Jump to content

Players not paid on time


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

You're going to have back that up with evidence.

Per the accounts as at 30 June 2018 the club had net current assets of £60m.

I didn't say we were insolvent. I'm at work so can't check, but isn't the £60m after we recieved £80m for the stadium? That can only happen once and I believe that Moor Farm is leased. Presumably we now have to pay Mel to use PPS, so costs are higher. My point is that without an owner putting in vast wedges of cash, we can't function. Now that's no problem when the owner has the will and the means but obviously has the potential to cause problems if that changes.

I don't mean to infer that there are problems. I really have no idea what's going on. My point is that we are at a point where problems could occur and not paying the players COULD be an indication that all is not rosy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, Paese said:

Didn't this happen back in October? I don't pretend to be an expert on these things so they could be unrelated.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-directors-mel-morris-3410688

Yes, the directors left in advance of potential investment. But there has been no new equity investment into the club nor no directors to replace them, and you would expect either Amit Haria or Henry Gabay to be on the board of Directors in the event of an equity investment.

The only thing there has been is a charge, which appears to be placed on the stadium and surrounding land. There has been no clarity on what that exactly entails but that's where the Gabay story originated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, td_evans said:

Yes, the directors left in advance of potential investment. But there has been no new equity investment into the club nor no directors to replace them, and you would expect either Amit Haria or Henry Gabay to be on the board of Directors in the event of an equity investment.

The only thing there has been is a charge, which appears to be placed on the stadium and surrounding land. There has been no clarity on what that exactly entails but that's where the Gabay story originated.

Fair enough. Like I said, I'll have to rely on other's experience in these matters. What exactly does "a charge placed on the stadium" mean? Genuine question, not being sarcastic or pedantic (I know it's tough to tell online).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Owd miner said:

This is the mysterious Investor mi owds 

drevil1_nbc.jpg

Haha. That's it... Mel got confused.. 'I am investing....1millionnnn pounds...' 

Hang on that won't cover Chris Martin's wages...

Sure Mel can afford to pay the wages out of his loose change. So the only worry is if this indicates that Mel expected money coming in to cover the wages and now the investment has disappeared. Hopefully just confusion about restructuring of finances as the money hits the accounts. 

Firmly believe its something and nothing. 

Rooooonnnneeeyyyy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

The club is insolvent by any normal measure. 

 

3 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I didn't say we were insolvent. I'm at work so can't check, but isn't the £60m after we recieved £80m for the stadium? That can only happen once and I believe that Moor Farm is leased. Presumably we now have to pay Mel to use PPS, so costs are higher. My point is that without an owner putting in vast wedges of cash, we can't function. Now that's no problem when the owner has the will and the means but obviously has the potential to cause problems if that changes.

I don't mean to infer that there are problems. I really have no idea what's going on. My point is that we are at a point where problems could occur and not paying the players COULD be an indication that all is not rosy.

Yes the £60m was after the sale of the stadium, however, the £80m is shown as a debtor rather than a cash balance.

Not sure how leasing Moor Farm fits in with the transaction but have not seen the details to be fair.

If all is not rosy because DCFC have not  been paid for the sale of the ground, I dont think we could have many complaints if the EFL stepped up their investigations re FFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory here is that we're in the following scenario:

- Mel is reluctant to put any more of his own cash
- He sourced an investment deal with Duet Group aka Henry Gabay.
- Whilst the finer details of that investment were sorted, he negotiated a small scale short-term debt financing deal on the stadium (which he owns) to release some of his own capital and keep the club running until the investment went through. A loan is much easier to negotiate than an investment and it keeps the club running.
- For whatever reason the investment has now stalled. So we have a situation where Morris is reluctant to put more of his own money in, he has a loan which needs to be paid secured against the stadium and we still await that investment.

Edit: Whilst I was writing this the Telegraph put up their article which somewhat backs this theory.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, td_evans said:

My theory here is that we're in the following scenario:

- Mel is reluctant to put any more of his own cash
- He sourced an investment deal with Duet Group aka Henry Gabay.
- Whilst the finer details of that investment were sorted, he negotiated a small scale short-term debt financing deal on the stadium (which he owns) to release some of his own capital and keep the club running until the investment went through. A loan is much easier to negotiate than an investment and it keeps the club running.
- For whatever reason the investment has now stalled. So we have a situation where Morris is reluctant to put more of his own money in, he has a loan which needs to be paid secured against the stadium and we still await that investment.

 

 

Seems plausible. Yes it's peculation, but I could see all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said:

Or players are entirely different than PAYE staff elsewhere within the business. Stop reaching for the absolute worst case scenario.

Non football staff will be through the stadium company, won’t they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Mel didn't say we'll have to rely on the academy. What he basically said was, after spending £24m on the academy he expects some return on that investment. To do that, some academy players have to be used - without playing, those players are worth nothing. Give them a few games to find out if they're good enough... if they are, then we've got a first team player or we earn a nice profit on the player; or if they're not good enough, we'll get a small fee for them anyway. On average, we need to be developing £500k players - the academy costs £6m to run every year, producing 11+ players each season.

Yes.

And I think he is also in that way answering the repeated calls to spend money on players to beef up the squad. He's saying, we have ducking spent money on players, we've spent 24m, so we had better make use of them. I can understand why it's exasperating to be told the only solution is to spend more money on new players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AutoWindscreens said:

Yes.

And I think he is also in that way answering the repeated calls to spend money on players to beef up the squad. He's saying, we have ducking spent money on players, we've spent 24m, so we had better make use of them. I can understand why it's exasperating to be told the only solution is to spend more money on new players.

Not sure who it was that had him in an arm-lock when he decided to buy DCFC though?

Surely you must know the best way to make a small fortune is to start-off with a large one and buy a football club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The delay has been attributed to new investment not being in place, as expected, by the end of December. That did not happen due to an unforeseen delay, not a breakdown in the deal.

I'm sorry, but is this not a really poorly worded sentence? Mentions two different delays (wage delay, and investment delay) and doesn't differentiate.

"Late payment of wages has been attributed to an unforeseen delay to the new investment" makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

I'm sorry, but is this not a really poorly worded sentence? Mentions two different delays (wage delay, and investment delay) and doesn't differentiate.

"Late payment of wages has been attributed to an unforeseen delay to the new investment" makes more sense.

'Unforseen', as in the money that was promised did not show up at the agreed time.

I wouldn't be worried if we were feeling with a fridge salesman but the fact we are dealing with an ex banker who is representing investors, it does worry me slightly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Not sure who it was that had him in an arm-lock when he decided to buy DCFC though?

Surely you must know the best way to make a small fortune is to start-off with a large one and buy a football club?

I'm sure he knew that too, but I don't begrudge him his fond hopes that the academy investment might pay off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...