57 replies to this topic

[VulcanRam]

Glick runs the club on a day to day basis, to say he doesn't do anything is plain stupid. He works extremely hard, both at the club and also to promote it in the community - he's often seen at networking events and rarely turns down requests to help. He's been excellent for the club in terms of community relations.

I know I'm in the minority on here, but I think he's dong a good job in difficult circumstances. The ire against him over lack of funding for the team is completely misplaced, his job is to run the club to a budget which is influenced by the investment or otherwise of others.

My one criticism is over his dealings in the transfer market, but that's why I suppose they've been looking for a DoF.

As for spin, any CEO of any business will, and should, promote the positive side in relation to his company. That's basic PR. What do you expect him to do, slag off his employers in public? I wonder how long you'd be in a job if you did that?

[1996RAM]

I've not really read this topic , but i thought i'd add something i no... Glick did go over to the USA last year to try and get some more money but the investors ain't having any of it, don't no wether anyone else knows this just something i thought i'd add....

[trooper]

Met Glick last year, had chat with him on the train to palace, told him my thoughts on the board at the time but he remained polite and sat for 20/25 mins talking to me, he was even in cattle class,
Seemed a decent bloke to be honest and even told me that Tyson was 95% a derby player,
We say the board are the problem but to be honest I think they are doing a fairly decent job, I usually have a rant about them after we have had a big loss or a poor performance but generally I think they are doing ok in terms of where we are now financially off the pitch to as we were before they came,
When they took over it felt like we were about to go into administration ( I don't understand the financial mumbo jumbo so I just listen to ramblur as he seems to)
The only thing I don't like is the noises that come out of pride park, usually at st renewal time,
Id personally rather have a few seasons of cost cutting than to be unsure wether we still have a club in the mornings when I wake I.e rangers, Pompey, Darlington
BUT I think we should be playing a more attacking football, last year at times we were scoring for fun and every time we attacked we felt we would score, yes we need grafters but we have 22-28,000 fans that pay a lot of money to watch the club we LOVE and I feel that on the pitch we give nothing back,
Someone mentioned peterborough the other day and I agreed with what was said, I'd personally rather lose 4-3 one week and win 4-3 the following week than win 1-0 then lose 1-0, least posh fans are entertained, and our squad PROB costs more than there's did to build,
So I ask this, which would u prefer?
A team to lose then win 4-3 or the boring 1-0's if it's the 4-3's then it's not Glick that's at fault it's boring Nigel

[Boycie]

I'm not saying Glick does nothing, I'm merely asking the question. Then the debate follows.

I'm sure a fews opinions will change when they see what he does do every day.

[p.shilton]

trooper, on 23 February 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

Met Glick last year, had chat with him on the train to palace, told him my thoughts on the board at the time but he remained polite and sat for 20/25 mins talking to me, he was even in cattle class,
Seemed a decent bloke to be honest and even told me that Tyson was 95% a derby player,

Funny how things change- he's only about 65% a player now, but he is at Derby so I'll give him that

[ramblur]

trooper, on 23 February 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

Met Glick last year, had chat with him on the train to palace, told him my thoughts on the board at the time but he remained polite and sat for 20/25 mins talking to me, he was even in cattle class,
Seemed a decent bloke to be honest and even told me that Tyson was 95% a derby player,
We say the board are the problem but to be honest I think they are doing a fairly decent job, I usually have a rant about them after we have had a big loss or a poor performance but generally I think they are doing ok in terms of where we are now financially off the pitch to as we were before they came,
When they took over it felt like we were about to go into administration ( I don't understand the financial mumbo jumbo so I just listen to ramblur as he seems to)
The only thing I don't like is the noises that come out of pride park, usually at st renewal time,
Id personally rather have a few seasons of cost cutting than to be unsure wether we still have a club in the mornings when I wake I.e rangers, Pompey, Darlington
BUT I think we should be playing a more attacking football, last year at times we were scoring for fun and every time we attacked we felt we would score, yes we need grafters but we have 22-28,000 fans that pay a lot of money to watch the club we LOVE and I feel that on the pitch we give nothing back,
Someone mentioned peterborough the other day and I agreed with what was said, I'd personally rather lose 4-3 one week and win 4-3 the following week than win 1-0 then lose 1-0, least posh fans are entertained, and our squad PROB costs more than there's did to build,
So I ask this, which would u prefer?
A team to lose then win 4-3 or the boring 1-0's if it's the 4-3's then it's not Glick that's at fault it's boring Nigel

Sometimes I just throw my arms up in despair,trooper.Let's have a look at it using the words of the administration (I like that kind of thing).First some background info:-

Swiss Rambler showed that the first £7.7m cash injection came in 08/09,and I agree.This means that there was no cash introduced by the owners in the year to 30/6/08.The accounts show that the debt position at 30/6/08 was:-

Long term-£15.558m,Short term -£13.255m,HP £3k,Overdraft- £0.894m ,giving a total of £29.710m. Deduct £7.899m of cash and you get £21.811m of net debt. If the debt on takeover was £31m,then the actual debt had been reduced by £1.3m since,out of LOG income.

Now let's see what was said in August 08:-
http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

Pearson talks of a £6m debt reduction,but you may notice that he dates this from Jan 1st.There was a large overdraft at the start of that year,and it's quite likely that this may have been reduced by £4.7m between jan 1 and jan 25,as there would have been a substantial sky distribution.

Now onto the killer punch.You may notice that Pearson says everything bad possible about the £10.4m Five Arrows loan,yet neglects to mention that this transaction represents a £10.4m reduction of the original £31m debt ,and taken out of LOG generated funds.Therefore,the
£29.710m of debt now becomes £19.310m,with none of the reduction attributable to new cash from the owners.This payment was contracted,and even if Rupert Bear had been in the hot seat,he couldn't have prevented something jammed on autopilot.

Of course Pearson bemoans the reduction in the chute payment,but you'll notice he makes no mention whatsoever of the £7.899m brought forward from 07/08,nor the fact that this would probably have been higher than the £10.4m taken out by Five Arrows if cash hadn't been wasted in the Jan 08 splurge.

Therefore in essence the real LOG legacy consisted of £19.310m of debt,with 2 full parachute payments and 2 normal seasons' income to add (not forgetting a S/T base that was as high as regulations would allow) -hardly the stuff of administration so far.

Now onto impression creating time.In August 09 Appleby said that the investors had dug deep to clear £8m of debt.What he didn't make clear however was exactly what debt it was clearing-just left everyone to assume it was the original debt.But of course it couldn't have been original debt,because £19.31m minus £8m is less than the £15m PP loan.The answer is that they took on £9.135m of new debt in 08/09,secured against both chute payments -it seems likely that the balance of the first chute payment was used to reduce this debt a little.
It also appears that they may have cleared the balance of the original short term debt of £2.855m (hurrah),but also took on the £3m revolving loan (boo).

The next charge is that it was LOG Prem wages that landed us in the mire.The DET cashback piece gives Players' wages of £15.5m for 08/09.Because of this helpful information,we can get a flavour of the LOG element simply by deducting the wages of players brought in by the new administration,that featured in 08/09 (don't forget to add 12.8% employers' NIC-e.g Sav's £24k/wk becomes £27k).:-
Green, Sav,Tito,Sterjovsky,Carroll,Alby,Connolly,Hulse,Commons,Ellington,Stewart,S.Davies,Dickinson,Priovic,Zadkovich,Pereplotkins,Varney,Kaz,Barazite
Porter.They shaped the wage bill.Game,set and match.

[ramblur]

Link for the Appleby piece:-

http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

Pearson had earlier claimed on RD that the £8m came from the second chute payment,but RD archive links are hard to find.Given that the loan was secured to the chute payment,the Pearson version looks feasible.

[Pudding Jack]

you lost me sherlock...

[Abu Derby]

Does anyone know when Appleby is next going to shed his invisibility cloak?
He is after all our chairman who appears as often as a mummies doppelganger.
He should be held accountable to all Derby County fans, and needs to communicate clearly exactly what our plans are - in the near, medium and long term.
I think the very loyal fans of this club have been kept in the dark for far too long.

[trooper]

Thank u very much ramblur much appreciated

[ramblur]

Pudding Jack, on 24 February 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

you lost me sherlock...

Here you are then,I'll make it simple:-

£31m minus £10.4m minus £8m is less than £15m.Try that for starters.

[ramblur]

trooper, on 24 February 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Thank u very much ramblur much appreciated

No problem,trooper.

[Ontarianram]

Ramblur I remember your expertise from the old DET site and I still shamelessly quote you from time to time in other places, but I need to ask you one simple question so that I don't quote you incorrectly.

To the last set of published accounts, in your opinion exactly how much of their own cash have GSE/Board/Investors put into the Rams? I just need a figure.

And thanks again Ramblur; I'm glad you're posting again,

[RamOfKansas]

Joe, on 22 February 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

This week he's been busy sweeping the area at the front of the tunnel near the technical area while boasting about the voucher and free shirt available for all Season Ticket renewals.

That was perhaps a big mistake to show his real job. Definitely too revealing of himself. Then again, it's probably what he's used to. He ran primarily minor league baseball teams before and he probably actually had to be a janitor there.

[ramblur]

Ontarianram, on 25 February 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

Ramblur I remember your expertise from the old DET site and I still shamelessly quote you from time to time in other places, but I need to ask you one simple question so that I don't quote you incorrectly.

To the last set of published accounts, in your opinion exactly how much of their own cash have GSE/Board/Investors put into the Rams? I just need a figure.

And thanks again Ramblur; I'm glad you're posting again,

Hi Ontarianram.They put in £7.7m in 08/09,£6.6m in 09/10 and either £6.6m or £5.6m (depending on whether you read GS Derby UK or DCFC accounts) was signalled for 10/11 in the 09/10 directors' report.Therefore in terms of share capital,it's either £20.9m or £19.9m.There's also a GSE loan of £1.7m -this may have been repaid in 10/11 ,but we'll soon find out.

In total,including the Pearson buyout,they spent £16m for 100% of the club.We don't know if anything after the £6.6m/£5.6m was added,so don't go calling anyone a liar! However,the 09/10 amount was exactly as signalled in the 08/09 directors' report.

I suspect that the 10/11 figure is probably the £5.6m,as I suspect the £1m+ Pearson buyout may have been financed via an investor loan,hence £6.6m may have gone into GS Derby,with £5.6m going to DCFC and £1m to repay the loan,but I'm not sure about this as yet.

[Ontarianram]

Ah, thanks Ramblur. So in simple terms then GSE/Board/Investors paid £16m for the takeover of the club and have since injected either £20.9m or £19.9m into the club at best estimate. Reading your post about the LOG and Parachute payments, it is also interesting to see how debt repayment/generation can be framed pretty much any way you want it in terms of public perception. Great stuff as always.

I certainly hope you see the next set of accounts coming out shortly and give everyone your take on those as well; I'll await your post with interest!

[bourneyesterday]

ramblur, on 24 February 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Sometimes I just throw my arms up in despair,trooper.Let's have a look at it using the words of the administration (I like that kind of thing).First some background info:-

Swiss Rambler showed that the first £7.7m cash injection came in 08/09,and I agree.This means that there was no cash introduced by the owners in the year to 30/6/08.The accounts show that the debt position at 30/6/08 was:-

Long term-£15.558m,Short term -£13.255m,HP £3k,Overdraft- £0.894m ,giving a total of £29.710m. Deduct £7.899m of cash and you get £21.811m of net debt. If the debt on takeover was £31m,then the actual debt had been reduced by £1.3m since,out of LOG income.

Now let's see what was said in August 08:-
http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

Pearson talks of a £6m debt reduction,but you may notice that he dates this from Jan 1st.There was a large overdraft at the start of that year,and it's quite likely that this may have been reduced by £4.7m between jan 1 and jan 25,as there would have been a substantial sky distribution.

Now onto the killer punch.You may notice that Pearson says everything bad possible about the £10.4m Five Arrows loan,yet neglects to mention that this transaction represents a £10.4m reduction of the original £31m debt ,and taken out of LOG generated funds.Therefore,the
£29.710m of debt now becomes £19.310m,with none of the reduction attributable to new cash from the owners.This payment was contracted,and even if Rupert Bear had been in the hot seat,he couldn't have prevented something jammed on autopilot.

Of course Pearson bemoans the reduction in the chute payment,but you'll notice he makes no mention whatsoever of the £7.899m brought forward from 07/08,nor the fact that this would probably have been higher than the £10.4m taken out by Five Arrows if cash hadn't been wasted in the Jan 08 splurge.

Therefore in essence the real LOG legacy consisted of £19.310m of debt,with 2 full parachute payments and 2 normal seasons' income to add (not forgetting a S/T base that was as high as regulations would allow) -hardly the stuff of administration so far.

Now onto impression creating time.In August 09 Appleby said that the investors had dug deep to clear £8m of debt.What he didn't make clear however was exactly what debt it was clearing-just left everyone to assume it was the original debt.But of course it couldn't have been original debt,because £19.31m minus £8m is less than the £15m PP loan.The answer is that they took on £9.135m of new debt in 08/09,secured against both chute payments -it seems likely that the balance of the first chute payment was used to reduce this debt a little.
It also appears that they may have cleared the balance of the original short term debt of £2.855m (hurrah),but also took on the £3m revolving loan (boo).

The next charge is that it was LOG Prem wages that landed us in the mire.The DET cashback piece gives Players' wages of £15.5m for 08/09.Because of this helpful information,we can get a flavour of the LOG element simply by deducting the wages of players brought in by the new administration,that featured in 08/09 (don't forget to add 12.8% employers' NIC-e.g Sav's £24k/wk becomes £27k).:-
Green, Sav,Tito,Sterjovsky,Carroll,Alby,Connolly,Hulse,Commons,Ellington,Stewart,S.Davies,Dickinson,Priovic,Zadkovich,Pereplotkins,Varney,Kaz,Barazite
Porter.They shaped the wage bill.Game,set and match.

Thank god for some reality Ramblur, i am sick of the same crap being parroted out time and again " ooh we'll end up like Rangers, ooh we'll end up like Portsmouth"

No we won't, we have never spent the kind of money those two teams have on player fees and wages, even now Portsmouth have a bigger wage bill than us and they have been in administration twicw in two years.

Glick to be fair to him is just doing what he is paid to do, that is maximise the return on the investment made by his employers, the problem with this is that it conflicts with the wishes of some Derby fans to be able to watch players of a standard you might expect to see at the 12th best supported club in England.

If you have'nt renewed yet then don't, lets see who comes in first.

[Pudding Jack]

ramblur, on 24 February 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Here you are then,I'll make it simple:-

£31m minus £10.4m minus £8m is less than £15m.Try that for starters.

nah ...it sounds clever....and...i'm sure you're right but i got a big fat U for gcse maths..
heres my new MOTO..... LOVE FOOTBBALL HATE MATHS....and racism and that