Official: Tom Ince joins Huddersfield Town

[ramblur]

I've fired off an email trying to get a clearer picture. Will report back when reply comes.

[Rev]

I've always thought the headline loss of £13m pa, and a total of £39m over a rolling 3 year period was unworkable.

Say we posted an undershoot of £4m in the first two years, so splurged £21m in the last, on a fixed 3 yr term no problem, but on a rolling basis?

Year 1 in the above example would be £9m, plus £21m from year 2 to leave a headroom of £9m for year 3, massively unlikely to be able to trim losses by £12m in the year after such a splurge.

Not only that, but you'd be limited to a £9m in year 3 also.

Puts into perspective the kind of dosh Mel is putting in, and that's without the spending on infrastructure etc on top!

Personally, I'd scrap FFP,  it's more likely imo to lead to a closed shop eventually, where relegated teams can afford to outspend the rest of the division at will, at least for a couple of seasons.

Change the rules, make owners put cold hard cash into a account controlled by the league, and allow them to spend what they wish, how they wish, and release the funds when needed, making sure it's the owners cash and not secured on the club in any way.

 

 

[RamNut]

9 hours ago, Strange yearnings said:

Just got an old gits season ticket at West Ham. It's up in the gods but at £145 not bad value. And I can see what Ince is like on 9 September when 'uddersfield play there

 

£145 for 19 matches? Thats unreal?

 

[ramblur]

5 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

I've always thought the headline loss of £13m pa, and a total of £39m over a rolling 3 year period was unworkable.

Say we posted an undershoot of £4m in the first two years, so splurged £21m in the last, on a fixed 3 yr term no problem, but on a rolling basis?

Year 1 in the above example would be £9m, plus £21m from year 2 to leave a headroom of £9m for year 3, massively unlikely to be able to trim losses by £12m in the year after such a splurge.

Not only that, but you'd be limited to a £9m in year 3 also.

I used to think that,but thought it was a bit unfair that you'd be spanked later on for taking advantage of prudence in earlier years,so I came to the following conclusion:-

If you post a loss of £13m or less,then fine,you've passed irrespective of what happened previously (this means that in your example,following the £21m,you'd be ok to post losses of £13m or less in each of the following 2 years).

If you post a loss over £13m,you fail unless this loss,combined with those of the preceding 2 years came to £39m or less.

Reading this link, however, it  seems to be at odds with the above. If £13m or less per year is an imperative,then it completely changes the landscape of my long post in reply to @Jourdan,as I find it hard to see how we wouldn't be over this limit,based on normal income and expenditure,at the outset of this year, and that (in the absence of any kind of exceptional income) profit on sale of players' regs would be needed just to bring us in line before any other transactions (in which case I'd owe Jourdan an apology).

The only way I could see us (initially) compliant would be if the whole of that big increase in 15/16 admin expenses had gone (in other words all non recurring). Bit worrying this.

 

 

 

[i-Ram]

Why get so bothered about how close, or not, we are to FFP? The club has an official, probably being paid a reasonable sum, to make sure we comply. That official probably pays a reasonable sum to a firm of accountants to double check that we comply.  If/when we don't comply there will be c15k chavs the other end of the A52 who be quick to inform us.

[Carnero]

4 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Why get so bothered about how close, or not, we are to FFP? The club has an official, probably being paid a reasonable sum, to make sure we comply. That official probably pays a reasonable sum to a firm of accountants to double check that we comply.  If/when we don't comply there will be c15k chavs the other end of the A52 who be quick to inform us.

And a baying mob of at least 20 Derby chavs gathered outside the players entrance chanting "We Want Morris Out" after we lose our relegation showdown at home to Burton.

[Rev]

7 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Why get so bothered about how close, or not, we are to FFP? The club has an official, probably being paid a reasonable sum, to make sure we comply. That official probably pays a reasonable sum to a firm of accountants to double check that we comply.  If/when we don't comply there will be c15k chavs the other end of the A52 who be quick to inform us.

Sums up the pre season really, no incoming to get excited about, although I think Davies and Wisdom are decent, and an improvement of what we've got.

Outgoings are our better players, at least on paper, and I don't recall a stampede of posters on here heading to LTLF to show them the errors of their ways in the embargo days. 

It passes the time until the season starts, and does no harm I can see, more productive than slagging current players off, not that I'm accusing you personally of doing that, but I'm sure you get the drift.

[ramblur]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Why get so bothered about how close, or not, we are to FFP? The club has an official, probably being paid a reasonable sum, to make sure we comply. That official probably pays a reasonable sum to a firm of accountants to double check that we comply.  If/when we don't comply there will be c15k chavs the other end of the A52 who be quick to inform us.

It's not so much worrying about FFP, it's wondering to what extent the profits on Hughes,and probably Ince,are going to enable Gary to strengthen the squad. If a big proportion of it is needed just to get us in line with FFP before anything else happens,then Gary has far less resources to work with,and I'd feel very sorry for him.  

[i-Ram]

3 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Sums up the pre season really, no incoming to get excited about, although I think Davies and Wisdom are decent, and an improvement of what we've got.

Outgoings are our better players, at least on paper, and I don't recall a stampede of posters on here heading to LTLF to show them the errors of their ways in the embargo days. 

It passes the time until the season starts, and does no harm I can see, more productive than slagging current players off, not that I'm accusing you personally of doing that, but I'm sure you get the drift.

I get your drift Rev. And you are absolutely right. Not productive to slag our players off until the season starts.

[i-Ram]

25 minutes ago, ramblur said:

It's not so much worrying about FFP, it's wondering to what extent the profits on Hughes,and probably Ince,are going to enable Gary to strengthen the squad. If a big proportion of it is needed just to get us in line with FFP before anything else happens,then Gary has far less resources to work with,and I'd feel very sorry for him.  

Dont get feeling too sorry for Gary.  I am pretty sure when he signed up he would have had a pretty good idea how much transfer headroom he might have available (not much), and l think Mel is on record as saying Gary needs to generate his own sales to fund his purchases.  I think there are a good few, in addition to Ince, that he needs to move on, but personally I don't see any great need to bring in many more new signings. One really decent midfielder should do it, and perhaps a couple of decent loans (one a proper winger). I am looking forward to seeing him getting more out of players like Butterfield, Johnson, Vydra and Wiemann. 

[brady1993]

9 hours ago, Sparkle said:

I am not a fan of wieman but he may benifit from actually playing whilst on loan at wolves so opportunity for him, i class anya and Bennett as the substitute role out wide, but my main optimism is the Chris Martin/Vydra/Nugent scenario in that if they can combine well and they should then we become very potent attacking wise and the wider players simply need to supply the ball properly to them and pick up the pieces if it overspills to their side of the pitch 

last season we were so poor until nugent came into the team( good signing Mac) and Ince for all his quality never changed from just cutting in onto his left foot to shoot - he rarely passed near the penalty box even when others were very well placed

 

I can see where you are coming from but my gut feeling is that those 4 as a collective don't have enough quality and won't be a good enough supply to nugent/vydra/Martin. Personally would like to see minimum one and ideally two wide players come in.

I think your doing ince a disservice there. He had the most assists and chances created this season for and was second on both accounts last season (2nd to Martin).

[Wolfie20]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Why get so bothered about how close, or not, we are to FFP? The club has an official, probably being paid a reasonable sum, to make sure we comply. That official probably pays a reasonable sum to a firm of accountants to double check that we comply.  If/when we don't comply there will be c15k chavs the other end of the A52 who be quick to inform us.

Some might want to understand how FFP works and we have a member who is trying to explain what appears to be quite a complex process.

If you're not interested don't bother reading. What's interesting to some isn't to others.

[VulcanRam]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Why get so bothered about how close, or not, we are to FFP? The club has an official, probably being paid a reasonable sum, to make sure we comply. That official probably pays a reasonable sum to a firm of accountants to double check that we comply.  If/when we don't comply there will be c15k chavs the other end of the A52 who be quick to inform us.

I don't understand why any of us get even remotely interested in it when no-one knows what any of the figures are. Most people here screaming that we're doing this because of FFP or that because of FFP haven't a clue what the parameters are and how we fit in to them, while even the mighty @ramblur appears a little flummoxed when approaching the truth. And if he doesn't get it, there are very few people on this planet who will.

Until something official comes out, with official and real figures, then all we are doing is summising on an assumption that none of us are clear on.

[ramblur]

4 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Dont get feeling too sorry for Gary.  I am pretty sure when he signed up he would have had a pretty good idea how much transfer headroom he might have available (not much), and l think Mel is on record as saying Gary needs to generate his own sales to fund his purchases.  I think there are a good few, in addition to Ince, that he needs to move on, but personally I don't see any great need to bring in many more new signings. One really decent midfielder should do it, and perhaps a couple of decent loans (one a proper winger). I am looking forward to seeing him getting more out of players like Butterfield, Johnson, Vydra and Wiemann. 

I'd agree with you fully if he were able to recycle all of the sales (rather than,perhaps,a large chunk going on getting us in line with FFP). You see,I know what's going to happen here.If Ince were to go for the fee speculated,and taking into account the Hughes profit,some fans are going to expect a couple of 'big ticket' signings.

Now the irony is that even if he had little to spend he could still recruit big money signings as long as these (wretched) residual values allocated were pretty high. This would mean a fairly small amortisation charge,and wages could be matched off with outgoings.However the s**t hits the fan if such players prove not to be worth the values allocated and you might want to get rid.

The implications of these RVs are already being felt,because whatever profit we might make on Ince will be less than if his reg had been amortised using the pre 15/16 method. It also means that the book values of the likes of Butters/Johnson/Vydra/Blackman/Weimann (to name a few) will likely be a fair bit higher than would otherwise be the case,making it a lot more difficult to move any of them on (and I'm not advocating moving any of them on here,just using examples) without making a substantial loss .

I'd also pose this question: a big loan cancellation was needed in 15/16,substantial player sale profits+Martin loan fee was needed in 16/17. If big player sales are needed this year,then what will we do( if we don't go up this year)next year?  

[i-Ram]

6 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

Some might want to understand how FFP works and we have a member who is trying to explain what appears to be quite a complex process.

If you're not interested don't bother reading. What's interesting to some isn't to others.

If you had written your two paragraphs in a different order you could have saved me 10 seconds of reading time.

[Comrade 86]

12 hours ago, RamBamFan said:

He used to play right wing for Villa. Always gets stuck on the left for us which he isn't talented enough to perform in. 

Weimann is best playing in a central role and NOT on either wing. The Villa fans saw it and posted accordingly on here when we bought him and his best games for us (admittedly on very limited evidence) confirm this thinking. As such I think it can be fairly said he's another example of a player who has never really had a run of games in his favoured slot and, therefore, another player we should never have bought.

[Wolfie20]

16 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

If you had written your two paragraphs in a different order you could have saved me 10 seconds of reading time.

Thought you were clever enough to read backwards though you do seem to be a bit slow if it took you 10 seconds to read 3 lines.

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

I don't understand why any of us get even remotely interested in it when no-one knows what any of the figures are. Most people here screaming that we're doing this because of FFP or that because of FFP haven't a clue what the parameters are and how we fit in to them, while even the mighty @ramblur appears a little flummoxed when approaching the truth. And if he doesn't get it, there are very few people on this planet who will.

Until something official comes out, with official and real figures, then all we are doing is summising on an assumption that none of us are clear on.

Well,I don't know the figures for 16/17,but what I do know is that turnover of c £22.6m in 15/16 was blitzed by direct operating costs of c£35m +admin expenses of c£15m. The FFP situation was only 'saved' by the hefty loan cancellation, turning what would otherwise have been a £21m FFP loss into only £9m(our FFP exemptions seem to be running at £5m+). So what happened in 16/17 to change the underlying position? Now I don't know what happened to admin expenses,but there's every chance direct operating costs could easily have risen as a result of new amortisation charges probably trumping wage savings.Surprise,surprise we have player sale profits+Martin loan fee roughly equivalent to the loan cancellation of the year before.

Thus onto the current year -what happened to the underlying costs from the previous year,which tend to be the starting point for the following year? Should we be surprised by big player sales again?

By the way, I don't think there was any need for the 'mighty' bit.I don't see myself as mighty,just as someone who works away trying to keep you all as informed as possible on financial matters,to the best of my ability.

[i-Ram]

6 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I'd agree with you fully if he were able to recycle all of the sales (rather than,perhaps,a large chunk going on getting us in line with FFP). You see,I know what's going to happen here.If Ince were to go for the fee speculated,and taking into account the Hughes profit,some fans are going to expect a couple of 'big ticket' signings.

Now the irony is that even if he had little to spend he could still recruit big money signings as long as these (wretched) residual values allocated were pretty high. This would mean a fairly small amortisation charge,and wages could be matched off with outgoings.However the s**t hits the fan if such players prove not to be worth the values allocated and you might want to get rid.

The implications of these RVs are already being felt,because whatever profit we might make on Ince will be less than if his reg had been amortised using the pre 15/16 method. It also means that the book values of the likes of Butters/Johnson/Vydra/Blackman/Weimann (to name a few) will likely be a fair bit higher than would otherwise be the case,making it a lot more difficult to move any of them on (and I'm not advocating moving any of them on here,just using examples) without making a substantial loss .

I'd also pose this question: a big loan cancellation was needed in 15/16,substantial player sale profits+Martin loan fee was needed in 16/17. If big player sales are needed this year,then what will we do( if we don't go up this year)next year?  

I remain hopeful that Rowett is the right fit for our current needs.

l don't think he will feel any pressure to deliver big ticket signings, but hopefully the two or three he brings in will be good footballers who make us a more competitive, cohesive team. Let the 'entitled ones' moan l say.

ln respect of the players we have "overpaid for/perhaps under-amortised" l am hoping he will play them back up to value. Butters, Johnson, Anya, Vydra and Weimann are top end championship players, and in a flexible 442/4231 system l think could still end up as decent players for our beloved Rams.

Enjoy the season ahead Ramblur.

[DavesaRam]

"Weimann is best playing in a central role and NOT on either wing. The Villa fans saw it and posted accordingly on here when we bought him and his best games for us (admittedly on very limited evidence) confirm this thinking. As such I think it can be fairly said he's another example of a player who has never really had a run of games in his favoured slot and, therefore, another player we should never have bought."

Its the Derby way! It was well known when Weimann arrived that playing down the middle was his best slot. We did it with Bamford as well, which is why he refused to renew his loan, and we did try. Sadly we have played that trick down the years - think of Kinkladze - a marvellous, beautiful player at his best "in the hole", so we stuck him out wide most of the time. And even when we played in the middle of the park, he would only last one match before going off with a cricced neck from watching the ball fly 130 miles above him on its way past our forwards and out for a goal-kick. Oohh - and Lee Holmes. I saw him come through the reserves, and he was such an exciting player. Every time he got the ball, he would set off flying forwards at full pace heading for the goal. Very predictable but no-one could stop him. We put him in the first team, and played him on the wrong wing, but most of the time  he was a sub until we were 3-0 down, then he would be sent on with about 10 minutes to go to save the game. This happened over and over again, at a time when we were really dull as an attacking force. He played in his proper position on a couple of times, and scored both times. His reward? Next match on the bench until the game was gone again. Its the Derby way.

And of course, Vydra. Another one at his best in the middle of the front line, but got a bit-part role as a winger. The stop-start nature of his Derby career meant that he, too never really reached the heights he is capable of, until he had a few matches in his best position, and guess what? He started doing the business. His reward? You've guessed ti, he got dropped either to the bench, or even out of the squad. ITDW!