FFP

[sage]

I am surprised that no-one has started a thread on this.

Rowett's comment about having to let Bryson go on loan because he didn't get offers for other players he wanted to get rid of, seems to suggest that we are sailing close to budget. Is this a Mel imposed budget or an FFP one?

Having made a transfer profit over the summer of 5-6m it seems unlikely that this is a case of Mel running out of cash.

We are constantly told that though we are mindful of abiding by FFP but we aren't in danger of falling foul of the rules. However this summer's transfer dealings imply we are within £1m of breaking FFP rules by 11pm deadline day.

This makes me think about 3 things

a) Bent's contract extension

b) The iPro stadium sponsorship going tits up and them not paying for their 2nd year

c) We will have to break even in the Jan window and wait for releasing players in the summer to invest again.   

[JAT]

I think Gary was referring to the squad size. 

[Nuwtfly]

Or because he didn't want to "bloat the squad" ?

[sage]

2 minutes ago, Jean Antoine Tessier said:

I think Gary was referring to the squad size. 

He did refer to that, but he isn't going to admit we are on the edge of FFP. If it was squad size would he really loan someone out he didn't want to lose so his squad size is 27 not 28.    

[Boycie]

12 minutes ago, sage said:

I am surprised that no-one has started a thread on this.

Rowett's comment about having to let Bryson go on loan because he didn't get offers for other players he wanted to get rid of, seems to suggest that we are sailing close to budget. Is this a Mel imposed budget or an FFP one?

Having made a transfer profit over the summer of 5-6m it seems unlikely that this is a case of Mel running out of cash.

We are constantly told that though we are mindful of abiding by FFP but we aren't in danger of falling foul of the rules. However this summer's transfer dealings imply we are within £1m of breaking FFP rules by 11pm deadline day.

This makes me think about 3 things

a) Bent's contract extension

b) The iPro stadium sponsorship going tits up and them not paying for their 2nd year

c) We will have to break even in the Jan window and wait for releasing players in the summer to invest again.   

That's your invite to the next Moor Farm meeting in the bin.

[sage]

1 minute ago, Boycie said:

That's your invite to the next Moor Farm meeting in the bin.

I think I have blown that invite many times before this. 

[sage]

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2016/11/derby-countys-home-to-revert-back-to-pride-park-stadium

This is Sam Rush saying the iPro sponsorship was ending. No mention of them not coughing up the cash.

This is the dcfc website not a court of law, we get the truth but you would be optimistic to expect the whole truth so you have to read between the lines.  

[Boycie]

There's a blown joke there somewhere but it's late.

[sage]

Just now, Boycie said:

There's a blown joke there somewhere but it's late.

You won't hear it coming out of my mouth. 

[Dave Mackay Ate My Hamster]

I think it's less about FFP ( though he does seem to be spending carefully, possibly because he's always had to as a manager and just sees it as sensible ), but more about realising we have a bloated squad and trying to replace rather than accumulate further players.

He said early doors that we should have a balanced squad with just 5 or 6 higher paid stars, but at the time he had about a dozen. He's shed a few already, with a few more to go. We all know that there's several more not worthy of £25K plus wages, unwilling and incapable of getting similar or better deals holding back our team revamp.

I think he just has a realistic balanced view of our wage bill and is quite shocked at how many less productive players sap our resources. Some managers treat even their wealthy owners' funds as their own as they've had a real life and are not lost in "football showbiz"

 

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, sage said:

I am surprised that no-one has started a thread on this.

Rowett's comment about having to let Bryson go on loan because he didn't get offers for other players he wanted to get rid of, seems to suggest that we are sailing close to budget. Is this a Mel imposed budget or an FFP one?

Having made a transfer profit over the summer of 5-6m it seems unlikely that this is a case of Mel running out of cash.

We are constantly told that though we are mindful of abiding by FFP but we aren't in danger of falling foul of the rules. However this summer's transfer dealings imply we are within £1m of breaking FFP rules by 11pm deadline day.

This makes me think about 3 things

a) Bent's contract extension

b) The iPro stadium sponsorship going tits up and them not paying for their 2nd year

c) We will have to break even in the Jan window and wait for releasing players in the summer to invest again.   

Stephen Pearce intimated that Mel was backing the club right up to the limits that FFP allowed,which means he can't really do any more. I don't know if this answers your question (we could,of course,be leaving leeway for Jan window activity).Although he's said to be backing to the hilt,I think it would be a bit risky to budget for this,as you'd surely have to leave some contingency for unforeseen events,but you can be sure he's backing pretty close to the hilt.

As far as the iPro deal goes,I did comment on an impairment of trade debtors in 15/16 to the tune of £408,556 and I've not since changed my mind that this,or at least the bulk of it,probably related to the deal in question (meaning monies  were due to us that we then realised we were very unlikely to receive).

However,I distinctly remember when the original guidelines were published ,along with the exemptions that we've become used to,there was also reference to relief in respect of exceptional events,such as the collapse of a major sponsorship deal,and I assume this carried through to the revised FFP. Now I don't know how long such relief would last (it didn't say),or how the relief was to be applied,but I'd imagine it would be somewhere along the lines of the example I'm about to give:-

Let's assume a club had made an FFP loss of £13.5m,but had seen the total collapse of a sponsorship deal worth £500k per financial year.The result would simply be reduced to £13m (but this is only my guess).

Whatever we do this year is bound,imo,to be with one eye on the following season when I'm sure we wouldn't want to be selling players at a book profit just to fall in line (not that I'm saying this was done this season,because it's impossible to say).I reckon next year might be a bit less complicated for Gary 

[Bris Vegas]

I wish Mel never came on board.

Obviously he hasn't done it on purpose, but his reckless spending ruined the best team we've had since the Jim Smith days and set us back about five years in the process.

We were better off with GSE and Nigel Clough guiding the ship.

[BarrowRam]

7 hours ago, sage said:

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2016/11/derby-countys-home-to-revert-back-to-pride-park-stadium

This is Sam Rush saying the iPro sponsorship was ending. No mention of them not coughing up the cash.

This is the dcfc website not a court of law, we get the truth but you would be optimistic to expect the whole truth so you have to read between the lines.  

Mel Morris mentioned at the fans forum that they were taking legal action against ipro.

[r4derby]

4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

I wish Mel never came on board.

Obviously he hasn't done it on purpose, but his reckless spending ruined the best team we've had since the Jim Smith days and set us back about five years in the process.

We were better off with GSE and Nigel Clough guiding the ship.

Under GSE and Clough, we would go on runs of winning a couple, maybe beating a top 6 team, then not win for 5-6 in a row. Comfortably mid table at best. 

I loved the commitment and drive of the team that got us to Wembley, but that was under Mac's tutelage. We are now lots of things, some not good, but at least we are a team that goes into every match with a realistic chance of winning, if not a very good chance!

[JAT]

8 hours ago, sage said:

He did refer to that, but he isn't going to admit we are on the edge of FFP. If it was squad size would he really loan someone out he didn't want to lose so his squad size is 27 not 28.    

He would if he can't guarantee them the first team football the wanted. 

[sage]

6 hours ago, ramblur said:

Stephen Pearce intimated that Mel was backing the club right up to the limits that FFP allowed,which means he can't really do any more. I don't know if this answers your question (we could,of course,be leaving leeway for Jan window activity).Although he's said to be backing to the hilt,I think it would be a bit risky to budget for this,as you'd surely have to leave some contingency for unforeseen events,but you can be sure he's backing pretty close to the hilt.

As far as the iPro deal goes,I did comment on an impairment of trade debtors in 15/16 to the tune of £408,556 and I've not since changed my mind that this,or at least the bulk of it,probably related to the deal in question (meaning monies  were due to us that we then realised we were very unlikely to receive).

However,I distinctly remember when the original guidelines were published ,along with the exemptions that we've become used to,there was also reference to relief in respect of exceptional events,such as the collapse of a major sponsorship deal,and I assume this carried through to the revised FFP. Now I don't know how long such relief would last (it didn't say),or how the relief was to be applied,but I'd imagine it would be somewhere along the lines of the example I'm about to give:-

Let's assume a club had made an FFP loss of £13.5m,but had seen the total collapse of a sponsorship deal worth £500k per financial year.The result would simply be reduced to £13m (but this is only my guess).

Whatever we do this year is bound,imo,to be with one eye on the following season when I'm sure we wouldn't want to be selling players at a book profit just to fall in line (not that I'm saying this was done this season,because it's impossible to say).I reckon next year might be a bit less complicated for Gary 

I have the Ramblur stamp of approval on something financial.

My life is complete.

[sage]

50 minutes ago, r4derby said:

Under GSE and Clough, we would go on runs of winning a couple, maybe beating a top 6 team, then not win for 5-6 in a row. Comfortably mid table at best. 

I loved the commitment and drive of the team that got us to Wembley, but that was under Mac's tutelage. We are now lots of things, some not good, but at least we are a team that goes into every match with a realistic chance of winning, if not a very good chance!

We got to Wembley under GSE

[sage]

5 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

I wish Mel never came on board.

Obviously he hasn't done it on purpose, but his reckless spending ruined the best team we've had since the Jim Smith days and set us back about five years in the process.

We were better off with GSE and Nigel Clough guiding the ship.

This post is worth a 200 page thread. Not sure I comletely agree but what a debate we could have.

[AndyB]

GSE too tight, Mel too loose, the ideal is somewhere in between in my view.

[Sparkle]

8 hours ago, sage said:

I am surprised that no-one has started a thread on this.

Rowett's comment about having to let Bryson go on loan because he didn't get offers for other players he wanted to get rid of, seems to suggest that we are sailing close to budget. Is this a Mel imposed budget or an FFP one?

Having made a transfer profit over the summer of 5-6m it seems unlikely that this is a case of Mel running out of cash.

We are constantly told that though we are mindful of abiding by FFP but we aren't in danger of falling foul of the rules. However this summer's transfer dealings imply we are within £1m of breaking FFP rules by 11pm deadline day.

This makes me think about 3 things

a) Bent's contract extension

b) The iPro stadium sponsorship going tits up and them not paying for their 2nd year

c) We will have to break even in the Jan window and wait for releasing players in the summer to invest again.   

I have to agree - Bent's contract renewal was something that no one expected but also the size of the outlay of the non playing non performing players is major - the stadium sponsorship situation was only heard about at the forum and is a major financial loss 

listening to Rowett he did intimate that he would have preferred to keep Bryson but needed to make room in the wages budget and when you look at the contracts that are due to expire next summer it is hard to see many we would be looking to renew - I would personally renew the Thorne and Russell ones as they would be very sellable and useful to Derby but they may well want to leave on a free in the summer? Or we seek to sell them in January? It will be interesting to see what happens