Official: Tom Ince joins Huddersfield Town

[ramblur]

6 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

FFP?

Serious question, QPR gained promotion after sticking two fingers up at FFP, to my knowledge they still haven't received any punishment for that, so why do clubs take it seriously?

QPR cancelled debt to create exceptional income,which is exactly what we did in 15/16.

[Cardifframs]

9 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Interesting that GR has been quoted a few times as saying ..."we need a different kind of striker". Anyone got any idea what he means?! Presumably he means different to those we have already?? So, an out and out plank? 6ft 7inc aerial bombardier? 

Connor the fish is coming back?

[EnigmaRam]

13 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Interesting that GR has been quoted a few times as saying ..."we need a different kind of striker". Anyone got any idea what he means?! Presumably he means different to those we have already?? So, an out and out plank? 6ft 7inc aerial bombardier? 

One that can actually score goals at a guess ?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

35 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Interesting that GR has been quoted a few times as saying ..."we need a different kind of striker". Anyone got any idea what he means?! Presumably he means different to those we have already?? So, an out and out plank? 6ft 7inc aerial bombardier? 

Enter Lucas Jutciwiecz or Clayton Donaldson.

[ramblur]

17 hours 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.

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.

 

 

Tbf the guy behind the FFP site replied to me very quickly,and at long last I can now give a definitive view of the way it works.The bit about a maximum £13m loss per season actually means an average £13m loss. It will be assessed solely on a retrospective (meaning that latest cycle will be projection for the current year+ the 15/16&16/17 actuals) 3 year period,involving a projected result (to be submitted in March each year-because our actual results still appear to be signed off at the end of November,I reckon the League still want actuals by December 1) + 2 actuals from the preceding 2 years.

So what does it mean for us in the current cycle? We know there was an undershoot of £4m in 15/16,so if we hit £13m or less in 16/17,we could potentially utilise £17m+ this year and still be onside. However,as the right rev correctly points out,this would have implications for the following 2 years,and in this case would mean only having an aggregate of £22m to play with in 18/19+19/20.In other words,if you take advantage of previous years' prudence,you get spanked in future years. It's a pity they didn't adopt my idea,because under that you could have breached the £13m without penalty,because the average /season would still have been at/below £13m.What I mean is that a sequence of £9m/£13m/£17m/£13m(or less)/£13m(or less) would still give you an average of £13m or less over the 5years.

By March of each year,you should have a pretty good idea of the lie of the land,with both transfer windows out of the way and emergency loans now scrapped.Some may think that a club might put in a low projection to try and escape potential bother. Might work until December 1,but if the League then saw what you were up to I'd bet the punishment would be far harsher than if you'd come clean in March. The possible sanctions now include points deductions in the current season.

I'm now definitely of the opinion that ,unless that £7m hike in admin charges in 15/16 was non recurring (which isn't too unreasonable a possibility,as it had previously been pretty stable for many years),we would have needed substantial player sales this year to fall in line.Without a significant reduction in admin costs ,the underlying expenditure of c£50m shown in 15/16 (and which may even have increased a bit in the meantime) is just too high. Take off normal turnover of,say, £24m and then take away FFP exemptions,which seem to be running at £5m+, and you have an underlying FFP result of £21m,£8m over that permitted (and you can see from this projection the impact that a removal of £7m of admin expenses would have -you're closer to the threshold again).

I could see a situation where we might go to something like £15m this year,meaning an average of £12m left for the following 2 years,because it looks like we're going to have a serious go at culling the squad over the next 2 years.

To my mind,Sam Rush,as CEO,and in conjunction with Stephen Pearce and his finance department should have ensured (a) that we would meet FFP in any given year and (b) that the actions in any given year wouldn't prejudice our ability to meet the target in future years. He had delivered on (a) consistently,but I'm not sure about the 15/16 transactions in relation to (b). Now if he'd told Mel about the possible implications of 15/16, and Mel had said carry on regardless,then the ball's back in Mel's court. If not.......

Just my opinion though.   

[ramblur]

6 hours ago, RiddingsRam said:

The thing is though , if as many speculate on here we are running close to the edge regarding ffp then why would we have just committed  £4 milllion on Wisdom when we already have two right backs in the squad ? 

Because they could well have known that Will would be gone at the time? The £4m includes add ons,I believe.

[ramblur]

15 hours ago, EnigmaRam said:

Rowett haas openly said he'd have liked to have kept Ince. Don't think for one second FfFP is an issue.

Could be just politics though.It's hardly likely that he would have told us if we had to sell Ince,and if this were the case,he wouldn't have been lying when he said he wanted to keep him. 

[Colm]

Bring back Sammon! 

[Ellafella]

57 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Enter Lucas Jutciwiecz or Clayton Donaldson.

that's what I was fearing...Hoof!

[Gritty]

39 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Tbf the guy behind the FFP site replied to me very quickly,and at long last I can now give a definitive view of the way it works.The bit about a maximum £13m loss per season actually means an average £13m loss. It will be assessed solely on a retrospective (meaning that latest cycle will be projection for the current year+ the 15/16&16/17 actuals) 3 year period,involving a projected result (to be submitted in March each year-because our actual results still appear to be signed off at the end of November,I reckon the League still want actuals by December 1) + 2 actuals from the preceding 2 years.

So what does it mean for us in the current cycle? We know there was an undershoot of £4m in 15/16,so if we hit £13m or less in 16/17,we could potentially utilise £17m+ this year and still be onside. However,as the right rev correctly points out,this would have implications for the following 2 years,and in this case would mean only having an aggregate of £22m to play with in 18/19+19/20.In other words,if you take advantage of previous years' prudence,you get spanked in future years. It's a pity they didn't adopt my idea,because under that you could have breached the £13m without penalty,because the average /season would still have been at/below £13m.What I mean is that a sequence of £9m/£13m/£17m/£13m(or less)/£13m(or less) would still give you an average of £13m or less over the 5years.

By March of each year,you should have a pretty good idea of the lie of the land,with both transfer windows out of the way and emergency loans now scrapped.Some may think that a club might put in a low projection to try and escape potential bother. Might work until December 1,but if the League then saw what you were up to I'd bet the punishment would be far harsher than if you'd come clean in March. The possible sanctions now include points deductions in the current season.

I'm now definitely of the opinion that ,unless that £7m hike in admin charges in 15/16 was non recurring (which isn't too unreasonable a possibility,as it had previously been pretty stable for many years),we would have needed substantial player sales this year to fall in line.Without a significant reduction in admin costs ,the underlying expenditure of c£50m shown in 15/16 (and which may even have increased a bit in the meantime) is just too high. Take off normal turnover of,say, £24m and then take away FFP exemptions,which seem to be running at £5m+, and you have an underlying FFP result of £21m,£8m over that permitted (and you can see from this projection the impact that a removal of £7m of admin expenses would have -you're closer to the threshold again).

I could see a situation where we might go to something like £15m this year,meaning an average of £12m left for the following 2 years,because it looks like we're going to have a serious go at culling the squad over the next 2 years.

To my mind,Sam Rush,as CEO,and in conjunction with Stephen Pearce and his finance department should have ensured (a) that we would meet FFP in any given year and (b) that the actions in any given year wouldn't prejudice our ability to meet the target in future years. He had delivered on (a) consistently,but I'm not sure about the 15/16 transactions in relation to (b). Now if he'd told Mel about the possible implications of 15/16, and Mel had said carry on regardless,then the ball's back in Mel's court. If not.......

Just my opinion though.   

So any chance we get a points deduction this year??

[Nuwtfly]

To be announced any minute now. Bye bye, Tom. Thanks for the memories. Have fun in, err...Huddersfield. 

[Heisenberg]

Quote

Winger becomes latest summer recruit

- Tom Ince signs for Huddersfield Town
- Winger completes transfer from Derby County
- Reaction from Head Coach David Wagner

Huddersfield Town has today completed the signing of Tom Ince from Sky Bet Championship club Derby County.

The 25 year-old attacker moves for a fee that will remain undisclosed at the request of Derby, putting pen to paper on a contract that runs until the summer of 2020. At that point, Huddersfield Town has the option of extending his contract for a further season.

With 75 goals in 260 career appearances, mainly from the right wing, Tom has had either scored or assisted 55 goals in his 115 appearances for the Rams ahead of his move to West Yorkshire.

He is pictured above in Town’s new 2017/18 PUMA home kit, which is available to pre-order now!

Huddersfield Town Head Coach David Wagner commented:

“Everybody in England knows that Tom has high-quality; he has been one of the best players in the Sky Bet Championship for many years now. He scores goals, creates them for others and is always a threat when he’s on the pitch, so I’m very happy to welcome him to the Club today.

“To have played over 250 games at just 25 years old is not normal; it’s great experience for a player who still has lots of space to improve.

“I have spoken to Tom and he has a massive desire to come to Huddersfield Town and play in the Premier League. He has had a taste of the division for two short spells and he is desperate to show everyone that he belongs in the top division. I think he can be a big player for us.”

Confirmed.

https://www.htafc.com/news/2017/july/transfer-tom-ince-joins-the-terriers/

[Animal is a Ram]

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Nuwtfly said:

To be announced any minute now. Bye bye, Tom. Thanks for the memories. Have fun in, err...Huddersfield. 

He'll probably get himself a nice place in Holmfirth.

[RoyMac5]

 

[Leicester Ram]

'A fee that remained disclosed at the request of Derby'

Let the wild speculation begin about how we've sold him for 5 million.

[EnigmaRam]

Gutted

[TomInceOnFire]

"club record fee" how much did Hendrick go for?

[REDCAR]

This is the thing.... I'm sure I'd feel a whole lot better about the Ince sale if he had gone to a better team like Newcastle or Southampton.... maybe wouldn't get in their sides.... but once this season is over, he could potentially be in a worse off position if they get relegated apart from his bank balance. Fair play though, as others have said, he deserves the chance in the EPL.

[SaintRam]

So the initial fee we've received for Ince is higher than we got for Hendrick? 

That's not bad at all.