• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Derby County deal expected to collapse

kildaremackem said:
yes..sveeral football club owners have..
my point is mel morris has been an idito but not done much morally wrong..most of things he did are things supporters on this board have called for uour various owners to do..
Click to expand...
You literally can't move on here for people who want our owners to sell the ground or file incorrect paperwork or anything that would put the club at risk like. 🙄
 

kildaremackem said:
its often been muted on here that the owner could do a fake ourchase of the ground as a way to put money in..
its often been said on here league rules dont matter cos they dont get enforeced...people then cite man city..who dont play in the same league as derby or sunderland
Click to expand...
No it hasn't.
 
Mackem00 said:
You literally can't move on here for people who want our owners to sell the ground or file incorrect paperwork or anything that would put the club at risk like. 🙄
Click to expand...
safc doesnt own the ground..derby and stoke have done fake ground sales...safc cant as it doesnt own the ground and never has..
 
qixman said:
Just wondering how the club secured loans against it in the past if they have never owned it?
Click to expand...
the loans went to madrox..which owns both the company which owns the stadium AND the company which owns the club..
just as under drumaville...that company owned both the company which owned the stadium and the company which owned the club...so far both companies have always been sold together..so the ownership has always remained in the same hands..but legally the club doesnt own the stadium..i think there is ven somehting in the accounts where the company that owns the club pays a nominal or theoritcal rent to the other company
 
kildaremackem said:
the loans went to madrox..which owns both the company which owns the stadium AND the company which owns the club..
just as under drumaville...that company owned both the company which owned the stadium and the company which owned the club...so far both companies have always been sold together..so the ownership has always remained in the same hands..but legally the club doesnt own the stadium..i think there is ven somehting in the accounts where the company that owns the club pays a nominal or theoritcal rent to the other company
Click to expand...
Ahh, cheers for the clarification.
 
kildaremackem said:
the loans went to madrox..which owns both the company which owns the stadium AND the company which owns the club..
just as under drumaville...that company owned both the company which owned the stadium and the company which owned the club...so far both companies have always been sold together..so the ownership has always remained in the same hands..but legally the club doesnt own the stadium..i think there is ven somehting in the accounts where the company that owns the club pays a nominal or theoritcal rent to the other company
Click to expand...
and the point of this is..when derby sold the satdium to its own owner..and when stoke did it adnd i think sheff weds...that enabled cash to go into the club from the onwer....but seperated the legal ownership of the ground from the club...SAFC can't do this as it already is sperate..what I think has happened at derby is...the football club company is in admin...but the stadium owning company may not be...so they are legally seperately owned..now the administrators run the football club company thats in admin..wbut someone else runs the stadium owning company..so two sets of people to negotiate with
 
Last edited:
Kevsgreat said:
I knew you'd say that. :lol:

You know what I mean though. I know they're technically owned by separate entities, I'm using 'the club' as a catchall. It's not like the assets and the football club are owned by different people.
Click to expand...
yuou are right about that..the potential significance is..
an woner cant put more cash in by "buying" the stadium "from" the club...as others have done...because the club already doesnt own the stadium...
 
kildaremackem said:
rthe stadium is not owned by the club now and has never been...
Click to expand...
The stadium is owned by Sunderland Limited, which owns 100% of the original SAFC Ltd. At any level above, and the Ladies are s separate subsidiary. At any level above pedantry too ludicrous for me, the club is the Sunderland Ltd group. You're simply hairsplitting in a totally argumentative way.

By the way, the current structure was set up by Bob Murray before the stadium was built, to function as a plc and allow fans to buy shares, all of whom lost out when your Irish mates compulsorily bought them my out.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The stadium is owned by Sunderland Limited, which owns 100% of the original SAFC Ltd. At any level above, and the Ladies are s separate subsidiary. At any level above pedantry too ludicrous for me, the club is the Sunderland Ltd group. You're simply hairsplitting in a totally argumentative way.

By the way, the current structure was set up by Bob Murray before the stadium was built, to function as a plc and allow fans to buy shares, all of whom lost out when your Irish mates compulsorily bought them my out.
Click to expand...
my point was a specific one...legally...the owner of the stadium is a different entity to the owner of the club..of course in almost all practical scenarios it matters not a jot.
 
kildaremackem said:
..and sartori said it was a late night call "because stewart tends to work lete into the night"..indicating he has worked closely enough with him to know his work patterns..
Click to expand...
That on its own doesn't mean anything.

I could ring you at 1am and when you complain on the time I could tell you I always work late. That opinion could be based on one call alone
 
Chubbs said:
That on its own doesn't mean anything.

I could ring you at 1am and when you complain on the time I could tell you I always work late. That opinion could be based on one call alone
Click to expand...
but the way he expressed the opinion wasnt like that..he expressed it like he knew from experience not because of something donald told him
 
kildaremackem said:
its only an issue in the narrow set of circumstances wqhere an owner might0as the derby owner did, decide to put cash into the club via purchase of the stadium-ie the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't stop it at all. An owner could simply buy the ground from Sunderland, who then issue shares in SAFC to the value of the sale, and Sunderland buy them with the sale proceeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top