12 games to avoid FFP sanctions?

[Van der MoodHoover]

39 minutes ago, Boycie said:

I spoke to someone too, he said there wasn’t any pressure.

Yes, but he was the cellarman at the Black Bulls Head worried about the ale in the bedlam bar. ....

[Boycie]

12 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Yes, but he was the cellarman at the Black Bulls Head worried about the ale in the bedlam bar. ....

? I think the only cellar he’s been down is probably his wine cellar tbh.

[RIMBAUD]

22 minutes ago, sage said:

I really don't think we did. I think we enquired about a loan.

Sage, you may be right.  I don’t think all the outgoings are primarily down to ffp. I think GR has been given a free reign and he’s decided that the majority of the squad he has inherited are not worth keeping and/or don’t fit with the way he wants to play.

(and for the most part I wouldn’t argue with his decisions.)

[ramblur]

12 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?

I think you've used 14/15 turnover by mistake,as 15/16 figure was £22.559m,making wages 141.44% of turnover.Mind you,we all make mistakes as I said elsewhere that we'd need to shed £8.5m of wages to bring the figure to 100%. I should have said £9.5m,which makes the position slightly worse than I said.

I don't believe we could sustain this wage figure and stay within FFP without finding more exceptional income (little,if any chance of that) or selling player(s) for profit(s). If you've wiped out total turnover and created a £9.5m FFP loss on wages alone,then £3.5m to cover all the other expenditure and keep you within the average £13m/yr FFP loss doesn't look any where near realistic. Although part of that wages figure relating to the Academy would be FFP exempt,it's hardly going to be enough to change things significantly.

If you look at 15/16,we were told that the FFP loss was £9m,but only exceptional income of £12m produced this result.Without it,the FFP result would have been -£21m, £8m more than the allowed average. Thus,at that point in time, the underlying position was £8m over the odds.

Forgot to say,I don't think we'll be in any trouble this year,but will probably need to trim wages if we stay down next year (or risk having to sell players at a profit) - just my estimate.

[ilkleyram]

41 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I think you've used 14/15 turnover by mistake,as 15/16 figure was £22.559m,making wages 141.44% of turnover.Mind you,we all make mistakes as I said elsewhere that we'd need to shed £8.5m of wages to bring the figure to 100%. I should have said £9.5m,which makes the position slightly worse than I said.

I don't believe we could sustain this wage figure and stay within FFP without finding more exceptional income (little,if any chance of that) or selling player(s) for profit(s). If you've wiped out total turnover and created a £9.5m FFP loss on wages alone,then £3.5m to cover all the other expenditure and keep you within the average £13m/yr FFP loss doesn't look any where near realistic. Although part of that wages figure relating to the Academy would be FFP exempt,it's hardly going to be enough to change things significantly.

If you look at 15/16,we were told that the FFP loss was £9m,but only exceptional income of £12m produced this result.Without it,the FFP result would have been -£21m, £8m more than the allowed average. Thus,at that point in time, the underlying position was £8m over the odds.

Forgot to say,I don't think we'll be in any trouble this year,but will probably need to trim wages if we stay down next year (or risk having to sell players at a profit) - just my estimate.

Would stadium naming rights come under the heading of exceptional income, Ramblur?

[Stripperg-ram]

13 hours ago, Boycie said:

I spoke to someone too, he said there wasn’t any pressure.

Well then maybe my guy should talk to your guy then.

but whatever the outcome of their chat, I still think they may come to realise that there is ‘some’ pressure for us to go up.

I’d certainly hope there is anyway.

 

[Boycie]

2 minutes ago, Stripperg-ram said:

Well then maybe my guy should talk to your guy then.

but whatever the outcome of their chat, I still think they may come to realise that there is ‘some’ pressure for us to go up.

I’d certainly hope there is anyway.

 

You’re right, there is pressure to go up I guess, mainly from a supporters point of view. I think we won’t implode if we don’t manage it this year.

It will be a devistating blow to us supporters though if we miss out in the playoffs again.

[Spanish]

8 hours ago, ramblur said:

 

Forgot to say,I don't think we'll be in any trouble this year,but will probably need to trim wages if we stay down next year (or risk having to sell players at a profit) - just my estimate.

I presume the same argument works fro we can't sell a player at a loss and the only option is loans, Butterfield for example?

[Grantona]

20 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.

 

Bloom kept spending millions after taking over in 2009 until he "bought" Brighton promotion - £200 million plus they owe him although, as a fan, he probably won't demand it back.

[JG400]

On ‎27‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 11:08, Rab a dab doo said:

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.

A pretty pointless contribution to the discussion, unless the aim was to ridicule the original poster (which isn't very kind), if I was assessing DCFC at the moment I would say there is a sizable Risk that they will not get promoted (based on current form of Teams around us ) this season, speculating that happens, then in my opinion we would need to Transfer in 3-4 High Quality players to maintain momentum into next Season and address squad weakness. If we are on the FFP limits then the only way to finance this is by selling existing players and to be honest I don't see a great number of players who will demand high transfer fees

We would therefore face the prospect of another rebuild cycle which as we know could take 2+ seasons to develop our promising young players and recycle our older players

[Mistaram]

On 27/02/2018 at 12:20, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

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.

Yes that makes a lot of sense Think the new three year cycle starts again in April 

[King Kevin]

18 hours ago, reveldevil said:

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. 

I miss the old days, Brian bought Toddy without telling Sam Longson .

[Raich Carter]

On 27/02/2018 at 11:33, 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 

Ah, I didn't realise he'd denied it. It is a weird situation then for him to be frozen out and then back in as a starter. 

Regarding the fines - you just know that for some reason we'd end up paying it even if the others have got away with it!

 

[ramblur]

15 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

Would stadium naming rights come under the heading of exceptional income, Ramblur?

No,that would be classed as normal income. I seem to remember that the collapse of a major sponsorshjp deal leads to FFP relief,but I don't know for how long such relief lasts.

[ramblur]

7 hours ago, Spanish said:

I presume the same argument works fro we can't sell a player at a loss and the only option is loans, Butterfield for example?

I suppose it depends on how big such loss would be and whether FFP could stand it. If we managed to sell Martin and/or Bryson this would at least part offset any loss,as both would generate profits.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Would this be a mischievous thread to leave the words "fiduciary" and "Duty" in? You know, just for a laugh.

[Mistaram]

3 hours ago, RaichCarter said:

Ah, I didn't realise he'd denied it. It is a weird situation then for him to be frozen out and then back in as a starter. 

Regarding the fines - you just know that for some reason we'd end up paying it even if the others have got away with it!

 

Yes your probably right about the fines Especially as the Football League have an agenda against MM as he is the leading voice for clubs to get a better financial deal from the Premiership's money 

[G STAR RAM]

20 hours ago, ramblur said:

Forgot to say,I don't think we'll be in any trouble this year,but will probably need to trim wages if we stay down next year (or risk having to sell players at a profit) - just my estimate.

And let's not forget, making big profits on player sales may be harder given our apparent new amortisation policy!

[ramblur]

I mentioned some time ago that the consolidated accounts within Sevco 5112 mentioned that £2.283m of costs had been incurred in relation to "management changes" (although the note didn't appear in the DCFC accounts). Going purely (and remember this) from logic,compensation would be for loss of earnings and so this figure may well be included in the £32m figure. It also probably goes part way to explaining the £7m hike in admin expenses in 15/16, as I would suspect it would go here,rather than 'direct operating costs'. Thus my £9.5m reduction to get to 100% of turnover could reduce to c£7.2m. There may well have been costs of a similar nature in 16/17, but crucially,one would hope they won't be repeated this year and next year.

I mentioned previously a 'gut feeling' about wages. I remember looking at 16/17 and feeling wages must have reduced (aided significantly by CM,whose wages reappeared for half a year this term) -impossible to quantify though. Looking at this year,I don't see much (if any) savings on Camara,Hughes,Ince,Bryson,Blackman v Hudds,Wisdom,Davis,Ledley,Lawrence, with ButtsvSam impossible to call.We've also saved (whatever) on Bent/Shacks,which will be firmed up to full savings next year.

There's a Scottish expression 'many a mickle makes a muckle' (hope I've spelled it ok,or @valleyram 'll have me) and we have a lot of young lads out on loan. However,I'm pretty sure I heard Stephen Pearce disclose that the wages of youngsters,unless part of first team squad, are FFP exempt. Thus only Mason's wage savings would affect FFP.

I'm still of the opinion that,if we don't get promoted, offloading(or otherwise) the wages of Martin,Bryson,Butters,Blackman (and possibly Anya) will probably shape our incoming transfer activity.

[ramblur]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

And let's not forget, making big profits on player sales may be harder given our apparent new amortisation policy!

Although this wouldn't affect Bryson/Martin and one or two others we mightn't want to sell.