Abu Derby County

[Millenniumram]

What do we reckon will happen first? We score 2 goals in a game, or the takeover goes through? I’m going for 2 goals, around March time.

[G STAR RAM]

4 hours ago, Ramleicester said:

A bunch of rather stuffy 'holders of the rulebook' at the EFL are waiting for DCFC / new investors to buy back the stadium at which point they will find a way to show the club must write back the profit which will enable the EFL to finally have their pound of flesh at the expense of DCFC. I feel that is part of the delay.

Will never stand up.

Our ground was valued in January 2018 (from memory), the value in a post Covid market is completely irrelevant and the EFL would be laughed out of any court where they tried to argue and different.

Plus we were completely cleared of that charge.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Will never stand up.

Our ground was valued in January 2018 (from memory), the value in a post Covid market is completely irrelevant and the EFL would be laughed out of any court where they tried to argue and different.

Plus we were completely cleared of that charge.

The EFL are also not appealing against that part of the ruling.

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

The EFL are also not appealing against that part of the ruling.

Exactly. They could never revisit the valuation from 2018, its been and gone.

[Ramleicester]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Exactly. They could never revisit the valuation from 2018, its been and gone.

Ok... but we will see what the issue has been soon I am sure. 

[europia]

2 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

What do we reckon will happen first? We score 2 goals in a game, or the takeover goes through? I’m going for 2 goals, around March time.

As early as March? Ever the optimist ?

[ossieram]

Mel's decided he likes what he sees under Rooney and has pulled out of the deal.

[CornwallRam]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Exactly. They could never revisit the valuation from 2018, its been and gone.

The EFL rules allow them to revisit any previous decision. The club have agreed to follow their rules, which are effectively an internal tribunal system. There is no double jeopardy law applicable. If the EFL consider that new information is available they certainly could revisit the valuation. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, CornwallRam said:

The EFL rules allow them to revisit any previous decision. The club have agreed to follow their rules, which are effectively an internal tribunal system. There is no double jeopardy law applicable. If the EFL consider that new information is available they certainly could revisit the valuation. 

But as previously stated, there is no new information available. 

[ramit]

[i-Ram]

47 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

The EFL rules allow them to revisit any previous decision. The club have agreed to follow their rules, which are effectively an internal tribunal system. There is no double jeopardy law applicable. If the EFL consider that new information is available they certainly could revisit the valuation. 

[Ramathorn]

4 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

What do we reckon will happen first? We score 2 goals in a game, or the takeover goes through? I’m going for 2 goals, around March time.

2 goals in March sounds reasonable.

 

 

 

Oh, in one game...

[Dimmu]

13 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

What do we reckon will happen first? We score 2 goals in a game, or the takeover goes through? I’m going for 2 goals, around March time.

You happy clappers make me sick.

[G STAR RAM]

10 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

The EFL rules allow them to revisit any previous decision. The club have agreed to follow their rules, which are effectively an internal tribunal system. There is no double jeopardy law applicable. If the EFL consider that new information is available they certainly could revisit the valuation. 

I will give you a comparable example of what you are saying the EFL could do.

Say Derby buy a player for £10m on a 5 year contract and amortise his fee over that 5 year period ie £2m per year.

At the end of the 5 years the players leaves on a free transfer.

You are basically arguing that the EFL could go back 5 years and say that the amortisation for that year should have been £10m, based on the 'new evidence' that the player had a residual value of £0.

 

[FindernRam]

9 hours ago, Ramathorn said:

2 goals in March sounds reasonable.

BEFORE March!

[MackworthRamIsGod]

I just read the original statement from Derby on 6th November, it did say the takeover would complete "very soon". It also said the talks had taken place since May and a deal had been agreed in principle.

Not sure what the dictionary definition for very soon would be, but, seeing as John Percy and everyone was reporting "by the end of the week" I have a feeling the club expected it to be done with a week, 2 at a push.

I also think, surely during the talks since May and at the time a deal in principle was agreed, the conversation about the stadium and how things would pan out with MSD Holdings would have been discussed, so one would think that cant be the only delay in all this?

40 odd days later and nothing, suggests to me whatever the club was expecting to happen, hasnt, just like the Gabay investment. 

The closer to Christmas we get and the longer we allow the uncertainty around the managerial position to continue, the less likely I think this will happen.

 

[whiteroseram]

15 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Will never stand up.

Our ground was valued in January 2018 (from memory), the value in a post Covid market is completely irrelevant and the EFL would be laughed out of any court where they tried to argue and different.

Plus we were completely cleared of that charge.

In particular, Mel's valuation was based on the capactiy to hold other live events, the market for which has been decimated and, I suspect, will be slow to recover...it would be very difficult to justify it being valued even remotly close using that valuation model 

[Rampage]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I will give you a comparable example of what you are saying the EFL could do.

Say Derby buy a player for £10m on a 5 year contract and amortise his fee over that 5 year period ie £2m per year.

At the end of the 5 years the players leaves on a free transfer.

You are basically arguing that the EFL could go back 5 years and say that the amortisation for that year should have been £10m, based on the 'new evidence' that the player had a residual value of £0.

 

Why is it that so many clubs have avoiding this type of situation with the EFL. It just seems that it is more likely that most clubs would be in the same position as it is basically so complicated a system.

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I just read the original statement from Derby on 6th November, it did say the takeover would complete "very soon". It also said the talks had taken place since May and a deal had been agreed in principle.

Not sure what the dictionary definition for very soon would be, but, seeing as John Percy and everyone was reporting "by the end of the week" I have a feeling the club expected it to be done with a week, 2 at a push.

I also think, surely during the talks since May and at the time a deal in principle was agreed, the conversation about the stadium and how things would pan out with MSD Holdings would have been discussed, so one would think that cant be the only delay in all this?

40 odd days later and nothing, suggests to me whatever the club was expecting to happen, hasnt, just like the Gabay investment. 

The closer to Christmas we get and the longer we allow the uncertainty around the managerial position to continue, the less likely I think this will happen.

 

HTHs

adverb [ADVERB with verb] If something is going to happen soon, it will happen after a short time. If something happened soon after a particular time or event, it happened a short time after it. You'll be hearing from us very soon. This chance has come sooner than I expected.

[CornwallRam]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I will give you a comparable example of what you are saying the EFL could do.

Say Derby buy a player for £10m on a 5 year contract and amortise his fee over that 5 year period ie £2m per year.

At the end of the 5 years the players leaves on a free transfer.

You are basically arguing that the EFL could go back 5 years and say that the amortisation for that year should have been £10m, based on the 'new evidence' that the player had a residual value of £0.

 

That isn't a comparable example