DerbyRevolution Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 15/16 stated wage bill was £32m, 150% of a record championship turnover of £21m without parachute payments. Reported loss of nearly £15m that period Wage bill then of £615,000 a week, dread to think what it is now. Attendances are down, Surely we are about to breach FFP unless we go up? Is this financial pressure being translated on to the pitch? Any wonder we didn’t spend in jan? Can anyone ITK confirm or deny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raich Carter Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I think this is the key reason for a number of the loans out - I reckon we’re very close but the right side of it. My thinking is that we wouldn’t have signed CJ nor Palmer if we weren’t but we HAD to loan out Martin to balance the books. IF that is the case then fair play to GR for supporting Mel rather than bemoaning the lack of financial investment. FWIW I think the window was ok, just, from what we can see but suspect GR is happy to get rid of a few moaners. Did anyone get anywhere with the theory that Anya didn’t play for a while cos it would have triggered a further payment? Again, given FFP that would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab a dab doo Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 The ides of March are nearly upon us. Pestilence and famine will sweep the land and lead to DCFC demise. What are we to do ? Maybe ask Mel to find a few more shekels behind the sofa or have whip round the stands at half time. Don't panic Mr Mainwaring we are not sunk yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Doesn't a lot of the spending drop off soon as the FFP is measured over a three year period or am I talking absolute rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistaram Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 18 minutes ago, RaichCarter said: I think this is the key reason for a number of the loans out - I reckon we’re very close but the right side of it. My thinking is that we wouldn’t have signed CJ nor Palmer if we weren’t but we HAD to loan out Martin to balance the books. IF that is the case then fair play to GR for supporting Mel rather than bemoaning the lack of financial investment. FWIW I think the window was ok, just, from what we can see but suspect GR is happy to get rid of a few moaners. Did anyone get anywhere with the theory that Anya didn’t play for a while cos it would have triggered a further payment? Again, given FFP that would make sense. Raich Rowett has denied that about Anya but admit it does seem to make sense Well not sure we should worry to much about FFP its just taken the FL five years to fine Leicester £3million and QPR still not paid a penny for going over in 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Don't know a thing about FFP, but Rowett seems to be prudent and responsible transfer wise. A bit like Nigel was, thinking more about long-term development rather than instant (possible) success at any cost. Not exactly biggest fan what's happening on the pitch, but financially I trust Rowett 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuitYourJibbaJivin Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 45 minutes ago, Mistaram said: Raich Rowett has denied that about Anya but admit it does seem to make sense Well not sure we should worry to much about FFP its just taken the FL five years to fine Leicester £3million and QPR still not paid a penny for going over in 2013 Yeah but if We didn’t get promoted we could end up with a transferring embargo immediately. IMO we’re the right side of it, we’re pribably very close to the line mind and like others have said that’s why we had so many outs in January. The clement summer will be out of the 3 year FFP cycle and since then we’ve been in profit for summers so we should have a lot more wiggle room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bessie1 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 @ramblur posted some good stuff on this subject in the "selling the Crown Jewels" thread. He had to make some assumptions but in a nutshell he showed that the legacy of past (over)spending likely played a big part in this season's ins and outs. It's to GR's credit that he's not moaned or made excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I'm pretty sure we are not going to breach it. Why would we spend money on Jerome and Palmer & made a bid for Lookman if that's the case? Wouldn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Getting promotion doesn’t stop ffp action against you. Look at Leicester and Bournemouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripperg-ram Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Spoke to someone close to the club the other day and they said that there is some pressure to go up. If you think about Bryson & Martin they still have got contracts to come back to. So somewhat a stay of execution, from a financial point of view. Burton are probably only paying 90p a week towards Bents £20-£40k(?) a week. Mel has spent 100’s of Millions since taking over and even he can’t keep dishing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t'oldu Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 So have Blackman and Butterfield!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bessie1 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 4 hours ago, Bessie1 said: @ramblur posted some good stuff on this subject in the "selling the Crown Jewels" thread. He had to make some assumptions but in a nutshell he showed that the legacy of past (over)spending likely played a big part in this season's ins and outs. It's to GR's credit that he's not moaned or made excuses. Oops! Ramblur's analysis was in the "surprised embarrassed etc" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 4 hours ago, Stripperg-ram said: Spoke to someone close to the club the other day and they said that there is some pressure to go up. If you think about Bryson & Martin they still have got contracts to come back to. So somewhat a stay of execution, from a financial point of view. Burton are probably only paying 90p a week towards Bents £20-£40k(?) a week. Mel has spent 100’s of Millions since taking over and even he can’t keep dishing it out. Think that estimates a bit toppy personally but I agree with the overall sentiment. Ramblurs excellent analyses were trying to show how transfer and contract actions one season can impact on the ffp calculations for several years depending on length of contract and how the initial cost is spread over time. These periods may not be 3 years eg clement spent on butterfield and Johnson and they were given 4 year deals weren't they? So there's an impact on the ffp calcs for 4 years. The only relevance of the 3 year period is for measuring whether or not you have breached the rules. It's an arbitrary number as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 5 hours ago, Stripperg-ram said: Spoke to someone close to the club the other day and they said that there is some pressure to go up. If you think about Bryson & Martin they still have got contracts to come back to. So somewhat a stay of execution, from a financial point of view. Burton are probably only paying 90p a week towards Bents £20-£40k(?) a week. Mel has spent 100’s of Millions since taking over and even he can’t keep dishing it out. I spoke to someone too, he said there wasn’t any pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIMBAUD Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 We made a fairly hefty offer for McClean so surely we can’t t be as perilously close to the limit as some are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, RIMBAUD said: We made a fairly hefty offer for McClean so surely we can’t t be as perilously close to the limit as some are suggesting. That was the odd one, unless it was some decoy whilst we were really talking to them about someone else or a calculated no hoper to say to fans "we're trying to get pl players in" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 I don't think we're that close to FFP myself. It may be that the loss Mel is prepared to finance per season is smaller, after all he's paid for the club, and financed it to pretty much to maximum loss allowed so far. On top of this money, you can add the investment in infrastructure and the Academy, which doesn't count towards the FFP losses, and it's a massive commitment he has already made. I'm not saying he's done his dough, but seeing as Mel has made his fortune by investing smaller amounts and helping companies grow, maybe he sees now as the right time to apply this model to us. If you tell a manager he can spend £20m, and another 100k a week on wages, you can be sure that manager will spend exactly that! If you tell the manager he can spend £3m, plus whatever sales he can generate, and any signings must be wage neutral, you can be sure the manager will spend exactly that also! The big difference between the two approaches is the focus on value for money the latter one brings, you can't afford to make too many recruitment mistakes, or have a wage earner not playing under such a regime. This is why I think we're now seeing players who we'd have kept as back up in the past heading out on loan, as we seem to have a renewed focus on seeing wages on the pitch rather than in the stands. It will be interesting to see what happens to the loan players who return in the summer, my guess is the ones who aren't out of contract will be made available for season long loans again, if we can't command a transfer fee, and the current players out of contract will be let go to free up wriggle room. TL,DR We are deliberately keeping budgets smaller to ensure more focus in transfer dealings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 29 minutes ago, RIMBAUD said: We made a fairly hefty offer for McClean so surely we can’t t be as perilously close to the limit as some are suggesting. I really don't think we did. I think we enquired about a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 7 hours ago, DerbyRevolution said: 15/16 stated wage bill was £32m, 150% of a record championship turnover of £21m without parachute payments. Reported loss of nearly £15m that period Wage bill then of £615,000 a week, dread to think what it is now. Attendances are down, Surely we are about to breach FFP unless we go up? Is this financial pressure being translated on to the pitch? Any wonder we didn’t spend in jan? Can anyone ITK confirm or deny? You seem to have completely overlooked income of somewhere between 20m and 30m generated by the sale of 3 players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.