Cisse Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 the board has to lower the wage bill, Clough said they were about 3 players heavy at the moment. Bavies, etc will have to be let go or sold on. To lower our wage bill ? We just shipped Tom Glick to Manchester. Should afford half of the Burton now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 To lower our wage bill ? We just shipped Tom Glick to Manchester. Should afford half of the Burton now. They gave us like 500k-1mil in compensation aswell.This is all Fos clough had loads of players like Leacock,Pearson anderson etc who were on above 5k and werent playing he got rid of them and bywater was on 10k he got rid of him to if anything we have a bit of wage budget to play with.Im sure radio derby will interview someone high up for pre match on saturday which will show the truth behind this.Its no secret we had 7 million loan debt that we pay a certian amount each month to pay it off.should be about 5-6 million now.Just think if we got into the prem even if we werent good enough 100 million up money and the parachute money when we get relegated would pay off all the debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I was under the impression that we got rid of most debt that was external. Like I said, can't say I've looked at the accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I was under the impression that we got rid of most debt that was external. Like I said, can't say I've looked at the accounts. Maybe but paying it off all at once will cause interest to be put on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 3 players heavy - I'm sure there's a few out if contract in the summer - Roberts, Bavies, Croft. Three there and only one who is actually a first team regular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I actually forgot about croft.See thats why clough has done a marvellous job he had a whole team of crofts inherited from previous management.Croft is the only one left now Oldham owe us 100k for him at the end of the season if he signs with them. Bavies will go back to Notts county probally and Roberts will retire.Isnt Bailey out of contract in the summer should tie him to a new one still has lots of potential and enjoys it here.He never turned one down we just havent offered. We have a small squad if anything we should be adding three not getting rid of three.Papers are Fos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Clough signed Croft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Clough signed Croft Clearly forgot aswell.hes not needed any how Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randombc Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I actually forgot about croft.See thats why clough has done a marvellous job he had a whole team of crofts inherited from previous management.Croft is the only one left now Oldham owe us 100k for him at the end of the season if he signs with them. Bavies will go back to Notts county probally and Roberts will retire.Isnt Bailey out of contract in the summer should tie him to a new one still has lots of potential and enjoys it here.He never turned one down we just havent offered. We have a small squad if anything we should be adding three not getting rid of three.Papers are Fos How do you know Oldham owe us £100,000? Surely since he'll be out of contract in the summer they'll get him for nowt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 How do you know Oldham owe us £100,000? Surely since he'll be out of contract in the summer they'll get him for nowt? The loan was with view to pernament.So they get first chance to sign him if they do we get cash if he signs for someone else we dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 See Croft has started every game for Oldham, no surprise to see them near the relegation zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 See Croft has started every game for Oldham, no surprise to see them near the relegation zone. They've been near there for quite some time since Dickov came into charge. I'm unsure if this is finance related relegation fighting or simply under-achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorneoRam Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 They gave us like 500k-1mil in compensation aswell.This is all Fos clough had loads of players like Leacock,Pearson anderson etc who were on above 5k and werent playing he got rid of them and bywater was on 10k he got rid of him to if anything we have a bit of wage budget to play with.Im sure radio derby will interview someone high up for pre match on saturday which will show the truth behind this.Its no secret we had 7 million loan debt that we pay a certian amount each month to pay it off.should be about 5-6 million now.Just think if we got into the prem even if we werent good enough 100 million up money and the parachute money when we get relegated would pay off all the debts. We got 1m for glick? really? right, new strategy, stop selling players sell board members instead and invest in the the playing squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 They gave us like 500k-1mil in compensation aswell.This is all Fos clough had loads of players like Leacock,Pearson anderson etc who were on above 5k and werent playing he got rid of them and bywater was on 10k he got rid of him to if anything we have a bit of wage budget to play with.Im sure radio derby will interview someone high up for pre match on saturday which will show the truth behind this.Its no secret we had 7 million loan debt that we pay a certian amount each month to pay it off.should be about 5-6 million now.Just think if we got into the prem even if we werent good enough 100 million up money and the parachute money when we get relegated would pay off all the debts. You must have a very good source at a high level in the club. Much of what you write has never before found its way into the public domain, or even the accounts. Because I have no such source (just a very good memory) I am in no position to suggest that you are making stuff up. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Does anyone have any proof at all of any kind of approach from any other club for Brayford? I'd take £5 million for him... Got Freeman in who's supposed to be pretty decent and with Nigel's transfer record so far £5 million should bring in 3/4 decent players... And why do these threads always seem to turn into "let's slag off the americans"? They've been pretty good for the club so far... we're financially better off than when they arrived, better position in the league, better squad of players, better youth system and they still seem to be happy to put money in to cover off debts and pay for players like Sammon... But maybe those are all bad things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Does anyone have any proof at all of any kind of approach from any other club for Brayford? I'd take £5 million for him... Got Freeman in who's supposed to be pretty decent and with Nigel's transfer record so far £5 million should bring in 3/4 decent players... And why do these threads always seem to turn into "let's slag off the americans"? They've been pretty good for the club so far... we're financially better off than when they arrived, better position in the league, better squad of players, better youth system and they still seem to be happy to put money in to cover off debts and pay for players like Sammon... But maybe those are all bad things? Are we financially better off? We have a lower wage bill certainly, but also a much lower turnover. We also may have a larger absolute debt than when GSE took over. We did, at the last accounts, have a greater percentage of debt in relation to turnover. We certainly have a lower league position as we were in a higher division when GSE arrived. A better squad of players? Difficult that one. We have a more likeable squad with a great deal of potential. Yet, the squad that GSE inherited was largley the squad that Billy gained promotion with. They proved inadequate for the Premier League, but the majority were proven to be of promotion quality. The current squad have not so far proved that - although I do agree that several of them probably will go on to do so. Hard to argue with the benifits of the youth system. IMO that is GSE's one excellent achievement. They have also provided the funds to allow Nigel to tread water in the division and not go into recievership. Not a bad achievement, but not one that deserves adoration surely? As for Brayford, if we get £2m it will be a good deal - £5m is just silly. But of course, we'll never actually find out for difinite as any fee will be 'undisclosed' - unless of course we only sell one player during the accounting period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyRam Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20340377 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Are we financially better off? We have a lower wage bill certainly, but also a much lower turnover. We also may have a larger absolute debt than when GSE took over. We did, at the last accounts, have a greater percentage of debt in relation to turnover. We certainly have a lower league position as we were in a higher division when GSE arrived. A better squad of players? Difficult that one. We have a more likeable squad with a great deal of potential. Yet, the squad that GSE inherited was largley the squad that Billy gained promotion with. They proved inadequate for the Premier League, but the majority were proven to be of promotion quality. The current squad have not so far proved that - although I do agree that several of them probably will go on to do so. Hard to argue with the benifits of the youth system. IMO that is GSE's one excellent achievement. They have also provided the funds to allow Nigel to tread water in the division and not go into recievership. Not a bad achievement, but not one that deserves adoration surely? As for Brayford, if we get £2m it will be a good deal - £5m is just silly. But of course, we'll never actually find out for difinite as any fee will be 'undisclosed' - unless of course we only sell one player during the accounting period. It might also be pointed out that we ended the Prem season with £7.9m sitting in the bank,a situation that owed nothing to any financial intervention by the owners.The £23m+ chute payments also belong on the LOG side of the financial 'balance sheet'-if anyone wants to point out that most of the first one went on debt repayment,then the £31m debt figure should be lowered accordingly. If no debt had been scheduled for repayment out of the chute payments,then the situation would have been £31m debt + 2 complete chute payments to follow.Consequently,those who claim the owners had to suffer the burden of £31m of debt and a depleted first chute payment are being a tad devious. All of this of course ignores the Jan 08 net cash spend,which should also be added back into the LOG's legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 That's a new one on me. The last accounts showed quite a lot of existing external debt (c£19m from memory, but I'm sure Ramblur is watching and shouting at his screen to say that I'm wrong) and some new debt owed to the owners. This replaced previous equity injections and led a few of us to question why loans now instead of equity. Glick insisted that this 'internal' loan was interest free and carried no iminent intention of repayment. Not at all,Cornwall,you're usually one of the more accurate reporters of financial figures.As you may have already deduced,those who mention the £7m are merely quoting the 10/11 injection,which ignores the c£1.7m GSE loan from 9/10 and the c£5.8m signalled for 11/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 club value 25 million debt 9 million from june 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.