await a link to any articles where MM has stated that he wants his money back. 

There must be a direct quote somewhere. How about the fans forum, should you could get a quote from there?

1 hour ago, ossieram said:

Asking for the debts to be repaid and asking for his money back are 2 different things. He may well have put £161 million into the club, but that is not all debt. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the money put in, was converted into shares.

Would depend how the deal was structured. There is very little debt in the football club but, from memory, circa £100m debt in the parent company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I still await a link to any articles where MM has stated that he wants his money back. 

There must be a direct quote somewhere. How about the fans forum, should you could get a quote from there?

Would depend how the deal was structured. There is very little debt in the football club but, from memory, circa £100m debt in the parent company. 

From memory, he said at the forum that he would sell it for £1, if the new man had the means to take the club forward and invest further. It basically amounted to saying that he would sacrifice himself for the good of the club if it came to it, not that he wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Srg said:

From memory, he said at the forum that he would sell it for £1, if the new man had the means to take the club forward and invest further. It basically amounted to saying that he would sacrifice himself for the good of the club if it came to it, not that he wanted to.

That's exactly what he said, and this is extremely different to saying he wants his money back, hence why I have challenged the OP to provide links to any articles where MM has said this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/04/2019 at 08:59, ram59 said:

Derby's financial mess appears to be in the process of getting sorted. Many of the high earners will be off the books this summer, hopefully to be replaced by players on more modest wages.

As a result of the sale of the ground, the club actually has cash in the bank. Yes, we don't own the ground, but neither does Brighton, Bournemouth and West Ham, just to name a few. Unlike those, our ground is still owned by someone who has the club at heart and is helping to restrict costs. 

I don't know about the situation at Bournemouth and everyone is surely aware of the London City stadium saga.

But effectively at Brighton, the Amex stadium is owned by the chairman through a subsidiary company, this was done, I believe, so that the club would never ever lose their ground under any possible circumstances. Exactly how this is set up I don't know but that is the fact of the matter !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/04/2019 at 18:25, Abu Derby said:

It’s the parachute payments that should be looked at, never mind FFP. They ought to be reduced in order to permit a more level playing field. These payments are to help relegated clubs transition into the Championship. Instead they are being used recklessly to try and buy their way back up. Stoke City is a prime example. It’s nobody’s fault but their own if this strategy fails. 

Agreed and should be subject to close scrutiny !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/04/2019 at 11:22, RadioactiveWaste said:

I personally think parachute payments should only be allowed to be spent on liabilities taken on whilst in the Premier League. Contracts and transfers of existing squad etc, not £££££ to go mount your promotion challenge.

The intention of parachute payments was to stop clubs going into meltdown after relegation NOT to help them get back up because thays the way the Prem like it.

And clubs should only benefit from parachute payments if 'new' contracts (wages) agreed after promotion to the Premier League were subject to reduction to manageable levels in the event of relegation thereafter !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...