EFL charge Derby over ffp

[DarkFruitsRam7]

40 minutes ago, glyn1957 said:

But if we win the EFL will be landed with our legal costs and may also face a law suit for malicious  prosecution.

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

[Will Hughes Hair]

55 minutes ago, Carnero said:

He's also representing Sheffield Wednesday v EFL

On the downside he has represented Middlesbro but you can't have it all can you?

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

Once the legal aspects have been resolved, this is a point that shouldn't be lost.

[Reggie Greenwood]

Perfectly legitimate business decision , plus it might also be Mel’s way of protecting Pride Park for the future in case any future 3 amigos appear on the horizon 

[ossieram]

38 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

How could we have pleased our needy supporters if we didn't? Even with this hanging over us, some were still whining because we didn't spend in January. 

[therealhantsram]

Can't see this being settled this season.

[BathRam72]

46 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

But, if Mel had restricted his managers to less money, we would have only got mediocre players ....... Oh wait

[SaintRam]

48 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

Tbf - we want to make massive changes to the stadium. I'm not sure how FFP works with stuff like that but it seems logical to me to keep that expense away from the club, no? 

I assumed that was at least part of the reason he moved the stadium to another company he owned, so he could fund the work on the stadium without it being a DCFC expense.

[Tamworthram]

51 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

We'd need to sell it all over again to meet the transfer signing demands of some folk on this forum.

[ossieram]

1 minute ago, SaintRam said:

Tbf - we want to make massive changes to the stadium. I'm not sure how FFP works with stuff like that but it seems logical to me to keep that expense away from the club, no? 

I assumed that was at least part of the reason he moved the stadium to another company he owned, so he could fund the work on the stadium without it being a DCFC expense.

I don't think work on the stadium is counted against ffp or whatever they call it. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

50 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We should never have needed to sell our stadium in the first place.

Those seeds were well and truly sewn in previous seasons as we watched our high profile purchases repeatedly fail to achieve promotion and disappear without trace, whilst our costs soared and soared.

Only the DCFC Board can say whether they were fully aware of the risks all along. If so, then it was a correctly taken decision, the risk of which backfired on us.

If not, then where was the medium to long term strategic financial planning?

[SaintRam]

3 minutes ago, ossieram said:

I don't think work on the stadium is counted against ffp or whatever they call it. 

If putting money into a stadium doesn't count against FFP why does selling the stadium count towards it?

(checking to see if I can find any support for my assumption and I can't see anything in the exemptions list about what we're planning with the stadium).

[Rev]

1 minute ago, SaintRam said:

If putting money into a stadium doesn't count against FFP why does selling the stadium count towards it?

Infrastructure improvement Vs asset disposal.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

19 minutes ago, ossieram said:

How could we have pleased our needy supporters if we didn't? Even with this hanging over us, some were still whining because we didn't spend in January. 

1) I’ve never once whined about a lack of spending. Not once.

2) Mel shouldn’t be pandering to those who do.

[SaintRam]

5 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Infrastructure improvement Vs asset disposal.

So you could, theoretically, put £500m into a stadium without any of that £500m counting as FFP expense and then sell the stadium for £550m and get £500m in profit as recognised by FFP? 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

12 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Those seeds were well and truly sewn in previous seasons as we watched our high profile purchases repeatedly fail to achieve promotion and disappear without trace, whilst our costs soared and soared.

Only the DCFC Board can say whether they were fully aware of the risks all along. If so, then it was a correctly taken decision, the risk of which backfired on us.

If not, then where was the medium to long term strategic financial planning?

I think the buck stops at Mel’s door for both. As a business owner, he should be fully aware that both blame and praise will all come back to him, even if his intentions were good. If a risk fails, you have to look at the way it was implemented (e.g. spending 3 mill on Blackman).

FWIW, his work with the academy has been fantastic. People who like him ignore our financial failings, whilst people who dislike him gnore the academy. It is possible to have a middle ground.

[Van der MoodHoover]

9 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think the buck stops at Mel’s door for both. As a business owner, he should be fully aware that both blame and praise will all come back to him, even if his intentions were good. If a risk fails, you have to look at the way it was implemented (e.g. spending 3 mill on Blackman).

FWIW, his work with the academy has been fantastic. People who like him ignore our financial failings, whilst people who dislike him gnore the academy. It is possible to have a middle ground.

That's the point - if you take a calculated risk and it doesn't work out then that's business. Mel won big with his Candy Crush investment - a true black swan for him. He's gambled and not (yet) won with DCFC.

The stadium sale could easily have been part of a fully thought out risk mitigation strategy.

[Rev]

21 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

So you could, theoretically, put £500m into a stadium without any of that £500m counting as FFP expense and then sell the stadium for £550m and get £500m in profit as recognised by FFP? 

Not really.

I live in a normal 3 bed semi, if I spent £1m doing it up to the highest possible spec, it wouldn't increase in value by £1m, or anything like it.

[SaintRam]

4 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Not really.

I live in a normal 3 bed semi, if I spent £1m doing it up to the highest possible spec, it wouldn't increase in value by £1m, or anything like it.

My point isn't the ratio by which it would increase the value. My point is that it doesn't seem right that club money put into an asset to increase its value would not go into the FFP books if selling it for its now-increased value would.

Tbh I just need to find something that details it all in more info; the little lists I can find of what doesn't count against FFP don't seem complete.

[TramRam]

31 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

1) I’ve never once whined about a lack of spending. Not once.

2) Mel shouldn’t be pandering to those who do.

Obviousley pandering to the Managers of the time, There's no guarantee that an expensive players fits the Managers hopes, When we Bought Johnson I can't remember too many if any at all said he'd be someone who would get his teeth into the team.

Now is a time of holding Mels purse strings, I'm glad we never signed anyone of note, Looks like a Dutch CH is on his way, I hope more to follow, This season could be the blessing we never hoped for.