CBX1985

52 minutes ago, YouRams said:

Called that we'd kick it off and get the Friday night game, because we are MASSIVE! Shame it's not Leeds though! 

Pleased it is away.  Enjoy in my armchair with a pint.

38 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

I hate that December. Merry fricking Christmas.

I'd bet one of those will be on TV too, just to make it even more miserable.

They won't need to be moved necessarily, as so long as it is not a Saturday (which they aren't) the rule doesn't appyl.

57 minutes ago, superfit said:

Not wanting to get dragged into a Warne good Warne bad argument I will simply respond to your final point that ‘Warne cares more about winning more than looking good’ I would say every manager out of the 92 league clubs cares about winning more than looking good. Playing football that is easy on the eye is borne out of a manager’s philosophy on how to win games of football, not the other way round. 
 

Up the Rams. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.  I have vacillated wildly in my view of him but I do think he has some good characteristics and values.   I think he is about the best we are going to get, notwithstanding there are plainly better, or more established, managers out there (just not in our price bracket).

24 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Not sure how that ended up as jamming. Was meant to be gambling. When we had 32red yoi could request to have it without. 

Thanks; I didn't know that.  I know you usually cannot, but I guess they had to create a children's kits without (so had the kit pre-designed for that) - and someone could say my child is too tall for them and has to wear a gambling firm all over the place.

It is why Heineken use the non alcoholic 0.0% version on their advertising.  

11 minutes ago, superfit said:

Some fair points well made. 
 

Thing is there were a number of factors that led to Wenger’s decline. That period saw the emergence of Barcelona, smaller diminutive players that passed teams of the park and dominated football and Wenger unsuccessfully went down that road, as opposed to the more robust style of Mourinho’s Chelsea. 
 

However there were mitigating circumstances such as the move to the Emirates that meant that Wenger couldn’t spend the money his counterparts were spending on players. Obviously Wenger got things wrong too but his reputation as a winner above everything else is there, truly one of the games great mangers. 
 

So a question if Warne is such a winner why has he failed in both full seasons at championship level? 
 

Don’t say money because you’ve dismissed that argument with reference to Wenger’s demise stating it was his desire to play entertaining football at all costs as opposed to a pragmatic winning mentality. 
 

 

The team clearly comes into it; but I grant you relatively lowly sides can become great under truly world class managers - see DCFC and NFFC under Brian Clough; alongside Aberdeen under Alex Ferguson. 

What I would say is that time plays a big part.  Rotherham were fully set up for winning promotion from Lg1, but had no time to adapt (as the players they had were all they could hope to have).  I saw on here that the same players, more or less, came up with him.  The final (part) season he was there they were high up the league.  Without him they then crumbled the next year.  My point to you is: had Warne learnt his lesson in that final season with them on what makes a good Championship, as opposed to Lg 1, team?  What part of that experience will he take into this season to benefit us?

Being adaptable often involves failure and lots of it.  Our team pre October was awful and losing; afterwards was not much better but seemed to win every week.    

I am not saying Warne is a winner.  But he cares about winning more than looking good - and is open about that.  I think that is a step in a good direction.

31 minutes ago, superfit said:

Your right who wants a purist like Wenger and his 3x Premier League titles 1x French League titles 7 x FA Cup winners  1x French Cup winners 7x English Super Cup winners 1x Japanese Cup winners whilst playing scintillating football and rising hundreds of millions for his club when we have Warne. 

Everyone; of course - at the peak of his powers he found the magic sauce that made things work: the "professor of football".  Wonderful football, great ethos.  Superb.

Then those tactics became stale and defendable; the players he had were not as good as the players he used to have.  His approach was - stick with the scintillating football, rather than "win at all costs".   Arsenal were probably the most entertaining side in the EPL until he left, but they could never again meaningfully challenge for the title under him for nearly twenty years.  Chelsea were tedious, but were always there or there abouts.

I don't think Warne cares about style but for winning.  I think it is whatever gets over the line.  I want the team to win and would rather a turgid drawn out game with a last minute winner than a game that is 5-5 and then we concede in the last minute. 

1 hour ago, Anag Ram said:

Hope the Hinshelwood link isn’t part of a deal for Cashin.

Brighton wanted Cashin to go out on loan, when they offered last year (but they wanted him to play at higher level, so would have been with a Championship side).  I suspect we will be allowed an immediate loan to end of the Season for him if we sell, as we now can offer him Championship level football.

Realistically, we are going to lose him soon so wouldn't be the worst outcome in the world.

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

You can request not to have jamming sponsorship. 

I do not believe this is on offer - they would need to create new shirts specifically, which would be challenging - and I suspect the sponsor would - understandably - object (unless this has been pre-agreed).

As I say, fortunately for me there was one season that the option was available - as we had not had a sponsor, so I stocked up with those kits for a decade or more.

As others have commented, some people do not like wearing sponsors (particularly when they disagree with them - Betting companies; Islamic fans and beer, etc).  It does feel like something that could be offered as a premium product - like a streaming account without adverts.  

5 hours ago, Smyth_18 said:

People continuing to misunderstand previous posts clearly stating that the sleeve sponsor won’t be on the shirts for sale.

No, it was a general point about being a walking advert.  I do not wish to walk around with some holiday lettings business; some predatory gambling firm; a takeaway delivery service etc.  

Some people, myself being one, will only buy a strip if they do not have the aforementioned.  Having gone into the club shop on many occasions during  the past season I can assure you that there was advertising on all (bar children's) club replica kits.  

I have no issue with it being on the players.  

On 20/06/2024 at 12:59, MadAmster said:

IMO they might sell more shorts, of all sizes, if they came without the advertising. There were people who didn't buy shirts when we had a betting company as sponsor. 

I bought six shirts at the end of the season before the one just finished - as there was none on them when made (and they will last me a decade or more).  I can't stand being a walking advert; but certainly not for a bookmaker or for weight loss surgery.

I think they should offer a plain one, but maybe make it a little more expensive. 

On 19/06/2024 at 17:15, Todd Is God said:

"Derby County appears to have the best papers to incorporate the goalkeeper, sources report to AZAlerts."

 

We have the best papers. Always said it. Nice to have it confirmed.

He must be a fan of the Derby Telegraph and that is going to swing it.  

1 hour ago, MadAmster said:

If I'm right, you'll be missing Warneball completely.

I don't think he will be utilising his L1 tactics in the SBC. He did in his 2 full season relegations with Rotherham. Didn't in his 3rd and had them 8th, provisionally 5th.

My guess is that we'll see Liverpool-like tactics with a high press and playing "football" rather than Warneball. However, I have been wrong before... 😉

What I like about Warne is I get the impression he thinks his job is results, not to be some purist Arsene Wenger type who first things first wants good football and hopes everything fits to the philosophy.  

If he thinks Warneball will work he will use it; if he thinks being Chelsea c2005 and so on and so forth.

1 hour ago, rammieib said:

How to kill football.

Will it, really?  It provides hard currency to the clubs - and whilst a little annoying at times, we'll get used to it.  

3 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

He’s consistently vague.

He gets fed vague rubbish by agents so they can create a bit of a buzz around the league two journeyman they have on their books.  Then such and such from Crawley Town is "about to enter talks" with Derby. 

He is a useful idiot who believes he has his ear to the ground.  

6 hours ago, Gabby'sThighs said:

I think he's retired.

And dead.

On 31/05/2024 at 11:18, Phoenix said:

I don't recall many English clubs queueing up to sign some unknown bloke called Wanchope. He turned out all right.

Searching the Costa Rican league was inspired.  I would have thought, with matches in these random places being streamed to the world, it would be easier to carve out a niche as somewhere to showcase the very best from unusual countries.  

23 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Quick questions for the "finance" thread as I trawled through all 17 pages but couldn't find it - sorry if I missed it?

1. Do we know what our turnover has been in League One?
2. Do we know what our wage bill is?
3. Do we know what our losses have been (after DC stabilized the club, but not including his one-off payments to do that)?
4. Do we know how much turnover rises next season as a result of being in the Championship?

Thanks!

1) £20.4m (2022/23)

2). £17.2m total;  plus £1m for Stadium usage (2022/23).

3) No.  Latest accounts are eye of the storm and very hard to glean (due to write downs and non-compensated expenditure - i.e. the Academy); administration was £13m.  A fair picture will emerge in next accounts. 

4) £9m from TV.  Based on Season ticket sales and rises, a further £1m-£2m there (very roughly).  

On 24/05/2024 at 08:05, MadAmster said:

Surely that "extra £8M" would only mean we break even rather than lose money?

Well, it depends on the losses.  As I say, we do have extraordinary losses - and I suspect these carried into this season just gone, as we agreed a two year timetable of repayment (so more will appear in next set of accounts).  But they are extraordinary, and not operating, losses which is important.  

Extraordinary losses will always fall away (and if they do not they are not extraordinary and thus you are insolvent).  

So if we add a sum and then pay away that sum in wages, our position will not change.  So (disregarding changes in ST and the like) we have an extra £8m to spend on either a) wages or b) fees and wages without impacting on our financial position (within a one year horizon).   

10 hours ago, MadAmster said:

On what are you basing that assertion?

22/23, we lost £10M, some of which was due to the mess MM had put us in and the costs of getting us out of Admin. Virtually the same average gate in 23/24 and other income is likely to have been similar as the one before. I expect us, based on that, to have a loss on last season but a lower one than the season before. That would mean we lost £10M in 22/23 plus maybe half of that again last season.

Your statement that we can "spend £8m more on wages to have the same revenue/spending point" doesn't seem to add up. Sending the extra gate/TV money would likely see us make yet another loss. That's David Clowes' money we'd be losing. He might be said to be "worth" £250M but what most people fail to understand is that the vast majority of that "worth" is land, buildings, plant, machinery, a football ground etc.  Unfortunately it is NOT liquid assets he can fritter away.

If I've got this all wrong, I would be ecstatic if someone could explain to me how/why so that I can better understand the current state of play. I would appreciate any explanation taking into account the £36M we already owe David Clowes.

Fair comments to a point - I should have said, to be wholly accurate we didn't have "operating losses" of £8m.  However, I would say year 1 of a new business being bought in the way it was is not really reflective of any position at all. 

I haven't gone through the reports for a while, but from reading them last year my recollection is that there were extraordinarily high extraordinary costs - and operational break even.  My point, which is fact and not opinion, is that if we increase operational income by £8m, the balance sheet would remain unchanged should we increase (within that period) spending by £8m.

On 21/05/2024 at 17:59, Simmo’s left foot said:

All that money will do is cover existing losses.

We don't have £8m in losses.

Basically, we can - seasons after not withstanding - spend £8m more on wages to have the same revenue/spending point.  

11 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

The bookies have us 20-1 to win the league and 11/4 for top 6. About 11th alongside the likes of Stoke. Too short to warrant a bet IMO. 

Realistically - relegation would be complete failure. 16th to 21st is a reasonable expectation, pretty similar to the Wendies and Plymouth this season.

Top half would be an excellent season and play offs would be miraculous. 
 

@Leeds Ram summed it up, Coventry should be the model we follow. Very similar situation being promoted after major collapse and having to build without much investment. Luton had a way of playing and a unique momentum that catapulted them forwards, and we just don’t have the budget to do what Ipswich did (although they only had a top half budget and massively overachieved)

Only way I could see this changing is if we had major investment or a take over in the summer. 

Takeovers and major investment can work against you: see Birmingham.  Well run clubs, like Brentford and Brighton, are the way forward.  You don't need billions, you just need good business sense and stability.

I think we need a survival year (2024/25), followed by a push on year (higher mid table) followed by a promotion chase.  We need to get them ducks in a row, and then kick on.

On 18/05/2024 at 15:00, Scott129 said:

I'm going to guess:

- 3 free agents

- 3 loans (Prem youngsters)

- 4 fees (2 nominal fees of less than 500k - Adams included - and 2 "marquee" signings of 1m+)

Total spend 3m-ish.

I can see very few fees paid - and being top payers (at our level) for free transfers.  Adams an exception, as he has shown his worth.

We have £8m (more) from TV money this coming season that we didn't last - so that is a lot of additional revenue that can be shifted to paying top wages. 

Turning fees to wages, in my view, gets you further as it is not a dead cost - and is spread over several seasons.  One £3m signing prevents maybe 4 or 5 other players coming on the books.     

7 hours ago, alexxxxx said:

I think if you did a deal which prevented premier league 3PMs being broadcast you'd have the best of both worlds. You can retain 3PM kick offs and prevent some loss of attendances whilst retaining TV revenue for those that can't go anyway. Accrington fans might stay at home to watch man utd v Fulham for example but they aren't staying at home to watch Stoke v West Brom. 

League 1 and League 2 teams also have to balance the threat of a championship breakaway (and TV revenue that's distributed through that to them) to the premier league with their own interests.

League 1 and League 2 TV rights are worth very little on their own.

 I agree with most of this.  Not sure I believe a breakaway is realistic; a threat, maybe, but not sure it would add much.  

40 minutes ago, Rich3478 said:

It’s not up to the broadcasters is it, sky would’ve killed it years ago if so.

this feels a way to inconvenience lots of fans and then point at the block when people annoyed about.

No, it is up to clubs. Premiership and Championship teams probably want it gone; league one more likely want it to remain; and league 2 and below will be desperate for it to be kept.  Which means at a vote, chances are it is kept.

Not sure Sky care all that much (other providers, like TNT, might want this more from a place of challenger firm).  Were it to open up, Sky would be expected to pay a lot more for content, but it would clearly bring very little additional income for that content.  Those not already subscribed are hardly likely to want to pay up just for a few 3pm games - so would need to drastically change their model.

It is a little inconvenient.  But Sky are doubling our income.  For that, we will probably have an extra 5 games kick off Mon-Fri than already, several earlier than normal and a few more on a Sunday.  To me it feels a price worth paying.  

56 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

I've read/heard of 27 different players we're buying this summer. 2 of those arriving would be a miracle. Where did you hear it? Who from? A reputable, reliable source or did you overhear someone saying they'd seen something on FB or X?

The whole point being there's a lot of crap being written by folk wanting clicks to gain advertising revenue from their FB pages, YouTube channels and websites. We don't yet know who's staying and who's going. We're not the only club that hasn't yet published their retained list. Unless a club has said something, there's no traction in any of these rumours.

Indeed.  A further, agents are liable to telling white lies:

My client is reviewing their options and is unwilling to sign "at this time".  It puts out the word that they might be interested in a change and makes the club up wage offer.

Always be sceptical it might all be smoke and mirrors.