davenportram Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Maybe, but I reckon the timing of the bid, about a year before final planning permission was granted, which focused on the development may have had something to do with rights expiring. If PG really cares about the club and fans would he take money out if the club to sell them the rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I am frustrated, greatly. However, I can't argue with what the Americans are doing, they're running the club correctly and the management are doing what they think is right to improve the side and making changes to help us improve, which we can't judge half way through pre-season it's just daft. Let's see what happens in the coming week, but as mentioned be careful what you ask for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Has it never occurred to you that the owners might have bought the rights off Gadsby? You seem to think these rights expired-have you any evidence for this?We're not talking planning consent here.I don't know the answer,but just maybe a potential impasse between the owners and PG might have been resolved,thus fixing a situation that was benefitting neither party. This imo is why football is dying nowadays no pride and passion just facts and money,not having a go at either poster just my intrest is slowly dying in the game when the off field antics weather it be a piece of land or who gets 200k plus takes over the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 This imo is why football is dying nowadays no pride and passion just facts and money,not having a go at either poster just my intrest is slowly dying in the game when the off field antics weather it be a piece of land or who gets 200k plus takes over the game. The sad thing is,Neo,that this administration has brought finances to the fore,the reason being that they'd rather talk about something they see as more positive than the cumulative on pitch matters during their tenure.Believe me I loathe accountancy and it bores me to death,but I've cared about this club for many,many years and someone has to evaluate/examine what they're telling us.I said on the DET forum,and I'll repeat it now,at the next change of ownership I'll never again undertake this task Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The sad thing is,Neo,that this administration has brought finances to the fore,the reason being that they'd rather talk about something they see as more positive than the cumulative on pitch matters during their tenure.Believe me I loathe accountancy and it bores me to death,but I've cared about this club for many,many years and someone has to evaluate/examine what they're telling us.I said on the DET forum,and I'll repeat it now,at the next change of ownership I'll never again undertake this task Lol i remember your posts and the stick you got ,im glad some people look at it ,i just want the 70s football back no high wagers and players that care,im sure someone will pull me up on that but the modern game is to much finance for my liking . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Maybe, but I reckon the timing of the bid, about a year before final planning permission was granted, which focused on the development may have had something to do with rights expiring. If PG really cares about the club and fans would he take money out if the club to sell them the rights? For months on end you've been bringing up this point in an attempt to deride someone when you've absolutely no idea what the actual facts of the situation are. If he did indeed sell the rights,then he'd be taking money out of the investors' pockets.As PG sold most of his shares at par to AP,who would then presumably benefit more by the takeover than PG,it may be that the rights were PG's compensation for this.If this were correct (and I don't know),then he would be entitled to recompense should he be unable to exercise such rights-it would just constitute his (delayed) consideration,probably bringing him in line with the rest (none of whom made the vast amounts some seem to think). People seem to forget that any ownerhip group at any given point owns everything to do with the club.When the LOG gained promotion,the vast income that was generated was their money and they chose to invest in the club.They could have taken a big profit and shown two fingers,so it's a bit rich talking about "caring". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Lol i remember your posts and the stick you got ,im glad some people look at it ,i just want the 70s football back no high wagers and players that care,im sure someone will pull me up on that but the modern game is to much finance for my liking . I'll second that.I'm old enough to remember with genuine affection the early sixties.I detest what Sky has done to the game.I hate the fact that after producing many greats for decade after decade,Scotland can't produce one these days.Has the influx of foreign players into the Scottish leagues brought about this situation?Are these leagues better than those I fondly remember?I think not,yet some seem to think our problems would be solved by bringing in foreign players.I remember having a difference of opinion with "Ramms" some time ago over Tito.He talked of us signing an exciting Argentinian.My take was that we'd signed a player who was born in Argentina (or of Argentinian parentage)-a country that probably produces as much mediocracy and dross as the next (along with the greats). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'll second that.I'm old enough to remember with genuine affection the early sixties.I detest what Sky has done to the game.I hate the fact that after producing many greats for decade after decade,Scotland can't produce one these days.Has the influx of foreign players into the Scottish leagues brought about this situation?Are these leagues better than those I fondly remember?I think not,yet some seem to think our problems would be solved by bringing in foreign players.I remember having a difference of opinion with "Ramms" some time ago over Tito.He talked of us signing an exciting Argentinian.My take was that we'd signed a player who was born in Argentina (or of Argentinian parentage)-a country that probably produces as much mediocracy and dross as the next (along with the greats). I like that post although im more a late 60s guy you old fart,sky has so much to answer for imo making players think(with the money on offer)better than what they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 You know, if you say we're a big club for our support....... We're a friggin tiny club when we play away then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ramblur nice to hear from you hope you are well at the moment.I have to plead guilty to starting this discussion on the LOG.I never meant to because its been done before.I only responded to unfounded criticisms of Peter Gadsby by a couple of people.Then a poster called Davenport joined in muddying the waters with his IMO views that just confuse the issue.Unfortunately my broadband paced up all afternoon yesterday and i've only just caught up.Davenport never gives Gadsby and LOG any credit for what they did in a very short time.He will always defend by any amount of spin etc. all the decisions taken by the present board and owners. Strange! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ramblur nice to hear from you hope you are well at the moment.I have to plead guilty to starting this discussion on the LOG.I never meant to because its been done before.I only responded to unfounded criticisms of Peter Gadsby by a couple of people.Then a poster called Davenport joined in muddying the waters with his IMO views that just confuse the issue.Unfortunately my broadband paced up all afternoon yesterday and i've only just caught up.Davenport never gives Gadsby and LOG any credit for what they did in a very short time.He will always defend by any amount of spin etc. all the decisions taken by the present board and owners. Strange! Hmmm.... let me think give Gadsby credit - yep I have given him credit for saving the club and getting us promoted. I have criticised him for other things like his bid last year which appeared to me to be more about developing the land around pride park and the plaza than the club. He couldnt fund the club last time he was involved and I don't think much has changed since. As for defending any spin - I just offer an alternative to the anti yank bile that a lot of posters spout ( and I suppose you can add the anti-clough vitriol from some too "a player is leaving he must have fallen out with clough" or a "why doesnt clough play xxxxxx he must have fallen out with the player" are two of my favourite lines used) and i have been known to criticise the board too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDCC Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hmmm.... let me think give Gadsby credit - yep I have given him credit for saving the club and getting us promoted. I have criticised him for other things like his bid last year which appeared to me to be more about developing the land around pride park and the plaza than the club. He couldnt fund the club last time he was involved and I don't think much has changed since. As for defending any spin - I just offer an alternative to the anti yank bile that a lot of posters spout ( and I suppose you can add the anti-clough vitriol from some too "a player is leaving he must have fallen out with clough" or a "why doesnt clough play xxxxxx he must have fallen out with the player" are two of my favourite lines used) and i have been known to criticise the board too. Do you think then the current board are doing well for the fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 In some areas I think they are providing reasonably priced tickets for those that wish to attend - providing lots of different ways to pay and watch the matches. I don't think the playing side of things is a focus for them, nor by the looks of it is making any money because the club is loss making. (Although GSE who are not the owners get paid regardless) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ramblur nice to hear from you hope you are well at the moment.I have to plead guilty to starting this discussion on the LOG.I never meant to because its been done before.I only responded to unfounded criticisms of Peter Gadsby by a couple of people.Then a poster called Davenport joined in muddying the waters with his IMO views that just confuse the issue.Unfortunately my broadband paced up all afternoon yesterday and i've only just caught up.Davenport never gives Gadsby and LOG any credit for what they did in a very short time.He will always defend by any amount of spin etc. all the decisions taken by the present board and owners. Strange! To be fair there are not many posters with balanced views, and Im sure that pro board posters would claim the same about people like me who believe that the current set up is not good for Derby. I dont think as yet either camp can be proved right, there seems to be a bigger swing towards the anti board brigade since the Shackell departure, but one or two good players being brought in and everyting will change again. I can actually see it being a long painfull season, I dont believe that we will spend all the cash that we brought in for Shackell, and the imminent arrival of cash down the road could firmly tip the balance should results not go in our favour at the start of the season. I hope Im wrong on all accounts though, and the pro board posters are able to live off "I told you so" for many a season :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 They are robbing b*stards. We are only going to get a free CB and a loan striker in, that 1.1m has gone to America... I think you will find they put millions in and nothing out. How do you come to your conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 To be fair there are not many posters with balanced views, and Im sure that pro board posters would claim the same about people like me who believe that the current set up is not good for Derby. I dont think as yet either camp can be proved right, there seems to be a bigger swing towards the anti board brigade since the Shackell departure, but one or two good players being brought in and everyting will change again. I can actually see it being a long painfull season, I dont believe that we will spend all the cash that we brought in for Shackell, and the imminent arrival of cash down the road could firmly tip the balance should results not go in our favour at the start of the season. I hope Im wrong on all accounts though, and the pro board posters are able to live off "I told you so" for many a season :-) I agree with you. I have been accused of being proboard, on the board, from Florida and a closet septic. I am none of these. I am however someone who is a lifelong DCFC fan and whilst I don't agree with everything the club does and says doesn't agree with bashing everything that comes out of it. I also don't think that there is some local business man who us able to fund the club enough to be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The last bit wasnt meant as a pop at Leeds Ram it was merely stating my position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The last bit wasbt meant as a pop at Leeds Ram it was merely stating my position I wouldnt take offence even if it was 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 As always I'm sure ramblur will confirm any financial questions but as I understand it the owners have pumped in c.£16m pounds of cash to cover losses, plus an additional X (c.£2m?) that was the interest-free loan (Doughty style?). [That's just what I'm remembering what was said off the top of my head, I didn't really go through the latest accounts myself.] Whilst I was able to identify the split between covering losses/capital expenditure/adding to cash reserves for 10/11,it's not so easy to do for prior years,Martyn. In 08/09 the administration took out new borrowing in excess of £9m,so although they injected capital of their own as well it's impossible to say which did what -either could have funded losses/either could have funded capital expenditure.The following year we don't know what repaid that loan-AA claimed investors,whereas AP seemed to contradict this by claiming it was the second chute payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Whilst I was able to identify the split between covering losses/capital expenditure/adding to cash reserves for 10/11,it's not so easy to do for prior years,Martyn. In 08/09 the administration took out new borrowing in excess of £9m,so although they injected capital of their own as well it's impossible to say which did what -either could have funded losses/either could have funded capital expenditure.The following year we don't know what repaid that loan-AA claimed investors,whereas AP seemed to contradict this by claiming it was the second chute payment. Thanks RB. I thought you'd identified all the capital the owners had put in so far? Only the amount in the last accounts was treated as an interest-free loan I thought? I know the club has taken out other loans but I was just talking about what had come through the parent companies (Gellaw/General Sports). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.