Derby find extra 30m from stadium sale

M

MBBoro

Member
EFLs own commission found stadium correct estimated value to be between 79 - 89m (Derby had valued at 82m in accounts) including depreciation over time and over 110m as a new stadium. Expect Derby will argue therefore that the stadium has had massive investment since first built and is actually in a much better state than first built.

30m adjustment is already appearing in 2018 accounta online, as reported by Kieran Maguire on twitter who has pretty much called the whole saga correct so far.

Hard to criticise a value that the EFL have independently verified with multiple expert witnesses, implication is does thia set a precedent for everyone increasing stadium values based on investment on upgrades (which seems valid tbf).
 
I don't know what has been improved in/on the Derby stadium, but it appears to look the same on TV as when it was built in 1997 for a cost of £22m?

I know land around it has been developed, but commercial land is losing value at present.

Its hard to believe a stadium that cost £22m could be worth £82m - 22 years on. (say in 2019)
 
Sports stadia are notoriously difficult to value. Historic cost vs replacement cost is a fairly conventional valuation issue. Market values are additionally complicated by the fact that they rarely have alternative uses as sports grounds - look at Darlo! Realistically, the Riverside is approximately worthless without the Boro playing there.
 
I am much more bothered about writing off impairment and amortisation fiddles as Stoke have just done blaming COVID.
Unbelievably cynical move by the Coates family.
 
Redwurzel said:
I don't know what has been improved in/on the Derby stadium, but it appears to look the same on TV as when it was built in 1997 for a cost of £22m?

I know land around it has been developed, but commercial land is losing value at present.

Its hard to believe a stadium that cost £22m could be worth £82m - 22 years on. (say in 2019)
Click to expand...
Could it be the land that the stadium is built on has increased in value? So instead of the Stadium being worth £82m the land is worth £82m?
 
The football authorities should just scrap the whole ffp debacle and allow club owners to put what they want in.

Fans complain when money doesn’t get spent, the majority of fans couldn’t really care less if the club went bust in the pursuit of glory. The club would start again and the fans would follow.
 
Subbuteo_171 said:
The football authorities should just scrap the whole ffp debacle and allow club owners to put what they want in.

Fans complain when money doesn’t get spent, the majority of fans couldn’t really care less if the club went bust in the pursuit of glory. The club would start again and the fans would follow.
Click to expand...
It’s the knock on effect though. Totally unsustainable. Artificially inflated prices, folks businesses not getting paid (not just footballers etc) the tax payer getting shafted on top of that.

why not just enforce the rules to prevent criminal activity.
 
newyddion said:
It’s the knock on effect though. Totally unsustainable. Artificially inflated prices, folks businesses not getting paid (not just footballers etc) the tax payer getting shafted on top of that.

why not just enforce the rules to prevent criminal activity.
Click to expand...
The issue of local businesses not getting paid and the taxpayer problems exists regardless of those rules.

Its abundantly clear the authorities simply don’t have the capability to enforce their own rules, which means the rules are pointless. Just make it official and remove the farce.
 
A league wage cap would be better than scrapping ffp, can have as many players as you want but have to be within the cap!

You would also need to limit signing bonuses etc to count towards the limit.
 
Do you think further retrospective action is coming on their re-submitted accounts? Because that could be 5 years of penalties in one hit, couldn’t it?
 
Redwurzel said:
I don't know what has been improved in/on the Derby stadium, but it appears to look the same on TV as when it was built in 1997 for a cost of £22m?

I know land around it has been developed, but commercial land is losing value at present.

Its hard to believe a stadium that cost £22m could be worth £82m - 22 years on. (say in 2019)
Click to expand...
Depreciated Replacement Cost is a standard valuation method for assets with little comparable evidence.

It isn't that it cost £22m to build 22 years ago, it is that it would cost c.£xm to build it now in its current condition plus the current value of the land.
 
"A number of reasons for this were outlined, including failure to pay HM Revenue and Customs and also their players, not submitting their accounts on time - Derby did have permission from Companies House to file late, once the outcome of the case was known - and refusal to comply with EFL requests for profit and sustainability information."
​
That sounds an absolute mess. They're gonna struggle big time aren't they?
 
dnh81 said:
A league wage cap would be better than scrapping ffp, can have as many players as you want but have to be within the cap!

You would also need to limit signing bonuses etc to count towards the limit.
Click to expand...
A salary cap would be one of the most transformative things that could ever happen to football, which is why it probably won't ever happen.

With a salary cap it really would be a level playing field. Coaching, recruitment, youth development and convincing players to play for your club would become so important.

I follow NBA and like all US sports they have a wage cap. Superstars still get paid crazy money, but what's interesting is that young players get paid hardly anything for their first few years, then can switch teams and become their superstar on top wages, or the team they're with build around them. Salary is the biggest driver of transfers / trades and there's no transfer fees - contracts are league-wide. So you could shift a Britt after one season, but he'd still be getting paid 60k a week at his new club for the length of his contract. So if he's got a year left on his deal you have to swap a guy for someone who has the same salary, or a couple of guys to make the salary cap still work, or add some draft picks for potential new superstars. You can go over the salary cap and pay a (very prohibitive) luxury tax for a few seasons, and a few clubs specialise in taking over-paid players and trying to rehabilitate them while hoarding draft picks to get the best cheap young players.

You can put two superstars together but they will have to both accept a bit less money than they would get on a smaller team, to play together. So you could still have a Neymar and an Mbappe, but they'd both earn half of what they would do at Sunderland.

You also get really good older players who might play for, say, City, for minimum wage for a season to try and win trophies. That's really interesting.
 
jonny_greenings_sock said:
A salary cap would be one of the most transformative things that could ever happen to football, which is why it probably won't ever happen.

With a salary cap it really would be a level playing field. Coaching, recruitment, youth development and convincing players to play for your club would become so important.

I follow NBA and like all US sports they have a wage cap. Superstars still get paid crazy money, but what's interesting is that young players get paid hardly anything for their first few years, then can switch teams and become their superstar on top wages, or the team they're with build around them. Salary is the biggest driver of transfers / trades and there's no transfer fees - contracts are league-wide. So you could shift a Britt after one season, but he'd still be getting paid 60k a week at his new club for the length of his contract. So if he's got a year left on his deal you have to swap a guy for someone who has the same salary, or a couple of guys to make the salary cap still work, or add some draft picks for potential new superstars. You can go over the salary cap and pay a (very prohibitive) luxury tax for a few seasons, and a few clubs specialise in taking over-paid players and trying to rehabilitate them while hoarding draft picks to get the best cheap young players.

You can put two superstars together but they will have to both accept a bit less money than they would get on a smaller team, to play together. So you could still have a Neymar and an Mbappe, but they'd both earn half of what they would do at Sunderland.

You also get really good older players who might play for, say, City, for minimum wage for a season to try and win trophies. That's really interesting.
Click to expand...
That's what Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham wanted with the European Super League.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top