Rams post latest accounts

[ramblur]

'He said the board - which includes a woman for the first time - has invested a total of 25 million pounds, shared equally.'

Easy to see how figures quoted in the media can be misconstrued. That is why I have never bought into the board promised us £50million argument.

...and the part I quoted is an expansion of the bit you quoted.Thus the journalist reporting knew that the £25m included commitments as well as cash.Hence your earlier suggestion that the LOG deliberately misled the media into thinking they were all going to put in £5m cash doesn't hold water.

[PeteDerby]

'He said the board - which includes a woman for the first time - has invested a total of 25 million pounds, shared equally.'

Easy to see how figures quoted in the media can be misconstrued. That is why I have never bought into the board promised us £50million argument.

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Gadsby-says-money-let-buy-Rams/article-240136-detail/article.html

I dare you to call Gadsby a liar. I think he might have been a teeny weeny bit closer to the deal than you me owd fruit bat.

[davenportram]

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Gadsby-says-money-let-buy-Rams/article-240136-detail/article.html

I dare you to call Gadsby a liar. I think he might have been a teeny weeny bit closer to the deal than you me owd fruit bat.

"Following my appointment as a non-executive director at the time of the club’s takeover by GS&E in January this year, I repeatedly sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m – £18m to purchase shares, £22m to clear debts and £10m for new signings – were being honoured,†he said.

No need to call him a liar Pete, he is talking about the PUBLIC pledges, the same ones you talk about all the time. He doesn't say anything there that is different to you, nor discloses any inside knowledge of the deal either, all he says later on is that he Pearson and the other investors took on trust the pledges of the Americans. No mention of figures or if he is still referring to public pledges or private ones of undisclosed amounts.

[Guest]

...and the part I quoted is an expansion of the bit you quoted.Thus the journalist reporting knew that the £25m included commitments as well as cash.Hence your earlier suggestion that the LOG deliberately misled the media into thinking they were all going to put in £5m cash doesn't hold water.

Did not mean to suggest that they deliberately misled the media, just that the way media reports things can give people the wrong impression. I think this is proved by the fact that a lot of people believed LOG had pumped £25million of their own money into the club.

If it was that easy for the reports of the LOG takeover finances to be misconstrued is it just as plausible that the same may of happened with the GSE takeover?!

[Guest]

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Gadsby-says-money-let-buy-Rams/article-240136-detail/article.html

I dare you to call Gadsby a liar. I think he might have been a teeny weeny bit closer to the deal than you me owd fruit bat.

Sorry I stopped playing dare shortly after leaving junior school.

I have never called anyone a liar just said that media reporting can lead to people being misquoted or financial figures being misrepresented (hence why you thought LOG had put £5million in to the club each).

If I did call Gadsby a liar (which I have no intention of doing) this would be no different to you calling Glick a liar....and I think he may of been a teeny weeny bit closer to the deal than you me owd fruit bat.

[ramblur]

Did not mean to suggest that they deliberately misled the media, just that the way media reports things can give people the wrong impression. I think this is proved by the fact that a lot of people believed LOG had pumped £25million of their own money into the club.

If it was that easy for the reports of the LOG takeover finances to be misconstrued is it just as plausible that the same may of happened with the GSE takeover?!

You said:-

"You and I both know the media was led to believe that £25 million was the figure that was put in by the directors"

This is rather different to saying that fans were misled by media reports.

As far as the GSE takeover goes,there appears to be little ambiguity in media reports of £x to pay off debt and £y for new players.So rather than fans being misled by the media,it appears that the media were misled.

Right sentiments,wrong takeover.

[Guest]

You said:-

"You and I both know the media was led to believe that £25 million was the figure that was put in by the directors"

This is rather different to saying that fans were misled by media reports.

As far as the GSE takeover goes,there appears to be little ambiguity in media reports of £x to pay off debt and £y for new players.So rather than fans being misled by the media,it appears that the media were misled.

Right sentiments,wrong takeover.

The very quote which I highlighted in a previous post shows that the media were reporting that £25million was put into the club, people skimming over an article like that could quite easily just see that hence why people still to this day think LOG put £25million in to the club.

I don't, at any time, remember LOG coming out and putting the record staright. Show me any interview where this was done and I will accept that I was wrong.

I also, at any time, haven't heard GSE come out and promise fans £18million for purchase £22million to clear debts and £10million for players.

Show me any interview where this was done and I will accept that I was wrong.

I still don't understand how a bunch of loca businessmen/women who are Derby fans put £7million into our club and are heaped with praise, yet some businessmen from America put in £20something million yet are just met with criticism and abuse.

[PeteDerby]

"Following my appointment as a non-executive director at the time of the club’s takeover by GS&E in January this year, I repeatedly sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m – £18m to purchase shares, £22m to clear debts and £10m for new signings – were being honoured,†he said.

No need to call him a liar Pete, he is talking about the PUBLIC pledges, the same ones you talk about all the time. He doesn't say anything there that is different to you, nor discloses any inside knowledge of the deal either, all he says later on is that he Pearson and the other investors took on trust the pledges of the Americans. No mention of figures or if he is still referring to public pledges or private ones of undisclosed amounts.

The words "...sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m " are the biggest clue.

I heard and read the public pledges - posted endless links to the same on the old DET site, and in this public statement, Peter Gadsby clearly references the same public pledges.

So, have I missed something here, or are both of you now calling Gadsby a liar, in that there were no public pledges of £50million?

[PeteDerby]

I still don't understand how a bunch of loca businessmen/women who are Derby fans put £7million into our club and are heaped with praise, yet some businessmen from America put in £20something million yet are just met with criticism and abuse.

You're right, you don't understand - and that's why you keep missing the point.

Derby's debts were £31million and facing foreclosure by the Co-op bank. You reckon to know something about accounts, so you'll know that if they can't pay their debts when they fall due, the business is insolvent.

People heap praise on the LOG, because they saved us from going out of business, by taking on personal liabilities which amounted to c£5million each, as Ramblur clearly explained to you.

Had their skill in negotiation not resulted in those debts being largely written off, then they would have had to fork out the hard cash. Whether they saved themselves from having to do that by showing far higher negiotiating skills that the previous owners did, or by writing a cheque, it matters not one flying fck! DCFC owed the money to creditors and, because of the LOG, that debt went away.

Beyond this, they put enough money into team development to fund a promotion. Proof? We got promoted!

Where it went tits up of course was after that, so they sold out to GSE who were publicly heralded as coming in with a £50million investment.

Which brings us back to the point. Are you accusing Peter Gadsby of lying when he said in this public statement that there were public pledges of a £50million investment by GSE?

You keep saying you don't believe it, I have put a public article in front of you which you refute as the truth, so that would appear to mean that you believe Peter Gadsby wasn't telling the truth?>

[davenportram]

The words "...sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m " are the biggest clue.

I heard and read the public pledges - posted endless links to the same on the old DET site, and in this public statement, Peter Gadsby clearly references the same public pledges.

So, have I missed something here, or are both of you now calling Gadsby a liar, in that there were no public pledges of £50million?

I didn't say there weren't any public pledges, nor did I call Gadsby a liar. You implied that in the article Gadsby had given details he knew because he was closer to the deal than G. I just pointed out that the article provides nothing of the sort, merely that it confirms JUST the public pledges that were already known about

[PeteDerby]

Daveo - I said 'one of us' and I mean one of us. In other words, it could easily be me being 'thick as two short planks'. Do you not think warning me for challenging my own intelligence is a little 'nanny state'.

[Day]

Daveo - I said 'one of us' and I mean one of us. In other words, it could easily be me being 'thick as two short planks'. Do you not think warning me for challenging my own intelligence is a little 'nanny state'.

I was in the middle of a phone call at the time, if I misunderstood what you wrote then I apologise. It came across as it was aimed at Dav.

[PeteDerby]

I didn't say there weren't any public pledges, nor did I call Gadsby a liar. You implied that in the article Gadsby had given details he knew because he was closer to the deal than G. I just pointed out that the article provides nothing of the sort, merely that it confirms JUST the public pledges that were already known about

I'm just going to have to leave this one, Dav because I really don't get what you don't get. Gadsby was the outgoing chair. Do you really believe he is going to libel himself by quoting actual numbers if they weren't true?

Don't you think it strange that all GSE said in response was that it was 'against policy' to discuss the matter?

I honestly and truthfully can not for the life of me understand what you and G-Star Ram are defending here. I really don't understand why he constantly comes on here pouring doubt about the value the LOG added to Derby County, whilst bigging up GSE.

And look, in any event, it's all been raked over time and time again anyway, and it was only the latter's bringing up of the LOG investment in his earlier post in this thread that has brought the issue back up.

I'm out.

[ramblur]

The very quote which I highlighted in a previous post shows that the media were reporting that £25million was put into the club, people skimming over an article like that could quite easily just see that hence why people still to this day think LOG put £25million in to the club.

I don't, at any time, remember LOG coming out and putting the record staright. Show me any interview where this was done and I will accept that I was wrong.

I also, at any time, haven't heard GSE come out and promise fans £18million for purchase £22million to clear debts and £10million for players.

Show me any interview where this was done and I will accept that I was wrong.

I still don't understand how a bunch of loca businessmen/women who are Derby fans put £7million into our club and are heaped with praise, yet some businessmen from America put in £20something million yet are just met with criticism and abuse.

The simple fact is that you said the media were misled by Gadsby and this is palpably wrong,no matter how much you wriggle and attempt to shift the goalposts.If fans form an opinion just by "skimming" over an article relating to such an important event,then I've no sympathy for them.(and in any event it's completely irrelevant to your original proposition)

The £7.15m that the LOG put in compares favourably with the £7.74m our current owners put in over the equivalent period of their tenure,the difference being that the LOG achieved promotion,with all the ensuing riches this brought.

With regards to our owners,I'll give you 3 facts:-

1)They say the debt on signature was £31m.

2)They say that £10.4m of debt was repaid out of the first parachute payment (earned by the LOG).

3)The debt as at 30/6/10,as quoted in the accounts,stood at £20.307m.

If required,I can easily provide a link to the first 2,just as I can easily point out where the third item appears in the accounts.

How does our current squad of players (that we actually own) compare to that the LOG left as a legacy? (you can even compare to the LOG's promotion squad).

I venture to suggest that the reason fans criticise our current owners is that the last few years has been like watching a hamster running 20 million+ miles in its wheel and getting nowhere (being generous).

[davenportram]

I'm just going to have to leave this one, Dav because I really don't get what you don't get. Gadsby was the outgoing chair. Do you really believe he is going to libel himself by quoting actual numbers if they weren't true?

Don't you think it strange that all GSE said in response was that it was 'against policy' to discuss the matter?

I honestly and truthfully can not for the life of me understand what you and G-Star Ram are defending here. I really don't understand why he constantly comes on here pouring doubt about the value the LOG added to Derby County, whilst bigging up GSE.

And look, in any event, it's all been raked over time and time again anyway, and it was only the latter's bringing up of the LOG investment in his earlier post in this thread that has brought the issue back up.

I'm out.

The the thing is though the numbers he quotes were already in the public domain as they are the PUBLIC pledges, and not disputed by GSE, No risk of libelling himself at all. Had he quoted the figures as being pledges made privately between the incoming board and himself and other shareholders then he would have risked libelling himself or breaching any confidentiality agreements.

I'm not defending anything, just pointing out that your belief that Gadsby quoting figures already in the public domain does not provide any new information as you implied with your Closer to the deal remark. Nor does saying promises weren't made by GSE mean someone us calling Gadsby a liar.

[Guest]

The words "...sought confirmation that public pledges of an investment of £50m " are the biggest clue.

I heard and read the public pledges - posted endless links to the same on the old DET site, and in this public statement, Peter Gadsby clearly references the same public pledges.

So, have I missed something here, or are both of you now calling Gadsby a liar, in that there were no public pledges of £50million?

If you heard it please point me in the direction of the interview and we can put it to bed.

[Guest]

You're right, you don't understand - and that's why you keep missing the point.

Derby's debts were £31million and facing foreclosure by the Co-op bank. You reckon to know something about accounts, so you'll know that if they can't pay their debts when they fall due, the business is insolvent.

People heap praise on the LOG, because they saved us from going out of business, by taking on personal liabilities which amounted to c£5million each, as Ramblur clearly explained to you.

Had their skill in negotiation not resulted in those debts being largely written off, then they would have had to fork out the hard cash. Whether they saved themselves from having to do that by showing far higher negiotiating skills that the previous owners did, or by writing a cheque, it matters not one flying fck! DCFC owed the money to creditors and, because of the LOG, that debt went away.

Beyond this, they put enough money into team development to fund a promotion. Proof? We got promoted!

Where it went tits up of course was after that, so they sold out to GSE who were publicly heralded as coming in with a £50million investment.

Which brings us back to the point. Are you accusing Peter Gadsby of lying when he said in this public statement that there were public pledges of a £50million investment by GSE?

You keep saying you don't believe it, I have put a public article in front of you which you refute as the truth, so that would appear to mean that you believe Peter Gadsby wasn't telling the truth?>

What were Derbys debts when GSE took over?

[Guest]

I'm just going to have to leave this one, Dav because I really don't get what you don't get. Gadsby was the outgoing chair. Do you really believe he is going to libel himself by quoting actual numbers if they weren't true?

Don't you think it strange that all GSE said in response was that it was 'against policy' to discuss the matter?

I honestly and truthfully can not for the life of me understand what you and G-Star Ram are defending here. I really don't understand why he constantly comes on here pouring doubt about the value the LOG added to Derby County, whilst bigging up GSE.

And look, in any event, it's all been raked over time and time again anyway, and it was only the latter's bringing up of the LOG investment in his earlier post in this thread that has brought the issue back up.

If you want to know what I am defending, I am just pointing out that GSE put more of their own money in than LOG did. The fact is that we had a good manager at the time who managed to get us promoted and make the LOG investment look even more valuable.

And just to make it clear, I know as fans we should be eternally grateful for what LOG did at the time.