Jump to content

Abu Derby County


tinman

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

It was not sold because Mel "cocked" up . It was sold as another means of Mel being able to further financially support the club within FFP

He sold it because he failed to stay within the FFP limitations. He knew the rules and failed to follow them - you can call it want you want, but it certainly wasn't because he wanted to pour millions back in to the club.

You can call it want you want, i don't really care, but it was a failure on his part - not some philanthropic endeavour. If the EFL had told him it wasn't ok to do when the club asked we'd have been up poo creek without a paddle right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

It’s called backing your Manager and Mel has tried to find ways of increasing that backing with creative methods , now whether some of those Managers should have been employed is a different matter . Our amortisation policy is not against the rules and is used by some elite clubs in Europe . Likely relegation ? Why because what Mel did was  in the rules but both of those have been debated to death on here like the CM9 situation. 
we all have our opinions 

Breaching FFP is not within the rules though is it - christ alive. He is lucky the EFL changed the rules when they did and then agreed to allow us to sell the stadium when they did otherwise we'd have had a points deduction. He cocked up spunking too much money away on players and had to sell the stadium to fix said mistake. He didnt sell the stadium to be able to invest more - he sold it to cover the problems created in previous seasons.

Backing the manager is a meaningless statement. He knew the limits of what he could spend and failed to follow them. By your logic Mel can just give his manager £100 mill to spend and ignore FFP because he is "backing the manager"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GenBr said:

He sold it because he failed to stay within the FFP limitations. He knew the rules and failed to follow them - you can call it want you want, but it certainly wasn't because he wanted to pour millions back in to the club.

You can call it want you want, i don't really care, but it was a failure on his part - not some philanthropic endeavour. If the EFL had told him it wasn't ok to do when the club asked we'd have been up poo creek without a paddle right now.

Not wanting an argument it’s all opinions but I recall Mel saying that this was one of the options and if the EFL had said no he would have done something different. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

It’s called backing your Manager and Mel has tried to find ways of increasing that backing with creative methods , now whether some of those Managers should have been employed is a different matter . Our amortisation policy is not against the rules and is used by some elite clubs in Europe . Likely relegation ? Why because what Mel did was  in the rules but both of those have been debated to death on here like the CM9 situation. 
we all have our opinions 

No it’s not backing it is poor corporate governance.  I can’t criticise his devotion to our club but we are now playing poorly and do not own our own pitch.  Without selling the stadium we would be 12 points worse off nothing to do with last ditch creative accounting.  His reign could not be termed a success.  Football is a hard business and you get no points for trying hard and being a bit unlucky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Not wanting an argument it’s all opinions but I recall Mel saying that this was one of the options and if the EFL had said no he would have done something different. 
 

First time I have heard that and would be interested to read more.  We are talking in the multi millions and i probably have preferred him to have gone for option 2 rather than we losing our stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Asheville Ram said:

Why would an alleged billionaire want to buy an unfashionable football club located in the middle of England?

If something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Oddly, whilst comparing this season to the last time we were relegated from this division in 83-84, I noticed that both Chelsea and Man City were also 2nd Division clubs then. Amazing what injecting a load of cash can accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Asheville Ram said:

Why would an alleged billionaire want to buy an unfashionable football club located in the middle of England?

If something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Same reason that a billionaire bought the unfashionable football club located in rainy Manchester? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Asheville Ram said:

Why would an alleged billionaire want to buy an unfashionable football club located in the middle of England?

If something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Ask Fosun about Wolves too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...