Mel Morris bought Pride Park from the club for £81m in June 2018.
That sale allowed the Rams to turn a projected loss into a profit, which meant they avoided breaching the limit for allowable losses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I now understand that they have secured a loan against the collateral provided by the Ground (presumably up to 81 million?).
Help, I don't get it - does anyone out there know what is going on?
I know that selling the ground is not against EFL rules (but putting the sale into the wrong accounting year is as Sheff Wed found out when discovered)
But if Derby sold the ground and then took in the profit (81 million to offset losses and stay within FFP) then can it be right that the same Club then profits a second time by utilising the ground as collateral for a loan?
Totally perplexed but can it be that Derby have found two legitimate loopholes in evading FFP?
Comments
The only other option is they sold it for 81m and then bought it back for a far smaller sum. That may be a loophole, but it needs to be closed ASAP or FFP is dead. Any yeah might be overspending, just sell your ground to yourself for the amount you've overspent, and then buy it back for a penny. Rinse and repeat
Are you sure you were in Derby?
This was in the Premier League days obviously. Early 2000's, so almost 20 years ago.
Whats to stop a team saying all personnel are coaches and thereby get round the rules?
Or. The LTD Company that owns Pride Park has given a lender a third party charge over Pride Park as collateral for a loan in Derby's name.
Both easily done.
Derby are in big trouble if not promoted in the next couple of years with the liabilities they are taking on... Foolish to the extreme.
but if the ground was sold for £81 million and the loan secured against the ground as collateral was £30 million doesn't this suggest that the latter figure of £30 million reflects a truer figure for the ground's worth?
In other words - the lender (evidently Michael Dell's NY investments firm according to @Dansk_Red ) is prepared to lend £30 million but in the event of something going wrong with repayment he can expect to take ownership of the ground with a recouping value of £30 million - not £81 million.
If this was the case and the ground sale was over-inflated to the tune of £51 million then the EFL been 'done' on their profitability and sustainability rules to the tune of £51 million.
They (the EFL) keep reminding us that it is not against the rules to sell the ground but as others have posted - what is to stop an owner from selling the ground at a ridiculous over-inflated price? The EFL have no control over that.
On the face of it - Derby have not only sold the ground at an over-inflated price but have then doubled-down by securing a £30 million loan against its true value thus revealing the whole sordid underlying chicanery.
No doubt its all legal I'm sure ....and if you can get away with it ---------?? - over to you EFL to sit on your hands and say there is nothing you can do.
BTW to add insult to injury - if Derby did make it to the Prem having gambled all this on doing so then as long as they stayed in the Prem they would avoid any EFL FFP sanctions coming into effect until and unless they dropped back into the Championship.
At least, I believe that to be the case and is precisely I think what happened in the case of QPR - massively overspent to get a season in the Prem and then used the TV profits gained there to pay the EFL FFP fine when they came back down with no points deduction applied.
Hope you are well btw.
" None so blind......"