Surprised. Embarrassed. Frustrated.

[sage]

22 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Like many,I'm not sure you understand the dynamics of 15/16,thus resulting in your 3rd paragraph.Because of the £12m,loan related,exceptional income,our FFP loss in that season was only £9m and was not a drag on the 3year cycle that you suggest. We actually spent near to £30m on players,but the advent of RVs meant that the 15/16 amortisation charge was little more than that posted in the previous year.This,in turn, suggests to me that a lot of signings must have attracted RVs equal to the total transfer fees.Now this is ok if you get it right,but we can see,for example, in the cases of Butters and Anya that if you get it wrong it can create problems down the line.

The real damage of 15/16 was that the overall wage bill was hiked by a staggering £10m,most of which must surely be player related. Now when you have a large chunk of exceptional income you can sustain this and stay within FFP, but the problem is that this wage bill then becomes ongoing and if you don't cull it substantially,which is what we've been trying to do (never a surprise to me) then,in the absence of further exceptional income, you'd have to revert to profits on player sales.

I'd disagree that Pearson did much damage as Vyds would be one of our better 'RV successes',and Hendrick wanted out. It's pretty clear to me that PC's 15/16 reign did most of the damage. I find it hard to criticise Mel,because on the face of it his idea of employing a top coach,who would improve players and thus their market values appeared sound. All went fairly well in the early days. I distinctly remember a fans' forum where Mel was seated alongside PC. Someone mentioned that Keogh seemed to have improved and Mel put his hand over PC's head,with a finger pointing down. Unfortunately,by the end of his tenure I'd rather suggest that the overall market value of the squad had plummeted,quite the reverse of what had been envisaged.

There's been a lot of debate over PC - my own view is that he was all over the shop,and I wasn't at all surprised when he got the chop.

I see a lot of talk about other clubs spending massively and being accused of ignoring FFP. We aren't the only club assigning RVS,and as I've said before,depending on the profiles of such players,it may only be their wages that are counting against FFP to a large extent.

Reading all that made my eyes hurt. I agree that the PC season was the most financially costly. We will offload a lot of those wages at the end of the season. 

[ramblur]

3 minutes ago, sage said:

Reading all that made my eyes hurt. I agree that the PC season was the most financially costly. We will offload a lot of those wages at the end of the season. 

Didn't do much for my plodding finger either. To put things into perspective,the £31m overall wage bill of 15/16 would have to be reduced by a staggering £8.5m just to get it to equate to 100% of turnover for that year (in itself not a particularly healthy situation). Whilst there will be wage savings,I can still see problems with Anya/Butters/Bryson/Martin still to be resolved.

[ramblur]

15 hours ago, Seaside Ram said:

So why are Villa paying F all attention to FFP just as QPR , possibly Leicester and certainly Bournemouth did before them ? I don't know why folks keep worrying about FFP ? Get promoted , pocket 200 mill , get fined about 5mill , big deal !  Who says crime doesn't pay ???

Spoken like a true gambler.What happens if we don't get promoted? Embargo? Points deduction?

For reasons I've mentioned elsewhere (allied to substantial parachute payments),Villa may be operating within FFP.

[cannable]

20 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Really?

One of the best squads in the league with plenty of options to manoeuvre in the transfer market. Not in danger of relegation. Not in danger of going bust. 

Chris Coleman's got a mess on his hands, not sure Rowett had. 

Loads of good players doesn’t constitute a good squad 

[Bessie1]

2 hours ago, ramblur said:

Didn't do much for my plodding finger either. To put things into perspective,the £31m overall wage bill of 15/16 would have to be reduced by a staggering £8.5m just to get it to equate to 100% of turnover for that year (in itself not a particularly healthy situation). Whilst there will be wage savings,I can still see problems with Anya/Butters/Bryson/Martin still to be resolved.

Honestly, this post needs to be prominently displayed on dcfcfans so it can be clearly seen every time people moan about GR selling or loaning out players.

[PistoldPete2]

6 hours ago, ramblur said:

Like many,I'm not sure you understand the dynamics of 15/16,thus resulting in your 3rd paragraph.Because of the £12m,loan related,exceptional income,our FFP loss in that season was only £9m and was not a drag on the 3year cycle that you suggest. We actually spent near to £30m on players,but the advent of RVs meant that the 15/16 amortisation charge was little more than that posted in the previous year.This,in turn, suggests to me that a lot of signings must have attracted RVs equal to the total transfer fees.Now this is ok if you get it right,but we can see,for example, in the cases of Butters and Anya that if you get it wrong it can create problems down the line.

The real damage of 15/16 was that the overall wage bill was hiked by a staggering £10m,most of which must surely be player related. Now when you have a large chunk of exceptional income you can sustain this and stay within FFP, but the problem is that this wage bill then becomes ongoing and if you don't cull it substantially,which is what we've been trying to do (never a surprise to me) then,in the absence of further exceptional income, you'd have to revert to profits on player sales.

I'd disagree that Pearson did much damage as Vyds would be one of our better 'RV successes',and Hendrick wanted out. It's pretty clear to me that PC's 15/16 reign did most of the damage. I find it hard to criticise Mel,because on the face of it his idea of employing a top coach,who would improve players and thus their market values appeared sound. All went fairly well in the early days. I distinctly remember a fans' forum where Mel was seated alongside PC. Someone mentioned that Keogh seemed to have improved and Mel put his hand over PC's head,with a finger pointing down. Unfortunately,by the end of his tenure I'd rather suggest that the overall market value of the squad had plummeted,quite the reverse of what had been envisaged.

There's been a lot of debate over PC - my own view is that he was all over the shop,and I wasn't at all surprised when he got the chop.

I see a lot of talk about other clubs spending massively and being accused of ignoring FFP. We aren't the only club assigning RVS,and as I've said before,depending on the profiles of such players,it may only be their wages that are counting against FFP to a large extent.

What effect will mels season ticket renewal offer have on Ffp? A lot of people bringing forward their renewals , will it double our season  ticket income for the year so help our Ffp limit for next year?

[Carl Sagan]

6 hours ago, ramblur said:

Like many,I'm not sure you understand the dynamics of 15/16,thus resulting in your 3rd paragraph.Because of the £12m,loan related,exceptional income,our FFP loss in that season was only £9m and was not a drag on the 3year cycle that you suggest. We actually spent near to £30m on players,but the advent of RVs meant that the 15/16 amortisation charge was little more than that posted in the previous year.This,in turn, suggests to me that a lot of signings must have attracted RVs equal to the total transfer fees.Now this is ok if you get it right,but we can see,for example, in the cases of Butters and Anya that if you get it wrong it can create problems down the line.

The real damage of 15/16 was that the overall wage bill was hiked by a staggering £10m,most of which must surely be player related. Now when you have a large chunk of exceptional income you can sustain this and stay within FFP, but the problem is that this wage bill then becomes ongoing and if you don't cull it substantially,which is what we've been trying to do (never a surprise to me) then,in the absence of further exceptional income, you'd have to revert to profits on player sales.

I'd disagree that Pearson did much damage as Vyds would be one of our better 'RV successes',and Hendrick wanted out. It's pretty clear to me that PC's 15/16 reign did most of the damage. I find it hard to criticise Mel,because on the face of it his idea of employing a top coach,who would improve players and thus their market values appeared sound. All went fairly well in the early days. I distinctly remember a fans' forum where Mel was seated alongside PC. Someone mentioned that Keogh seemed to have improved and Mel put his hand over PC's head,with a finger pointing down. Unfortunately,by the end of his tenure I'd rather suggest that the overall market value of the squad had plummeted,quite the reverse of what had been envisaged.

There's been a lot of debate over PC - my own view is that he was all over the shop,and I wasn't at all surprised when he got the chop.

I see a lot of talk about other clubs spending massively and being accused of ignoring FFP. We aren't the only club assigning RVS,and as I've said before,depending on the profiles of such players,it may only be their wages that are counting against FFP to a large extent.

What's an RV? Is that a "resale value" or something else?

It did seem we were desperate to get Martin out of the door because of his wages which is surely a financial fair play thing. Yet, if that were the case, it remains inexplicable to have effectively given Hughes away for nothing. We got good prices for Hendrick and Ince but then next to nothing for the crown jewels.

And does FFP matter given the likes of Wolves don't seem to care? I do think Villa care, but they have parachute payments that help them. Even so, they struggled to afford anyone in January.

 

 

 

[BramcoteRam84]

No doubt Mac2 and Rowett had a difficult job. They did inherit a mess from Clement. Not just the money wasted on a bloated and unbalanced squad, but the expectation that went with it. After the spending many fans thought we would walk the league (I include myself in that) and thought we were entitled to promotion. That expectation has never left. 

Mac was unfairly sacked, Rowett has done an excellent job with the constraints he’s been under. He’s still building and given the opportunity I think he will bring youth through.

Weve been in far more horrendous positions than this, we’re fortunate we have a chairman (frustrating as he’s been at times) that is backing the club. the 3 amigos tenure was the worst in my football supporting life, they were the worst thing to happen to this club (To think Burley worked a miracle to get a team fighting for promotion) and I think in part contributed to the 11pt premier league debacle as we didn’t recover until Nige did the rebuild job. I therefore think Nige had the most difficult job, GSE wouldn’t put any money in and all he could do was cut.  But he was helped by Jewell messing up the first half of the season, expectations were lowered and stayed low until Mac1. Had Clough been appointed in the premier league or at least start of the championship season, would we have done any better and would he have lasted?

Rowett is doing just fine, top 6 looks probable and if he achieves that, even those who aren’t enjoying the football surely can’t suggest he should be sacked if we don’t get promotion? Can they? I know no one has specifically said this in the thread but are there posters who think that?

[Owd miner]

Yes sack him . 

[nogbad van 50]

40 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

No doubt Mac2 and Rowett had a difficult job. They did inherit a mess from Clement. Not just the money wasted on a bloated and unbalanced squad, but the expectation that went with it. After the spending many fans thought we would walk the league (I include myself in that) and thought we were entitled to promotion. That expectation has never left. 

Mac was unfairly sacked, Rowett has done an excellent job with the constraints he’s been under. He’s still building and given the opportunity I think he will bring youth through.

Weve been in far more horrendous positions than this, we’re fortunate we have a chairman (frustrating as he’s been at times) that is backing the club. the 3 amigos tenure was the worst in my football supporting life, they were the worst thing to happen to this club (To think Burley worked a miracle to get a team fighting for promotion) and I think in part contributed to the 11pt premier league debacle as we didn’t recover until Nige did the rebuild job. I therefore think Nige had the most difficult job, GSE wouldn’t put any money in and all he could do was cut.  But he was helped by Jewell messing up the first half of the season, expectations were lowered and stayed low until Mac1. Had Clough been appointed in the premier league or at least start of the championship season, would we have done any better and would he have lasted?

Rowett is doing just fine, top 6 looks probable and if he achieves that, even those who aren’t enjoying the football surely can’t suggest he should be sacked if we don’t get promotion? Can they? I know no one has specifically said this in the thread but are there posters who think that?

You obviously weren’t here when Robert Maxwell was!

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said:

What effect will mels season ticket renewal offer have on Ffp? A lot of people bringing forward their renewals , will it double our season  ticket income for the year so help our Ffp limit for next year?

No,I'm afraid it won't have the impact you suggest.When advance income lands,it's dealt with by a mechanism called 'deferred income',which is a creditor,but not in the sense you'd normally envisage. Rather than being an amount owed to a third party,it's income owed to another year.This keeps it out of income (and therefore P/L,and by extension FFP) in the year in which it's collected.At the start of the following year it's cleared out of deferred income and allocated to income for that particular year,where it really belongs.Come the next renewal period in that year,the process starts all over again. Bet you're glad you asked

[ramblur]

59 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

What's an RV? Is that a "resale value" or something else?

It did seem we were desperate to get Martin out of the door because of his wages which is surely a financial fair play thing. Yet, if that were the case, it remains inexplicable to have effectively given Hughes away for nothing. We got good prices for Hendrick and Ince but then next to nothing for the crown jewels.

And does FFP matter given the likes of Wolves don't seem to care? I do think Villa care, but they have parachute payments that help them. Even so, they struggled to afford anyone in January.

 

 

 

It's a residual value and it seems to be a requirement of a financial reg that came out a couple of years ago.It doesn't just relate to us,as all clubs should be applying it. If Wolves and Villa have been applying high RVs to the majority of their players,then like us their amortisation would be relatively low and the impact on FFP would be minimal -it's only the wages that are then the big worry. If,for instance Wolves bought a youngish player for £25m,they could be quite entitled to put an RV of £25m on the player's reg.If there's then nothing to amortise,then there's nothing (apart from wages) to hit FFP with regards to this particular player.

One thing I'd like to clarify is that RV doesn't mean value at the very end of the contract,as this would obviously be nil.We all know that if a player is highly regarded,you're probably going to offer him an extended contract well before the current one expires.If he turns this down,then you'd hope to be able to sell him for at least the RV allocated. All of this goes pear shaped if a player is hell bent on seeing out his contract and collecting a hefty signing on fee (in lieu of a transfer fee the recipient club might have had to pay),as in those circumstances you're going to be hit with a hefty loss.

The CM situation is really a 3 pronged affair in that any sale would a) get rid of his wages (FFP positive), b) generate an inevitable book profit (FFP positive) ,c) generate funds for Gary to work with.

Can't comment on Will's situation,because I'm not sure anyone knows the extent of the fee or any add ons (undisclosed means people just speculate). I do remember Will saying he was excited when he got wind of Watford's interest and was straight onto his agent to find out the score,all of which leads me to believe that he wasn't exactly loathe to leave us. If there were no other clubs entering the bidding,then you either sell to Watford for the best price you can drive,or risk having a potentially unhappy player on your books. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, Owd miner said:

Yes sack him . 

Back 'im 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or crack 'im 

[Carl Sagan]

2 hours ago, ramblur said:

It's a residual value and it seems to be a requirement of a financial reg that came out a couple of years ago.It doesn't just relate to us,as all clubs should be applying it. If Wolves and Villa have been applying high RVs to the majority of their players,then like us their amortisation would be relatively low and the impact on FFP would be minimal -it's only the wages that are then the big worry. If,for instance Wolves bought a youngish player for £25m,they could be quite entitled to put an RV of £25m on the player's reg.If there's then nothing to amortise,then there's nothing (apart from wages) to hit FFP with regards to this particular player.

One thing I'd like to clarify is that RV doesn't mean value at the very end of the contract,as this would obviously be nil.We all know that if a player is highly regarded,you're probably going to offer him an extended contract well before the current one expires.If he turns this down,then you'd hope to be able to sell him for at least the RV allocated. All of this goes pear shaped if a player is hell bent on seeing out his contract and collecting a hefty signing on fee (in lieu of a transfer fee the recipient club might have had to pay),as in those circumstances you're going to be hit with a hefty loss.

The CM situation is really a 3 pronged affair in that any sale would a) get rid of his wages (FFP positive), b) generate an inevitable book profit (FFP positive) ,c) generate funds for Gary to work with.

Can't comment on Will's situation,because I'm not sure anyone knows the extent of the fee or any add ons (undisclosed means people just speculate). I do remember Will saying he was excited when he got wind of Watford's interest and was straight onto his agent to find out the score,all of which leads me to believe that he wasn't exactly loathe to leave us. If there were no other clubs entering the bidding,then you either sell to Watford for the best price you can drive,or risk having a potentially unhappy player on your books. 

Thanks. I'm guessing the residual value would start to decline from about 18 months to go, with significant drops at 12 months and 6 months.

It's old ground with Will but we sold him before the season was even over (he'd gone out to play in the Euros), my connections said the fee was right at the bottom of the different estimates and his agent is a recent Watford player (and no one else) so I'm sure that's why he went there. No other Premier League clubs had started their summer recruitment. It is inconceivable to me there wouldn't have been other higher bidders for the second-youngest ever England U21 international. Just look at the national buzz when he made his Watford debut and scored, and the whole of twitter reacted in astonishment that Watford had been able to buy him.

If Thorne hadn't done his ACL we'd have got promoted and become established and him, Will and Jeff would be bossing it in the Prem with George and Will already booked on the plane for Russia. You can see I'm still bitter and disappointed (Watford play him in our right wing position where he looks really dangerous and would have fitted into Rowett's system) but Rowett has obviously proved  himself with where we are. I was also disappointed over Martin who I thought had a lot to offer us in the run-in and I couldn't see the sense unless financially desperate, but it'll be up to Rowett to prove himself again. I do trust in Gary and I suppose someone had to make tough and painful decisions. But it doesn't mean I like those decisions.

And with the oldest squad in the league, might we struggle financially because we'll have the lowest residual value of our squad versus our competitors? And does that partly still explain the net negative expediture, or are you saying the books look fine and we weren't on the limit?

[Van der MoodHoover]

I can see from Ramblurs very clear analysis that 15/16 was the single most profligate season.

But wasn't PC operating under the head coach model so he was merely describing types of players and then working with the gems uncovered by our fabled recruitment team?

Whilst Sam did the deals?

[Ambitious]

18 hours ago, cannable said:

Loads of good players doesn’t constitute a good squad 

It doesn't constitute a mess either.

Rowett wasn't handed the final product from day one, no. What he was given was a fairly good squad with decent players and lots of room to maneuver. He's done a good job, but he wasn't handed mission impossible. 

He's made mistakes as well, no doubt about it: the fees we got for Ince & Hughes quite frankly was an abomination - for one example. 

A top six finish will be nice, but it was probably the expectation. He wouldn't have, well I hope he wouldn't have, been sacked for anything less but he needed to improve on an 9th place (67 point) finish. 

 

[GenBr]

15 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

And does FFP matter given the likes of Wolves don't seem to care? I do think Villa care, but they have parachute payments that help them. Even so, they struggled to afford anyone in January.

 

 

 

FFP doesn't matter if you get promoted to the Prem ala Bournemouth. The rewards far outweigh the cost in that case. Wolves decided to blow everything on one season to try and get up and so far it is working, but their is no guarantee it would work the same for anyone else. 

[RodleyRam]

Largely uninspiring but mostly very effective. That's how i would describe GR's transfer dealings (and general tenure) at the club to date. I think hands have been tied and his approach is more akin to Clough in that he looks at the stability of the club as a whole with each transfer deal. 

I am disappointed at the lack of exciting young talent being brought in / through but he will have time and probably resources in the summer to address this.

[Van der MoodHoover]

29 minutes ago, RodleyRam said:

Largely uninspiring but mostly very effective. That's how i would describe GR's transfer dealings (and general tenure) at the club to date. I think hands have been tied and his approach is more akin to Clough in that he looks at the stability of the club as a whole with each transfer deal. 

I am disappointed at the lack of exciting young talent being brought in / through but he will have time and probably resources in the summer to address this.

I think on reflection sending lots of youngsters out on loan is a good bit of contingency planning for next season when we may want to introduce a few into the first eleven.

[Inglorius]

On 17/02/2018 at 12:55, GenBr said:

Wolves decided to blow everything on one season to try and get up and so far it is working, but their is no guarantee it would work the same for anyone else. 

It didn't work for us so why is it working for Wolves? It patently is effective if executed correctly, just like us "Doing a Derby" with 11 points in the Premiership we seem to write the rulebook on how not to do things.