El DerbyCo

[ThePrisoner]

3 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Oh I got that yours was Electronic - Just thought I'd come back with another Marrvelous project 

I hadn't punned anything in my post that I was aware of so wasn't sure why you were quoting me! ? 

We need to let up on the puns. That joke isn't funny anymore.

[Heisenberg]

 

[Chester40]

59 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

 

Is the answer... Because he is a total fantasist? 

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

2 hours ago, Chester40 said:

Is the answer... Because he is a total fantasist? 

I'd be more inclined to believe Alonso than the efl to be honest.

Let's face it,the sooner we are bankrupt or relegated the happier they will be.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

I'd be more inclined to believe Alonso than the efl to be honest.

Let's face it,the sooner we are bankrupt or relegated the happier they will be.

I think the EFL are out to get us any which way to be honest. 

[Leeds Ram]

3 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

 

Not sure why Conway is bothering to talk to a guy who is clearly a complete and utter charlatan. I know a lot of people are fans of the guy but personally I'm not. His previous 'piece' on Alonso was basically him taking Alonso at his word and offered no investigation, if Conway had the investigative prowess of some twitter users he could have actually done a decent job as a journalist uncovering a fraud. 

The reason why the takeover failed is quite simple, the guy doesn't have enough money to buy a second division club. 

[Curtains]

25 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Not sure why Conway is bothering to talk to a guy who is clearly a complete and utter charlatan. I know a lot of people are fans of the guy but personally I'm not. His previous 'piece' on Alonso was basically him taking Alonso at his word and offered no investigation, if Conway had the investigative prowess of some twitter users he could have actually done a decent job as a journalist uncovering a fraud. 

The reason why the takeover failed is quite simple, the guy doesn't have enough money to buy a second division club. 

Is Alonso part of the American group takeover though !

[cheron85]

22 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Not sure why Conway is bothering to talk to a guy who is clearly a complete and utter charlatan. I know a lot of people are fans of the guy but personally I'm not. His previous 'piece' on Alonso was basically him taking Alonso at his word and offered no investigation, if Conway had the investigative prowess of some twitter users he could have actually done a decent job as a journalist uncovering a fraud. 

The reason why the takeover failed is quite simple, the guy doesn't have enough money to buy a second division club. 

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:

“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.

I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense

However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself

Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:

“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.

I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense

However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself

Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

What about this Alonso quote in DET today 

“Of course it hurts me that I was not able to conclude the deal. But the American group is continuing to try and work on the deal and I am by their side and hopefully, it can come off.”

[cheron85]

9 minutes ago, Curtains said:

What about this Alonso quote in DET today 

“Of course it hurts me that I was not able to conclude the deal. But the American group is continuing to try and work on the deal and I am by their side and hopefully, it can come off.”

That was in the Athletic article too

I think maybe that's him trying to save face - I'm 'by their side' too - Doesn't mean they know who I am or that I have any influence whatsoever ?

Also - Could just be a second language, phrasing thing - Colloquialisms are some of the hardest things to learn in a second language and phrases like "I've got your back" often get confused - I wonder if he's just expressing his support for them in general terms - Whether he meant to say "they have my full support" or something similar - Which wouldn't mean he had anything to do with the deal, but that he had no bad feeling towards them

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

That was in the Athletic article too

I think maybe that's him trying to save face - I'm 'by their side' too - Doesn't mean they know who I am or that I have any influence whatsoever ?

Also - Could just be a second language, phrasing thing - Colloquialisms are some of the hardest things to learn in a second language and phrases like "I've got your back" often get confused - I wonder if he's just expressing his support for them in general terms - Whether he meant to say "they have my full support" or something similar - Which wouldn't mean he had anything to do with the deal, but that he had no bad feeling towards them

Just the DET said and I quote.

“Does his comment suggest he is still part of a potential deal?”

Maybe reading too much into it and your explanation makes sense. 

[Leeds Ram]

31 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:

“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.

I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense

However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself

Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

Quotes from a guy who has been repeatedly shown to be full of nonsense and used a fake picture to show his own 'house' on twitter are meaningless. It's obvious he himself didn't have the money to buy the club as numerous sources have told us. If he was simply the front man for the deal to buy the club, something clearly happened that led to it all falling apart in a spectacular fashion or the EFL not trusting the source of the income.  

Occam's razor is a principle i generally abide by- the simplest theory is to be preferred to the more complex. The man's a 'boxing promoter' and 'a small time football agent who has a history of charlatanism. Either, he's telling the truth and it's a complex story or he's lying (as per usual) and he never had the funds to take the club over. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Leeds Ram

[Leeds Ram]

34 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Is Alonso part of the American group takeover though !

Anyone of sound mind wouldn't step within 100 miles of this bloke though... Given his previous antics I'd be surprised if he's part of any future Derby county takeover. 

[BucksRam]

26 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:

“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.

I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense

However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself

Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

It's an interesting one this. Anti Money Laundering (AML) regs do require you prove the source of funds.  It's in the EFL's interest to be absolutely certain they're happy that the source of those funds is legit, fully traceable etc, plus of course sustainable.  If in any doubt then they'd be in breach of AML regs to accept this where doubts exist.  Love or hate them, in this respect I would expect they need to follow British law. 

In a previous role I worked with a Spanish bank and their approach to things was very different to ours.  Yes they too have AML laws etc but interpretation is, I believe different.  Their working ethics / practices most certainly were, not least a huge element of deniability, maintaining face and cover your ar5e mentality. It made working with them extremely difficult.  Appreciate this is my experience only.

I remain unconvinced that Alonso had all the backing and transparency required under UK law and since Derby /EFL is in the UK that's the law that applies, even if, apparently his lawyers believed it was all OK.  Like many here have regularly called out, there appeared to be loads of holes in his case.  This latest interview, the principles of which may be true (i.e. had meetings etc) smacks of him trying to save face, cover his ar5e and apportioning blame, something I've seen more than once as referred to above. Is he working with the latest US consortium? I doubt it personally - I see it as a clever use of words saying he supports the takeover whilst hinting he's involved when in likelihood he's nothing to do with it.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

I just can't buy the part about "oh, I'll just take £30m of debt secured against club assets against myself as personal debt" as anything a legitimate operator would look to do.

Might want to pay it off, or restructure it,or move it around but taking that liability as a personal responsibility...na...I'd be worried about anyone trying to do that.

Wasn't the EFL request he move a significant part of the money to a UK bank account?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Have you read the piece? I actually think it was interesting and maybe gives a little more insight into what happened - Think this bit gives me a bit more clarity than I had:

“There were three conversations with the EFL,” he says. “The first one was for proof of funds and to justify the movement between the banks. It had to be €75 million over a three-month period,” Alonso claims. “We would have meetings every Thursday. Initially, the EFL said it was OK, but they wanted to know the source of the funds. I said no problem, I provided all the information about the businesses and sent it to the organisation.

I'm a cynic - So in the absence of any real proof I choose to assume everyone is talking some level of nonsense

However - It seems to be the case that he was able to prove he had the money to buy the club (reading this and between the lines from the EFL) - And account with an amount of money in - The questions from the EFL seem to have been about where that money came from and whether it was a sustainable source of income - Then we get down to the EFL not buying into his sources of income and Alonso saying they're legit - At which point it's difficult to know who to believe without seeing the evidence myself

Seems the EFL have been overly cautious here - Which is interesting considering the current and previous owners of the chaps down the road - And decided that they didn't believe in the source of Alonso's income 

That was how I took the Birch interview from a couple of weeks back, not that anyone agreed on here.

It sounded as though having the funds wasnt the issue, just that the EFL werent satisfied with where the funds come from.

[TuffLuff]

3 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Not sure why Conway is bothering to talk to a guy who is clearly a complete and utter charlatan. I know a lot of people are fans of the guy but personally I'm not. His previous 'piece' on Alonso was basically him taking Alonso at his word and offered no investigation, if Conway had the investigative prowess of some twitter users he could have actually done a decent job as a journalist uncovering a fraud. 

The reason why the takeover failed is quite simple, the guy doesn't have enough money to buy a second division club. 

In fairness (well…kinda), Conway has admitted a few times on his videos and on Twitter that the financial/takeover side isn’t really his expertise and points people in the direction of Matt Slater’s articles.

I think a lot of our local press are the same, in that they want to talk about ‘on the field’ stuff and not this behind the scenes stuff. So whilst they all say ‘we ask the questions and we don’t get answers’, it may also be that they don’t really ask the right questions as well. 
 
I mean who can blame them? You go into local sport reporting and you end up trying to work out where in Indonesia a 29 year old former Spanish boxer is getting his money from? Think I’d wait and write an article linking to a Kieran Maguire tweet too tbh!

Edited June 11, 2021 by TuffLuff

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, TuffLuff said:

In fairness (well…kinda), Conway has admitted a few times on his videos and on Twitter that the financial/takeover side isn’t really his expertise and points people in the direction of Matt Slater’s articles.

I think a lot of our local press are the same, in that they want to talk about ‘on the field’ stuff and not this behind the scenes stuff. So whilst they all say ‘we ask the questions and we don’t get answers’, it may also be that they don’t really ask the right questions as well. 
 
I mean who can blame them? You go into local sport reporting and you end up trying to work out where in Indonesia a 29 year old former Spanish boxer is getting his money from? Think I’d wait and write an article linking to a Kieran Maguire tweet too tbh!

If he doesn't know how to proceed with that form of journalism then he shouldn't be writing those articles. It's simply irresponsible to give someone who a lot of people had very grave concerns about a platform that came without any form of actual questioning. In my opinion Conway isn't really an investigative journalist, he's closer to an op ed writer that sometimes has an inside story which is different. I don't have a problem with that at all, it's a perfectly valid form of writing  but then he shouldn't be doing these kinds of interviews if he's not up to actually doing some digging. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Leeds Ram

[Gaspode]

4 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Not sure why Conway is bothering to talk to a guy who is clearly a complete and utter charlatan. I know a lot of people are fans of the guy but personally I'm not. His previous 'piece' on Alonso was basically him taking Alonso at his word and offered no investigation, if Conway had the investigative prowess of some twitter users he could have actually done a decent job as a journalist uncovering a fraud. 

The reason why the takeover failed is quite simple, the guy doesn't have enough money to buy a second division club. 

Clickerty, click, clck, click - all he's interested in. How many folk have followed his link and read the article? they may have even signed up some new subscribers off the back of it. Modern journalism cares far more about revenue generation than it does with uncovering the real stories and digging into the dirt (unless of course that will also generate clicks....)

[OoooMarkWright]

45 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

If he doesn't know how to proceed with that form of journalism then he shouldn't be writing those articles. It's simply irresponsible to give someone who a lot of people had very grave concerns about a platform that came without any form of actual questioning. In my opinion Conway isn't really an investigative journalist, he's closer to an op ed writer that sometimes has an inside story which is different. I don't have a problem with that at all, it's a perfectly valid form of writing  but then he shouldn't be doing these kinds of interviews if he's not up to actually doing some digging. 

Jeez, has Conway done something personal to you - you don’t  seem a fan at all! Think the hate is slightly unjustified.

At least he’s getting something from those involved in these failed attempts. More than can be said for the local journalists. Thought it contained some decent bits. Glad Alonso failed. Absolute chancer. Next!