FFP

[EnigmaRam]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Don't open the thread then. The fact that it's titled FFP should give you some indication what it's about.

Fans seem to want to use the fact that Rush said FFP was not a problem about 3 years ago continuously. 

Why overlook the fact that our finance director has said that MM has to finance us right up to the limit, or the fact that GR seems to be saying that we have to move players out before bringing more players in.

If either of the above make you still think that FFP is not an issue then I am glad you are not in charge of our finances!

I must of missed the statement saying FFP is an issue then. Please post a link of Mel where it says that.

TIA and good luck

[EnigmaRam]

2 hours ago, feisty said:

It is to some people.  If it doesn't interest you, you don't need to read the thread

I havent

 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

I must of missed the statement saying FFP is an issue then. Please post a link of Mel where it says that.

TIA and good luck

I've already given you 2 points that show that FFP MAY be an issue that I am affecting the way the club operates.

I must have missed the statement in recent times saying FFP is not an issue. Please post a link of Mel where it says that.

TIA and good luck.

[EnigmaRam]

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I've already given you 2 points that show that FFP MAY be an issue that I am affecting the way the club operates.

I must have missed the statement in recent times saying FFP is not an issue. Please post a link of Mel where it says that.

TIA and good luck.

I will believe what was said by Mel And Gary at the fans forum and in an interview last week regarding transfers in the DET that FFP isn't an issue and we don't need to sell to get new players in but to get the squad size down.

you carry on speculating though, it's very constructive.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

I will believe what was said by Mel And Gary at the fans forum and in an interview last week regarding transfers in the DET that FFP isn't an issue and we don't need to sell to get new players in but to get the squad size down.

you carry on speculating though, it's very constructive.

Speculating?  I'm quoting what the director of finance said when he said MM finances the club right up to the limit. You carry on ignoring that though and quoting what Sam Rush said 2 or 3 seasons ago...

[jagerbob]

On 9/2/2017 at 00:28, Jean Antoine Tessier said:

I think Gary was referring to the squad size. 

 

On 9/2/2017 at 00:31, Nuwtfly said:

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

Its both.

Given the high wages of Bryson, Shackell, Anya, etc, then we needed one out to get the midfielder from Birmingham in.

Obviously the latter two would have been prefered, if only some one wanted them.

[Gritty]

Thanks to both @ramblur and @G STAR RAM for providing insights using your accounting skills.  I for one find it interesting and helpful

[PistoldPete2]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Speculating?  I'm quoting what the director of finance said when he said MM finances the club right up to the limit. You carry on ignoring that though and quoting what Sam Rush said 2 or 3 seasons ago...

I heard Gary justify the deals coming in on transfer deadline day saying we needed to Move players out first, considering we've made big profits on sales then if we are still constrained that must be due to ffp mustn't it ?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

I heard Gary justify the deals coming in on transfer deadline day saying we needed to Move players out first, considering we've made big profits on sales then if we are still constrained that must be due to ffp mustn't it ?

That's what I took it to mean.

The only other thing that it could be is if he's been set a maximum number of players in the first team squad? 

[cheron85]

16 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why overlook the fact that our finance director has said that MM has to finance us right up to the limit, or the fact that GR seems to be saying that we have to move players out before bringing more players in.

Two things on that:

1) Right up to the limit would probably mean up to the limit of FFP - There's a hole in almost all football club's finances and it's not a particularly odd situation for the owner to be adding extra in - That amount however is limited by FFP - So it could be referring to Mel putting in the absolute most he's allowed to every season

2) Rowett actually said the very opposite of that - He said he wanted to decrease the size of the squad - And that he suspected that naturally people would want to leave once they saw the players he bought in - ie, he was going to sign players first to show current players who would be getting less game time

21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The only other thing that it could be is if he's been set a maximum number of players in the first team squad? 

I don't think he's been set a maximum - I think he wants to define a maximum - He was the one all along saying he wanted a smaller squad

[ramblur]

21 hours ago, curtains said:

Thanks for the clarification mate .

IYO are we well within FFP over each 3 year period 

Don't think I answered your last sentence. The £4m undershoot in 15/16 means we were/will be probably comfortably within the limit in all

cycles including that year.That undershoot probably (depending on 16/17 result,which I expect to be below £13m) means that we could go over the £13m this year,but the problem with that is 17/18 forms part of ongoing 3 year cycles,so any overshoot here would have to be clawed back in future years (18/19 and maybe 19/20).

[Big Bad Bob]

Gary was quoted in the DET on the 25th August :

"We have got targets. we have got people we would like to bring in but based on keeping the squad at a certain level we know that is going to be a little bit dependent - not financially dependent, but number dependent - on the outs."

Going back to the OP, it would suggest outs weren't driven by FFP requirement.

[ramblur]

4 hours ago, cheron85 said:

 

I don't think he's been set a maximum - I think he wants to define a maximum - He was the one all along saying he wanted a smaller squad

 

Right at the outset of Gary's reign,Mel said that his objective was a squad comprising 5/7 high earners and 7/9 earning more in line with the Championship norm,for the senior player element,with the rest of the squad being made up of Academy graduates.The only thing I'm not sure of is the situation relating to potential loanees,but I've a feeling the aim was to have none/very few of these,because this would restrict the pathway for youngsters.Obviously,this goal couldn't be achieved in the first year.

Gary was reported to have been comfortable with this,as he'd worked with small squads in the past,so I don't think it's so much Gary calling the tune,more a case of him being happy with the tune.

[cheron85]

6 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Right at the outset of Gary's reign,Mel said that his objective was a squad comprising 5/7 high earners and 7/9 earning more in line with the Championship norm,for the senior player element,with the rest of the squad being made up of Academy graduates.The only thing I'm not sure of is the situation relating to potential loanees,but I've a feeling the aim was to have none/very few of these,because this would restrict the pathway for youngsters.Obviously,this goal couldn't be achieved in the first year.

Gary was reported to have been comfortable with this,as he'd worked with small squads in the past,so I don't think it's so much Gary calling the tune,more a case of him being happy with the tune.

When/where was that? I don't recall Mel having ever been so specific about the playing side of things

All I remember is Rowett saying on multiple occasions that our squad was too big and he wanted less players - For some of the reasons above

[EnigmaRam]

47 minutes ago, Big Bad Bob said:

Gary was quoted in the DET on the 25th August :

"We have got targets. we have got people we would like to bring in but based on keeping the squad at a certain level we know that is going to be a little bit dependent - not financially dependent, but number dependent - on the outs."

Going back to the OP, it would suggest outs weren't driven by FFP requirement.

@G STAR RAM this is what I was referring too mate.?

[CornwallRam]

56 minutes ago, ramblur said:

 

Right at the outset of Gary's reign,Mel said that his objective was a squad comprising 5/7 high earners and 7/9 earning more in line with the Championship norm,for the senior player element,with the rest of the squad being made up of Academy graduates.The only thing I'm not sure of is the situation relating to potential loanees,but I've a feeling the aim was to have none/very few of these,because this would restrict the pathway for youngsters.Obviously,this goal couldn't be achieved in the first year.

Gary was reported to have been comfortable with this,as he'd worked with small squads in the past,so I don't think it's so much Gary calling the tune,more a case of him being happy with the tune.

Hi Ramblur - I hope you're feeling as good as you can under the circumstances.

I remember reading that and thinking that it's completely incompatible with getting promoted. A maximum of 16 senior pros. We're bound to have a couple of those unavailable due to injury at any point.It's not inconceivable that we could have a week or two with eight or so out if the injuries mount up. That situation could be made more likely as those players will be extensively used, and probably encouraged to play through their 'niggles'. There's also no emergency loan system any more, so we'd be really vulnerable to injuries.

Then there's the problems of recruitment. Even the best managers only have limited success with transfers. I reckon that about a third tend to be good, a third OK and a third don't work out. That means that such a small squad is bound to feature two or three players who are below the required standard (ie don't fit the team for some reason, not necessarily poor players). 

I'd say that if we're going for promotion we need around 19 senior players and four or five promising youngsters.

On the subject of FFP, I just don't get why people are so unintersted. It's has a major influence on the division. Personally, I still think that it is a terrible idea and merely serves to make the division less competitive, with the parachute clubs having a massive advantage, over everyone, and the big clubs having an unfair advantage over the small ones. 

I wonder what Mel's ownership would have looked like with the FPP investment handcuffs? Would he have really tried to buy promotion by chucking a couple of hundred £million at it?

[ramblur]

Thanks for that @CornwallRam ,allowed me to abort my search for the link.The only thing I was unsure about was whether it was a max 16 permanent seniors +any season/half season loanees +Academy graduates,or just the permanent seniors+Academy grads. I tend towards the latter,because I remember calculating that it forced 1 Academy grad (other than keeper) onto the bench.

It's a very difficult thing trying to bring kids through whilst aiming for promotion,however it's rather pointless spending millions on the Academy if you can't bring the kids through. If you're suggesting that we need 19/20 seniors to cater for a rather extreme scenario of 8 injuries,then how can the kids ever get a look in,unless we produce a Trevor Francis/Beckham/Scholes/Giggs on a regular basis.

To me,an injury crisis should be exactly the opportunity kids need,because it's very difficult to fit them in otherwise.Sure,our promotion hopes might (and might not) take a hit in the process,but if a couple of kids come good as a result of it,then it's a small price to pay imo.

Of course you can extend the argument further,in a scenario where we get promoted.Now all of a sudden a kid has to show that he's good enough not for the Championship,but for a far higher standard. Meanwhile,his manager faces the pressure of trying to stay up......whilst introducing promising kids?

I think you have to bite some very large bullets,otherwise it seems to me there's absolutely no point in running an Academy. 

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

When/where was that? I don't recall Mel having ever been so specific about the playing side of things

All I remember is Rowett saying on multiple occasions that our squad was too big and he wanted less players - For some of the reasons above

It was said right at the outset,but I've no link. I tried throwing 'Gary Rowett appointed Derby Manager' into Google,but only got links to the national press for some reason. I can't even remember if I read or heard it,tbh, but as Cornie has now backed me up,I hope you'll at least begin to believe it may have been said.I'm so convinced, I'd almost stake my life on it,not that that's a particularly massive stake (taken some very large amortisation hits in recent years ).

[EnigmaRam]

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

It was said right at the outset,but I've no link. I tried throwing 'Gary Rowett appointed Derby Manager' into Google,but only got links to the national press for some reason. I can't even remember if I read or heard it,tbh, but as Cornie has now backed me up,I hope you'll at least begin to believe it may have been said.I'm so convinced, I'd almost stake my life on it,not that that's a particularly massive stake (taken some very large amortisation hits in recent years ).

It was said mate. It was more in line with a wage structure than anything else. So not everyone is on £30k + PW.  Which is probably one of the reasons why Will and Ince went out. To remove 2 top wage tier players to allow GR some flexibility within the wage structure.

[Curtains]

2 hours ago, ramblur said:

Don't think I answered your last sentence. The £4m undershoot in 15/16 means we were/will be probably comfortably within the limit in all

cycles including that year.That undershoot probably (depending on 16/17 result,which I expect to be below £13m) means that we could go over the £13m this year,but the problem with that is 17/18 forms part of ongoing 3 year cycles,so any overshoot here would have to be clawed back in future years (18/19 and maybe 19/20).

Thanks so in theory we could have spent more this window but would have to reign back in future windows to stay within the 39 Million over the 3 year period. The other thing I don't quite understand is the amortisation on player transfer fees as they are often a depreciating asset.

If say for example you pay 7 Million for Lawrence does it depend how much upfront say if it's 50 percent and then he's only worth 5 Million in 3 years how does that fit with FFP !