Financial Results 2015/2016

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, Ashz09 said:

That makes me feel sick. Very typical of us really can't find anything linking us to him either! Very odd.

Don't understand why everyone says this.

What about the other 45 Premier/Championship clubs that didn't go for him?

Will have a look back on the transfer thread but I guess there won't be one saying that we should have signed him at the time.

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing!

[RiddingsRam]

51 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

You'd have to add Weimann to that list as well surely?

£2.5m and never looked like establishing himself.

Who ? 

[cannable]

9 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

But Knockaert is an exception

Brighton gambled and got an absolute bargain. Barely done anything in his career before Brighton, other than a moderately successful one season in Ligue 1. 5 goals and 5 assists in 42 Championship appearances for Leicester (when they were absolutely rampant). Zero of either in his 9 prem appearances.

Credit to Brighton for the successful choice, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time there wasn't much between the signings. At that sort of difference it comes down to which player the recruitment team *thinks* is a better fit. It's not obvious to anyone. 
 

I could have told you at the time that it's better to sign a winger to go out wide than a striker to play out wide… no hindsight about it

[SaintRam]

5 minutes ago, cannable said:

I could have told you at the time that it's better to sign a winger to go out wide than a striker to play out wide… no hindsight about it

We didn't know he was being brought in to play out wide though.

He was bought by Clement (very early into preseason) when he didn't know what system he was going to play, so I don't think he thought he was only going to play him out wide either. He was played up front in Pre-Season, i thought. 

[cannable]

2 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

We didn't know he was being brought in to play out wide though.

He was bought by Clement (very early into preseason) when he didn't know what system he was going to play, so I don't think he thought he was only going to play him out wide either. He was played up front in Pre-Season, i thought. 

But Clement was brought in the carry on from where McClaren left off, why's he thinking about a system change? Why's he changing system after signing a player who now has no place? 

Don't start making signings when you don't know what system you're going to use going forward!

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, cannable said:

But Clement was brought in the carry on from where McClaren left off, why's he thinking about a system change? Why's he changing system after signing a player who now has no place? 

Don't start making signings when you don't know what system you're going to use going forward!

Isn't this supposedly why he was sacked?

[SaintRam]

7 minutes ago, cannable said:

But Clement was brought in the carry on from where McClaren left off, why's he thinking about a system change? Why's he changing system after signing a player who now has no place? 

Don't start making signings when you don't know what system you're going to use going forward!

That I agree with. 

Also, this whole point is moot because having looked it up, Knockaert joined Standard Liege at the start of June after they had opened talks with him the month before. So I don't think he was ever a possibility.

Brighton then signed him from Leige in January 2016. So we didn't sign anyone instead of him, we just didn't sign him. I imagine because we don't have scouts watching Standard Leige, perhaps.

[cannable]

23 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

That I agree with. 

Also, this whole point is moot because having looked it up, Knockaert joined Standard Liege at the start of June after they had opened talks with him the month before. So I don't think he was ever a possibility.

Brighton then signed him from Leige in January 2016. So we didn't sign anyone instead of him, we just didn't sign him. I imagine because we don't have scouts watching Standard Leige, perhaps.

Is the point not transfer value and not Knockaert specifically? 

£2,500,000 was still a fair whack in 2015… 

[cannable]

28 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Isn't this supposedly why he was sacked?

In hindsight, Mel should have appointed a director of football who understood what he wanted (I'd give a ******* for Clough in this role). 

That way we have somebody who can veto signings that clearly don't fit but Mel still gets to back managers. 

[SaintRam]

4 minutes ago, cannable said:

Is the point not transfer value and not Knockaert specifically? 

£2,500,000 was still a fair whack in 2015… 

My point was that the average 2.5m player in 2015 would not fare better than Weimann 

Ince was 4-6m in the same summer, for example and thats thanks to a buy-out clause.

 

Rouwen Hellings
Jelle Vossen
Conor Washington
Julien De Sart
Andreas Bjelland
Conor Coady
Lucas Joao
Marco Matias

Those are all signings from around that time (some might be Jan 2015) for about £2.5m - I don't think we did that badly with Weimann.

Reading also paid £2.5m to get Vydra on loan.

 

[G STAR RAM]

57 minutes ago, cannable said:

In hindsight, Mel should have appointed a director of football who understood what he wanted (I'd give a ******* for Clough in this role). 

That way we have somebody who can veto signings that clearly don't fit but Mel still gets to back managers. 

Can't say I'm a fan of DOFs. 

Can't think of too many that have been a huge success.

What happens when manager and DOF disagree on a player...who does Mel back then?

[cannable]

32 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

My point was that the average 2.5m player in 2015 would not fare better than Weimann 

Ince was 4-6m in the same summer, for example and thats thanks to a buy-out clause.

 

Rouwen Hellings
Jelle Vossen
Conor Washington
Julien De Sart
Andreas Bjelland
Conor Coady
Lucas Joao
Marco Matias

Those are all signings from around that time (some might be Jan 2015) for about £2.5m - I don't think we did that badly with Weimann.

Reading also paid £2.5m to get Vydra on loan.

 

I'm not really sure other teams spending money poorly justifies us spending money thoughtlessly on Weimann.

Knockaert, Wood, Lowton £1,000,000, Shackell (Burnley's captain) Stearman (Wolves' captain) £1,000,000, Kermorgant (17 goals in 42 in 14/15) £500,000, Kodjia, Diagouraga (Brentford's POTS) £600,000…

£2,500,000 certainly wasn't gambling money back then. 

[SaintRam]

18 minutes ago, cannable said:

I'm not really sure other teams spending money poorly justifies us spending money thoughtlessly on Weimann.

Knockaert, Wood, Lowton £1,000,000, Shackell (Burnley's captain) Stearman (Wolves' captain) £1,000,000, Kermorgant (17 goals in 42 in 14/15) £500,000, Kodjia, Diagouraga (Brentford's POTS) £600,000…

£2,500,000 certainly wasn't gambling money back then. 

Having looked at this list of signings and how much everyone spent, Weimann's fee is slightly above the average and I think his return is also slightly above average. Despite being so low.

In hindsight, there were better options. And I think questions over the recruitment policy remain legitimate, but I don't think it was a bad signing.

Agree to Disagree.

[ramblur]

5 hours ago, Diag Ram said:

Good point well made, although I would point out that the amortisation of player expenditure will probably be significantly higher next year. I'm surprised it's so low this year. If we assume that the £32m on the balance sheet will be written off over the next four years, then I would expect £8m of amortisation before the purchases of Vydra etc. This will offset the £9m gain made on Hendrick. Then of course there is the wages increase that comes with new players, although hopefully we have offset that slightly by offloading Martin's wages when he went to Fulham. 

 

Good to see you back,DR - must admit I thought you'd realised that commenting on finances is a thankless task a lot quicker than I did!

When I do FFP estimates I always use the previous year's result as a starting point and then look at changes,so I wouldn't particularly(didn't) have looked at 15/16 amortisation. When I had a quick look at the accounts I only really checked that I was right about the exceptional item,read the reports,had a quick look at cash flow and PBSE, then looked to see if any FRS changes affected any areas I used to look at.

I already have to downgrade my forecast from 'comfortably within £13m' to 'fairly close to the £13m' because the Hendrick fee appears less than first thought. I think you may have missed the Martin loan fee and Hendrick's wage savings from your assessment? (not forgetting Shotton,Albentosa,Buxton and a part year for Grant,partially offsetting the Nugent part year)  

PS the Grant fee (nearly all book profit) wouldn't feature in PBSE

[cannable]

57 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Can't say I'm a fan of DOFs. 

Can't think of too many that have been a huge success.

What happens when manager and DOF disagree on a player...who does Mel back then?

If they totally understand Mel's vision then the DoF. Mel's biggest problem isn't his idea of 'The Derby Way' it's the implementation of it. He was on Clement's back a lot about "getting back of track" and Pearson too was supposed to follow it.

What if there was a proper footballing man overseeing the football side of things and preventing the cluster-**** that was Clement's signings and Pearson? 

Y'know, sort of like the guy at Reading who we were supposed to be looking at who I do believe was the main reason behind Stam's appointment.

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, cannable said:

If they totally understand Mel's vision then the DoF. Mel's biggest problem isn't his idea of 'The Derby Way' it's the implementation of it. He was on Clement's back a lot about "getting back of track" and Pearson too was supposed to follow it.

What if there was a proper footballing man overseeing the football side of things and preventing the cluster-**** that was Clement's signings and Pearson? 

Y'know, sort of like the guy at Reading who we were supposed to be looking at who I do believe was the main reason behind Stam's appointment.

But I don't see how there can't be confrontation.

Did Clement really buy players without thinking how they were going to fit into his system?

Do managers really sign players without knowing what they are/are not good at?

If the manager asks for a player for a certain position and then recruitment gets someone completely different then the manager should be kicking off.

I don't really see the difference between a manager/recruitment department/Dof choosing players. All should be doing their homework.

I think GR will be a lot more dilligent when it comes to signing players.

[ramblur]

5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

At the end of a contract a player is worth £0 as they can leave for free.

Yeh,I'd agree with this and it's the thing that makes the asset class warrant amortisation,as opposed to depreciation. However,I've now read the upside down page in the accounts and seen the reference to residual values,which I don't remember seeing in previous years (though I might be wrong). I suppose the feeling is that a player could have his contract extended/be sold in the final year,but it seems to me that if you're saying that the asset doesn't have a known life,and has a residual value,then you're getting into the realms of depreciation.

Great way to reduce the FFP loss though,lol.

You were right about the 14/15 compensation of £867k being specified to management changes in P/L. I've looked at the key management compensation in 15/16 (a new feature) and noticed that the corresponding figure for 14/15 is less than £867k,which makes you wonder if they're 2 different things. DR is probably right that Rush's quoted 15/16 emolument is enhanced by compensation to bring it back in line with his 14/15 figure (if KMC had featured in 14/15,his emolument may have been a lot less,with the balance part of KMC). 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

Yeh,I'd agree with this and it's the thing that makes the asset class warrant amortisation,as opposed to depreciation. However,I've now read the upside down page in the accounts and seen the reference to residual values,which I don't remember seeing in previous years (though I might be wrong). I suppose the feeling is that a player could have his contract extended/be sold in the final year,but it seems to me that if you're saying that the asset doesn't have a known life,and has a residual value,then you're getting into the realms of depreciation.

Great way to reduce the FFP loss though,lol.

You were right about the 14/15 compensation of £867k being specified to management changes in P/L. I've looked at the key management compensation in 15/16 (a new feature) and noticed that the corresponding figure for 14/15 is less than £867k,which makes you wonder if they're 2 different things. DR is probably right that Rush's quoted 15/16 emolument is enhanced by compensation to bring it back in line with his 14/15 figure (if KMC had featured in 14/15,his emolument may have been a lot less,with the balance part of KMC). 

I had a look back at 14/15 and the policy re intangibles has changed.

As it's a change of an accounting estimate no re-statement of prior years required.

It's a good spot by @Diag Ram, the amortisation averages out at about 10% yet we know that all of the new contracts are 3 or 4 years so would expect closer to 25% to 35%.

Re the compensation I was completely wrong, the figure I had in my head was from 13/14, and this was disclosed on the face of the profit and loss account and I think related to NC and co...interesting they have chosen not to disclose in the 2 years since!

[ramblur]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I had a look back at 14/15 and the policy re intangibles has changed.

As it's a change of an accounting estimate no re-statement of prior years required.

It's a good spot by @Diag Ram, the amortisation averages out at about 10% yet we know that all of the new contracts are 3 or 4 years so would expect closer to 25% to 35%.

Re the compensation I was completely wrong, the figure I had in my head was from 13/14, and this was disclosed on the face of the profit and loss account and I think related to NC and co...interesting they have chosen not to disclose in the 2 years since!

Thought I was cracking up for a minute.The following appears in P/L for both 13/14 and 14/15. "Cost of change to first team management and coaching staff" £867k (and,no, I'm not getting mixed up with comparative figures -look for yourself).Surprised I hadn't noticed this before,but then again I didn't report on the 14/15 accounts-left that up to DR.

I thought the intangibles policy was a change.Please have a look at the compo business -if I've got it wrong I'm straight off to bed!

[cannable]

59 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But I don't see how there can't be confrontation.

If there was to be a confrontation it would be as a result of the manager doing something wrong. Would confrontation be so bad when it's a case of;

"Paul, if you're insistent on passing from the back I can't let you sign Shacks. We had him here last time and he genuinely can't pass."

"Mel, Pearson's a pacey, direct powerful kind of manager. I don't care how well the interview went. We need somebody that wants his teams playing football. May I suggest X and Y. X favours tempo whereas Y favours control."

"Nige?! What the **** are you doing?! You're playing Bryson WHERE?! We didn't appoint you over Wass for you to undo all his good work!" 

59 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Did Clement really buy players without thinking how they were going to fit into his system?

BJ was literally only signed because he became available. Weimann was signed for a position that never was. Shackell in a team that wants to play from the back? Pearce to do the same? Blackman on the left? Baird was weird, he was signed to be first choice right-back but ended up losing his place when covering in midfield. Butters and Olsson made sense. An argument can be made each way for Camara.

Quote

Do managers really sign players without knowing what they are/are not good at?

Albentosa, a 6"4 physical and aerial beast who can't pass and is slow was signed for a team that kept a high line and passed it out. It really does happen. 

Clough didn't think Russell could play wide right and that Jeff was a DM! 

Quote

If the manager asks for a player for a certain position and then recruitment gets someone completely different then the manager should be kicking off.

Yes… not signing said player! 

Quote

I don't really see the difference between a manager/recruitment department/Dof choosing players. All should be doing their homework.

It happens though, they don't do their homework. Perhaps a DoF could have a word if the manager wants to sign so many that just don't fit. Signings like De Sart I can get. It's not really worked out for him here but I can understand it. He just isn't quite what we needed for where the team was at. It's the thoughtless ones that are easily avoidable. 

 

There have certainly been occasions in the past few years when above interference would have been a benefit rather than to our detriment.