ramblur Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 How bout we just focus on getting promoted, that way we can be happy with a handy 140million pounds rather than a measly 4million... £120m (minimum) seems to be the consensus figure derived from several reputable sites.We'll very shortly know what the min Prem figure is under the new arrangements, as all the figures will be published later on this month (the 'chute payments look set to be worth £60m in total). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 In case that we get to the Wembley but lose it will still help us financially even if the owners reduce their losses so far. As their losses gets smaller they surely are more willing to give a bit more for transfer kit/wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Sorry Rampton,it's impossible because we don't know final ticket prices or the amount of the TV fee.All I was able to say was that I couldn't find anything to obviously refute Sage's £3m,but this doesn't mean that that's my estimate,because I find it impossible to come up with one! For those who anticipate any proceeds from a losing final would automatically go into a transfer kitty,I think you might be disappointed.We should be aware that our owners have continually subsidised our club and I think it would be a little churlish to deny them the opportunity to use some of the proceeds to reduce their annual financial input,if only for one year. Hi Ramblur I initially thought that the extra income from the playoffs would be a good way for the owners to mitigate some of their losses too. However, having thought about it I can see a potential reason why that might not be the case - FFP. Personally, I believe that FFP will never withstand any legal challenge and will be quietly dropped before next season. The clubs are also discussing a significant increase in allowable deviation to reduce the advantage of parachute teams, so the 'goalposts' are likely to shift soon anyway. However, assuming that neither of these things happens, and DCFC continue to comply with the rules, we don't actually have much scope from our normal revenue streams to pay any transfer fees next season. If (and thinking about it I reckon this is the flaw in my argument) the playoff monies count towards next season's FFP calculation, or if not, we can actually pay transfer fees from this season's accounts then that extra couple of million might be the difference between actually buying players or not. OK, the owners could do with a bit of break - but McClaren, Rush, Wilson and Appleby have all been very clear that promotion next season (assuming we don't manage it this) is the minimum requirement. We have a lot of players out of contract and four loaness to either buy or replace. A viable promotion push will need to be funded and FFP doesn't seem to allow that given the currently intended reduction in allowable deviation. It also seems to stop any Championship club other than parachute clubs being able to pay out fees - so we may well not get any cash for selling any fringe players (thinking bald strikers). So the playoffs could give us that bit of wiggle room. The above is also why I think that FFP has the potential to kill football far more than a couple of insolvencies ever have. It takes away the chance for most clubs to improve their squads and puts the parachute clubs at a huge advantage. After a few years you will be able to write down the final league table before the season kicks off - and who wants to watch uncompetitive football? The gap to the Premier League will be huge, and ALL the decent players will go there. The stars of the Championship will all be players rented from the PL - making it harder for fans to engage with their own players. Taking away outside investment from the Championship, whilst allowing PL clubs to grow unchecked (even their FFP allows for deviations of around £100m), will leave this wonderful and exciting league to wither on the vine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlsonDerby Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 All they need to do is exclude parachute payments from income when calculating the loss for a club, then anyone with stars on premier league contracts get looked at on a club by club basis, the average wage of a champs player should be included in the loss calculation and the surplus to the players wages should be excluded from the loss calculation. This happens for two years after relegation which gives clubs one shot at rebounding straight up and then another season to get rid of players on astronomical wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Shoowwww me the moneeeeeyyyyyy ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hi Ramblur I initially thought that the extra income from the playoffs would be a good way for the owners to mitigate some of their losses too. However, having thought about it I can see a potential reason why that might not be the case - FFP. Personally, I believe that FFP will never withstand any legal challenge and will be quietly dropped before next season. The clubs are also discussing a significant increase in allowable deviation to reduce the advantage of parachute teams, so the 'goalposts' are likely to shift soon anyway. However, assuming that neither of these things happens, and DCFC continue to comply with the rules, we don't actually have much scope from our normal revenue streams to pay any transfer fees next season. If (and thinking about it I reckon this is the flaw in my argument) the playoff monies count towards next season's FFP calculation, or if not, we can actually pay transfer fees from this season's accounts then that extra couple of million might be the difference between actually buying players or not. OK, the owners could do with a bit of break - but McClaren, Rush, Wilson and Appleby have all been very clear that promotion next season (assuming we don't manage it this) is the minimum requirement. We have a lot of players out of contract and four loaness to either buy or replace. A viable promotion push will need to be funded and FFP doesn't seem to allow that given the currently intended reduction in allowable deviation. It also seems to stop any Championship club other than parachute clubs being able to pay out fees - so we may well not get any cash for selling any fringe players (thinking bald strikers). So the playoffs could give us that bit of wiggle room. The above is also why I think that FFP has the potential to kill football far more than a couple of insolvencies ever have. It takes away the chance for most clubs to improve their squads and puts the parachute clubs at a huge advantage. After a few years you will be able to write down the final league table before the season kicks off - and who wants to watch uncompetitive football? The gap to the Premier League will be huge, and ALL the decent players will go there. The stars of the Championship will all be players rented from the PL - making it harder for fans to engage with their own players. Taking away outside investment from the Championship, whilst allowing PL clubs to grow unchecked (even their FFP allows for deviations of around £100m), will leave this wonderful and exciting league to wither on the vine. Hi Cornwall,unfortunately you were right in suspecting that play off income would only count against the current season's FFP result.I can't work out from your post whether you think that transfer fees per se count against FFP in any given year.The answer is that it's not the fees themselves,but the amortisation charges they generate.For example,if we were to spend £3m on feesinvolving 3 year contracts next year, then the additional FFP burden would be £1m (but also for the following 2 years). It's for this reason that any wanting to sell Hughes (if the opportunity arose) for big money and reinvest should be careful what they wish for.If I just take one example of what I've seen,viz sell Hughes for £10m and reinvest £6m,then the transactions wouldn't generate an FFP shift of +£4m (10-6).Instead,if 3 year contracts were involved,the FFP implication for next year would be +£8m, but -£2m for the following 2 years (when FFP in its current form is at its most stringent,with total allowable losses of only £5m).Now an additional burden of £2m would be very onerous in the context of such relatively small overall allowable losses in the pipeline. However,like you I've long thought FFP is doomed to fail in any meaningful form.I suspect it might even be the case that a majority of clubs will fail to comply this year,a sure recipe for change.Until this happens though,clubs would still have to plan on the basis of current arrangements (or just totally ignore it). PS. Any increase in allowable FFP losses would benefit clubs receiving parachute payments just as much as the rest,in purely financial terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 All they need to do is exclude parachute payments from income when calculating the loss for a club, then anyone with stars on premier league contracts get looked at on a club by club basis, the average wage of a champs player should be included in the loss calculation and the surplus to the players wages should be excluded from the loss calculation. This happens for two years after relegation which gives clubs one shot at rebounding straight up and then another season to get rid of players on astronomical wages. I've read your post a couple of times,but I'm still not sure I grasp the point you're trying to make,so here goes...... Are you saying that the actual wages of the lesser lights in a squad should count against FFP,whereas the wages of more high profile players would have an average Championship wage substituted in the calculation? If so,apart from the fact it appears overly complicated,who's going to decide at what level a player counts as a 'star' and subject to substitution? Another flaw lies in amortisation,which would likely be higher than Championship norms following a spell in the Prem- do we need to adjust this to a Championship average as well? It always amuses me when fans talk of getting rid of players,as though they were like disposable nappies (the only similarity being that they tend to stick around).It's not that easy to shift players on big wages that other clubs might not want,no doubt one of the reasons the 'chute payments were extended upwards from the 2 years we enjoyed. I'm convinced you can't have a meaningful and equitable FFP whilst parachute payments are in force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlsonDerby Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I've read your post a couple of times,but I'm still not sure I grasp the point you're trying to make,so here goes...... Are you saying that the actual wages of the lesser lights in a squad should count against FFP,whereas the wages of more high profile players would have an average Championship wage substituted in the calculation? If so,apart from the fact it appears overly complicated,who's going to decide at what level a player counts as a 'star' and subject to substitution? Another flaw lies in amortisation,which would likely be higher than Championship norms following a spell in the Prem- do we need to adjust this to a Championship average as well? It always amuses me when fans talk of getting rid of players,as though they were like disposable nappies (the only similarity being that they tend to stick around).It's not that easy to shift players on big wages that other clubs might not want,no doubt one of the reasons the 'chute payments were extended upwards from the 2 years we enjoyed. I'm convinced you can't have a meaningful and equitable FFP whilst parachute payments are in force. I understand where you are coming from and I know it is difficult and there would have to be financial minds greater than mine with more access to information than myself and I agree it is ridiculous to have FFP whilst there are parachute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Hi Cornwall,unfortunately you were right in suspecting that play off income would only count against the current season's FFP result.I can't work out from your post whether you think that transfer fees per se count against FFP in any given year.The answer is that it's not the fees themselves,but the amortisation charges they generate.For example,if we were to spend £3m on feesinvolving 3 year contracts next year, then the additional FFP burden would be £1m (but also for the following 2 years). It's for this reason that any wanting to sell Hughes (if the opportunity arose) for big money and reinvest should be careful what they wish for.If I just take one example of what I've seen,viz sell Hughes for £10m and reinvest £6m,then the transactions wouldn't generate an FFP shift of +£4m (10-6).Instead,if 3 year contracts were involved,the FFP implication for next year would be +£8m, but -£2m for the following 2 years (when FFP in its current form is at its most stringent,with total allowable losses of only £5m).Now an additional burden of £2m would be very onerous in the context of such relatively small overall allowable losses in the pipeline. However,like you I've long thought FFP is doomed to fail in any meaningful form.I suspect it might even be the case that a majority of clubs will fail to comply this year,a sure recipe for change.Until this happens though,clubs would still have to plan on the basis of current arrangements (or just totally ignore it). PS. Any increase in allowable FFP losses would benefit clubs receiving parachute payments just as much as the rest,in purely financial terms. Hi Ramblur - I think that I've finally twigged why transfer fees don't count. If a club buys a player for £3m, it is not a loss due to the fact that they then have an asset worth £3m. Where the loss comes in is in the following seasons due to amortisation charges. Is that about right, or have I still misunderstood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Hi Ramblur - I think that I've finally twigged why transfer fees don't count. If a club buys a player for £3m, it is not a loss due to the fact that they then have an asset worth £3m. Where the loss comes in is in the following seasons due to amortisation charges. Is that about right, or have I still misunderstood? You're nearly there,CR.If we're talking 3 year contracts,then the £3m paid gives value over 3 accounting periods,and so an equal charge of £1m per year is raised against P/L.The asset value then falls by £1m per year.Thus it's not the total value of any incoming transfers that gets charged against P/L,but 1st year amortisation of these, along with various stages (2nd year,3rd year etc) of amortisation of previous purchases. 07/08 illustrates the point fairly well.Although the all in cost of incoming transfers amounted to £16.63m,only the amortisation charge of £7.19m was charged against P/L. This would have comprised 1st year amortisation of the 07/08 signings along with 2nd year amortisation of promotion season signings (if anyone had survived from the year before BD,then 3rd year amortisation would have applied there). It should also be remembered that amortisation charges are in a constant state of flux -new entrants being offset by charges falling out due to expired contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenkinson Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Now Derby County prepare for the football match worth £220m Read more at http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derby-County-prepare-football-match-worth-pound/story-21084452-detail/story.html#dW2SUPKSd1p3Wqgj.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.