EFL order independent valuation of Pride Park

[Ramos]

3 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I imagine if we're severely punished the EFL will be receiving quite a lot of challenge from Mel, who fights his corner, particularly regarding behaviours of other clubs setting precedents (and so on) I don't think MM will be in the mood to "just suck it up"

From what I can see, Mel seems far too smart and business savvy for the people who run the EFL as well as many other championship chairman. The fact that this whole case seems to be aimed at Derby, with Sheffield Wednesday, reading and villa who all did he same just some ‘o yeah looking at them too’ I think they want to clip Mels wings.

He’s clearly been out spoken about his thoughts on the efl on certain matters and he seems to rally many other clubs behind him (reading between the lines). I’m not too worried at this point as I expect Mel to outsmart them. But if they do and can make an example of us then it could well be bad. Maybe Mel will use all the examples of other clubs people have mentioned above and we can all collectively get points deductions so it’s almost, as you were. ?

[Ghost of Clough]

43 minutes ago, Ramos said:

From what I can see, Mel seems far too smart and business savvy for the people who run the EFL as well as many other championship chairman. The fact that this whole case seems to be aimed at Derby, with Sheffield Wednesday, reading and villa who all did he same just some ‘o yeah looking at them too’ I think they want to clip Mels wings.

He’s clearly been out spoken about his thoughts on the efl on certain matters and he seems to rally many other clubs behind him (reading between the lines). I’m not too worried at this point as I expect Mel to outsmart them. But if they do and can make an example of us then it could well be bad. Maybe Mel will use all the examples of other clubs people have mentioned above and we can all collectively get points deductions so it’s almost, as you were. ?

It probably helps us with Stephen Pearce being on the EFL board

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It probably helps us with Stephen Pearce being on the EFL board

Probably not. wouldn't he have to declare a conflict of interest on this matter and not be involved in any way?

[cheron85]

On 07/09/2019 at 08:06, Paul71 said:

It costs the tax payer more a year to maintain it than west ham pay in rent.

Yeh, but the flip side is there's nothing to stop the owners of the ground (the council) renting it out in between home games - Which can damage the grass they play on (which is kinda the most important thing you need as a football team)

They only pay for 38 days rent a year - They probably have something in the contract about needing a couple of days either side for prep - But nothing they can do about it being rented out as a gig venue on the weekends between home games

That's essentially what Mel seems to want to do with PP - Turn the stadium into an all year round gig venue 

On 07/09/2019 at 12:36, Van Gritters said:

If it’s valued what is it based upon? How much it would cost to build? How much income it can generate? Is there anything similar to compare it against?

A combo of everything I would imagine

Worth noting though the valuation essentially hadn't been increased since it was first built - When the ground was on a railway sidings with nothing around it, very basic transport and access facilities etc etc - It's now a prime piece of real estate on a highly demanded business park, next to a nationally used velodrome with constant improvements being made to access - Not to mention the improvements made to the stands (filling in the corners), corporate facilities (restaurants and coffee shops) and media facilities (massive upgrade on TV accessibility plus massive bloody screen and ad boards)

I would imagine the value is if another team were to try and replicate the stadium on the current land how much would they have to spend?

[Ghost of Clough]

56 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yeh, but the flip side is there's nothing to stop the owners of the ground (the council) renting it out in between home games - Which can damage the grass they play on (which is kinda the most important thing you need as a football team)

They only pay for 38 days rent a year - They probably have something in the contract about needing a couple of days either side for prep - But nothing they can do about it being rented out as a gig venue on the weekends between home games

That's essentially what Mel seems to want to do with PP - Turn the stadium into an all year round gig venue 

A combo of everything I would imagine

Worth noting though the valuation essentially hadn't been increased since it was first built - When the ground was on a railway sidings with nothing around it, very basic transport and access facilities etc etc - It's now a prime piece of real estate on a highly demanded business park, next to a nationally used velodrome with constant improvements being made to access - Not to mention the improvements made to the stands (filling in the corners), corporate facilities (restaurants and coffee shops) and media facilities (massive upgrade on TV accessibility plus massive bloody screen and ad boards)

I would imagine the value is if another team were to try and replicate the stadium on the current land how much would they have to spend?

Value and rebuild cost are different things though

[cheron85]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Value and rebuild cost are different things though

"Rebuild cost" is an over-simplification of what I've referred to in my post - If another team were to try and build the same ground now the land cost would be more, the facilities around the stadium would increase the value, the access routes both existing and future would add to the value, the increasing size of Pride Park and the new development by the river, the potential for expansion/value increases etc etc - All that on top of the renovations which have been made over the years like extra corners, facilities and other revenue streams created for the ground

Essentially it was independently adjudged years ago to be worth £40m - And has been that value on the books for years despite (likely) the value increasing substantially since then

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

Is this still rumbling on ???

Does Mel Morris, The EFL or Derby County own the agents whom valued PP at £80m???

We all know the answer to this!

Therefore that consists of an independent valuation, nothing more to see here PPPPPLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEE Move along FFS. 

????‍♂️ 

PS: Well done Mel, nice work ????

[RandomAccessMemory]

As I mentioned before it says in the 2008 accounts that it was revalued in December 2007 for £55m. In the 2013 accounts it says it was also revalued in May 2013, no new valuation was stated and it looks like it came back around the same amount because there is a note in the accounts saying 'The directors are not aware of any material change in the valuations of freehold land and buildings and the current valuation above reflects their best assessment of the existing open market value of the property' but this was before Mel bought the club so before all of the recent work on the stadium. I'm sure there's been a lot done since he took over, sound system, floodlights, pitch and all of the other works that went with it, RamsTV infrastructure, The Yard, The Backyard. I think I've missed a fair amount off the list too, but these would all add to the value I'd guess.

The accounts say the valuations were done on a DRC (depreciated replacement cost) basis, having had a look around there's a pdf here that gives some information about how that valuation is calculated, it's from after the sale, but I can't imagine it having changed too drastically?

[Comrade 86]

Mel's just messing with them. Probably been calling their anonymous tip-off line for weeks dobbing himself in. Hey presto, a few weeks later and not only are Derby fully exhonerated from any wrongdoing, but the loophole has been closed with immediate effect meaning that no other EFL clubs can now follow suit. 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Knowing Mel it wouldn't surprise me if at the end of all this he ends up owning the EFL after purchasing it for a quid and expels Leeds and Boro from the football league for giggles.

[YorkshireRam]

9 hours ago, Ramos said:

From what I can see, Mel seems far too smart and business savvy for the people who run the EFL as well as many other championship chairman. The fact that this whole case seems to be aimed at Derby, with Sheffield Wednesday, reading and villa who all did he same just some ‘o yeah looking at them too’ I think they want to clip Mels wings.

He’s clearly been out spoken about his thoughts on the efl on certain matters and he seems to rally many other clubs behind him (reading between the lines). I’m not too worried at this point as I expect Mel to outsmart them. But if they do and can make an example of us then it could well be bad. Maybe Mel will use all the examples of other clubs people have mentioned above and we can all collectively get points deductions so it’s almost, as you were. ?

This is an excellent point, Mel has been on national radio explaining the failings of FFP and why their rules deserve to be circumnavigated. This probably would create a basis for them wanting to make an example out out of us. We haven't breached any rules so i'm not sure how they'd sanction us exactly but it'd be a very tricky scenario if they did. As far as I'm aware, you can't sure the EFL either, in the terms of being part of the league, so legal action against them is off the table?

After the way they treated Bury, nothing would surprise me with them anymore...

[Ramos]

1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said:

This is an excellent point, Mel has been on national radio explaining the failings of FFP and why their rules deserve to be circumnavigated. This probably would create a basis for them wanting to make an example out out of us. We haven't breached any rules so i'm not sure how they'd sanction us exactly but it'd be a very tricky scenario if they did. As far as I'm aware, you can't sure the EFL either, in the terms of being part of the league, so legal action against them is off the table?

After the way they treated Bury, nothing would surprise me with them anymore...

I didn’t actually follow the Leeds spygate matter closely. When they were fined what was it deemed in breach of as I believe they didn’t break technically any rules? So I’m guessing the efl could do similar to us on this matter. Although if their investigation returns no evidence that we haven’t clearly and by the book used this loophole, I really can’t see what they can do. I guess with Leeds they had to set a precedent to ensure spying didn’t become a norm. With this the only way they can stop clubs doing it is to close the loophole I should imagine. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cheron85]

13 hours ago, Ramos said:

I didn’t actually follow the Leeds spygate matter closely. When they were fined what was it deemed in breach of as I believe they didn’t break technically any rules? So I’m guessing the efl could do similar to us on this matter. Although if their investigation returns no evidence that we haven’t clearly and by the book used this loophole, I really can’t see what they can do. I guess with Leeds they had to set a precedent to ensure spying didn’t become a norm. With this the only way they can stop clubs doing it is to close the loophole I should imagine. 

I think the Leeds thing was more to do with the ethics of the game - Ours is finding a loophole in a fairly new piece of football league financial regulation - FFP is nothing to do with the ethics of football and supposed to be to stop clubs getting screwed by owners and going out of business because individuals are corrupt or incompetent - As Bury and Bolton how well the EFL is doing with that...

14 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

This is an excellent point, Mel has been on national radio explaining the failings of FFP and why their rules deserve to be circumnavigated. This probably would create a basis for them wanting to make an example out out of us. We haven't breached any rules so i'm not sure how they'd sanction us exactly but it'd be a very tricky scenario if they did. As far as I'm aware, you can't sure the EFL either, in the terms of being part of the league, so legal action against them is off the table?

After the way they treated Bury, nothing would surprise me with them anymore...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a way to distract people from how pathetic a job the EFL and their regulation of FFP has been recently

"Stop looking over there at the clubs FFP was supposed to help and we've let them down - Focus on this extremely well run, well funded, secure team over here who we think might have been a little cheeky and used a loophole we never noticed - THEY'RE the bad guys - Not us..."

[YorkshireRam]

10 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

I think the Leeds thing was more to do with the ethics of the game - Ours is finding a loophole in a fairly new piece of football league financial regulation - FFP is nothing to do with the ethics of football and supposed to be to stop clubs getting screwed by owners and going out of business because individuals are corrupt or incompetent - As Bury and Bolton how well the EFL is doing with that...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a way to distract people from how pathetic a job the EFL and their regulation of FFP has been recently

"Stop looking over there at the clubs FFP was supposed to help and we've let them down - Focus on this extremely well run, well funded, secure team over here who we think might have been a little cheeky and used a loophole we never noticed - THEY'RE the bad guys - Not us..."

I definitely think there's a hint of that as well. Especially after the backlash I saw people give them about their non-existent attempts to help Bury, I think they want to deflect the bad press onto us as they know it's a topic that gets other fans riled (namely Leeds). 

The Leeds thing, as you say, was to stop generally unsavory behaviour early on. They got them with the ''utmost good will must be observed between the two clubs before a fixture'' and so did find a rule to slap them with, I can't see a similar rule they could even paraphrase to sanction us with... It is just excellent business nous from Mel again really.

Just have to wait and see what happens I guess. Looks like tax evasion v tax avoidance to me though: one breaks the rules, the other doesn't. Nothing the police can do about avoidance, it's just slightly immoral, seems like the same situation here?