Butthead Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I would have though the Florist new owners would have made it a priority to buy back their sh#tty ground back from the council, very odd but hey they must have brand new fridges 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfb Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 derby need more mney in the club and the current owners will put a little bit in but not what we really need to get in the prem and keep up the we have a good new lads coming through the ranks but they will leave if the have a better offer 1st post eh, well Mr Appleby, if your trying to gage what we think of the board its this...... Please fill us in on your plans, we want to get behind you as i said this time last year,when i was trying to 2nd guess what the board had in mind,( I figured it was build from the bottom up, makes sense long term/financially ) But..... We havent heard a word really since your 'We're on course for the Prem' speech on taking charge, not even much around ST renewl time.... ?? If your aim is to put the real cash into the academy and less into the 1st team,then sell off the gems from there to finance the club overall then fine, but dont do it all 'quietly' cos people like me will be pissed ( yank slang for upset not drunk ) at apparent 'asset stripping' to line your pockets, we all realise you need a return on your investment, but so do we........ Here endeth the lesson 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rams_Forever86 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Isnt the reason we havent got a new owner is because no-one will take on the loan debt.But that works sort of in our favour as if a buyer is willing to pay off the debt they must be reallly rich.What i dont get is why people go on about tom glick being crap.If he was why did man city get him they have all the money in the world(As the saying goes) why pick him.He helped clough get this youth system up and and running.He also hasnt stabbed us in the back(Yet) by telling city about will hughes and Mason bennett and that they should bid for them as derby would accept an offer thats half of their value.This Sam rush seems to have alot of experience especially in contracts and getting a cheap deal.If we needed money why bring this guy in who will be on a big wage and his job is to bring players into the club.We have already bought two young players in Jack tuite and Charlie Verham who both commanded compensation fees.Also from livingston fans on their forums it looks like they talking about life after Marc mcnulty and im sure garner went back and scouted him again after his trial.Why would we continue to take on more trialist such as Connor sellars who if good would be offered contracts which cost money.So this so called 1.8 million is a myth.Back when Glick was here they talked about how thye worked so hard to get stability financially and that they achived a steady monthly income and outcome.I see players coming in for the u21s in january and Ben davies leaving and Naylor and some other going on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Wouldn't it be ever so amazing if we got a billionaire owner. Hang on, we've got one. Ain't we? Sign everyone now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derbydan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 No point in having a billionaire owner he can't spend all his wonga on players financial fair play an all that............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TelTheRam Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 derby need more mney in the club and the current owners will put a little bit in but not what we really need to get in the prem and keep up the we have a good new lads coming through the ranks but they will leave if the have a better offer It's the same at every club - every player has a price, and (almost) every player will move for more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I want owners that can make promises like this [size=3] [/size][size=3]"a major force in the Premier League and a global brand recognised around the world." 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' />[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I want these owners to pay some of the better sensible wages in the division and we can all expect it to reflect itself in league position. Instead of having to cut the wage bill, leave Nigel looking for bargains and gems while talking utter rubbish about becoming a global brand and established PL side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knabby crackers Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Nah, he'd just want to build a golf course and demolish Chaddesden to improve the view...actually, now I come to think of it Trump in 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> There is nowt wrong with Chaddo 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' /> , far better to redevelop Normanton and Sinfin with multiple sand-pits [complete with palm trees], a couple of camel sanctuaries, loads of ex-army tents and you will find that we will soon get interest from rich billionaire members of the Tea Towel Brigade, easy peasy!! Then again I could win the Euromillions when it next reaches £100million and the problem would be solved. '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...
ramblur Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 No point in having a billionaire owner he can't spend all his wonga on players financial fair play an all that............... Reasonable point,dan,but FFP won't completely restrict activity.Even in its most stringent form,from 14/15 onwards,clubs could still post a £5m FFP loss,without penalty,provided that £3m of equity had been injected to meet the part of the loss that didn't represent the £2m allowance for acceptable deviation (i.e. the leeway that clubs are granted to cater for unforeseen dips in revenue/increases in expenses). To get a flavour of what the extra £3m might do for you,imagine that you split it into £1.5m extra on the wage bill and £1.5m extra on annual players' regs amortisation (it's this that counts against the annual result,not any instalments paid in the period).If you were to sign players on 3 year contracts,then this level of amortisation would allow you to sign £4.5m of players in any 3 year period on top of what you might have been able to do if merely aiming for break even. Many would say that this level of extra spending would propel us from our current position to promotion candidates,which in itself gives an indication of the advantages the 'haves' might enjoy. We appear to have been told that we'll reap the benefits of FFP when others have to undergo the process we've undertaken.This might have been true if FFP penalties had been based around break even,but they're not.Clubs will only have to follow our path if they so choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hucknall Ram Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Reasonable point,dan,but FFP won't completely restrict activity.Even in its most stringent form,from 14/15 onwards,clubs could still post a £5m FFP loss,without penalty,provided that £3m of equity had been injected to meet the part of the loss that didn't represent the £2m allowance for acceptable deviation (i.e. the leeway that clubs are granted to cater for unforeseen dips in revenue/increases in expenses). To get a flavour of what the extra £3m might do for you,imagine that you split it into £1.5m extra on the wage bill and £1.5m extra on annual players' regs amortisation (it's this that counts against the annual result,not any instalments paid in the period).If you were to sign players on 3 year contracts,then this level of amortisation would allow you to sign £4.5m of players in any 3 year period on top of what you might have been able to do if merely aiming for break even. Many would say that this level of extra spending would propel us from our current position to promotion candidates,which in itself gives an indication of the advantages the 'haves' might enjoy. We appear to have been told that we'll reap the benefits of FFP when others have to undergo the process we've undertaken.This might have been true if FFP penalties had been based around break even,but they're not.Clubs will only have to follow our path if they so choose. Seriously, do you sense someone talking about finances? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Reasonable point,dan,but FFP won't completely restrict activity.Even in its most stringent form,from 14/15 onwards,clubs could still post a £5m FFP loss,without penalty,provided that £3m of equity had been injected to meet the part of the loss that didn't represent the £2m allowance for acceptable deviation (i.e. the leeway that clubs are granted to cater for unforeseen dips in revenue/increases in expenses). To get a flavour of what the extra £3m might do for you,imagine that you split it into £1.5m extra on the wage bill and £1.5m extra on annual players' regs amortisation (it's this that counts against the annual result,not any instalments paid in the period).If you were to sign players on 3 year contracts,then this level of amortisation would allow you to sign £4.5m of players in any 3 year period on top of what you might have been able to do if merely aiming for break even. Many would say that this level of extra spending would propel us from our current position to promotion candidates,which in itself gives an indication of the advantages the 'haves' might enjoy. We appear to have been told that we'll reap the benefits of FFP when others have to undergo the process we've undertaken.This might have been true if FFP penalties had been based around break even,but they're not.Clubs will only have to follow our path if they so choose. How many clubs currently make £5m or less losses? How many have owners that can inject £3m to cover part of the allowed loss? How many currently exceed £5m losses? Figures I don't know but I think that there are clubs that will still have to make cuts to meet that figure. Including us with our £7m losses on the last account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 How many clubs currently make £5m or less losses? How many have owners that can inject £3m to cover part of the allowed loss? How many currently exceed £5m losses? Figures I don't know but I think that there are clubs that will still have to make cuts to meet that figure. Including us with our £7m losses on the last account. Our £7.7m headline loss would almost certainly still have complied with a £5m FFP loss by virtue of the fact that fixed asset depreciation (in our case c£2m) and net cost of youth development (unknown,but surely at least £700k?) are excluded from the FFP result.All that would have needed to be done differently would have been the substitution of £3m equity for some of the loan capital.Because of these 2 considerations,other clubs electing to inject £3m would be able to post headline losses in excess of the £5m,yet still comply. Some clubs that aren't willing to invest £3m may well have to make cuts,but this doesn't mean we're going to gain some advantage through FFP as appeared to be the suggestion.Are we going to be at an advantage or disadvantage to our EM rivals,to give just 2 examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Well forest made £11m loss last year, so need to make cuts to get to £5m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Well forest made £11m loss last year, so need to make cuts to get to £5m I assume this loss related to 10/11,four years away from 14/15,so it would appear that natural fall out of contracts could deliver some cuts.Whatever they may or may not have to do,it still remains the case that if they elect to inject £3m and we don't,then they'll be working at a financial advantage to us,as would anyone else that injected equity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 derby need more mney in the club and the current owners will put a little bit in but not what we really need to get in the prem and keep up the we have a good new lads coming through the ranks but they will leave if the have a better offer ‘tis true. Looks like... Break even < Current Derby finances < FFP I wonder which way we’re heading – although there’s probably a clue in the ‘less than’ sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Of course new owners grow on trees, should be plenty that want to pump million and millions and never see it back. I wish our current bunch of wealthy owners would start throwing sensible amounts of money at the squad to make us genuinely competitive in this league. Our owners have now had 5 years in charge and they’re still looking to cut back the funding for the squad. I’d never heard of King Power or Al-Hasawi until they pitched up down the road. Time to give someone with a bit more ambition a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Our £7.7m headline loss would almost certainly still have complied with a £5m FFP loss by virtue of the fact that fixed asset depreciation (in our case c£2m) and net cost of youth development (unknown,but surely at least £700k?) are excluded from the FFP result.All that would have needed to be done differently would have been the substitution of £3m equity for some of the loan capital.Because of these 2 considerations,other clubs electing to inject £3m would be able to post headline losses in excess of the £5m,yet still comply. I wondered who would spot that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 The youth development costs can be worked out as a rough figure. We are going category 2 Category 2 • Clubs that cannot meet the required budget requirement and staff levels demanded by Category 1, but sBll have an indoor training facility • Will be allowed to take players from age 4 and sign players from the age of 9 • Will require an estimated budget of £969k • The current 90 minute travel rule will not apply http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/sd/The_Elite_Player_Performance_Plan.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 The youth development costs can be worked out as a rough figure. We are going category 2 Category 2 • Clubs that cannot meet the required budget requirement and staff levels demanded by Category 1, but sBll have an indoor training facility • Will be allowed to take players from age 4 and sign players from the age of 9 • Will require an estimated budget of £969k • The current 90 minute travel rule will not apply [url=http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/sd/The_Elite_Player_Performance_Plan.pdf]http://clients.squar...rmance_Plan.pdf Well,it gives a feel for it,but you really need to know the extent of Prem funding to arrive at net costs.I'm sure utch came up with a cost figure of about £1.4m some time ago,but he could of course just have been talking about his annual red wine bill. Doubt we'll need to get too excited about it in future as I don't somehow see us facing the remotest prospect of FFP fines/embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.