Is the squad better and stronger under Rowett.

[superzak]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Sorry but this is just plain ********. There are no similarities between Tommy docchertys and Gary Rowett whatsoever. 

Oh yes there is pal...sold the crown jewels and replaced them with inferior quality 

[superfit]

No its weaker

Apart from Carson, on the basis that he's a goalkeeper, and Vydra, which other player is worth more money than before Rowett arrived?

  

 

[ramblur]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

So are you guessing? Or has there been some dcfc confirmation of this?

Rowett has had plenty of financial wiggle room. His choice (bar Keef!) is where we are now.

I did mention a few weeks ago that Gary had revealed that there was an intention to make a surplus on transfer dealings this season.I said at the time that I hadn't a link,but thought it might have been DET. On reflection,I actually heard him saying this,rather than my reading it,which makes me think it was probably Rams TV video.  I'm pretty sure he mentioned Tom H and said he might have brought in a younger midfielder,but to get the quality required this would have meant a large fee, which might have been difficult because of the constraints mentioned earlier. Tom H was a quality midfielder available at a bit of a snip price.

If a surplus on transfer dealings had to be achieved,then it's pretty obvious that we had to sell to bring anyone in.I also said in my previous post that it's impossible to say if FFP was a big factor. Mel's previous backing would have given rise to hefty ongoing net transfer instalments,so this season's strategy may have eased the burden there.

I seem to remember that from 30/6/16 there was a DCFC share issue that netted £52m,and I can also tell you that there was another issue from 30/6/17 that brought in £43,758,300. I don't think we can expect the guy to keep pumping in sums of this magnitude. Just as the £52m covered the funding requirement for 15/16 and provided some advance funding for 16/17,it would be reasonable to assume that the c£44m represented funding for 16/17,plus an element of advance 17/18 funding.

We have to remember that Mel not only funds net capital expenditure,but also a pretty large cash deficit on operations.

If anyone wants to verify my figures,they're available at CH (under DCFC Ltd) in documents "Statement of capital June 17" and "Allotment of shares June 16". A hefty share premium figured in both cases (£99/share,from memory),the nominal share value being £1,hence £100/share paid

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I did mention a few weeks ago that Gary had revealed that there was an intention to make a surplus on transfer dealings this season...

If a surplus on transfer dealings had to be achieved,then it's pretty obvious that we had to sell to bring anyone in. I also said in my previous post that it's impossible to say if FFP was a big factor.

That doesn't confirm he had to or is that what you meant? But anyway it seems a short-sighted policy if he was aiming for top 2 (as he said preseason). Can't see many of our squad being 'up for it' if we get promoted? But maybe that's what he wanted the surplus for?

[PistoldPete2]

30 minutes ago, superfit said:

No its weaker

Apart from Carson, on the basis that he's a goalkeeper, and Vydra, which other player is worth more money than before Rowett arrived?

  

 

Curtis Davies ? Tom Huddlestone ? 

[Van der MoodHoover]

13 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I did mention a few weeks ago that Gary had revealed that there was an intention to make a surplus on transfer dealings this season.I said at the time that I hadn't a link,but thought it might have been DET. On reflection,I actually heard him saying this,rather than my reading it,which makes me think it was probably Rams TV video.  I'm pretty sure he mentioned Tom H and said he might have brought in a younger midfielder,but to get the quality required this would have meant a large fee, which might have been difficult because of the constraints mentioned earlier. Tom H was a quality midfielder available at a bit of a snip price.

If a surplus on transfer dealings had to be achieved,then it's pretty obvious that we had to sell to bring anyone in.I also said in my previous post that it's impossible to say if FFP was a big factor. Mel's previous backing would have given rise to hefty ongoing net transfer instalments,so this season's strategy may have eased the burden there.

I seem to remember that from 30/6/16 there was a DCFC share issue that netted £52m,and I can also tell you that there was another issue from 30/6/17 that brought in £43,758,300. I don't think we can expect the guy to keep pumping in sums of this magnitude. Just as the £52m covered the funding requirement for 15/16 and provided some advance funding for 16/17,it would be reasonable to assume that the c£44m represented funding for 16/17,plus an element of advance 17/18 funding.

We have to remember that Mel not only funds net capital expenditure,but also a pretty large cash deficit on operations.

Has any of his capital expenditure yielded a profit for him? Or have we just endured a succession of managers with poor transfer dealings.

[ramblur]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

That doesn't confirm he had to or is that what you meant? But anyway it seems a short-sighted policy if he was aiming for top 2 (as he said preseason). Can't see many of our squad being 'up for it' if we get promoted? But maybe that's what he wanted the surplus for?

It seems to have been policy,because he used the "we" word,from memory.It comes as no surprise to me because you can't expect Mel to keep throwing massive amounts at the 'project'. I'm a lot happier with the current arrangements,with a view to longer term financial stability.Of course,if we get promoted the landscape changes,but you also have to plan for a possible 18/19 Championship season.

[ramblur]

10 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Has any of his capital expenditure yielded a profit for him? Or have we just endured a succession of managers with poor transfer dealings.

From memory,we must have made profits on Hendrick,Hughes,Ince and Christie + there was the loan fee for CM. I don't know the overall position,because there's a long lag on published accounts,but I suspect there must be a hefty deficit . Of course the current squad has a combined market value,which should be taken into consideration.

Just had a quick look at 15/16 and additions (including agents' fees and League levy) came in at £29,955,000,but this figure could include agents' fees in relation to any contract extensions. 16/17 won't be available until 2 months+.

[Rev]

23 minutes ago, ramblur said:

From memory,we must have made profits on Hendrick,Hughes,Ince and Christie + there was the loan fee for CM. I don't know the overall position,because there's a long lag on published accounts,but I suspect there must be a hefty deficit . Of course the current squad has a combined market value,which should be taken into consideration.

Just had a quick look at 15/16 and additions (including agents' fees and League levy) came in at £29,955,000,but this figure could include agents' fees in relation to any contract extensions. 16/17 won't be available until 2 months+.

Is it possible @ramblur that Mel has reigned in the spending, rather than spending to the absolute limit FFP rules allow?

After all, he's chucked in as much cash as anyone could wish for upto the limits ever since he took over, maybe now he wants to see what can be achieved with a strict budget, rather than a loose one?

Maybe he feels that unlimited access to the sweetie jar leads to poor decisions, rather than the focused approach to spending that a relative lack of cash requires. 

Just a theory, but we do seem to give a lot more thought to VFM than in the recent past.

[superfit]

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Curtis Davies ? Tom Huddlestone ? 

Curtis Davies is 33 next month and on good contract so can't really see any championship team deciding to pay over 500k and give him a longer contract?

Tom is 31 and again I can't really see another championship team paying more than 2m for him and again giving him a better or longer contract than the one he's currently on at Derby? 

 

[Ambitious]

The major difference for me:
Under Rowett we've won games 3-0 and not looked in control. 
Under McClaren we lost games 1-0 despite looking imperious. 

It would make for an interesting match: the team at the moment & the play-off final side. Ironically, I think it would be a similar match & scoreline as we're somewhat similar to that QPR side at the moment. 

 

[Rev]

2 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

The major difference for me:
Under Rowett we've won games 3-0 and not looked in control. 
Under McClaren we lost games 1-0 despite looking imperious. 

It would make for an interesting match: the team at the moment & the play-off final side. Ironically, I think it would be a similar match & scoreline as we're somewhat similar to that QPR side at the moment. 

 

Don't agree, the 13/14 side would run all over this one.

I'd think more like the Brighton match up in the semis, with the current side being Brighton.

We're not streetwise enough to be QPR in the p.o. final.

[cannable]

46 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Don't agree, the 13/14 side would run all over this one.

I'd think more like the Brighton match up in the semis, with the current side being Brighton.

We're not streetwise enough to be QPR in the p.o. final.

Meh

We’ll never know. 

I’d take the 13/14 side any day, mind.

[lukedcfc]

Stronger yes, better no. 

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, reveldevil said:

Is it possible @ramblur that Mel has reigned in the spending, rather than spending to the absolute limit FFP rules allow?

After all, he's chucked in as much cash as anyone could wish for upto the limits ever since he took over, maybe now he wants to see what can be achieved with a strict budget, rather than a loose one?

Maybe he feels that unlimited access to the sweetie jar leads to poor decisions, rather than the focused approach to spending that a relative lack of cash requires. 

Just a theory, but we do seem to give a lot more thought to VFM than in the recent past.

I still think he's funding more or less up to the limits FFP allows,and it's my view that if we stay in the Championship next year, wages will have to be culled a bit more just to enable us to stay within the limit, without the need for player sale/s. I think some on here take a rather simplistic view that we spent a load in 15/16 ,whilst staying within the limits,thus we can do this every year and still be ok. Trouble is that the exceptional income of 15/16 can't be repeated.With the benefit of hindsight,it's a great irony that the exceptional income of £12m allowed us to do a load of things that seem to have got us into a little bit of a pickle (allied to the advent of residual values,which drastically reduced amortisation charges).

The reality is that we could probably (if we wanted to) sign a 25 year old,say, for £6m on a 3year contract,say, with the only impact on FFP being the player's wages. In an era of spiraling transfer fees,if we couldn't deem it fit to put an RV of £6m on such player (leaving zilch to amortise),then we shouldn't have been signing him in the first place. However,that only deals with the FFP aspect,as some poor soul would have to fund the transfer fee.

To get things into perspective,if Mel were funding us up to the £13m limit, then the cash deficit on operations alone could easily be c£8m, and the net transfer instalments come on top of this (along with any other tangible assets spend). I suspect Gary fully knew the score when he came and was quite happy with it.However,I also suspect he may have thought that he'd be able to move more players on for fees. If we stay down next year,I fully expect horse trading to be the order of the day,probably allied to the introduction of youth. 

[ramblur]

Oops,dropped a clanger in my last paragraph,as I mixed up FFP loss with actual loss (thought that £8m looked a bit low). Because our FFP exemptions run to £5m+, a £13m FFP loss would imply an actual loss of £18m+. When you strip out the 'paper transactions' from this loss (mainly depreciation/amortisation), you're probably left with a cash deficit to fund in the order of £12/13m. Ah,that looks more like it.

[Curtains]

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/02/15/tt-derby-county-may-have-to-take-8m-loss-on-anya-and-butterfield/

 

[Sparkle]

17 minutes ago, curtains said:

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/02/15/tt-derby-county-may-have-to-take-8m-loss-on-anya-and-butterfield/

 

Anya was a dreadful signing in terms of price age and wages because we can never get any type of return and he won’t be walking out of his contract and similar with Butterfield whose game was always built on scoring a few long range goals with an expectation that there would be more but he is good enough for a team hoping to achieve mid table championship survival but they are not going to pay any decent transfer fee or the wages we will be paying him.

Another one in the pot would be Blackman who I can actually see being reintegrated into the squad next season in fact he would have been useful right now until the end of the season as a sub

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, curtains said:

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/02/15/tt-derby-county-may-have-to-take-8m-loss-on-anya-and-butterfield/

 

We certainly couldn't afford to take that sort of hit against FFP as a starting point,with everything else on top. Whilst I suspect Butters may have been allocated a high RV,I'd imagine Anya's would be a lot lower than the fee paid,purely due to his age.This would mean that amortisation would have been charged against Anya's registration,thus reducing its book value and any consequent loss. In both cases wages would be saved,but if this were part of a (required) wages cull,we wouldn't really have got anywhere. Selling CM could be one way out of it,as that would represent nearly all profit (any agent fees associated with his contract extension would chip away at some of this).

Trouble is any buying clubs probably know our situation and would be looking to drive hard bargains (the kind of thing that leads to last day of window trading,which is no good to us at all).

[Van der MoodHoover]

Dreadful financial management of Mel's resources. If this was Sam's contribution then its no wonder they fell out and questions were being asked.