dcfc88888 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Im worried that even If we did get promoted what would the boards policy to wages be, I'm guessing they would have some sort of wage cap per week as they do now, its just i hope we don't follow Readings structure, I.e not investing at all when they were promoted last season. To me it doesn't even seem worth getting promotion, because I could see lack of investment and unwillingness to meet higher wages e.g. 12-20 k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Maybe,but that's not the cost of the squad though if he more or less recouped what was spent on the two I mentioned.Name me the manager who's never signed a player and then discarded same inside a year. Not the amount of players we've had and discarded, the list is massive, and we've still got one on the books now (remember James Bailey?). In my book this is why we've failed, at times we've had 6, 7 players taking a wage who weren't contributing in any way, a massive drain on resources. One of the reasons why I don't believe Clough will take us any further, to move the squad on we'll have to bring in better players, and if we need to buy 4 players to find 2 that Clough will work with, then what chance do we stand. He might prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Just thinking out the box for a minute. Why is it that if promoted contracts seem to have massive promotion bonus' but if relegated they don't have massive decreases? Surely this common sense move would make the massive softeners upon relegation from the Premier League redundant? Because the players hold all the aces. A club going up to the Prem is desperate to get quality players in. Wave a contract in front of them that only guarantees them decent money for a year, and (potentially) rubbish money for the remaining 3 years, and he'll just go and sign elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Not the amount of players we've had and discarded, the list is massive, and we've still got one on the books now (remember James Bailey?). In my book this is why we've failed, at times we've had 6, 7 players taking a wage who weren't contributing in any way, a massive drain on resources. One of the reasons why I don't believe Clough will take us any further, to move the squad on we'll have to bring in better players, and if we need to buy 4 players to find 2 that Clough will work with, then what chance do we stand. He might prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope. You could make the argument that because Clough has had to shop in the bargain basement not every signing pays off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Because the players hold all the aces. A club going up to the Prem is desperate to get quality players in. Wave a contract in front of them that only guarantees them decent money for a year, and (potentially) rubbish money for the remaining 3 years, and he'll just go and sign elsewhere. I suspect the PFA will also dictate some of the terms. There was something on the radio about the league cup and that, although the teams have contractual obligations to pay win bonuses, in the early rounds there are no prize money allocations, so some early rounds cost teams money they can't afford. Attempts to change this were blocked by the PFA. Wouldn't surprise me if promotion/relegation clauses are also PFA governed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 One of the reasons why I don't believe Clough will take us any further, to move the squad on we'll have to bring in better players, and if we need to buy 4 players to find 2 that Clough will work with, then what chance do we stand. He might prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope. This is the fundamental error that people always make. In order to 'move a squad on' you don't have to just bring in better players - you have to persuade the existing players to move on in order to get them off the wage bill. If they are on Jewell and Davies type wages, then you have a huge problem - especially if you have to free up part of the wage bill before you can even afford a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 No, you give them the cold shoulder for a few months then pay them to play for another club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Im worried that even If we did get promoted what would the boards policy to wages be, I'm guessing they would have some sort of wage cap per week as they do now, its just i hope we don't follow Readings structure, I.e not investing at all when they were promoted last season. To me it doesn't even seem worth getting promotion, because I could see lack of investment and unwillingness to meet higher wages e.g. 12-20 k. I thought this was a pretty valid point just sayin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I thought this was a pretty valid point just sayin.... I would be deeply concerned if you didn't. You wrote it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I thought this was a pretty valid point just sayin.... Quoting your own post is a bit sad tho, it looks like you're having an argument with yourself 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Quoting your own post is a bit sad tho, it looks like you're having an argument with yourself 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Who do you think will win the argument though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Who do you think will win the argument though? I would, in all seriousness though, what would happen with wages structures if we did get promoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Who do you think will win the argument though? I think he'd probably lose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I would, in all seriousness though, what would happen with wages structures if we did get promoted? All theoretical, I guess they would assess what income we would get and set the budget based upon that whilst still trying to retain a 'sustainable' model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I would, in all seriousness though, what would happen with wages structures if we did get promoted? Given that a £23m players' wage bill in 07/08 produced a £14m cash surplus on operations,and given that the latest reported figures show that tv payments for the bottom club were £8m more than we got,you should get an idea of what a Prem season could now support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 There is some more news for those who are interested in the finance behind the club. The finance director mal braniggan has given some analysis of the 7.8 million loss: ...... DET today WITH matches coming thick and fast and a furore over season ticket prices for next season, Derby County's latest accounts almost dipped under the radar. Figures for the financial year ending June 2012 were announced last month in the week of the Championship clash against Nottingham Forest. Some suggested the decision to release the accounts amid the build-up to the East Midlands "derby" was a deliberate ploy by the club, something the club denies. Undeniable is the fact Derby offered only a bare minimum of figures in the brief press release covering the accounts. They reported a loss of almost £8m to follow the £7.7m deficit the previous year. Turnover was £17.3m, down from £18.1m the year before and operating costs were reduced from £17.6m to £17.3m. The debt at the end of the last financial year stood at £33.2m, as was reported on the back page of the Derby Telegraph on January 17. Now armed with a full copy of the accounts, it is possible to add more detail. Derby's US-based owner General Sports and Entertainment invested a further £9.8m in the club in the 12 months to June 30, 2012 and have injected another £3.9m since the year end, we are told. Match receipts were up slightly from £5.5m to £5.6m, sponsorship and advertising income was down slightly to £2m from around £2.1m, as was merchandising, from around £1.5m to almost £1.2m. Commercial activities dropped from £3m to £2.7m. Derby say the annual accounts are "very much" in line with expectations and the club expect to return another loss in the current financial year. But they are confident the loss will not be as heavy. "The loss will be less than it has been in the previous two years," said Mal Brannigan, the club's vice president, finance. "You will find that even though the loss for this year is higher than the previous one, it is more in line with the fact that turnover came down greater than the actual costs of running the organisation. "The costs of running the organisation have come down year on year as well." Asked how the club had made a loss of £8m and what was involved in the loss, Brannigan said: "The club has a cost base that still exceeds the income currently being generated. "Some of those costs will be historic and legacy costs, which would have been borne by decisions made in previous financial years and that would still have an impact on the business on the financial year being reported." On the size of debt, Brannigan commented: "There are two main stakeholders for the debt, one is the Co-op Bank (a £15m mortgage on the stadium and the property) and the other one is the ownership group. "The balance of how the debt is split makes the position more comfortable for the club because the debt is now owned more by the ownership group and is the owners' responsibility rather than a third party. "Some of the third-party debt recorded 12 months ago (a season ticket facility of around £4m) has now been taken on board by the ownership group as a cost, reducing the third-party debt. "The ownership group continues to be the biggest source of finance for the club and they will continue to commit to funding the organisation going forward." Loans from the ownership group are the largest part of the debt but has there been any interest payments made on those loans? Brannigan said: "There has been no interest repayments gone to any of the owners as a collective or as individuals since they have bought the club in 2008." Derby paid £1.4m in interest and similar charges on bank loans, overdrafts and other interests in the last financial year. Derby's wage bill for all members of the club's staff was reduced from £11.6m to £11.4m. Players' wages made up a large chunk of that figure, although the club remain coy on the size of the salary costs for players alone. That has been reduced significantly in recent years since the club dropped out of the Premier League in 2008. There is a perception that the size of wage bill for players puts Derby in the bottom half of Championship payers and yet they are in ninth place after 33 games. Looking at the table, and without knowing exactly what other clubs are paying, one would suggest around 15 clubs might have more hefty wage bills. Chief executive Sam Rush said: "I think we operate a very competitive football operation based on our income streams, which no longer have parachute money. "The whole football operation wage bill is constantly reviewed and the current wage bill allows us to be competitive in the league and we are going through a process over the next few weeks where we will review it for the forthcoming season. "But it is part of our plan that we will always have a wage bill that will ensure that we can be as competitive as possible. "If we are going to continue this upwards trajectory of our performance, then we understand we have to have a wage bill that will ensure we can be as competitive as possible at the top of the League." The accounts show that the package of the club's highest-paid director in the financial year ending June 2012 amounted to £273,656, although the identity of the director is not revealed. Derby say General Sports has now pumped in £36.6m to meet the working capital needs of the club since the takeover five years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Derby say General Sports has now pumped in £36.6m to meet the working capital needs of the club since the takeover five years ago? Plus buying the club, so what's the total? And does it look a good investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Derby say General Sports has now pumped in £36.6m to meet the working capital needs of the club since the takeover five years ago? Plus buying the club, so what's the total? And does it look a good investment? £16m for acquisition,so £52.6m total. The journo has got the interest paid figure wrong ,as it was £726k (£715k net) -the figure given was for interest payable,not actually paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Bring on the sheik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Derby's US-based owner General Sports and Entertainment invested a further £9.8m in the club in the 12 months to June 30, 2012 - Do the owners want praise for giving people contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.