Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

Negative ebitda in recent years implies significant negative cashflow at club level, obviously.  I guess this has been funded by the stadium company paying down the interco balance arising from the stadium sale. The stadium co has financed itself I think from the external borrowings, some of which have been guaranteed by our much maligned benefactor, MM

Yes that would be my guess too

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't deny Mel's previous commitment both financial and time to the club. He's a fan of the club and if you had to choose an owner a lot of us would go down the fan route. I do think he's ran the club in a manner that has been superficially attractive but far too many fans have had far too much faith in Mel and backed his every decision. The whole point of a good owner is that they listen to advice and have some foresight meaning they don't do the things we would do because we lack the knowledge and expertise to make those decisions. This is where the 'hindsight' and 'what would you have done?' arguments start to fall down for me and one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a bad owner for us. 

 The communication with the fans has long been cut leaving us in the dark about the future of the club that has led to general panic and mass consternation at the perceived or actual state of the club. Now, he's staring down the barrel of not 1, not 2, but 3 failed takeovers by disreputable potential owners and I can see no other reason other than he wants out at almost any cost to the club. I can deal with him deciding to not investing significant sums of money especially after the money he's put in. However, I am struggling to stomach his seeming desire to get rid of us to absolutely anyone who will use any mechanism so he can recoup his losses. I am struggling to stomach his lack of communication and seeming lack of interest in the club because he's had enough and now wants out as it's all turned sour. 

If this was any other owner the pitchforks would be out by now as the way Mel's handled this season and our attempted sales has been nothing short of ridiculous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Rough guide

                                          2018                               2014

                                            £m                                  £m

ASSETS

Players                               50                                     3

Land, property etc            14                                    53

Inter-company loan           75                                     -              (this is the money owed for the sale of the ground)

Cash                                     3                                     1

Owed for players                 2                                      -

Other                                    3                                      4

TOTAL                              147                                     61

 

LIABILITIES

Bank loans                          3                                       15

Deferred income                6                                         8         (I would guess that this relates mainly to season ticket income)

Other                                   3                                        8

Owed for players              13                                        2

TOTAL                                25                                     33

 

NET ASSETS                   122                                      28

 

Roughly the net assets have gone up by the profit made on the ground of circa £40m plus the increase in player values of £50m, both are which are paper transactions. In summary, up to 30 June 2018, as MM had funded the club through equity we were are pretty much in the same financial position as we were when he took over, except the ground has been replaced with a debtor of £80m.

Of course the key is what has happened between 2018 and today. Has the £75m been paid to the club? I think I read somewhere that it would be paid over 8 years in instalments of £10m but I have not seen that confirmed anywhere. Has the club been laden with debt or has the parent company borrowed the money against the ground and then loaned that money to the club?

 

thanks not great reading.  I guess the players value has not been written down at that time, £50m seems very hopeful.  Never trust balance sheets, I'm an ex banker (I have to whisper that these days)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carnero said:

In summary..

Debtors £80m (mainly amounts owed by group undertakings)

+ Player registrations £50m

+ Fixed assets inc leasehold (training ground) £14m

- Creditors £22m

aren't creditors liabilities?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Spanish said:

thanks not great reading.  I guess the players value has not been written down at that time, £50m seems very hopeful.  Never trust balance sheets, I'm an ex banker (I have to whisper that these days)

I don't think the £50m is that unrealistic, since that point we have sold Hughes, Ince, Vydra, Weimann, Bogle and Lowe, that is potentially somewhere between £30m and £40m at a guess

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't think the £50m is that unrealistic, since that point we have sold Hughes, Ince, Vydra, Weimann, Bogle and Lowe, that is potentially somewhere between £30m and £40m at a guess

yeh possibly wonder what it looks like now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't deny Mel's previous commitment both financial and time to the club. He's a fan of the club and if you had to choose an owner a lot of us would go down the fan route. I do think he's ran the club in a manner that has been superficially attractive but far too many fans have had far too much faith in Mel and backed his every decision. The whole point of a good owner is that they listen to advice and have some foresight meaning they don't do the things we would do because we lack the knowledge and expertise to make those decisions. This is where the 'hindsight' and 'what would you have done?' arguments start to fall down for me and one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a bad owner for us. 

 The communication with the fans has long been cut leaving us in the dark about the future of the club that has led to general panic and mass consternation at the perceived or actual state of the club. Now, he's staring down the barrel of not 1, not 2, but 3 failed takeovers by disreputable potential owners and I can see no other reason other than he wants out at almost any cost to the club. I can deal with him deciding to not investing significant sums of money especially after the money he's put in. However, I am struggling to stomach his seeming desire to get rid of us to absolutely anyone who will use any mechanism so he can recoup his losses. I am struggling to stomach his lack of communication and seeming lack of interest in the club because he's had enough and now wants out as it's all turned sour. 

If this was any other owner the pitchforks would be out by now as the way Mel's handled this season and our attempted sales has been nothing short of ridiculous. 

A well-written, logical arguement, LR.  However, there's a lot of supposition in it - for the very reason you mention "The communication with the fans has long been cut leaving us in the dark about the future of the club that has led to general panic and mass consternation at the perceived or actual state of the club." 

My concern is that for all we know, the 3 'possible' failed takeovers might have been the only serious ones that returned a half-sensible sum to Mel, whilst I'll guess still leaving him with a massive shortfall.  His choice, he knew the risks.  There may not have been any alternatives that were palatable. We just don't know.  We all want to know the state of affairs our club is in and why the S&P Agreements have been signed with organisations that for one reason or another have not completed the transaction, but we won't - and sadly, nor should we.  These are very sensitive matters, which are bound by layers of NDA's, for good reason.

No point in raking over old coals again.  He made some bad calls and we are paying the price, but we just don't know what issues may or may not be responsible for the delay in a sale taking place.  I'm sure when it's all done and dusted, at some point Mel may open up about some of the challenges he faced when trying to do the right thing as his parting jesture.  Surely, he won't want his legacy tarnished by a 'lack of interest' and I doubt very much, that is a factor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting comments from Ed Dawes today. Local media contacting the club but they can't get answers. Dawes refers to them using Talksport to sweep the issues under the carpet as the local support will use the local media as a voice.

I think it was Brian Clough who stressed the importance to get onside of the local boys. You've misjudged it Melvyn again. You don't think the local lads are important. They are !

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't understand the asset figures! The stadium ownership confuses me. I saw a massive increase in assets. Then seem to have been told that there's not really much change. And others say that we're in huge debt.

If the asset figures are accurate, then I guess that I'd find it helpful to understand how the stadium modifies the assets, to mean that they are not really bigger.

And then clarify whether the impact of the debts. For example, if debts can only be met by selling the training ground - then in my mind -they are "real" debts that need revenue to be reused to pay them. Whereas in my non accountancy understanding - if the debt can be met by routine cashflow, then it doesn't feel like a proper debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can remember a year or more ago he said he was looking for new investment..said he had been for (I think) 2 years or more and had rejected a few as unsuitable for the long term best interests of the club.

I might be a mile off but the most recent investors touted hardly seem to fit the mould of best interests of Derby County FC...How bad must those others have been !!??

Edited by Yani P
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie George said:

Some interesting comments from Ed Dawes today. Local media contacting the club but they can't get answers. Dawes refers to them using Talksport to sweep the issues under the carpet as the local support will use the local media as a voice.

I think it was Brian Clough who stressed the importance to get onside of the local boys. You've misjudged it Melvyn again. You don't think the local lads are important. They are !

 

The club/Mel haven't used TalkSport today, Erik Alonso has. 

Link to post
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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.