duncanjwitham

1 minute ago, Anag Ram said:

We just need a manager who can get them doing what they do best. 

That's the big thing for me.  How many players have we signed who did well at previous clubs and then used them completely differently? Marriott played in a 2 at Peterborough, Lawrence played centrally at Ipswich, Blackman played a sort of inside-right for Reading, Johnson played almost up front for Norwich, Butterfield played further forward with a mobile striker in front of him for Huddersfield and so on. We buy players with no understanding of why they were successful at previous clubs, use them completely wrongly until they've no value left, then pay them to go away. Rinse and repeat.

36 minutes ago, DCFClks said:

The sad thing is we've been unlucky and these plans have almost worked on numerous occasions. The root of all our problems come from the 15/16 spend, Mel had no long term vision for the club then and every following seasons plans have been a reaction to that

The really sad thing is that Mel seemingly did have a vision for the club at that time with the whole a “Derby way” thing, but then (for whatever reason) did everything he could to make sure it never ever happened.

The recruitment isn’t directly to blame, it’s just another symptom of the real problem - a lack of vision of what we actually want to be as a club.  Do we want to develop academy players, do we want to sign cheap players and add value before we sell them on, do we want to make big name signings, do we want a young hungry squad, or an experienced one, do we want to play attacking football, do we want to be hard to beat, do we want to play possession football and so on.  Until someone, somewhere is making those decisions, we’ll be stuck in a cycle of making random signings, random managerial appointments and year-on-year decline.

2 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

In all honesty, that's the one tough call. What swings it in Tom's favour and it's just an opinion, is that he offers greater goal threat. I really rate Kamil but I just don't see him winning the game single-handedly, which Tom occasionally can. That said, I'd not be unhappy at all to see their roles reversed and I agree that Kamil was the standout last time out. I'd be expecting Lawrence and Roberts to be flat out for 60 minutes and then giving Joz at least half an hour against tired legs. 

I’d start all of them. The best we’ve played in months was the first half against Blackburn, with a fluid front 4. CKR has done well for us this season, but it’s not working for him at the moment. Not sure if it’s still his hip, tiredness or what, but he’s not holding it up and he’s not taking his chances.  I’d start Lawrence up front with Joswiak, Sibley and Roberts behind him, and let them all rotate.  We need to go for it, we can’t sit back and try and nick something with the way we’re defending. 

5 minutes ago, GenBr said:

So they can still give us a points deduction this year then?

Yes. If we aren't relegated at the end of the season, then any potential deduction would apply this season (regardless of the size off the deduction).  "Normal Playing Season" is only up until the final league game though (not including playoffs etc), so they would have to award the deduction before the final game.  I have no idea how any potential appeals (if they are permitted) would affect that though.

1 hour ago, GenBr said:

Had a look at the rules and if I'm reading it correctly they can still apply a points deduction this season, but only if it doesn't relegate us. Unless its a really small points deduction I guess that means it will be implemented next season if we do get one.

 

You're reading it backwards.  If we don't get relegated this season (before any deductions are applied), the deduction is still applied this season (and would almost certainly relegate us).  If we do go down this season (before deductions), any deductions are applied next season.

It's done this way to avoid clubs forcing admin early and taking the points deduction when they're already down and it doesn't affect anything.

8 minutes ago, Topram said:

German window shuts at 5pm so even less time

Does this actually matter to us? As far as I know, it's the window of the buying club that matters. You can sell or release a player at any time, the transfer window is just a restriction on when you can register an incoming player at your club.

Obviously if they want to sign a replacement before they sell him then it matters to them.

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It hasn't helped some clubs in L1/2 who already had a wage cap in place. The problem being an owner could pump as much money in as they wanted and it contributed towards the calculation.

League 1 clubs were 60% of turnover, or 75% if newly relegated from the Championship. 
League 2 clubs were 55%

Yeah, if you wanted to go down this route, you'd have to find some way of excluding or capping owner investment in terms of the turnover part of the calculation - maybe let them invest as much as they like but only the first £Xm counts towards the wages/turnover ratio or something.

4 minutes ago, OohMartWright said:

Removing depreciation/amortisation from a club's sustainability measuring would, in my opinion, significantly distort the position. There are a great many clubs who "balance the books" by nurturing young talent and selling it on at a profit. You cannot allow clubs to include the profits on players they have developed and sold whilst excluding the losses incurred on players who were bought and who subsequently lost value, so including both is a fundamental requirement.

That's pretty much my take on it too.  If you're going to effectively take (some or all) players purchases/sales out of the FFP calculations, you may as well drop the whole thing and just have a wages-to-turnover ratio limit.  Let owners invest as much as they like to fund signings, but don't let clubs build up the massive wage bills, which are what ultimately end up crippling them if they can't fund it.

4 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

I also assume other clubs are now free to sell their assets (stadiums etc) in a similar manner to ourselves if they so desire?

That was never in doubt, the rules (post 2017-ish) explicitly allow it.  We weren't charged for the actual stadium sale at all, and neither were Sheffield Wednesday. The only issues were the valuation (us) and the timing of the sale (Sheff Wed).

25 minutes ago, Mckram said:

There’s no way that signing someone like Johnson for £6m at age 28 is an option under this policy.

But this policy won't really come into play for older players. If we think the player is likely to leave for a free, then they straight-line amortise down to 0 over their contract, like players at other clubs do.  Nothing has changed here with our new policy.  Admittedly, Johnson is probably borderline at age 28 (compared to say Davies or Huddlestone at ~32), but we're supposedly setting different ERVs for different players, so we could have easily used something like £1-2m for Johnson.

Obviously there are other concerns at paying £6m for a 28 year old outside of amortisation.

18 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I think your final paragraph pretty much sums up what I’ve read elsewhere in that the policy adopted by Derby may be beneficial for a certain, short period, over time it all evens itself out and there is no gain in the medium to long term.

You're technically correct, in that there's no net change in the long term. Ultimately the players value will be amortised away if he leaves for free.  What it does (from my limited understanding) is smooth out the financial implications of signing a player, assuming that we can sell them on for something reasonable towards the end of their contract.  Obviously that's a big assumption.  If you buy a player for £5m on a 5 year deal, then sell them for £5m after 4 years, under the old system you'd lose £1m a year, then gain £4m in year 4.  That's biggish losses and an even bigger gain.  Under our system, you'd lose maybe £100k a year, then gain £400k in year 4, which is much more manageable.  Our system makes it much easier to fit in with the idea of the FFP rolling 3-year allowable-loss windows.  The only problem is the big bear-trap that's waiting at the end of year 5, where you suddenly lose almost £5m in one go, if you're not careful.