EFL charge Derby over ffp

[RamNut]

there is an asset value and a transaction price.

the asset value was presumably  @ 41m and the price was @81m on order to register a 40m profit.

are the EFL saying that in the case of a transfer to a related party, the price must = the fair value = the asset value?

in which case - whatever value is set - you can't make a profit on the transaction??

That seems like the only way we can have ended up with an excessive loss. 

 

So when the south stand sing that "Pride Park Stadium is worth £80m" maybe that is exactly the point the EFL are making.

if its worth 80m then there is no paper profit when its sold for £80m.

 

[SamUltraRam]

Possibly the £80m valuation included the 'potential' value for the stadium if the roof went on. 

I'm sure I recall Mel Morris saying he'd spent a 7 figure sum on the extensive plans for this - not just for the roof but a surface that can be used for events whilst not affecting the quality of the pitch

I know PPS would no longer be owned directly by the club but it was when it was sold to Mel Morris - hence the high value for a potential sports & events arena - £80m would be cheap for such a thing

[RadioactiveWaste]

9 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

Possibly the £80m valuation included the 'potential' value for the stadium if the roof went on. 

I'm sure I recall Mel Morris saying he'd spent a 7 figure sum on the extensive plans for this - not just for the roof but a surface that can be used for events whilst not affecting the quality of the pitch

I know PPS would no longer be owned directly by the club but it was when it was sold to Mel Morris - hence the high value for a potential sports & events arena - £80m would be cheap for such a thing

That's the main bone of contention I believe, with the EFL changing their mind about it....

[SaffyRam]

We’re going round in circles here.The stadium was revalued right before the transaction and the EFL said, in writing, they were happy.

[RamNut]

4 minutes ago, Saffy van der Ram said:

We’re going round in circles here.The stadium was revalued right before the transaction and the EFL said, in writing, they were happy.

No one knows with any certainty exactly who said what. We are going to have to wait for the hearing. And that could get delayed by any legal action so it could get quite frustrating. 

The thing is.....we shouldn't have put ourselves in this situation.

[RandomAccessMemory]

49 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

Possibly the £80m valuation included the 'potential' value for the stadium if the roof went on. 

I'm sure I recall Mel Morris saying he'd spent a 7 figure sum on the extensive plans for this - not just for the roof but a surface that can be used for events whilst not affecting the quality of the pitch

I know PPS would no longer be owned directly by the club but it was when it was sold to Mel Morris - hence the high value for a potential sports & events arena - £80m would be cheap for such a thing

BIB - Mel said on Talksport in September that this was not the case.

https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/sport/football/Derby-county-owner-mel-morris-hits-back-middlesbroughs-financial-complaint-581132

Quote

The valuation of the stadium was not based on that, it was as a football stadium. When you put a roof on and are able to cover the pitch, the value of the stadium would rocket even further.

 

[Pearl Ram]

We shouldn’t have put ourselves in this position but we did and went to the EFL and said we’re in a bit of a pickle and this is what we propose to rectify the situation, can you see any problems with this proposal? 

We were told to tweak some figures which we did and asked for confirmation that would suffice and were then informed everything was in order.

We would not have done what we did without express permission from the EFL. They were our authority and we acted in good faith throughout.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 hours ago, RamNut said:

No one knows with any certainty exactly who said what. We are going to have to wait for the hearing. And that could get delayed by any legal action so it could get quite frustrating. 

The thing is.....we shouldn't have put ourselves in this situation.

But from the clubs statement we didn't "put ourselves in this situation". We had an agreed transaction. The only thing that appears to have happened is that the EFL have changed their minds after the event. I may be wrong but you seem keen to lay blame with the club for some reason? 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

But from the clubs statement we didn't "put ourselves in this situation". We had an agreed transaction. The only thing that appears to have happened is that the EFL have changed their minds after the event. I may be wrong but you seem keen to lay blame with the club for some reason? 

I think the “we shouldn't have put ourselves in this situation“ was directed towards our over inflated wages over the past 5 years

[CornwallRam]

3 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

But from the clubs statement we didn't "put ourselves in this situation". We had an agreed transaction. The only thing that appears to have happened is that the EFL have changed their minds after the event. I may be wrong but you seem keen to lay blame with the club for some reason? 

I think Ramnut means that the stadium sale was a scheme to get us out of our FFP overspend. Without the overspend we don't need a cunning plan to get around it.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I think the “we shouldn't have put ourselves in this situation“ was directed towards our over inflated wages over the past 5 years

But if you want to compete you have to attract the better players. That in a nutshell is the problem. 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

But if you want to compete you have to attract the better players. That in a nutshell is the problem. 

No that isn't the problem. The problem is buying players who end up nearly valueless on massive wages.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No that isn't the problem. The problem is buying players who end up nearly valueless on massive wages.

You are just describing trying to attract better players albeit with some mistakes. 

[B4ev6is]

14 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Yep, they will be terrified....

Were the ones taking the fight to efl and they should be worried.

[Philmycock]

34 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

You are just describing trying to attract better players albeit with some mistakes. 

Some

[GenBr]

34 minutes ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

But if you want to compete you have to attract the better players. That in a nutshell is the problem. 

We can't compete with any of the parachute payment clubs. If they want a player we want they will win that particular race every single time.

However of the 12 teams promoted in the last 4 seasons and the 5 that were non parachute payment teams -  Shef Utd, Wolves, Brighton, Huddersfield, Boro none of them breached FFP. Brentford are doing well without spending big as well. There is no reason why you have to overspend to get promoted from this league.

[jono]

So while we all speculate about motives, rights wrongs and outcomes does anyone know how long this process will take ? 

[ossieram]

3 minutes ago, jono said:

So while we all speculate about motives, rights wrongs and outcomes does anyone know how long this process will take ? 

I think 48 hours is the standard time for anything Derby related.

[Danelaw Rams]

How about we come to a agreement so the Efl save face (because its partly there fault), we accept a fined , Gibson & Boro can't sue the Efl for not punishing us then,  and Everyone lives happily ever after ?

[Pearl Ram]

I say no to that proposal because the EFL instructed us on what was required, we complied and now they’ve moved the goalposts.

Anything other than being completely exonerated and the inquiry panel is bent.