Jump to content

U.M.

Member
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by U.M.

  1. 2 hours ago, angieram said:

    No. Louie Sibley is a better left back than Buchanan and he isn't even a left back! 

    I think he is definitely one we should  consider. Young player with good positional flexibility (LB LWB and CB - in a 3, too short for a 4).  Allows Sibley to play in his correct position.

    (also I can't say I agree that Sibley is a better LB )

  2. 2 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

    Knight money went in to the running of the club. Its quite lame and boring and doesn't bode well for an exciting future but that's where we are at.

    Believe if we offloaded this month a proportion would be put in the kitty but we don't appear to want to sell this month.  

    I thought the Knight money went on paying the Jozwiak balance.

    We settled the dispute with Poznan in August, around the time of Knights transfer.

  3. 4 hours ago, valakari said:

    What is Bielik's value currently for FFP purposes??...think he signed a 4 year contract and cost £8m..therefore depreciating by £2m per year leaves his value on the accounts at £2m..so if we sell for anything less, that would represent a loss on our accounts which counts towards our FFP. It would also represent really bad business..but then we are used to that!

    A free transfer would create a £2m loss, but save £2m depreciation ( last year of his contract, his ‘value’ disappears either way)

    Any return is better than nothing, plus saves wages.

    The “bad business” part was done years ago.

  4. 11 hours ago, NottsRam77 said:

    It was. Those 3 i mentioned were just big money (for the time) that really we’re a true hit and our best “big money” signings i can think of 

    shilton.. oustanding

    sanders outstanding 

    stimac simply world class

    no ifs and buts 

    ince and co dont hold a torch to those 3 in terms of value for money 

    I’d add Mark Wright to those 3.

    He was the big transfer fee of the deal with Southampton, Shilton probably bigger wages.

    Thought he was a classy defender, had a way of organising the defence around him.

    And I think we made money on him too.

  5. 3 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

    Who will replace darren waddle as youth system

    will it be some warn knows 

    Mel's legacy will be debated for years to come, but one decision he made that shouldn't be questioned is the one to separate the academy Management from the first team structure.  The stability we had in the academy is a stark contrast to the revolving door at first team level.  As such, we shouldn't make DW's replacement a Warne appointment. (I'm sure his opinion will be sought, but the replacement must be separate from his team and not likely to leave if Warne goes in the future)

     

    To throw out a possible, with a Derby connection (not really required) - Gary Bowyer.  Been here twice (so presumably did ok first time around).  Been on Academy staff at Blackburn as well - got promoted to Manager, so guess he had done ok there too....  And currently out of work, I think.

  6. 12 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

    New signings do seem to have dried up a bit. I can't see us getting anyone else is now

    Think the hold up maybe the 3 uncertainties in our existing squad: Byrne issue needs resolving, can’t sign a replacement in case EFL rules in our favour and he ends up staying, Beilik will be big(ger) wages, so him staying (whilst positive for his midfield play) may limit wages for another position. And Forsyth-sign him or sign a replacement.

  7. 52 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

    We’ll if we’re making a loss I’d imagine we’re paying out more VAT than receiving… and as for PAYE that would be paid out of the players wages so we wouldn’t be behind on that. 
    VAT is a real possibility but surely not to such a troublesome amount… 

     

    We are making a loss - because of high wages which don't attract VAT - so will owe more than we collect.

    The PAYE (and NI) is deducted from wages, but if we haven't paid it to HMRC (used it to support other cashflow issues), then they may want it now!

  8. 17 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

    That's fair

    But won't the cashflow (in part) depend on the amount of money we owe HMRC and that's based on the accounts the EFL need to sign 

    I doubt the HMRC debt has anything to do with the current accounts. We don’t make a profit and have many millions of brought forward tax losses if we did.

    It is much more likely to be VAT and PAYE.

×
×
  • Create New...