Jump to content

El DerbyCo


roboto

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Geoff Parkstone said:

Still I suppose its better than playing in a council ground!

 

IF this is the basis for the Spandonesian deal then:

Separation of the asset from the club means no more financing can be secured against it, which seriously cramps the clubs ability to borrow.  No more revenue from other activities such as concerts or other sports.

We started the Morris tenure with a pretty much paid off ground, with a small mortgage and mired in footballing mediocrity.  We end it with no ground, still in football mediocrity, but still alive.  Was the adventure worth it?

 

Not heard anything specific, but logically the MSD loan is secured against various assets including the stadium. If the new owners are taking over the debt, they must surely be taking over the security for that debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Not heard anything specific, but logically the MSD loan is secured against various assets including the stadium. If the new owners are taking over the debt, they must surely be taking over the security for that debt.

I've already posted a story where Alonso intimates that this is the case:

https://www.2playbook.com/clubes/erik-alonso-operacion-100-millones-con-hijo-gran-logrones-tomo-Derby-county_3121_102.html

20210409_172313.jpg

Edited by Carnero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Not heard anything specific, but logically the MSD loan is secured against various assets including the stadium. If the new owners are taking over the debt, they must surely be taking over the security for that debt.

Yep because you couldn't secure Jack poo against the club itself now it doesn't own any substantial assets aside from the capitalised value of player contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CornwallRam said:

Not heard anything specific, but logically the MSD loan is secured against various assets including the stadium. If the new owners are taking over the debt, they must surely be taking over the security for that debt.

And by default, taking ownership of the asset against which the debts are secured, presumably. Can you be responsible for a loan against an asset if you don’t own it, I wonder?  2 glasses of Shiraz can do odd things to my brain! 

Edited by RedSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RedSox said:

And by default, taking ownership of the asset against which the debts are secured, presumably. Can you be responsible for a loan against an asset if you don’t own it, I wonder?  2 glasses of Shiraz can do odd things to my brain! 

I'd suggest not, but if you can, I think I will secure my mortgage on your house???

Assuming the ground is not included in the sale, the security over it will have t be redeemed and the new owner provide suitable new security, or pay off the loan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal scenario would be that he comes in debt free like reported but at the same time he clears off any outstanding loans.

Not entirely sure what happens into of FFP/P&S as I assume he is able to input a certain amount of his own money that can help towards that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/04/2021 at 17:53, jono said:

Quite common in most clubs. The candidates all had suitable CV’s ... None of us were fundamentally opposed to any of the appointments at the time. We might have had a dislike of either Pearson’s 1970’s PE teacher mode or the razzmatazz of Lampard but they were all typical of football. We have had every variety with the exception of trying to recruit the sort of tough guy agricultural manager with a “proven record” (although Pearson might fit that bill) . where everyone would have moaned about the lack of ambition.

The transfer policy “errors” started with Bryson and Hughes being injured in the same match which lead to panic buying at inflated prices. At the time, these were seen as bold, supportive and positive moves. Your are eating hindsight by the KFC family bucket load.

The financial state of the club ? .. Mel filled it with money .. some spent well, some badly .. We haven’t had a fiscal mismanagement situation or anything “taken” from the club by Mel. We got in a mess on FFP and Mel coughed up by buying the stadium and paying the club money for it.

Sam Rush ? Is Mel really responsible for another man’s ethics ? ( or lack of them ? ) 

The fiasco ? .. Someone broke their pledges or didn’t meet their obligations .. it wasn’t Mel. Maybe Mel shouldn’t  have trusted them but good business and life is defined by trust. You have to start somewhere. Has anyone thought about Mel here ? He has obviously had some serious health issues yet he hasn’t flinched from being a DCFC man 

yes, for sure, be sceptical or wary of new owners, we all are, we care about our club, but Mel has been a straight shooter from day one. Some of the things he’s done or wanted to do didn’t work out but he is trustworthy beyond doubt . Now maybe those he has trusted are sharks .. but that’s a different story. 
 

I cannot believe how you have such a judgmental attitude to a guy who has given his best efforts and a shed load of money to this club. Your judgement is littered with an astounding lack of logical analysis. 

Quality post ?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Topram said:

Great news if the debts will be paid of and we will own our stadium again would be a good start

We won't own it, Mr Alonso and his money backers will own it, that is if you are correct, personally I will wait and see if there is a charge on the assets or not and to whom, when the new ownership is registered at companies house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...