Financial Results 2015/2016

[G STAR RAM]

54 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

This makes me chuckle..... we are blaming a manager FOUR MANAGERS AGO for where we are now...... that in itself is pretty ludicrous 

Disagree entirely.

Brought poor players in, other people must take their share of the blame for contract length and wages.

18 months is not long enough to clear a squad out and start again. Clement, Pearson and Rush must all take a share of the blame for where this squad currently finds itself in my opinion.

[RoyMac5]

10 hours ago, cannable said:

Johnson and Butters have actually since revealed to be £6,000,000 and £7,000,000.

Seriously £7m for Butterfield, where'd that figure come from?

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Except that the next manager in has to live with the recruitment decisions he made. The timescale has been far too short for it not still to be having an effect.

I think it's a fair point and the manager to succeed will be the one who can work out how to improve and adapt with the squad he has inherited - I think that's what Rowett might just do.

Sorry @QuitYourJibbaJivin, we must have been typing at the same time!

Great minds and all that....

[Day]

HUDDERSFIELD Town could potentially collect £6m for Jacob Butterfield.

They got four times what Derby County originally offered for the midfield ace, and 10 times what they paid for him, in the long drawn-out deal which has divided supporters.

I understand the Rams’ first bid for the reigning Player of the Year who went in a deadline-day transfer which tops £5m – and could potentially reach that £6m mark with add-ons – was ‘just’ £1.25m.

It was made during the build-up to Town’s home Championship game against Brighton and Hove Albion, in which the 25-year-old scored the last of his seven Town goals.

Despite making it clear he wanted to join the Rams, Butterfield (right) featured, and did well, in Town’s next two games, at Fulham and at home to QPR, taking his appearance tally to 52.

There’s no doubt Town benefited from Butterfield’s presence just as he benefited from the platform he was given after more turbulent times at Middlesbrough and Norwich City.

Town told the player, who was just 12 months into a four-year contract agreed when he moved from Boro for £500,000, Derby would have to make an offer ‘they couldn’t reuse’.

It’s believed at least three more came – and went – before Butterfield, who while at Barnsley missed a big move to the Premier League through injury, got his wish and Town their ‘war chest’.

Chairman Dean Hoyle has said new blood is being sought in addition to Town’s three recent loan acquisitions, Jamie Paterson, Mustapha Carayol and Emyr Huws.

But he also insisted time will be taken to get the right man, or men, and repeated that selling key players will continue to be a central part of the club’s blueprint for long-term progress.

Town would argue the likes of Anthony Pilkington and Jordan Rhodes, the only player to yield a higher pay day for the club than Butterfield, have left and progress has still been made.

Time will tell if they can continue that trend in the wake of Butterfield’s departure, which Town say was on good terms.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/sport/football/news/jacob-butterfield-move-derby-county-9979964

[Mafiabob]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Disagree entirely.

Brought poor players in, other people must take their share of the blame for contract length and wages.

18 months is not long enough to clear a squad out and start again. Clement, Pearson and Rush must all take a share of the blame for where this squad currently finds itself in my opinion.

Disagree entirely with yourself and everyone else. Only one person who has got rid of all these managers and hired and rehired....... and he sits in the chairmans office. 

Im hoping Rowett gets the time to sort the current mess we have regarding contracts and players bought in...... but I'm not holding my breath.

95% of you disagree with what I think is to blame. Fair cop....... but if you're not going to give managers time and space to implement something..... then the problem lies with the man at the top with his imapaitence. Let's hope he learns from his mistakes and gives Rowett time to start afresh. I'm genuinely hoping come January next year we ain't having the same discussion about another new manager.

Fair enough, Pearson...... Clement though......

[LazloW]

I know I'm probably pretty much alone in this, but for all the moaning and groaning about the players we have signed in the last couple of years, I don't actually think they are generally as bad as people make out.  Some like Vydra and Anya haven't settled into the side yet, but I've seen enough to be satisfied they are decent players. I like Johnson and Butterfield, both get harshly criticised but both are pretty good players and have shown it enough for me not to worry if I see their names on the team sheet. Camera was a bit of a punt. not the end of the world financially I'd have thought. Even Weimann wasn't absolutely  terrible, just ineffective, and we've sort of moved him on anyway.

Only Blackman leaves me puzzled and is clearly a poor signing... and they happen to every club.  Every signing is a risk (unless you employ BrisVegas obviously 'cos he would never make a mistake!). 

A lot of this no doubt comes from what our expectations are. Mine perhaps are never that high, so I don't tend to get too upset when a signing doesn't quite work out.

In terms of the finances, stop analysing them, speculating about them or worrying about them. Not worth it.

[Day]

2 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Disagree entirely with yourself and everyone else. Only one person who has got rid of all these managers and hired and rehired....... and he sits in the chairmans office. 

Im hoping Rowett gets the time to sort the current mess we have regarding contracts and players bought in...... but I'm not holding my breath.

95% of you disagree with what I think is to blame. Fair cop....... but if you're not going to give managers time and space to implement something..... then the problem lies with the man at the top with his imapaitence. Let's hope he learns from his mistakes and gives Rowett time to start afresh. I'm genuinely hoping come January next year we ain't having the same discussion about another new manager.

Fair enough, Pearson...... Clement though......

I know you'll still disagree but...

On 20/03/2017 at 16:47, David said:

2.5.  SR reinforced that recent decisions over the management of the first team had been deliberated carefully.

2.6.  SR stated that decisions taken by the Club were not MM working in isolation.

 

[Mafiabob]

2 minutes ago, David said:

I know you'll still disagree but...

 

I don't, but he's the one who'll call the final shot..... doesn't mean people who got to together who made the decision all agreed in that statement does it?

[RadioactiveWaste]

13 minutes ago, LazloW said:

I know I'm probably pretty much alone in this, but for all the moaning and groaning about the players we have signed in the last couple of years, I don't actually think they are generally as bad as people make out.  Some like Vydra and Anya haven't settled into the side yet, but I've seen enough to be satisfied they are decent players. I like Johnson and Butterfield, both get harshly criticised but both are pretty good players and have shown it enough for me not to worry if I see their names on the team sheet. Camera was a bit of a punt. not the end of the world financially I'd have thought. Even Weimann wasn't absolutely  terrible, just ineffective, and we've sort of moved him on anyway.

Only Blackman leaves me puzzled and is clearly a poor signing... and they happen to every club.  Every signing is a risk (unless you employ BrisVegas obviously 'cos he would never make a mistake!). 

A lot of this no doubt comes from what our expectations are. Mine perhaps are never that high, so I don't tend to get too upset when a signing doesn't quite work out.

In terms of the finances, stop analysing them, speculating about them or worrying about them. Not worth it.

I agree with everything up to the last bit, its always best to keep half an eye on the finances/organization of the club to be reassured or not.

At the moment it seems like Uncle Mel has put real money in on big level, which is great, but anything on that basis will get to a point of money running out eventually.

Not saying that's imminent or questioning Mel's commitment or intentions, its just unrealistic to have wages 150% of turnover for an extended period.

 

 

[Day]

1 minute ago, Mafiabob said:

I don't, but he's the one who'll call the final shot..... doesn't mean people who got to together who made the decision all agreed in that statement does it?

No, but he has said that if he was alone in wanting X manager out they wouldn't be sacked, it's always been a group decision and majority wins.

Sam Rush has said as much in the committee meeting.

Now you can still argue this is ******, don't believe a word of it that's fine but without anything to back it up other than a gut feeling, this all feels like another Keogh to blame for all the set pieces we concede.

[Rev]

20 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

I don't, but he's the one who'll call the final shot..... doesn't mean people who got to together who made the decision all agreed in that statement does it?

Reminds me of the Clough quote.

They all go into Mel's office, talk for 20 minutes then decide Mel was right.

[OohMartWright]

As an accountant I find this thread very interesting, in particular the consideration of accounting losses and FFP losses.

There are a number of posts about selling on players at a loss but it is important to consider the effect on our FFP position. It is not simply a case of comparing the buying fee with the selling fee. If we sign a player for £6m on a three season deal, that cost is amortised (written down and charged against profits) at the rate of £2m per season. If we sell him in season 2 for £4m then the accounts (and FFP workings) for season 2 will show neither a profit or a loss, the £2m "hit" having been taken in season 1. If we don't sell him until season 3, for £3m, then the accounts and FFP workings for season 3 will actually show a profit of £1m, two hits of £2m each being taken in seasons 1 and 2.

Obviously this ignores wages costs which are also massively important, but it does indicate that mathematically it can be better for FFP in the short term to keep an expensive player rather than to sell him for peanuts and crystallise all of the "hits" that would otherwise be spread over future seasons.

[Day]

4 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Clough

Who's lad was sacked 9 months after Rush's arrival, not that I'm looking to shift the blame at all, group decision as we've been told, just worth remembering that's all.

[cannable]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Just out of interest, where was this revealed?

There were a few articles on it in the DET at the time. Essentially, we found out the night before deadline day that he was available, BJ asked permission to speak to us deadline day morning, he only arrived in Derby 3 and a deal was bunged out by six. Mel described his signing as "an opportunity".

Powell on the football league show after Huddersfield sacked him for Butters. Norwich's AGM for BJ. Rush also stated the other day that we broke our transfer record three times in 2015 which pretty much confirms it on our end. 

[Spanish]

22 minutes ago, OohMartWright said:

As an accountant I find this thread very interesting, in particular the consideration of accounting losses and FFP losses.

There are a number of posts about selling on players at a loss but it is important to consider the effect on our FFP position. It is not simply a case of comparing the buying fee with the selling fee. If we sign a player for £6m on a three season deal, that cost is amortised (written down and charged against profits) at the rate of £2m per season. If we sell him in season 2 for £4m then the accounts (and FFP workings) for season 2 will show neither a profit or a loss, the £2m "hit" having been taken in season 1. If we don't sell him until season 3, for £3m, then the accounts and FFP workings for season 3 will actually show a profit of £1m, two hits of £2m each being taken in seasons 1 and 2.

Obviously this ignores wages costs which are also massively important, but it does indicate that mathematically it can be better for FFP in the short term to keep an expensive player rather than to sell him for peanuts and crystallise all of the "hits" that would otherwise be spread over future seasons.

agree and been saying this for months.  best deal is to sell fully amortized players and/or home grown players.  By the wrong player put him out on loan for someone else to pay the fees than sell him when his net cost has reduced below the actual sale price

[Mafiabob]

29 minutes ago, David said:

No, but he has said that if he was alone in wanting X manager out they wouldn't be sacked, it's always been a group decision and majority wins.

Sam Rush has said as much in the committee meeting.

Now you can still argue this is ******, don't believe a word of it that's fine but without anything to back it up other than a gut feeling, this all feels like another Keogh to blame for all the set pieces we concede.

Let's hope we ain't having the same discussion next season after another sacking and talking about a new manager......

[Day]

5 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Let's hope we ain't having the same discussion next season after another sacking and talking about a new manager......

But that won't change anything that I've just said, I haven't agreed with all the sackings just like you but when placing the blame I will say club, not turn it into a one man vendetta which it has become.

It's not new, we Keogh at fault for set pieces, Kevin Phillips for not scoring enough, why as there always got to be a scapegoat in a team game? 

Why is it a red top rumour instantly believed yet the CEO or Chairman is a liar, spinning the PR covering their arses?

Just getting pretty silly tbh, not directing this solely at you or saying we shouldn't be critical, far from it, just think we should be fair in handing it out and make sure it's targeted at all those involved and not one man, both on and off the pitch.

[Nuwtfly]

As critical as I have been of Mel, when I look at that financial statement, all I see is a Chairman absolutely backing his manager and recruitment staff to the hilt. Every single boss under MM has had the funds to bring in whoever they want, whatever the cost, and that's a good think I think. Not Mel's fault that the people he's trusted with his money have spent it poorly, and certainly not 'wisely' as SR seemed to suggest.

Looking forward to seeing how Rowett will mould this squad. Ans it's good to know he'll get backed, just as all of his predecessors have been. 

[oomarkwright]

23 hours ago, ramblur said:

Thanks G STAR. I suppose I should log in from time to time,even if not posting,to let everyone know I'm still around.The only reason I've not done this in the past is that I was afraid some might see me logged in and start asking me questions,either in posts or by PM,that I simply wouldn't be well enough to answer promptly.I often get up only to be quickly forced back to bed again. However,I obviously need to have a rethink.

Hope you enjoy your 1000th like Ramblur. Keep healthy long enough to see us win the Premier League! 

[cannable]

27 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

As critical as I have been of Mel, when I look at that financial statement, all I see is a Chairman absolutely backing his manager and recruitment staff to the hilt. Every single boss under MM has had the funds to bring in whoever they want, whatever the cost, and that's a good think I think. Not Mel's fault that the people he's trusted with his money have spent it poorly, and certainly not 'wisely' as SR seemed to suggest.

Looking forward to seeing how Rowett will mould this squad. Ans it's good to know he'll get backed, just as all of his predecessors have been. 

Though it's too late now, I suppose the way around vetoing signings that were clearly **** whilst still backing your manager to the hilt would be to have a DoF and backing HIM to the hilt.