Why are people bothered by relegation?

[RotherhamRam]

Sorry Craig,I'm sick to death of providing facts and figures to refute this kind of pure bunkum.Perhaps if RotherhamRam and his ilk would just restrict their comments to saying that they don't like Gadsby,then at least we'd get a fact out of them.

Okay I will put my hands up and say sorry for spouting what I feel.

The only question I have and the only person who can answer this is what is the reason for wanting to buy the club back now when what is only 4yrs ago he sold it?

I will keep my feelings in check on this one and I hope if he does buy us, it is for the right reasons and he will invest in the team and give us fans something to cheer about. I will admit I am sceptical and will leave it at that. I will offer him as I have offered GSE till the last 3months my support and will back him through what will be a difficult time and I hope if he is able or will buy us he can pull us out of the hole.

I don't like Gadsby. All my spouting about believed facts attached to my feelings will stop and at the time I was a bit stressed and seeing PG as the saviour is not as clear cut as I think it will be.

I would not like to be a new owner coming into the club, where the team needs investment and the fans are unhappy. Whether GSE or new owners it will take a lot to win back some of the fans faith.

[ramblur]

Okay I will put my hands up and say sorry for spouting what I feel.

The only question I have and the only person who can answer this is what is the reason for wanting to buy the club back now when what is only 4yrs ago he sold it?

I will keep my feelings in check on this one and I hope if he does buy us, it is for the right reasons and he will invest in the team and give us fans something to cheer about. I will admit I am sceptical and will leave it at that. I will offer him as I have offered GSE till the last 3months my support and will back him through what will be a difficult time and I hope if he is able or will buy us he can pull us out of the hole.

I don't like Gadsby. All my spouting about believed facts attached to my feelings will stop and at the time I was a bit stressed and seeing PG as the saviour is not as clear cut as I think it will be.

I would not like to be a new owner coming into the club, where the team needs investment and the fans are unhappy. Whether GSE or new owners it will take a lot to win back some of the fans faith.

OK-I hate attacks on Gadsby,because by extension they usually represent attacks on the LOG.Having looked at the finances from several angles,I'm now convinced that this particular group of gentlemen left this club in its best state for ages both on and off the field.

The £8m+ cash surplus for 07/08 (which would have been far greater,but for the Jan 08 madness) allied to the following £23m chute payments was enough to reduce the debt by £16m and do much more besides.A regime that effectively (if you take 1st January as the start of their sphere of influence) took over the likes of Howard,Oakley,Jones,Fagan,Mears,Miller and Earnshaw (all of whom proved to be saleable assets) has converted this into a squad of,in the main,bargain basement buys.

Some would praise them and castigate the LOG.I'm not one of them-I'll give credit where credit's due.

[RotherhamRam]

OK-I hate attacks on Gadsby,because by extension they usually represent attacks on the LOG.Having looked at the finances from several angles,I'm now convinced that this particular group of gentlemen left this club in its best state for ages both on and off the field.

The £8m+ cash surplus for 07/08 (which would have been far greater,but for the Jan 08 madness) allied to the following £23m chute payments was enough to reduce the debt by £16m and do much more besides.A regime that effectively (if you take 1st January as the start of their sphere of influence) took over the likes of Howard,Oakley,Jones,Fagan,Mears,Miller and Earnshaw (all of whom proved to be saleable assets) has converted this into a squad of,in the main,bargain basement buys.

Some would praise them and castigate the LOG.I'm not one of them-I'll give credit where credit's due.

I'm new to this and thick. Can you please explain what LOG means, is it terminolgy linked to toilet humour or is it something to do with the GSE ownership? sorry for asking because this may help me understand information

[blackNwhites]

I'm new to this and thick. Can you please explain what LOG means, is it terminolgy linked to toilet humour or is it something to do with the GSE ownership? sorry for asking because this may help me understand information

LOG - League of Gentleman. Meaning Gadsby and co.

[TelTheRam]

Relegation = reduced attandances = reduced income = more cost cutting

[Ambitious]

Cant see what the fuss is about. Lets face it, we are not competing at this level.

The players who could score have gone, the player who could defend has gone, and who came in?

Ben 'the dead ball specialist' davies.

He couldnt even take a decent goal kick!!

Oh and somebody (that useless I cant remember his name) who came because it was his only option. We are a joke.

So setting your stall out to hopefully grind out a 0-0 draw at home to another crappy club (which actually worked this week) is hardly competing.

We are out of our depth due to the current regime.

The only way they will leave is if fans stop turning up each week.

The only way fans will stop coming is if we go down.

Lets go down and get rid of clough and the yanks.

Trouble is, would we even compete in League 1?

Not with this squad of no-hopers.

There is so much bullshit in this I don't even know where to start.

surely we can just ban people who are clearly ******* for the sake of being *******.

[voyager1]

The problem with relegation is that the team will struggle to get back up.

Derby in league one will be seen as the big fish and all teams will raise their game.

[mice_elf]

OK-I hate attacks on Gadsby,because by extension they usually represent attacks on the LOG.Having looked at the finances from several angles,I'm now convinced that this particular group of gentlemen left this club in its best state for ages both on and off the field.

The £8m+ cash surplus for 07/08 (which would have been far greater,but for the Jan 08 madness) allied to the following £23m chute payments was enough to reduce the debt by £16m and do much more besides.A regime that effectively (if you take 1st January as the start of their sphere of influence) took over the likes of Howard,Oakley,Jones,Fagan,Mears,Miller and Earnshaw (all of whom proved to be saleable assets) has converted this into a squad of,in the main,bargain basement buys.

Some would praise them and castigate the LOG.I'm not one of them-I'll give credit where credit's due.

A tad selective on GSE's inherited player list there Ramblur.

£500k profit on Howard, £500k profit on Oakley, break-even on Jones/Fagan, but a collective loss of approx. £1.5 million on Mears/Miller/Earnshaw. Yes, they were saleable, but at a net loss.

What about some of the other gems GSE inherited - Clod, Griffin, Todd, Feilhaber, Price, Lewis, McEveley, Teale, Camara, Malcolm? All these players have now left, at a net transfer loss of over £6million. Even more when you include the contract pay-offs to Clod/Malcolm/Camara.

Gadsby/LOG inherited players such as Camp, Grant, Moore, M. Johnson, Seth Johnson, Barnes, Pesch, Edworthy, Ainsworth. Academy graduates Ainsworth & Grant were released during LOG's tenure. 6 months after Ainsworth was released, Watford paid £400k for his transfer from Hereford. Grant went to Sheff Wed & was subsequently sold to Burnley in a deal worth up to £1million with add-ons. Lee Camp was sold for £150k but must be worth over £1million now. That's £2million plus worth of Academy graduate talent given away/sold cheap. Moore, Johnson & Johnson, Barnes, Pesch, Edworthy all played valuable parts in the promotion season.

I accept your argument that Gadsby/LOG left the club in a much healthier financial position than they found it, courtesy of the massively increased revenues earned by the promotion to the Premier League. However, the promotion was achieved having spent (relatively) heavily on transfers, using borrowed money. If we hadn't squeaked through the play-off penalty shootout against Soton, & goal-machine Pearson (was there ever a less likely scorer of a Wembley winning goal?) hadn't broke the habits of a lifetime, where would we be? Another year older & deeper in debt, as the song goes (Sixteen Tons for the younger members - look it up on t'interweb).

Burley got us to the play-offs during the 3 Amigo's reign - if Idiakez/Rasiak had been fit for the first leg against Preston, we might have sneaked promotion that season. Would the Amigos have been hailed as the financial saviours of our club had that happened? A year in the Premiership at that point may well have left the Club in the black financially (assuming the gruesome threesome wouldn't have pocketed ALL the Sky money!)!!! There's a lot of ifs there, I know, but it makes you think doesn't it.

[ramblur]

A tad selective on GSE's inherited player list there Ramblur.

£500k profit on Howard, £500k profit on Oakley, break-even on Jones/Fagan, but a collective loss of approx. £1.5 million on Mears/Miller/Earnshaw. Yes, they were saleable, but at a net loss.

What about some of the other gems GSE inherited - Clod, Griffin, Todd, Feilhaber, Price, Lewis, McEveley, Teale, Camara, Malcolm? All these players have now left, at a net transfer loss of over £6million. Even more when you include the contract pay-offs to Clod/Malcolm/Camara.

Gadsby/LOG inherited players such as Camp, Grant, Moore, M. Johnson, Seth Johnson, Barnes, Pesch, Edworthy, Ainsworth. Academy graduates Ainsworth & Grant were released during LOG's tenure. 6 months after Ainsworth was released, Watford paid £400k for his transfer from Hereford. Grant went to Sheff Wed & was subsequently sold to Burnley in a deal worth up to £1million with add-ons. Lee Camp was sold for £150k but must be worth over £1million now. That's £2million plus worth of Academy graduate talent given away/sold cheap. Moore, Johnson & Johnson, Barnes, Pesch, Edworthy all played valuable parts in the promotion season.

I accept your argument that Gadsby/LOG left the club in a much healthier financial position than they found it, courtesy of the massively increased revenues earned by the promotion to the Premier League. However, the promotion was achieved having spent (relatively) heavily on transfers, using borrowed money. If we hadn't squeaked through the play-off penalty shootout against Soton, & goal-machine Pearson (was there ever a less likely scorer of a Wembley winning goal?) hadn't broke the habits of a lifetime, where would we be? Another year older & deeper in debt, as the song goes (Sixteen Tons for the younger members - look it up on t'interweb).

Burley got us to the play-offs during the 3 Amigo's reign - if Idiakez/Rasiak had been fit for the first leg against Preston, we might have sneaked promotion that season. Would the Amigos have been hailed as the financial saviours of our club had that happened? A year in the Premiership at that point may well have left the Club in the black financially (assuming the gruesome threesome wouldn't have pocketed ALL the Sky money!)!!! There's a lot of ifs there, I know, but it makes you think doesn't it.

Quite deliberately selective n the list of players,mice_elf,as I was showing what was potentially available in cash terms to supplement the £8m+ and £23m I mentioned,and which was available to reduce debt and other things.The 'other things' includes the contract buy outs of LOG players that you mentioned.The 'paper' items that you mention (profits and losses on disposal of players) have no relevance to a cash argument.If you sell a player for £x at a paper loss of £y,then the only impact on cash is the receipt of £x.

The future of the club wasn't gambled in the promotion season-just the

£7m the LOG had put in collectively to fund team strengthening.The 06/07 accounts show that £6.322m cash was paid for players and £2.48m received.They also show that a little over £6m was owing on players (including Earnshaw) and this was designated to be payable within one year.This means that the £8m cash surplus indicated in 07/08 reflects this £6m outstanding as having been paid.

So what happens if we don't get promoted?Well,the Earnshaw fee + add ons disappears from the £6m,and we know that a rights issue yielded a net £2m.Just because the LOG sold out because they couldn't finance a big Prem consolidation drive doesn't mean they didn't have the finances to support their original 3 year plan.After all,if promotion hadn't been achieved in the first season,the bulk of team building had been done and we would only have been talking of fine tuning thereafter.

I wasn't attempting to mislead in my first post.In past renditions I've mentioned the contract buy outs of Davis/Feilhaber/Todd and assumed posters would realise what I meant by "other things".

I don't understand the relevance of your last paragraph.There was no financial impropriety on the part of the LOG.Let's just agree that they left the club in a far better financial position than that they inherited.

[mice_elf]

The future of the club wasn't gambled in the promotion season-just the

£7m the LOG had put in collectively to fund team strengthening.The 06/07 accounts show that £6.322m cash was paid for players and £2.48m received.They also show that a little over £6m was owing on players (including Earnshaw) and this was designated to be payable within one year.This means that the £8m cash surplus indicated in 07/08 reflects this £6m outstanding as having been paid.

Can I press you for some more clarification please Ramblur, if you can be bothered, since I suspect you've been over all this before.

""The LOG put in £7m of their own cash Season 2006/7 to fund team strengthening" - I presume this wasn't a cash gift to DCFC, so how was the money paid?

The LOG said they inherited a debt of £50+ million from the Amigos, so what was the debt figure showing in the 06/07 Accounts?

So what happens if we don't get promoted?Well,the Earnshaw fee + add ons disappears from the £6m,and we know that a rights issue yielded a net £2m.Just because the LOG sold out because they couldn't finance a big Prem consolidation drive doesn't mean they didn't have the finances to support their original 3 year plan.After all,if promotion hadn't been achieved in the first season,the bulk of team building had been done and we would only have been talking of fine tuning thereafter.

So, IF we hadn't got promotion, no Earnshaw fee paid out, so only £2.5 million left owing on transfer fees, almost covered by £2mill rights issue. But, Seth Johnson retired through injury, Giles Barnes missed most of 2007/8 season through injury. I would contend that the team was actually weakened by the Jan 2007 transfer dealings, so I think it's highly presumptuous to assume that a little 'fine tuning' would have us back in contention for promotion. Bywater, Leacock & Pearson have been involved in 4 straight relegation fights after the play-off season. McEveley & Teale in 3. Howard & Oakley were signed by Leicester to spearhead a promotion push, but actually got relegated instead. The promotion team was never that strong - that's why it struggled so pathetically in the Premiership.

In any case, who would be the Manager? Billy D would be screaming for more,more,more money for transfers/Ned Kelly. Would the LOG have stayed together at this point?

I don't understand the relevance of your last paragraph.There was no financial impropriety on the part of the LOG.Let's just agree that they left the club in a far better financial position than that they inherited.

There is no relevance! At no point have I suggested any financial impropriety by the LOG. The last paragraph doesn't even mention the LOG - I think you might be a tad too sensitive on this subject Ramblur.

I just threw out a 'what if' scenario for the heck of it - if we'd been promoted 2004/5 under Burley/Amigos what would have happened to DCFC? Where might we be now? I assume that the debt at season's end 04/05 was much less than that inherited by LOG in 2006. So, if we'd been promoted 04/05, could, or would, the Amigos have wiped out much/all of the debt they'd loaded on the club? Who knows - who cares!!!!

[neilowens]

I don't understand why any derby fan wants to see this Derby county go into league 1.

spoken like a true ram, i bow to you sir

[ramblur]

Can I press you for some more clarification please Ramblur, if you can be bothered, since I suspect you've been over all this before.

""The LOG put in £7m of their own cash Season 2006/7 to fund team strengthening" - I presume this wasn't a cash gift to DCFC, so how was the money paid?

The LOG said they inherited a debt of £50+ million from the Amigos, so what was the debt figure showing in the 06/07 Accounts?

So, IF we hadn't got promotion, no Earnshaw fee paid out, so only £2.5 million left owing on transfer fees, almost covered by £2mill rights issue. But, Seth Johnson retired through injury, Giles Barnes missed most of 2007/8 season through injury. I would contend that the team was actually weakened by the Jan 2007 transfer dealings, so I think it's highly presumptuous to assume that a little 'fine tuning' would have us back in contention for promotion. Bywater, Leacock & Pearson have been involved in 4 straight relegation fights after the play-off season. McEveley & Teale in 3. Howard & Oakley were signed by Leicester to spearhead a promotion push, but actually got relegated instead. The promotion team was never that strong - that's why it struggled so pathetically in the Premiership.

In any case, who would be the Manager? Billy D would be screaming for more,more,more money for transfers/Ned Kelly. Would the LOG have stayed together at this point?

There is no relevance! At no point have I suggested any financial impropriety by the LOG. The last paragraph doesn't even mention the LOG - I think you might be a tad too sensitive on this subject Ramblur.

I just threw out a 'what if' scenario for the heck of it - if we'd been promoted 2004/5 under Burley/Amigos what would have happened to DCFC? Where might we be now? I assume that the debt at season's end 04/05 was much less than that inherited by LOG in 2006. So, if we'd been promoted 04/05, could, or would, the Amigos have wiped out much/all of the debt they'd loaded on the club? Who knows - who cares!!!!

The share capital of £6m was held within Gellaw,and then transferred to DCFC via an inter group loan,the £1m Gadsby loan was direct to DCFC.Out of this £7m,£2 purchased the initial share capital and the legal expenses were also capitalised.This meant that a net total of £6.896m made its way to DCFC Ltd.It is technically classed as debt and designated to be repaid in 5 years+ .In reality,it would almost certainly simply roll over on maturity.Net debt at the end of 06/07 is quoted as £30.177m,which includes the £6.896m.

Interest on the Gadsby loan appeared to amount to £1k (0.1%),whilst nominal interest on the £6m appeared to be restricted to an amount required to pay the admin expenses within Gellaw (£11k for that year).It always amuses me when people talk about "gifts"-nobody gifts clubs money,direct share capital isn't a gift in the same way that loan capital isn't.You hope to (at least) recoup your cash if and when you sell.

You put up a lot of "ifs".What if the Prem season wrecked confidence?What if the side had got stronger organically with a second championship season?What if the LOG would have been willing to invest even more money over a 3 yr plan?You can't construct a scenario of financial meltdown(if promotion hadn't come instantly) based on a string of "ifs" that you want to go in favour of your argument.

[mice_elf]

The share capital of £6m was held within Gellaw,and then transferred to DCFC via an inter group loan,the £1m Gadsby loan was direct to DCFC.Out of this £7m,£2 purchased the initial share capital and the legal expenses were also capitalised.This meant that a net total of £6.896m made its way to DCFC Ltd.It is technically classed as debt and designated to be repaid in 5 years+ .In reality,it would almost certainly simply roll over on maturity.Net debt at the end of 06/07 is quoted as £30.177m,which includes the £6.896m.

Thanks for the info Ramblur.

So, if I've understood you correctly, the LOG put money into a company called Gellaw, which was then loaned to DCFC Ltd (less admin. costs), who used it to fund incoming transfers, thereby increasing DCFC Ltd's net debt by £6.896million.

[ramblur]

Thanks for the info Ramblur.

So, if I've understood you correctly, the LOG put money into a company called Gellaw, which was then loaned to DCFC Ltd (less admin. costs), who used it to fund incoming transfers, thereby increasing DCFC Ltd's net debt by £6.896million.

Yeh,I knew that one was coming.Hardly a "debt" that threatened the existence of the club.We don't know when it was technically repayable,but let's say it was the minimum of 5 years.Imagine the picture in the boardroom in 2012-weeping directors saying they've no choice but to call in the receivers.

Perhaps the threatening debt might have been the short term variety owed to financial institutions at a juicy interest rate.Now who rid us of this albatross?

There's very little difference between long term loan capital at negligible interest and pure equity.

Like many others,I've often dreamed of a massive Euromillions win and a chance to buy the club.After reading varius forums for over a year,I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole (and I mean that sincerely).

[Ramalama]

Thanks for the info Ramblur.

So, if I've understood you correctly, the LOG put money into a company called Gellaw, which was then loaned to DCFC Ltd (less admin. costs), who used it to fund incoming transfers, thereby increasing DCFC Ltd's net debt by £6.896million.

Almost all companies use debt for cashflow, nothing unusual in that.