Jump to content

Woodley Ram

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Woodley Ram

  • Birthday 28/11/1962

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

7,295 profile views
  1. So if we did a deal with PSG, Real Madrid and Barcelona so that we bought a load of their fringe players deferred payment for 3 years with an option for them to be bought back that would be legal? we could play all of them as they would not be loans but would effectively only be paying their wages as they would be bought back for the same cost after 3 years......mad
  2. I wish other clubs would look at our spend as they think we have been tanking it for years which is not true. I think our debt is probably no bigger than others in the Championship and significantly smaller than some (Reading, Stoke etc). They are angry that we sold the stadium for more than a lot of them did and don't understand the amortisation thinking we had been residual values at the end which is not true it was always 0. they think that our overspend/debt is bigger than every ones which is not true. Mel gambled and in football terms is not a rich man, I think that in the end he could see his fortune dwindling away. Of course a lot of that would not be accessible. A lot of misinformation out there. It is taking the focus from others that should have larger FFP problems. For instance Stoke's Covid write off is ridicules and haven't Fulham deferred the payment on Wilson so they don't pay anything this year.
  3. Not my figures, but one from a transfer website. It is strange that different websites have different figures. of course these do not include money paid to former managers and money received for former managers such as Lampard. The one thing it does show is that we had the one big spend year not just for transfer spend but high wages and that was our issue. Both sets of figures show that apart from that one year the spend more or less nets out. this will all help with the appeal. I have always thought we should appeal but feel more comfortable with the possibility of winning it
  4. Not disagreeing. I forgot about the Lampard and Rowett compensation (although we had to pay other people off (Cocu and Keogh). Also the fee for Gordon and the three that went to Man Utd. I agree we did take steps to reduce wages and debt and have done since 16/17, never mind the playoffs. It was the spending that year (16/17) and the wages that has hurt us. Its not an issue to have less money incoming than the Gumps and Bristol City. Other supporters think we overspent every year which is not true. The Gumps, and Bristol City have managed to get a few really big fees in.
  5. You are right of course, players in and out would be in instalments. But it does give an indication of debt (we are about £20m over on transfers). We over spent in 16/17 greatly and have not clawed all of that back from sales. whereas the Gumps have (they had a big spend the year before) , Middlesbrough also and Bristol City made a profit. The two years that stand out are signing Billick (19/20) without selling to compensate and 16/17. The other years we are mostly in credit. The issue was always the wages that went along with the signings, which have now gone. I think our debt is a historical one from wages.
  6. DCFC 20/21 +7m 19/20 - 9m 18/19 + 2.2m 17/18 -1.1m 16/17 -26.3 The Gumps 19/20 +2m 18/19 -23.6m 17/18 +10.3m 16/17 +18.3m 17/18 + 7.5 Middlesbrough break even and Bristol City (they had some big sales) made £25m in that period so our transfer business has not been sustainable, where as the other 3 have. player sales
  7. It would be good to have a comparison of the Covid losses for the last 2 seasons for all clubs in the championship. - debts - Income - Wages and operational expenses - Loss compared with non covid seasons - amount funded by owners I think that way we can gain a better understanding of possible success against the 12 points . Also other clubs and supporters might understand that we don't have the biggest debt, biggest wages etc etc
  8. we need to show our respects and then beat them or at least take something from the game
  9. it dosnt work like that. Jozwiak was a small amount up front and the rest to follow, Bryne was peanuts. The money for Buchanan and Lawrence would have been less than £4m, may be £2.5m and that would be a fraction up front, probably 500k- 750k Marshall was free the wages for all of those is minimal. Not having those in the team = relegation with large debts. out of interest what would your team look like with with all of those gone?
  10. I don't think we are looking to be treated any different to any one else, in fact we think in some ways we are, but not in a good way. we accepted a deducted penalty for being 2 weeks late with the wages and found that it was similar to SWFC who hadn't paid wages for months. We were fined by the tribunal for the amortisation (which always had the players contracts as nil at the end). The EFL appealed against that not DCFC. Mel and Pearce (CEO) should have been more transparent about that with the EFL and then things would have been clearer and quicker. I'm trying to pick my words carefully here, but I can see why people would look at the amortisation the way they do. We had a mad 2 years where we overspent, the legacy was the residual high wages. Our wage bill has been on the small side for the last couple of years and our debt isn't that big when you look at others. I see figures banded around that are not true £35-40m wages bill, that's rubbish its more like £15m. The stadium sale (not the first to do that) was accepted by the tribunal and not appealed by the EFL. Our issue re administration is 2 things we have lost the ability to generate income to satisfy the debts due to Covid and Mel has said he cannot pay the difference. Will we win the appeal, I would say its no more than 50/50, but as Wigan did we have a right to try. Re the amortisation process, most of the time was due to the EFL not us. Re P&S/FFP, this is the outcome of the tribunal. By all accounts we are not over by much (£4-8m), yet we are looking at 9 points + 3 suspended. whereas Reading who are about £50m over are looking at 6 points, BCFC 7 points for being £15m over. SWFC 6 points for larger. If we have broken the rules and we have, we should be punished but with FFP it needs to be inline with others and it doesn't feel that way. With administration I have 2 feelings, the first is as you put it we are caught fair and square and the other is that there is an appeal system and reasons for having a reduction. We have a case so why not try. The difference could be the staying up and regulation. We have 3 things that we have been convicted of. Amortisation, Administration and FFP. We have accepted the penalty for the first. Lets see about the second and third but yes we would like to be treated the same as others. We might just overturn the 12 points but not anymore. If we get more than I fear that Derby will play their academy and set up for next year in L1. Unfortunately that would not be good for the EFL. Lets see .
  11. you have not mentioned players going out, Bennett, Whitaker, Bogle, Lowe all for fees. The incoming this year has been free's on minimal wages. the outgoings of Wisdom, Waghorn, Marriott (wages) would be higher. The wage bill has been dropping for the last few years and did again this year. our outgoings on wages are now small. I think where we are different to some of the others is that we have some commercial debt which has to be paid back. Other clubs only have soft debt (the owner) that they do not. I think that the question is. Would we have survived (including Mel pulling the plug) if Covid didn't happen. If the answer is yes then we get 12 points, if no then we have a chance. This will be strongly contested by the EFL who no doubt will say without Mel's money before covid we would have been in the ****, so the reason you have failed is Mel is not paying not Covid
  12. I'm not sure if I agree with you here. Wigan's administration was at the start of Covid (July 2020), so the effects would have been no where near as damaging. On 4 June 2020, the owners sold the majority of Wigan Athletic shareholdings to Hong Kong-based Next Leader Fund, who didn't invest. Their main issue was the new owners and not Covid. Wigan would have gone into administration even if Covid never happened. You could argue that Derby were able to service their debts and operating overheads and had been doing so until Covid. This took £20m out of the coffers and Derby (unlike Wigan) had a whole season and a bit in closed stadiums before administration (September 2021). I do agree that we would have been less likely to go under without the debt, that said our debt is lower than a lot of others clubs such as Reading. Our overheads are also small, wages are probably £15m per season unlike 2-3 years ago. Also our FFP/P&S is not as high as people think it is, Reading (sorry to mention them again) overspent by £10m's more than Derby. Gibson's argument is personal, if not why has he not sued half the clubs who were promoted and why didn't we sue QPR when they went up. Nothing will happen with Gibson and his legal challenges. I don't see what Derby are doing as any different to what anyone else would do, certainly other clubs such as SWFC, BCFC have appealed and had points reduced and Reading are in the process of trying to negotiate a lower deduction. People need to have a look at the debt levels of all clubs as well as operating expenses as they seem to think Derby have the biggest debt, biggest FFP overspend and biggest wage bill. Non of that is accurate by a long way.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.