Sparkle

59 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Based off that table, if you remove the players no longer with us and Rooneys wage with him now being manager our wage bill is £192,630.

That's including Wisdom, Davies & Waghorn at their full wage.

Without them 3 it is £131,730 a week

If all 3 renewed at the reported max embargo amount (11.5k) the weekly wages would be £166,230 - that would also be a wage increase for Waghorn based off that table! Without Waggy's wage increase but the other 2 on 11.5k it would be £162,630

Not sure how accurate the table is but it does go to show how low our wage bill is & could be, I think that's a good position for any new owner to start from. It's easier to bring players in within a budget than to remove/sell players to get within a budget.

It’s still an awful lot of money when nothing is coming in !

40 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

I do not think that you figures are correct unless I have missed something.

This is what has been filled at companies house:

15/16 - £14.7M Loss

16/17 - £7.9M Loss

17/18 - £14.6 Profit

As the accounts currently stand Derby have posted a loss of £8M over that 3 years FFP period, so unless the restated accounts make us declare more than an additional £31M over this period we should be okay.  You've worked out its a £23M swing, so I believe we are comfortably compliant by around £8M.   Unless of course Gibson's accountant can dig up any more skeletons, I suspect he would have done that by now though!  Or have I missed something?

All that said god only knows what 18/19 and 19/20 accounts are going to look like, nothing left to sell to offset these, although I believe that the wage bill has drastically reduced, so hopefully not too bad!!!

Well done Mel you've maxed out the credit card, now pay in the money you've recklessly spent and sod off, when you get there sod off some more!!!  

Well if Stoke city can write off £90 million of their 18/19 and 19/20 accounts for covid related reasons then it’s a free for all. Whilst not suggesting that the EFL won’t revisit that in 5 years !

So the current position is that we are awaiting the full details/results of the last verdict as the EFL should be doing as well before anything else occurs. 

is that correct 

2 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said:

I'm not 100% up to speed with the current situation. I'm kind of loosing interest in football in general. But hypothetically, if our amortisation is changed to straight line and we are still within P&S limits, does the £100k fine still stand?

Depends if the EFL appeal - it could go up or down 

21 hours ago, David said:

Can’t understand this move at all.

 

Bournemouth have wanted him for a long time so maybe it’s his shoes or his Russian connections 

2 hours ago, Coconut said:

For all we know we could announce that they'd all 3 signed new contracts, but then the day before the season starts the EFL cancel the extensions like they did with Marriott (we still have no explanation as to why that's happened?)

It’s still disgusting that the EFL have stopped us extending a contract ( which was in the signed contract) of a player (asset) who now walks away and we potentially lose a lot of money by the EFL actions - regardless of weather we were going to use him or not its interfering with the running of a financial business. 

2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

I do hope that when the full DC decision is revealed that the appeals committee confirm that they come to the conclusion that £100k was a sufficient penalty given when the Rams purchased Butterfield, Johnson, Blackman, Anya and Camara, they did genuinely think they were buying some players with some enduring value. DCFC have been victims of a miss-selling scam that has been going on for ages, and it still persists to this day.

There lies the problem we purchased those players from Huddersfield Norwich Reading watford Middlesbrough etc for vastly inflated fees, which enabled them to keep going financially and are now bitter that they are no longer receiving that kind of money from us. whilst the other clubs are bitter that we have never purchased their useless plods for vastly inflated fees to enable them to similarly pay their own bills and all this has been complained about to the EFL who have great sympathy for the other clubs hence all the EFL muck ups.

Based on player’s contract on July 1st 

                       Marshall 

Byrne   Cashin. Forsyth Buchanan   

            Knight Bird Shinnie 

jozwiak     Richards.     Lawrence 

but by half time Sibley will be on as will Roos who will be in goal while Marshall is playing centre half or centre forward 

we just need to be a lot stronger at centre half and centre forward options 

Ok if we have to re do the accounts for the benefit of the EFL for 3 years, actually it will mean 5 years with the 2 years following which haven’t been published yet due to this mess. Does this mean we have to publish new ones to HMRC because the ones we did submit were perfectly legal !
Or is this a new reality that our legal accounts can go to the HMRC and the EFL P&S accounts go to the EFL whilst being basically Different?

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Agreed they are in deep poo

At least they have some decent players to use on the field of play currently 

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

If this is the case why didn’t we do the calculations in the standard method and avoid 2 years of crippling pain

The issue of the stadium sale I would suspect 

2 hours ago, Arsene Titman said:

I’ve already rightly applauded your post. Just a couple of questions though- once we submit 3 years revised accounts in accordance with EFL accounting rules, if we then exceed the £39m losses over that 3 year period, should we not expect a further charge with a possible points deduction for the forthcoming season ? Also, if you are right and the EFL don’t pursue an appeal against the current £100k sanction, is the soft transfer embargo lifted once we have paid up? If so, presumably it would be reimposed if the club exceed the £39m 3 year losses in the revised accounts and the EFL pursued the matter.

Interesting - being charged for accounts that the EFL signed off as Ok three years running 

2 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

Looking at Readings financial results for their last 3 sets of accounts ending June 2020 they have a cumulative loss of £92 million, I wonder why they are not in the gun sights of the EFL. 

Erm cough erm Stoke city? 

This makes selling season tickets harder than it was previously going to be I assume 

1 hour ago, angieram said:

How can you possibly know this before a ball has even been kicked and the transfer window has closed?

As for lowest point, of course it isn't. 

Absolutely correct - the club going bust before a deal was done at the very last minute back in the 70s/80s was not a good situation.

in terms of next season I am optimistic that the youngsters can and will kick on and with a few loan reinforcements and a few free transfers we should do ok, centre half’s and centre forwards are our main focus and current concerns

2 hours ago, secretsquirrel said:

Didnt include Marriott for some reason but here he is which seems what i would have assumed.

https://salarysport.com/football/player/jack-marriott/

There is a mistake on there where it says he is a ST (striker) it should read Sub 

15 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

The EFL have effed up royally with this interchangeable fixture list. With clubs requiring certainly of what league they are playing in both Derby and Wycombe are unfairly being left in limbo as any appeal and decision is likely to take weeks especially as we will appeal or even sue the EFL if they attempt to apply any deduction retrospectively.

I believe the EFL will very soon announce they’ll appeal but at the same time they will say any forthcoming punishment will be applied next season. It’s the only logical way they can dig themselves out of the hole they’ve got themselves into.

I don’t believe we or anyone else can sue a fellow club in the EFL and I also believe we cannot or any other club sue the EFL 

worth Remembering that the EFL is a cartel and can do what it likes whenever it likes which includes victimisation and complete ignorance of reality and has demonstrated these abilities on numerous occasions. 

2 hours ago, Carnero said:

Also, if we have to submit revised accounts then surely it is permissible for us now to use the top end valuation of the stadium (£83m was it?) rather than the £80m we used in the original accounts ?

Well that’s actually very interesting ? and potentially could have a big impact - we shall see at some point I suppose 

3 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

Clutching at straws but for the good of the game, maybe the EFL have privately agreed that whatever punishment the DC set they will just accept it - no appeal ??

 

I think those straws are made from chocolate and are stirring the boardrooms pot of tea 

7 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I think it’s very unlikely they’d postpone the start of the season for us and Wycombe especially given how long any subsequent appeal(s) would take. Also, rule 28.2 says they can after “consultation with and consideration for the clubs involved”. So, not only would they need to “consult” with Derby (that could be fun) and Wycombe but also our respective opponents in those games. It wouldn’t take many games before a load of other teams get impacted by the mess. That’s another reason why I don’t think the EFL will appeal.

Let’s imagine the EFL take another week to make their mind up to appeal. Then the DC pull out all the stops and make a judgement after just four weeks. I imagine Derby would have at least a week to appeal the new penalty and the DC take another 3 weeks to hear our counter appeal. We’re now getting towards the end of August by which time we should have played 5 league games.

I don’t know what rights of appeal Derby would have but, if an EFL went against us, I can’t imagine that would be the end of the matter.

And let’s remember that football clubs up and down the country will still be having to test their players regularly and clubs like Rotherham will still have a whole squad self isolating and fixtures will be cancelled at short notice and that will again mess up the whole league system.

obvious exception for Scottish players who don’t go near anyone else in positive infection cases ?

44 minutes ago, Tombo said:

I mean, do you really blame Wycombe? I don't 

They have a bit of a cheek - they got promoted having finished their season in 8th place 

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wages must be below a percentage of turnover in L1 and L2. They rejected a move to a fixed wage cap.

Fairly disastrous though for us and a lot of employees 

I have just spent a while bouncing around other fans forums to view the responses and more than anything most other sets of fans haven’t got any idea what we have been found ‘guilty’ of and only use their own sound bites which mainly follow newspaper headlines from the past. 
most acknowledge that the EFL are useless but for different reasons but none of them Realise how this is actually going to impact on them in the future

51 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

What evidence have you that Sam Rush operated unmonitored?

Blackman, Anya, Butterfield, johnson, Bent etc in terms of contract inclusion 

The only blame I attribute to Mel Morris is

trying to compete with unfair parachute payments 

allowing Sam Rush to operate unmonitored