‘ Derby Court Verdict ‘

Just seen on Sky sports that they’ve been cleared of inflating the value of their stadium in sale to ‘holding company’, and so all Championship clubs will have to pay £50k towards the court costs!! As if we didn’t hate them enough after Snowgate?!

FFP is a joke, has nothing to do with spending and everything to do with who finds the best loop holes..

SKY SPORTS



An Independent Disciplinary Commission has dismissed a charge brought against Derby related to the sale of Pride Park in 2018.

The Championship side have therefore avoided a points deduction for breaching Financial Fair Play rules.

Derby were charged in January for recording losses in excess of the permitted amounts for the three-year period ending June 30, 2018.

Central to the English Football League's charges was Derby's £80m sale of Pride Park to owner Mel Morris before the club leased it back.

But the independent disciplinary commission has ruled in Derby's favour.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Stinks Annis.

City should refuse to pay the £50k why should we, this is absolutely ridiculous, they are making it up as they go along. there are championship clubs that have not got £50k to pay, why should any club have to pay something that is nothing at all to do with them. Surely this is illegal, come on Vincent sort them out

Another whitewash, just like "snowgate". Talk about bringing the game into disrepute?

Scummers get away with it again. They are like fecking Teflon

City should refuse to pay the £50k why should we, this is absolutely ridiculous, they are making it up as they go along. there are championship clubs that have not got £50k to pay, why should any club have to pay something that is nothing at all to do with them. Surely this is illegal, come on Vincent sort them out

Spot On Mate .

Just another reason to scrap FFP.

I am amazed at this decision. Its so blatant what Derby have done and its not even subtle.

The holding company paid 80 million for the property and are now leasing it back to Derby for £1.2 million a year. This would give a rental yield of around 1.5% which is ridiculously low and certainly not commercial. To make matters worse no money has changed hands, the 80 million being shown as a debtor due by the holding company to the football club. Presumably the club are charging interest on this loan at £1.2 million thus cancelling out the lease payments, thus effectively leasing it for free.
And as the ground itself has no value at all, apart from the land, unless Derby County play there, who would ever pay £80 million for it.

The transaction makes no commercial sense whatsoever and its only purpose is to create a false profit in the football clubs accounts. Who the hell sat on this tribunal?


We were hit with a transfer embargo when Tan deferred the interest on his loan, which was far less blatant and false than this

I am amazed at this decision. Its so blatant what Derby have done and its not even subtle.

The holding company paid 80 million for the property and are now leasing it back to Derby for £1.2 million a year. This would give a rental yield of around 1.5% which is ridiculously low and certainly not commercial. To make matters worse no money has changed hands, the 80 million being shown as a debtor due by the holding company to the football club. Presumably the club are charging interest on this loan at £1.2 million thus cancelling out the lease payments, thus effectively leasing it for free.
And as the ground itself has no value at all, apart from the land, unless Derby County play there, who would ever pay £80 million for it.

The transaction makes no commercial sense whatsoever and its only purpose is to create a false profit in the football clubs accounts. Who the hell sat on this tribunal?


We were hit with a transfer embargo when Tan deferred the interest on his loan, which was far less blatant and false than this

the three decisions over the last few weeks show that the middle F in FFP Stands for FUCKED UP ... the best run of the three clubs gets relegated and the biggest cheaters get no punishment...

I am amazed at this decision. Its so blatant what Derby have done and its not even subtle.

The holding company paid 80 million for the property and are now leasing it back to Derby for £1.2 million a year. This would give a rental yield of around 1.5% which is ridiculously low and certainly not commercial. To make matters worse no money has changed hands, the 80 million being shown as a debtor due by the holding company to the football club. Presumably the club are charging interest on this loan at £1.2 million thus cancelling out the lease payments, thus effectively leasing it for free.
And as the ground itself has no value at all, apart from the land, unless Derby County play there, who would ever pay £80 million for it.

The transaction makes no commercial sense whatsoever and its only purpose is to create a false profit in the football clubs accounts. Who the hell sat on this tribunal?


We were hit with a transfer embargo when Tan deferred the interest on his loan, which was far less blatant and false than this

Your analysis is factually correct but the alternative argument is "where is either the criminality or specific breach of FFP rules?"

Criminal or Civil Law doesn't prevent or protect individuals/companies from freely entering into a 'bad' deal. The law only protects individuals and sometimes companies from being coerced or conned. Neither Derby County or the Holding Company have made any kind of complaint about the way the deal was structured so in Law there is no case to answer.

As for FFP (which regulates clubs finances) that would only be breached if the 'club' i.e. Derby County was loaded with £80m of debt. That hasn't happened in fact the reverse has happened the debt has been loaded on the Holding Company and Derby County's balance sheet/profitability has been boosted by selling an asset which they are free to do for any price they can get for it.

The price of the stadium may well have been inflated but I refer back to the first paragraph. There is nothing to stop either side from entering into a bad deal unless it was done with the intention of conning one of the parties or one of the parties was coerced and no evidence exists that is the case.

The 'downside' for Derby County is this apparent 'boost' is a one off as they can only sell the stadium once and in three years time this transaction will not count towards their profit and sustainability test. Their balance sheet will have a huge hole in it where the stadium was listed as an asset and make P & S harder to achieve in coming seasons. Of course what Derby are doing is attempting to use the finance as a gamble in getting promoted to the PL within that 3 year period. If they don't then the chickens will really come home to roost.

I am amazed at this decision. Its so blatant what Derby have done and its not even subtle.

The holding company paid 80 million for the property and are now leasing it back to Derby for £1.2 million a year. This would give a rental yield of around 1.5% which is ridiculously low and certainly not commercial. To make matters worse no money has changed hands, the 80 million being shown as a debtor due by the holding company to the football club. Presumably the club are charging interest on this loan at £1.2 million thus cancelling out the lease payments, thus effectively leasing it for free.
And as the ground itself has no value at all, apart from the land, unless Derby County play there, who would ever pay £80 million for it.

The transaction makes no commercial sense whatsoever and its only purpose is to create a false profit in the football clubs accounts. Who the hell sat on this tribunal?


We were hit with a transfer embargo when Tan deferred the interest on his loan, which was far less blatant and false than this

Your analysis is factually correct but the alternative argument is "where is either the criminality or specific breach of FFP rules?"

Criminal or Civil Law doesn't prevent or protect individuals/companies from freely entering into a 'bad' deal. The law only protects individuals and sometimes companies from being coerced or conned. Neither Derby County or the Holding Company have made any kind of complaint about the way the deal was structured so in Law there is no case to answer.

As for FFP (which regulates clubs finances) that would only be breached if the 'club' i.e. Derby County was loaded with £80m of debt. That hasn't happened in fact the reverse has happened the debt has been loaded on the Holding Company and Derby County's balance sheet/profitability has been boosted by selling an asset which they are free to do for any price they can get for it.

The price of the stadium may well have been inflated but I refer back to the first paragraph. There is nothing to stop either side from entering into a bad deal unless it was done with the intention of conning one of the parties or one of the parties was coerced and no evidence exists that is the case.

The 'downside' for Derby County is this apparent 'boost' is a one off as they can only sell the stadium once and in three years time this transaction will not count towards their profit and sustainability test. Their balance sheet will have a huge hole in it where the stadium was listed as an asset and make P & S harder to achieve in coming seasons. Of course what Derby are doing is attempting to use the finance as a gamble in getting promoted to the PL within that 3 year period. If they don't then the chickens will really come home to roost.

The FFP rules clearly state that related party transactions - of which this is one- have to be conducted on an arms length basis and reflect what a third party would pay. My argument is that a third party would not pay 80 million for an asset which only yields 1.25M in rental income- 1.5%. This is well below a commercial yield. Either the valuation is overvalued or the rental payments are under stated, in which case they have not been conducted at an arms length basis and there has been a breach of the rules. The tribunal obviously disagreed and took the valuation and rent payments which would have been provided by a "friendly" valuation surveyor at face value.

I am amazed at this decision. Its so blatant what Derby have done and its not even subtle.

The holding company paid 80 million for the property and are now leasing it back to Derby for £1.2 million a year. This would give a rental yield of around 1.5% which is ridiculously low and certainly not commercial. To make matters worse no money has changed hands, the 80 million being shown as a debtor due by the holding company to the football club. Presumably the club are charging interest on this loan at £1.2 million thus cancelling out the lease payments, thus effectively leasing it for free.
And as the ground itself has no value at all, apart from the land, unless Derby County play there, who would ever pay £80 million for it.

The transaction makes no commercial sense whatsoever and its only purpose is to create a false profit in the football clubs accounts. Who the hell sat on this tribunal?


We were hit with a transfer embargo when Tan deferred the interest on his loan, which was far less blatant and false than this

Your analysis is factually correct but the alternative argument is "where is either the criminality or specific breach of FFP rules?"

Criminal or Civil Law doesn't prevent or protect individuals/companies from freely entering into a 'bad' deal. The law only protects individuals and sometimes companies from being coerced or conned. Neither Derby County or the Holding Company have made any kind of complaint about the way the deal was structured so in Law there is no case to answer.

As for FFP (which regulates clubs finances) that would only be breached if the 'club' i.e. Derby County was loaded with £80m of debt. That hasn't happened in fact the reverse has happened the debt has been loaded on the Holding Company and Derby County's balance sheet/profitability has been boosted by selling an asset which they are free to do for any price they can get for it.

The price of the stadium may well have been inflated but I refer back to the first paragraph. There is nothing to stop either side from entering into a bad deal unless it was done with the intention of conning one of the parties or one of the parties was coerced and no evidence exists that is the case.

The 'downside' for Derby County is this apparent 'boost' is a one off as they can only sell the stadium once and in three years time this transaction will not count towards their profit and sustainability test. Their balance sheet will have a huge hole in it where the stadium was listed as an asset and make P & S harder to achieve in coming seasons. Of course what Derby are doing is attempting to use the finance as a gamble in getting promoted to the PL within that 3 year period. If they don't then the chickens will really come home to roost.

nobody suggested they had done anything illegal... but to me it looks like they have broken what the FFP rules were brought in for .. the tribunal deciding they have not makes a mockery of them ..no doubt other clubs will now now do likewise and more...

I came across this thread on the Wurzels site when I looked at it before we played them last. 'Mr Popadoplus 'has got a real thing about the FFP and actually seems quite clued up. Lots of comment on Wednesday Villa and Derby. For those interested in the ins and outs seems a decent read.
One thing that stands out for me is the total fuckwittery and possible dishonesty of the EFL, in particular the previous chairman. But there are still real conflicts of interest in that organisation.

https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic ... /#comments

Interesting that Dalman had a go at them recently.

I came across this thread on the Wurzels site when I looked at it before we played them last. 'Mr Popadoplus 'has got a real thing about the FFP and actually seems quite clued up. Lots of comment on Wednesday Villa and Derby. For those interested in the ins and outs seems a decent read.
One thing that stands out for me is the total fuckwittery and possible dishonesty of the EFL, in particular the previous chairman. But there are still real conflicts of interest in that organisation.

https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic ... /#comments

Interesting that Dalman had a go at them recently.

what i read was interesting.. but i couldnt do a 68 pager on FFP..

The FFP rules clearly state that related party transactions - of which this is one- have to be conducted on an arms length basis and reflect what a third party would pay. My argument is that a third party would not pay 80 million for an asset which only yields 1.25M in rental income- 1.5%. This is well below a commercial yield. Either the valuation is overvalued or the rental payments are under stated, in which case they have not been conducted at an arms length basis and there has been a breach of the rules. The tribunal obviously disagreed and took the valuation and rent payments which would have been provided by a "friendly" valuation surveyor at face value.

As you state the Tribunal would have been given 'expert' advice on the valuation of Pride Park. £80m would almost certainly have been the upper limit so would just about fall into a realistic valuation for a sale. If Derby had sold PP for say £150m then your opinion would be correct and Derby/Holding Company would have without doubt breached FFP.

The yield of 1.5% is irrelevant as that actually helps Derby financially and that is what FFP (aka Profit & Sustainability) is about. In fact it could have helped Derby's cause at the Tribunal Hearing.

As I said in my original reply they are clear for the moment but in 3/4 years time their balance sheet will have a gaping hole in it and complying with FFP/P&S will be a lot harder to achieve.

nobody suggested they had done anything illegal... but to me it looks like they have broken what the FFP rules were brought in for .. the tribunal deciding they have not makes a mockery of them ..no doubt other clubs will now now do likewise and more...

To put it bluntly your opinion is wrong. The opinion which counts is the Tribunals who saw all the paperwork rather than your naturally biased opinion (BTW my natural bias is the same). Derby have done nothing wrong for now but there could be problems for them down the line.

For example our balance sheet has a positive credit of £55m (the value of CCS) which will stay there for as long as we continue to own it. Derby no longer have such a credit and will spend eventually the £80m they received for PP. This means in 3 years time they will have a massive hole in their balance sheet. They will be limited to losses of £13m per season and this will be much harder with PP's valuation off their balance sheet.

The FFP rules clearly state that related party transactions - of which this is one- have to be conducted on an arms length basis and reflect what a third party would pay. My argument is that a third party would not pay 80 million for an asset which only yields 1.25M in rental income- 1.5%. This is well below a commercial yield. Either the valuation is overvalued or the rental payments are under stated, in which case they have not been conducted at an arms length basis and there has been a breach of the rules. The tribunal obviously disagreed and took the valuation and rent payments which would have been provided by a "friendly" valuation surveyor at face value.

As you state the Tribunal would have been given 'expert' advice on the valuation of Pride Park. £80m would almost certainly have been the upper limit so would just about fall into a realistic valuation for a sale. If Derby had sold PP for say £150m then your opinion would be correct and Derby/Holding Company would have without doubt breached FFP.

The yield of 1.5% is irrelevant as that actually helps Derby financially and that is what FFP (aka Profit & Sustainability) is about. In fact it could have helped Derby's cause at the Tribunal Hearing.

As I said in my original reply they are clear for the moment but in 3/4 years time their balance sheet will have a gaping hole in it and complying with FFP/P&S will be a lot harder to achieve.

Sorry I have to disagree here, the rental yield can not do anything but damage their case. The yield the holding company are getting is uncommercial and points to the fact that the asset that the football club sold them was overvalued. As a related party therefore the true commercial value should be used. This is clearly stated in the FFP rules. I cant see how an asset which yields 1.25 million a year- 1.5% can be valued at 80 million. Obviously the tribunal thought it was but it doesn't stop me from thinking they were very wrong.

Sorry I have to disagree here, the rental yield can not do anything but damage their case. The yield the holding company are getting is uncommercial and points to the fact that the asset that the football club sold them was overvalued. As a related party therefore the true commercial value should be used. This is clearly stated in the FFP rules. I cant see how an asset which yields 1.25 million a year- 1.5% can be valued at 80 million. Obviously the tribunal thought it was but it doesn't stop me from thinking they were very wrong.

What exactly is uncommercial? I have £3000 in one of my savings accounts and receive a yield of 0.1%. That is commercial as I make a whopping £30 a year on my investment yet the regulator Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has never intervened and said that an investment of £3000 should yield more than £30. The same principle would exist between Derby/Holding Company & EFL. The EFL cannot legislate on what the holding company are charging Derby. As I stated previously the yield is irrelevant many clubs including our own have written off interest payments (yields) to comply with FFP/P&S.

From the holding company's perspective they are getting much more bang for their buck in this age of extremely low interest rates. BTW if the holding company invested £80m into an account paying base rate interest of 0.1% their return would have been £80,000pa 15 times lower than the £1.25m they receive from Derby. So you're description of 'uncommerical' is entirely wrong.

More relevant would be the valuation that Derby & the EFL had and how close it was to the £80m price paid. I haven't seen any evidence on what was produced at the Tribunal but seeing as the EFL concluded there was no case to answer then Derby/Holding Company must have complied with rules you have referred to.

nobody suggested they had done anything illegal... but to me it looks like they have broken what the FFP rules were brought in for .. the tribunal deciding they have not makes a mockery of them ..no doubt other clubs will now now do likewise and more...

To put it bluntly your opinion is wrong. The opinion which counts is the Tribunals who saw all the paperwork rather than your naturally biased opinion (BTW my natural bias is the same). Derby have done nothing wrong for now but there could be problems for them down the line.

For example our balance sheet has a positive credit of £55m (the value of CCS) which will stay there for as long as we continue to own it. Derby no longer have such a credit and will spend eventually the £80m they received for PP. This means in 3 years time they will have a massive hole in their balance sheet. They will be limited to losses of £13m per season and this will be much harder with PP's valuation off their balance sheet.

my opinion is my opinion... its not aligned with the tribunals verdict on this but if was crystal clear there would not have been a tribunal to start with...?????.. personally ive never agreed with FFP from day 1 but we either have it or do not...

Sorry I have to disagree here, the rental yield can not do anything but damage their case. The yield the holding company are getting is uncommercial and points to the fact that the asset that the football club sold them was overvalued. As a related party therefore the true commercial value should be used. This is clearly stated in the FFP rules. I cant see how an asset which yields 1.25 million a year- 1.5% can be valued at 80 million. Obviously the tribunal thought it was but it doesn't stop me from thinking they were very wrong.

What exactly is uncommercial? I have £3000 in one of my savings accounts and receive a yield of 0.1%. That is commercial as I make a whopping £30 a year on my investment yet the regulator Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has never intervened and said that an investment of £3000 should yield more than £30. The same principle would exist between Derby/Holding Company & EFL. The EFL cannot legislate on what the holding company are charging Derby. As I stated previously the yield is irrelevant many clubs including our own have written off interest payments (yields) to comply with FFP/P&S.

From the holding company's perspective they are getting much more bang for their buck in this age of extremely low interest rates. BTW if the holding company invested £80m into an account paying base rate interest of 0.1% their return would have been £80,000pa 15 times lower than the £1.25m they receive from Derby. So you're description of 'uncommerical' is entirely wrong.

More relevant would be the valuation that Derby & the EFL had and how close it was to the £80m price paid. I haven't seen any evidence on what was produced at the Tribunal but seeing as the EFL concluded there was no case to answer then Derby/Holding Company must have complied with rules you have referred to.

My description of uncommercial is not wrong as we are talking about a yield from land not a bank account which is completely different. And anyway I think you misunderstand what the holding company did. They couldn't invest 80 million in the bank because they have no money. I only did an admittedly brief examination of the accounts. However they show that they merely bought the asset from the football club with an IOU from the club itself. No money exchanged hands. Having done so they then agreed to lease it back at a yield of 1.5 % which would normally be regarded as very low and not something which in my experience a non connected party would have done, hence my assertion that related party rules would in my opinion seem to give a strong indication the value was inflated. (Conversely it could be argued that the lease payments are too low.) As you rightly point out no one has seen the detailed evidence but on the face of it i find it a strange decision.

My description of uncommercial is not wrong as we are talking about a yield from land not a bank account which is completely different. And anyway I think you misunderstand what the holding company did. They couldn't invest 80 million in the bank because they have no money. I only did an admittedly brief examination of the accounts. However they show that they merely bought the asset from the football club with an IOU from the club itself. No money exchanged hands. Having done so they then agreed to lease it back at a yield of 1.5 % which would normally be regarded as very low and not something which in my experience a non connected party would have done, hence my assertion that related party rules would in my opinion seem to give a strong indication the value was inflated. (Conversely it could be argued that the lease payments are too low.) As you rightly point out no one has seen the detailed evidence but on the face of it i find it a strange decision.

Surely you are undermining you're own argument? If no money exchanged hands i.e. the holding company got the stadium for the price of a piece of paper and a Biro with IOU £80m written on it as you claim then that just might be the reason why the yield is low???? Because from the sound of it the HC is literally getting money for nothing which would be the ultimate definition of a Commercial deal!

The 1.5% yield which you seem obsessed with might have been considered by the Tribunal and after seeing more evidence than your "brief look at the listed accounts" they have ruled Derby did nothing wrong. I haven't seen the full judgement but no-one apart from you seems to worried about the level of the yield (which as stated in this day and age of low interest rates is not as low as you seem to think) or has made any link to the valuation of Pride Park.

Therefore as previously stated the yield is irrelevant, it is the expert VALUATION which would be the trump card. As stated previously £80m must have been near the upper limit but if the HC position was their investment was a long term project then paying the top whack would be acceptable.

I think you're problem is you have fallen fowl of the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" rule of life. You have found a little bit of information here and there and let your natural biased opinion fill in the gaps.

As a result you find the Tribunal's decision 'strange' but they could say the same about your opinion. The difference being they saw ALL the evidence you didn't.

To put it bluntly your opinion is wrong. The opinion which counts is the Tribunals who saw all the paperwork rather than your naturally biased opinion (BTW my natural bias is the same). Derby have done nothing wrong for now but there could be problems for them down the line.

For example our balance sheet has a positive credit of £55m (the value of CCS) which will stay there for as long as we continue to own it. Derby no longer have such a credit and will spend eventually the £80m they received for PP. This means in 3 years time they will have a massive hole in their balance sheet. They will be limited to losses of £13m per season and this will be much harder with PP's valuation off their balance sheet.

my opinion is my opinion... its not aligned with the tribunals verdict on this but if was crystal clear there would not have been a tribunal to start with...?????.. personally ive never agreed with FFP from day 1 but we either have it or do not...

You are entitled to an opinion but you are not entitled to be right specially as you haven't seen all the evidence unlike the Tribunal. FFP/S&P is a new concept and it's parameters have to be clarified sometimes by Tribunal in the same way Civil and Criminal laws are tested in the Courts. Just because Derby's actions were investigated that doesn't automatically mean they had breached FFP/S&P. The Tribunal had a responsibility to follow all the evidence put before them and not just rely on the little information you have either seen or heard.

If Derby's actions have contravened the spirit rather than the rules of FFP/S&P then the fault is with those who drafted the rules and if they want this not happen again then have to redraft the regulations.

The answer was never to punish Derby for the mistakes of the regulators the EFL.

My description of uncommercial is not wrong as we are talking about a yield from land not a bank account which is completely different. And anyway I think you misunderstand what the holding company did. They couldn't invest 80 million in the bank because they have no money. I only did an admittedly brief examination of the accounts. However they show that they merely bought the asset from the football club with an IOU from the club itself. No money exchanged hands. Having done so they then agreed to lease it back at a yield of 1.5 % which would normally be regarded as very low and not something which in my experience a non connected party would have done, hence my assertion that related party rules would in my opinion seem to give a strong indication the value was inflated. (Conversely it could be argued that the lease payments are too low.) As you rightly point out no one has seen the detailed evidence but on the face of it i find it a strange decision.

Surely you are undermining you're own argument? If no money exchanged hands i.e. the holding company got the stadium for the price of a piece of paper and a Biro with IOU £80m written on it as you claim then that just might be the reason why the yield is low???? Because from the sound of it the HC is literally getting money for nothing which would be the ultimate definition of a Commercial deal!

The 1.5% yield which you seem obsessed with might have been considered by the Tribunal and after seeing more evidence than your "brief look at the listed accounts" they have ruled Derby did nothing wrong. I haven't seen the full judgement but no-one apart from you seems to worried about the level of the yield (which as stated in this day and age of low interest rates is not as low as you seem to think) or has made any link to the valuation of Pride Park.

Therefore as previously stated the yield is irrelevant, it is the expert VALUATION which would be the trump card. As stated previously £80m must have been near the upper limit but if the HC position was their investment was a long term project then paying the top whack would be acceptable.

I think you're problem is you have fallen fowl of the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" rule of life. You have found a little bit of information here and there and let your natural biased opinion fill in the gaps.

As a result you find the Tribunal's decision 'strange' but they could say the same about your opinion. The difference being they saw ALL the evidence you didn't.

I don't understand why you feel i have an obsession with the rental yield. Rental yields are the major determining factor in valuing a property. Average commercial property yields at that time were between 4 and 6 percent, which even at 4 % would give a valuation of only £32 million. I am not saying £32 million is correct just that the there seems to be a large discrepancy between the yield and the valuation. I thought this strange and merely posted on this fact. However your two l paragraphs have demonstrated to me that you have no real interest in listening to other peoples opinion but are using this to try and run people down. I wont waste any more of my time.

I don't understand why you feel i have an obsession with the rental yield. Rental yields are the major determining factor in valuing a property. Average commercial property yields at that time were between 4 and 6 percent, which even at 4 % would give a valuation of only £32 million. I am not saying £32 million is correct just that the there seems to be a large discrepancy between the yield and the valuation. I thought this strange and merely posted on this fact. However your two l paragraphs have demonstrated to me that you have no real interest in listening to other peoples opinion but are using this to try and run people down. I wont waste any more of my time.

The reason why I stated you are 'obsessed' with the rental yield is you have failed to mention other methods for determining valuation. Income Capitalisation (which is the correct term for valuation using yield values) looks simply at yields from Shopping Centres, Apartment Blocks or Office buildings to reach a valuation. I don't know the Derby area well but I would bet a large amount of money that there are many such buildings dotted around.

However, a football ground is a unique property and very important to the local community. That would add significant value to the property as an elite sports team wishing to compete within the Derby area would be limited to Pride Park, alternatively if you wanted to buy an investment property to rent for work, to live or shop their would be plenty of choice and uniqueness wouldn't affect their value. What the landlord (in this case the Holding Company) wishes to charge as rent (or to you yield) is entirely up to them provided it is a commercial arrangement and thanks to your previous information we know that the Holding Company has struck a fantastic deal by producing a 1.5% yield on the back of an I.O.U

Finally you state & I quote "you have no real interest in listening to other peoples opinion" Firstly I have always responded to your arguments and explained fully why IMO they are wrong. You on the other hand cherry pick responses and completely ignore the parts of my reasoning which you can't respond to because there was no response as you were totally wrong. But the ultimate nonsense is you accusing me of 'not listening to others opinions' and then describing the Tribunals decision 'strange' despite the fact they had seen all the evidence and you had seen only a couple of paragraphs of Derby's financial accounts to reach your conclusion (which apparently no-one listens to ) If you think challenging a wrong opinion is 'wearing people down' then how about being a little more objective and accept that you might be wrong and others could be right rather than playing a pathetic victim card