Official: Tom Ince joins Huddersfield Town

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, Jourdan said:

. 

But we should be in a position where that is an option, not a necessity. Clearly if it is a necessity then it just shows you how badly we have been run as a club in recent years.

 

.

When we are selling players well short of their perceived value, it suggests that there is a pressing need for cash and this cash is not likely to be used for improving the playing squad but to simply balance the books.

And so, just how difficult does Rowett's job look now? He is on the verge of losing three key players and the proceeds aren't likely to be reinvested very much, if at all.

 

He has a limited budget and very little room to manoeuvre in a market where the prices of players we need to elevate ourselves to promotion contenders will most likely be prohibitively high, or as high as the prices we are selling at.

Not sure you can come to these conclusions @Jourdan  The facts,as I know them are that we recorded an FFP result in 15/16 of c£9m, £4m below the £13m threshold.This was achieved by cancelling loans (and thereby generating exceptional income) of c£12.4m. In that year,admin expenses (which had consistently,with maybe the odd blip,been below £8m for a long time) suddenly rose by £7m.I don't know the cause of it (though it occurs to me that compo for PC and team might be in there),and I don't know how much of it is non recurring,and this is the main reason why I can't really guess the current situation.However, if I assume none of it was non recurring,then the situation will be brighter than the one I'm about to paint if some of it actually turned out to be non recurring.

In 16/17,profit on sale of players' regs+ the Martin loan fee would roughly equate to the exceptional income from the year before,so if all other things were equal,we might expect another £4m FFP undershoot.However,all other things weren't equal and we had new amortisation on Vydra/Anya/ Nugent,although this won't be as much as for transactions prior to 15/16 because of residual values now being allocated.I'd be very surprised if this came to more than £3m,and the overall players' wage bill may well have reduced. So my guess is that the £4m undershoot we may have expected will be reduced by probably £2m-£3m,but increased by any (unquantifiable) wage decrease.

Turning to the current season,because of the £39m/3year rule, then the undershoots for 15/16 & 16/17 might come near to the £8m we seem to have needed in the previous 2 years,meaning that we wouldn't need player sales just to keep our house in order before any other transactions. Thus I can see a situation whereby any player sales made this year might be balanced by incomings (more or less).If Ince is sold,I doubt it would be because we have to,rather that the player wants away and we can then reinvest.

Now back to the admin expenses increase.If it transpires that compo formed part of it (and I'm only guessing there),then there wouldn't have been a benefit in 16/17,because there were again sackings. However,if there are no sackings this year,then there would be a benefit in reduced admin expenses,which you could add to the previous 2 years' undershoots,making the situation better.I think too many are jumping to conclusions that reality might not support.There's also a good chance that players' wages may reduce again this year,which would again paint a rosier picture. 

[Carnero]

33 minutes ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

Verpiss dich?

Nah he'd be too expensive.

I reckon we should go for Pissen Aus from Eintracht Frankfurt.

[Will Hughes Hair]

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Not sure you can come to these conclusions @Jourdan  The facts,as I know them are that we recorded an FFP result in 15/16 of c£9m, £4m below the £13m threshold.This was achieved by cancelling loans (and thereby generating exceptional income) of c£12.4m. In that year,admin expenses (which had consistently,with maybe the odd blip,been below £8m for a long time) suddenly rose by £7m.I don't know the cause of it (though it occurs to me that compo for PC and team might be in there),and I don't know how much of it is non recurring,and this is the main reason why I can't really guess the current situation.However, if I assume none of it was non recurring,then the situation will be brighter than the one I'm about to paint if some of it actually turned out to be non recurring.

In 16/17,profit on sale of players' regs+ the Martin loan fee would roughly equate to the exceptional income from the year before,so if all other things were equal,we might expect another £4m FFP undershoot.However,all other things weren't equal and we had new amortisation on Vydra/Anya/ Nugent,although this won't be as much as for transactions prior to 15/16 because of residual values now being allocated.I'd be very surprised if this came to more than £3m,and the overall players' wage bill may well have reduced. So my guess is that the £4m undershoot we may have expected will be reduced by probably £2m-£3m,but increased by any (unquantifiable) wage decrease.

Turning to the current season,because of the £39m/3year rule, then the undershoots for 15/16 & 16/17 might come near to the £8m we seem to have needed in the previous 2 years,meaning that we wouldn't need player sales just to keep our house in order before any other transactions. Thus I can see a situation whereby any player sales made this year might be balanced by incomings (more or less).If Ince is sold,I doubt it would be because we have to,rather that the player wants away and we can then reinvest.

Now back to the admin expenses increase.If it transpires that compo formed part of it (and I'm only guessing there),then there wouldn't have been a benefit in 16/17,because there were again sackings. However,if there are no sackings this year,then there would be a benefit in reduced admin expenses,which you could add to the previous 2 years' undershoots,making the situation better.I think too many are jumping to conclusions that reality might not support.There's also a good chance that players' wages may reduce again this year,which would again paint a rosier picture. 

The thing I love about @ramblur is not only does he give great, consistent and insightful comment.  He has the patience of a saint and is never condescending, regardless of how many times he has to explain amortisation or the rules of FFP.  True gent, and I doff my cap.

[Will Hughes Hair]

7 minutes ago, Saul Pimpson said:

Nah he'd be too expensive.

I reckon we should go for Pissen Aus from Eintracht Frankfurt.

Fotze at left back?

[ramblur]

3 minutes ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

The thing I love about @ramblur is not only does he give great, consistent and insightful comment.  He has the patience of a saint and is never condescending, regardless of how many times he has to explain amortisation or the rules of FFP.  True gent, and I doff my cap.

Very kind of you,Will,and thanks I try to give members a true feel of the situation,because it's so easy to jump to the wrong conclusions. As I said elsewhere,we've still got a squad of pretty decent players -it's just a case of trying to get the best out of them.We've a decent looking defence, and a strike force of Nugent,Martin,Bent,Vydra (and Blackman+ Weimann for those who want to include them as strikers).A midfield of Thorne,Johnson,Butters and Bryson (+ anyone from the Academy) isn't a bad starting point.

For my part,I'd just like to see a winger that gets to the byline and puts in good delivery. I may be a bit old fashioned,but I prefer a left footer out on the left,and a right footer on the right.If the idea of 'wrong' feet is so they can cut inside and put in shots,our strikers may as well sit down for a bit and watch the inevitable action unfold.If I were a midfielder,I wouldn't be making lung busting runs to the area if I thought the wide man was likely to ignore me and fire in a shot.

On the subject of wide men,the variety that can use both feet wouldn't go amiss!

[Will Hughes Hair]

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Very kind of you,Will,and thanks I try to give members a true feel of the situation,because it's so easy to jump to the wrong conclusions. As I said elsewhere,we've still got a squad of pretty decent players -it's just a case of trying to get the best out of them.We've a decent looking defence, and a strike force of Nugent,Martin,Bent,Vydra (and Blackman+ Weimann for those who want to include them as strikers).A midfield of Thorne,Johnson,Butters and Bryson (+ anyone from the Academy) isn't a bad starting point.

For my part,I'd just like to see a winger that gets to the byline and puts in good delivery. I may be a bit old fashioned,but I prefer a left footer out on the left,and a right footer on the right.If the idea of 'wrong' feet is so they can cut inside and put in shots,our strikers may as well sit down for a bit and watch the inevitable action unfold.If I were a midfielder,I wouldn't be making lung busting runs to the area if I thought the wide man was likely to ignore me and fire in a shot.

On the subject of wide men,the variety that can use both feet wouldn't go amiss!

Wouldn't disagree on this.  However I do feel whatever the quality of the cross it is massively dependent on the number of bodies in the box (and late runners).  Christie for all his detractors is capable of delivering decent balls into the box. Unfortunately, if there's no one in the box it doesn't matter.

As a result Christie is pilloried for not having a football brain, but he is just symptomatic of a team that has failed to link it's midfield and forward lines.

Not sure if Ollie Watkins can use both feet or not?

[ramblur]

1 minute ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

Wouldn't disagree on this.  However I do feel whatever the quality of the cross it is massively dependent on the number of bodies in the box (and late runners).  Christie for all his detractors is capable of delivering decent balls into the box. Unfortunately, if there's no one in the box it doesn't matter.

As a result Christie is pilloried for not having a football brain, but he is just symptomatic of a team that has failed to link it's midfield and forward lines.

Not sure if Ollie Watkins can use both feet or not?

Don't know about Watkins tbh -not seen much of him.The bodies in the box is a good point,but would you bother doing it if you suspected the delivery might not be that good,or there might not be any delivery? I've recently read members saying that Ince hasn't got a right foot.Not true,because I remember some time ago (in a televised game,can't remember opposition) when Chrissie was playing,Tom was put on the left wing and I thought 'great,he might use the quality in his left foot to get behind and put in good delivery'. Blow me,at ,the first chance he was cutting inside,and I swear there was a slight flicker of hope/expectation on Martin's face. Quite funny really,because Tom set himself twice before finally unleashing a right footed curler which,tbh,was not far away from the top RH corner.

Now I ask this question- if he thought he had the ability in his right foot to attempt such a difficult finish (and if he didn't,he had no business attempting it),then why couldn't he put in decent,early delivery on the other wing (rather than turning onto his left foot and embarking on his usual flight path,which often resulted in his beating a couple of players before unleashing a left footed curler,which usually (from what I've seen) went wide of the far post (cue,'that was close' grimace,maybe matched by grimaces on the faces of others) 

[Jourdan]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

Not sure you can come to these conclusions @Jourdan  The facts,as I know them are that we recorded an FFP result in 15/16 of c£9m, £4m below the £13m threshold.This was achieved by cancelling loans (and thereby generating exceptional income) of c£12.4m. In that year,admin expenses (which had consistently,with maybe the odd blip,been below £8m for a long time) suddenly rose by £7m.I don't know the cause of it (though it occurs to me that compo for PC and team might be in there),and I don't know how much of it is non recurring,and this is the main reason why I can't really guess the current situation.However, if I assume none of it was non recurring,then the situation will be brighter than the one I'm about to paint if some of it actually turned out to be non recurring.

In 16/17,profit on sale of players' regs+ the Martin loan fee would roughly equate to the exceptional income from the year before,so if all other things were equal,we might expect another £4m FFP undershoot.However,all other things weren't equal and we had new amortisation on Vydra/Anya/ Nugent,although this won't be as much as for transactions prior to 15/16 because of residual values now being allocated.I'd be very surprised if this came to more than £3m,and the overall players' wage bill may well have reduced. So my guess is that the £4m undershoot we may have expected will be reduced by probably £2m-£3m,but increased by any (unquantifiable) wage decrease.

Turning to the current season,because of the £39m/3year rule, then the undershoots for 15/16 & 16/17 might come near to the £8m we seem to have needed in the previous 2 years,meaning that we wouldn't need player sales just to keep our house in order before any other transactions. Thus I can see a situation whereby any player sales made this year might be balanced by incomings (more or less).If Ince is sold,I doubt it would be because we have to,rather that the player wants away and we can then reinvest.

Now back to the admin expenses increase.If it transpires that compo formed part of it (and I'm only guessing there),then there wouldn't have been a benefit in 16/17,because there were again sackings. However,if there are no sackings this year,then there would be a benefit in reduced admin expenses,which you could add to the previous 2 years' undershoots,making the situation better.I think too many are jumping to conclusions that reality might not support.There's also a good chance that players' wages may reduce again this year,which would again paint a rosier picture. 

Ramblur, thank you for this information. I'm just an ordinary fan trying to make sense of it all. I know nothing of the inner workings of the club and will gladly be corrected by those that do.

But if being under financial pressure to sell is the wrong conclusion to jump to, then why aren't the club taking a tougher stance and giving Rowett a stronger hand to play with? That's what a club in a fairly comfortable financial position would be doing.

Why the urgency? Why settle for such prices? If the plan is to sell and then reinvest, surely you'd be trying to extract as much value as you can out of each deal, especially given the inflated prices in the current market. I am sure every million counts to Rowett and we are at least £5-6 million short of what most people would expect from such sales.

It's only the beginning of July. Players may want to go but they are signed to contracts and so we don't owe the players anything but a willingness to consider offers if and when they come in. Player power is significant in modern football, but surely not to the extent that we hurriedly sign off on deals that appear not to be in the club's interests?

Under pressure or not, a combined £19 million for Ince and Hughes just seems alarmingly low at a time when Harry Maguire sets you back £17 million.

[eddie]

1 hour ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

The thing I love about @ramblur is not only does he give great, consistent and insightful comment.  He has the patience of a saint and is never condescending, regardless of how many times he has to explain amortisation or the rules of FFP.  True gent, and I doff my cap.

It's the guinness.

[Will Hughes Hair]

23 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Don't know about Watkins tbh -not seen much of him.The bodies in the box is a good point,but would you bother doing it if you suspected the delivery might not be that good,or there might not be any delivery? I've recently read members saying that Ince hasn't got a right foot.Not true,because I remember some time ago (in a televised game,can't remember opposition) when Chrissie was playing,Tom was put on the left wing and I thought 'great,he might use the quality in his left foot to get behind and put in good delivery'. Blow me,at ,the first chance he was cutting inside,and I swear there was a slight flicker of hope/expectation on Martin's face. Quite funny really,because Tom set himself twice before finally unleashing a right footed curler which,tbh,was not far away from the top RH corner.

Now I ask this question- if he thought he had the ability in his right foot to attempt such a difficult finish (and if he didn't,he had no business attempting it),then why couldn't he put in decent,early delivery on the other wing (rather than turning onto his left foot and embarking on his usual flight path,which often resulted in his beating a couple of players before unleashing a left footed curler,which usually (from what I've seen) went wide of the far post (cue,'that was close' grimace,maybe matched by grimaces on the faces of others) 

Thought for the night.  The best player I ever saw live was Peter Beardsley, touch, vision, could hold the ball, pass, cross and score and was selfless to boot.  Made everyone around him better.

Tom Ince can do all of that (to a lesser or greater degree) but he is not selfless.  Hence for my money the reluctance of the wider team to get forward to support.  They know Ince will (maybe) tear them apart, so what's the point?

I'd like him to stay.  This year I felt he became one of our own, but que sera sera.  If the love of 30,000 every other week is not important at least he'll have the cash to afford two Ferrari's on the drive instead of one. I will miss him, but I'm still grieving for the the selfless lad who had touch, vision, could hold the ball, pass, cross and play a delicious through ball who left the club last weekend.

[FrostedRam]

3 hours ago, Jourdan said:

Under pressure or not, a combined £19 million for Ince and Hughes just seems alarmingly low at a time when Harry Maguire sets you back £17 million.

Difference is maguire has played in the premier league, whereas the players we have sold haven't. Therefore can be considered a gamble hence a lower price. Inces  15 games over two spells in the premier league suggests he hasn't proven he can cut it yet either 

 

[rynny]

6 hours ago, Jourdan said:

Ramblur, thank you for this information. I'm just an ordinary fan trying to make sense of it all. I know nothing of the inner workings of the club and will gladly be corrected by those that do.

But if being under financial pressure to sell is the wrong conclusion to jump to, then why aren't the club taking a tougher stance and giving Rowett a stronger hand to play with? That's what a club in a fairly comfortable financial position would be doing.

Why the urgency? Why settle for such prices? If the plan is to sell and then reinvest, surely you'd be trying to extract as much value as you can out of each deal, especially given the inflated prices in the current market. I am sure every million counts to Rowett and we are at least £5-6 million short of what most people would expect from such sales.

It's only the beginning of July. Players may want to go but they are signed to contracts and so we don't owe the players anything but a willingness to consider offers if and when they come in. Player power is significant in modern football, but surely not to the extent that we hurriedly sign off on deals that appear not to be in the club's interests?

Under pressure or not, a combined £19 million for Ince and Hughes just seems alarmingly low at a time when Harry Maguire sets you back £17 million.

I think it may be an over correction to lasts years late transfer deals. 

[RoyMac5]

7 hours ago, Jourdan said:

But if being under financial pressure to sell is the wrong conclusion to jump to, then why aren't the club taking a tougher stance and giving Rowett a stronger hand to play with? That's what a club in a fairly comfortable financial position would be doing.

Why the urgency? Why settle for such prices?

A stronger hand? We've had plenty of those in past seasons, spend as you like!

As for settling, well if these players were as wanted (and so therefore valuable) as you like to suggest we'd have had a bidding war wouldn't we? Both want Prem football and both are going to get it now.

[RamLad1884]

I think a little perspective is needed now. Compare the prices of premier league players of late to this. 

Both Ince and Hughes have never shown any real talent above championship level. To want £20 million for Hughes is ridiculous, that's the going rate for a premier league player with experience. 

To get £11 million for Ince is definitely to Derby's advantage. This is a player who is not a youngster, his potential to improve is limited because of this and for a few million more you could probably buy a proven premier league winger. 

£19 million for two very good, but championship players based on a outlay of £5 million for both is a good deal in anyone's books. Football is a money game.

[PistoldPete2]

9 minutes ago, RamLad1884 said:

I think a little perspective is needed now. Compare the prices of premier league players of late to this. 

Both Ince and Hughes have never shown any real talent above championship level. To want £20 million for Hughes is ridiculous, that's the going rate for a premier league player with experience. 

To get £11 million for Ince is definitely to Derby's advantage. This is a player who is not a youngster, his potential to improve is limited because of this and for a few million more you could probably buy a proven premier league winger. 

£19 million for two very good, but championship players based on a outlay of £5 million for both is a good deal in anyone's books. Football is a money game.

What has kOdjia shown outside of the championship? Or that forest youngster? Or Hendrick when he joined burnley? Or McCormack? All have gone for far more than hughes and more than ince. We are selling our best players on the cheap. 

Hughes has a talent that will be shown at whatever level he plays. 

Oh and and by the wAy £19 million is the max we can possibly get , assuming Watford win the premier league or something

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete2 said:

What has kOdjia shown outside of the championship? Or that forest youngster? Or Hendrick when he joined burnley? Or McCormack? All have gone for far more than hughes and more than ince. We are selling our best players on the cheap. 

Hughes has a talent that will be shown at whatever level he plays. 

Lets see how he does at Watford. 

[RamLad1884]

13 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

What has kOdjia shown outside of the championship? Or that forest youngster? Or Hendrick when he joined burnley? Or McCormack? All have gone for far more than hughes and more than ince. We are selling our best players on the cheap. 

Hughes has a talent that will be shown at whatever level he plays. 

Oh and and by the wAy £19 million is the max we can possibly get , assuming Watford win the premier league or something

From what I've seen, and his performances when Burnley are on sky I'd say he's more than justified the price they paid. He's a mainstay in a very respectable Burnley side right now. 

Hughes wasn't even a guaranteed starter for a championship side. Also strikers will always be worth more than midfielders as a general rule, strikers scores goals, goals earn money 

[RamBamFan]

.

[rynny]

2 minutes ago, RamBamFan said:

Why does everyone keep suggesting Watkins? You know he signed for Norwich at the start of June don't you?

Think you may need to tell Exeter that, because looks like they didn't kniw either. 

https://www.exetercityfc.co.uk/teams/first-team/forward/ollie-watkins/

[EnigmaRam]

9 hours ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

The thing I love about @ramblur is not only does he give great, consistent and insightful comment.  He has the patience of a saint and is never condescending, regardless of how many times he has to explain amortisation or the rules of FFP.  True gent, and I doff my cap.

The only problem is he shouldn't have to do it. People just keep making crap up and inventing conspiracy theories when we've been told from every source FFP isn't an issue.

fair play to you @ramblur if it was me I'd just say see previous/earlier post on the matter ??