Jump to content

Abu Derby County


tinman

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

I'm thinking there was nothing new (not news) in that article at all, well written or not. That's why @Curtainsis sort of right..its just a rehash of everything we already know ahead of the Derby. 

I am right they are just stirring up trouble for DCFC .

It’s true I did have a go at the Guardian but to be honest it could of been in any newspaper and I still think it would be out of order. 
 

I am not an apologist for Mel Morris but I don’t think he deserves this all the time .

What is the news media’s agenda 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The only evidence available to the public suggests it's not club debt. 

The Gabay debt is on the stadium company only but I recall seeing somewhere that MM guaranteed it personally. don’t even know if it is outstanding - there are conflicting reports. 

As for the MSD debt, the companies house filings show it’s secured on assets of the club and the associated companies. So it’s effectively guaranteed by the club 

Could the £40m lease number have something to do with its capitalised value ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Curtains said:

I am right they are just stirring up trouble for DCFC .

It’s true I did have a go at the Guardian but to be honest it could of been in any newspaper and I still think it would be out of order. 
 

I am not an apologist for Mel Morris but I don’t think he deserves this all the time .

What is the news media’s agenda 

A liitle old football club called Derby County have since being formed upset the apple cart, George Jobey tipped it over, Sam Longson when sanctioning payments to McKay kicked the horse, MM and co doing what Paul Danials couldn't and making hay, We've been a little different since 1888, Millwall scream "people hate us we don't care" just look at the media with us, Easy targets feed journalists, Simple folk believe what they print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Indeed not but on the other hand, there's not an awful lot of good light to be had, is there?

Nothing in the piece is inaccurate is it? We are struggling in the league, skint, the takeover didn't happen, we failed to go up through the playoffs twice in the last few seasons, we were cleared of wrong-doing in the sale of the ground... any of this actually wrong?

If the article is painting us in a bad light, it's not out of malice, it's out of accurately stating what has happened to the club recently.

You're correct, of course, Andy but equally we have won 6/8, were bottom of the league and are now clear of the bottom three, might be skint (we don't actually know, though we do know that we're still relying on one person's generosity) but then the vast majority of other clubs in the league are as skint as we are (and may be more skint), we don't know that the takeover isn't happening/won't happen in the future or that another one won't, most other clubs haven't got to the play offs as often as we have (including the lot down the road) because they haven't been as successful as us......... any of this actually wrong?

Robert Fisk once said to Osama bin Laden (random link I know) that journalism is about telling the truth.  What I dislike about modern day journalism, in sport and life in general (including politics), is that there's no telling of the whole truth, no balance.  I understand why that is - it's all about having your voice heard in a very crowded market, about click throughs and advertising revenue because there's no money in newspapers including The Guardian - and the only way that you get that is to exaggerate one side of the argument, to make people react.  There's no reaction from saying, on the eve of a big match, that in troubled times we're doing well to still be going off the pitch and are now competing on the pitch.  In short, it's spin. And it's why many, I suspect, no longer gain news from newspapers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

"BBC Sport has been told that the way the agreement is set up means neither party can walk away."

What?

Seems a good summary and as you say the no walk away clause looks odd, maybe there's a time limit or some other break clause, or I suppose mutual agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AutoWindscreens said:

"BBC Sport has been told that the way the agreement is set up means neither party can walk away."

What?

We’ve heard this from MM himself. Seems the Lawyers forgot to put the long stop date in the agreement that was signed in Oct/Nov. As a result MM has basically given the Sheikh an option. Gaaawd 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

We’ve heard this from MM himself. Seems the Lawyers forgot to put the long stop date in the agreement that was signed in Oct/Nov. As a result MM has basically given the Sheikh an option. Gaaawd 

Where the bloody hell is this bloke . Never heard a peep from the other end of this deal. If theres ever another fan forum expect Quint to turn up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AutoWindscreens said:

"BBC Sport has been told that the way the agreement is set up means neither party can walk away."

What?

It also states: "No official reason has been given for the delay - or whether there is a cut-off date for the deal to go through."  I read this as there could well be, but the Beed couldn't find out.  Not all doom and gloom.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...