FFP going into next season

[Seaside Sam]

5 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

I can't see us selling Vydra and I can't see Vydra spoiling for a move, doesn't seem to be in his nature to be like that.

Getting rid of Butterfield will be the biggest challenge, he has been put in the shop window at Sheffield Wednesday and instead of looking appealing he has dropped his trousers and spread his arse to the viewing public. They can't wait to be rid of him.

he'll be all right JCB are taking on

[Van der MoodHoover]

On 13/03/2018 at 12:37, G STAR RAM said:

Accounts should be published in next few years and may give a bit of a better idea.

What, like as in explaining why we’re 15th in league 2 trying to build a team around butters? 

 

[ramblur]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:25, Spanish said:

think the straight line amortisation is gone replaced by an end of contract valuation.  Any shortfall would be a big one off hit, Butters could be v expensive depending on what our carrying value is.

No,straight line's still there, but the calculation is now ( total fee - residual value allocated)/ length of contract  = amortisation per year. All residual values are examined every year,and some may be adjusted where appropriate.

The flaw in Duncan's earlier post is that he missed out the residual values,and his interpretation relates to the situation that obtained prior to 15/16. From what I can see,the residual values appear to be at,or very close to, the original total fee,especially for the younger players.

I think too many are concentrating on transfer fees,when the real FFP damage is caused by the high wage bill introduced in 15/16,which we seem to be trying (very hard) to reduce. Getting rid of 15/16 from the 3 year cycle does us no favours,because the FFP loss  of £9m in that year was £4m below the yearly average allowed. It's not getting rid of the 15/16 FFP result that matters, but downsizing the wages built up in that year (driven by the exceptional income of £12m,which made the FFP result so low).

[archied]

11 minutes ago, ramblur said:

No,straight line's still there, but the calculation is now ( total fee - residual value allocated)/ length of contract  = amortisation per year. All residual values are examined every year,and some may be adjusted where appropriate.

The flaw in Duncan's earlier post is that he missed out the residual values,and his interpretation relates to the situation that obtained prior to 15/16. From what I can see,the residual values appear to be at,or very close to, the original total fee,especially for the younger players.

I think too many are concentrating on transfer fees,when the real FFP damage is caused by the high wage bill introduced in 15/16,which we seem to be trying (very hard) to reduce. Getting rid of 15/16 from the 3 year cycle does us no favours,because the FFP loss  of £9m in that year was £4m below the yearly average allowed. It's not getting rid of the 15/16 FFP result that matters, but downsizing the wages built up in that year (driven by the exceptional income of £12m,which made the FFP result so low).

Could do with you on a few other threads where some refuse to accept that ffp has any part to play in rowetts transfer policy ?

[Sparkle]

14 minutes ago, ramblur said:

No,straight line's still there, but the calculation is now ( total fee - residual value allocated)/ length of contract  = amortisation per year. All residual values are examined every year,and some may be adjusted where appropriate.

The flaw in Duncan's earlier post is that he missed out the residual values,and his interpretation relates to the situation that obtained prior to 15/16. From what I can see,the residual values appear to be at,or very close to, the original total fee,especially for the younger players.

I think too many are concentrating on transfer fees,when the real FFP damage is caused by the high wage bill introduced in 15/16,which we seem to be trying (very hard) to reduce. Getting rid of 15/16 from the 3 year cycle does us no favours,because the FFP loss  of £9m in that year was £4m below the yearly average allowed. It's not getting rid of the 15/16 FFP result that matters, but downsizing the wages built up in that year (driven by the exceptional income of £12m,which made the FFP result so low).

So we are pretty much in the mire then? 

[ramblur]

8 minutes ago, archied said:

Could do with you on a few other threads where some refuse to accept that ffp has any part to play in rowetts transfer policy ?

Well,he did say earlier this season that 'we' (probably meaning Mel and Gary) intended (whatever the reason) to make a surplus on transfers this year,and I'm pretty sure he went on to say that this partly explained why we went in for Tom H,who was available at a snip price,rather than a younger version, who would presumably have cost a lot more for the same quality. 

[ramblur]

12 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

So we are pretty much in the mire then? 

Don't really see it that way,just that we can't expect big signings if we don't go up this year,unless through trading.My gut feeling is that 16/17 wages reduced (haven't a clue by how much) and we'll see if I'm right in the next few weeks, when the accounts come out.

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Don't really see it that way,just that we can't expect big signings if we don't go up this year,unless through trading.My gut feeling is that 16/17 wages reduced (haven't a clue by how much) and we'll see if I'm right in the next few weeks, when the accounts come out.

Cheers ramblur. There you go @archied is that clear enough for you?

[Sparkle]

16 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Don't really see it that way,just that we can't expect big signings if we don't go up this year,unless through trading.My gut feeling is that 16/17 wages reduced (haven't a clue by how much) and we'll see if I'm right in the next few weeks, when the accounts come out.

I am pleased in a way - I tend to think being sensible is a much better way to go

[archied]

17 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Cheers ramblur. There you go @archied is that clear enough for you?

Try reading the rest of ramblur posts ,they may clear things up for you ,reduced wage bills ,trading as opposed to spending ,stuff like that may give you a hint

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, archied said:

Try reading the rest of ramblur posts ,they may clear things up for you ,reduced wage bills ,trading as opposed to spending ,stuff like that may give you a hint

The point is we are not poor - we aren't having to sell and not replace. Rowett has no doubt as much if not more money at his disposal as most of our past few managers.

[ramblur]

10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Cheers ramblur. There you go @archied is that clear enough for you?

Not sure that I've really contradicted anything @archied said there ,Roy. I think there's every chance that at least part of the surplus may have been needed for FFP purposes,which would mean that Gary may well have been working under FFP constraints,to a certain extent.

You have to remember that any profits on players give a big boost to the bottom line (and,by extension,FFP) in the year in which sold (and that year only,unless any 'add ons' materialise in subsequent years. So we have a big boost to FFP because of Will and Tom,but we then need to look at the other side of the equation. If you assumed that outgoing wages roughly matched incomings,then it's only amortization that has to be set against these profits to discover the net effect on transfer dealings.

I strongly suspect that both Wisdom and Lawrence would have been given residual values very close to (or at) their total transfer fees,which would mean little,or no amortization . Tom,Curtis and Cameron, on the other hand would likely have low RV's,purely down to their ages. Even then,any amortization would be spread over the lengths of their contracts, and their total fees didn't exactly amount to a massive figure.

Therefore my conclusion is that our transfer dealings overall probably gave quite a boost to the FFP position this year. Now the big question that remains is, was part of this surplus needed for FFP this year,or was it merely a case of Mel wanting to reduce the net instalments he would have to pay on transfers this year and beyond? 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, ramblur said:

Not sure that I've really contradicted anything @archied said there ,Roy. I think there's every chance that at least part of the surplus may have been needed for FFP purposes,which would mean that Gary may well have been working under FFP constraints,to a certain extent.

...Therefore my conclusion is that our transfer dealings overall probably gave quite a boost to the FFP position this year. Now the big question that remains is, was part of this surplus needed for FFP this year,or was it merely a case of Mel wanting to reduce the net instalments he would have to pay on transfers this year and beyond? 

Most of our past managers have had to work under 'constraints' - I was pointing out that we're not that poor, else why buy Jerome, et al?

[ramblur]

22 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I am pleased in a way - I tend to think being sensible is a much better way to go

I'm with you there. We don't have a bad squad now,and we seem to have many youngsters continually improving. If we have to trade( and we don't even know that) then I'd be fairly relaxed about that. People should realise that the 15/16 bonanza only came about because of that large exceptional income (loan cancellation related),and even in 14/15 there was a £3m gain on the PP loan settlement.Those days are over,so our current and future FFP positions will be based on normal income and expenditure,unless promoted. 

[archied]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The point is we are not poor - we aren't having to sell and not replace. Rowett has no doubt as much if not more money at his disposal as most of our past few managers.

Er no , we are reducing expenditure , we are cutting the number of big earners in the squad , , Mac did not have to sell to buy , clement did not have to sell to buy and that’s why the club have had to tighten their belt under rowett in a way they didn’t under any manager since clough junior when we went from being the darlings of the championship doing things on a budget to being seen as the big spending club trying to buy the division so no rowett does not have the spending power of our recent managers but hey ho you carry on being about the only person who believes and spouts such rubbish,,, we are trying to put right an overspend of the last few years since clough junior that is unsustainable ,to deny that you are either so obsessed with rowett that you won’t see it or are living in a fantasy world 

[ramblur]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Most of our past managers have had to work under 'constraints' - I was pointing out that we're not that poor, else why buy Jerome, et al?

But we had to lose players in order to do it. If FFP was really part of it,then we would have had to sell player/s at a profit anyway,irrespective of incomings.

[archied]

15 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Most of our past managers have had to work under 'constraints' - I was pointing out that we're not that poor, else why buy Jerome, et al?

You know what Roy you may gain some respect if you were able to say that actually the points you make re rowett v Mac,clement,Pearson spending power and financial restraints was on reflection wrong ,, my bet is you can’t though

[ramblur]

8 minutes ago, archied said:

Er no , we are reducing expenditure , we are cutting the number of big earners in the squad , , Mac did not have to sell to buy , clement did not have to sell to buy and that’s why the club have had to tighten their belt under rowett in a way they didn’t under any manager since clough junior when we went from being the darlings of the championship doing things on a budget to being seen as the big spending club trying to buy the division so no rowett does not have the spending power of our recent managers but hey ho you carry on being about the only person who believes and spouts such rubbish,,, we are trying to put right an overspend of the last few years since clough junior that is unsustainable ,to deny that you are either so obsessed with rowett that you won’t see it or are living in a fantasy world 

You missed out Pearson,who had to sell before buying, which was probably part of the reason for his demise. I think he probably miscalculated how hard it would be to move players on (and I think you could probably say ditto Rowett) ,and the Hendrick transfer rumbled on for ages and left him little time to recruit in that window. I must say in his defence that the twin signings of Vydra and Anya,taken as a pair,was probably good business.

[archied]

4 minutes ago, ramblur said:

You missed out Pearson,who had to sell before buying, which was probably part of the reason for his demise. I think he probably miscalculated how hard it would be to move players on (and I think you could probably say ditto Rowett) ,and the Hendrick transfer rumbled on for ages and left him little time to recruit in that window. I must say in his defence that the twin signings of Vydra and Anya,taken as a pair,was probably good business.

Ahh my mistake ,I had kind of zoned in on his purchases only 

[Boycie]

7 minutes ago, ramblur said:

You missed out Pearson,who had to sell before buying, which was probably part of the reason for his demise. I think he probably miscalculated how hard it would be to move players on (and I think you could probably say ditto Rowett) ,and the Hendrick transfer rumbled on for ages and left him little time to recruit in that window. I must say in his defence that the twin signings of Vydra and Anya,taken as a pair,was probably good business.

I think Anya wasn’t good business. As much as I think he’s a really nice guy etc, I don’t think his supposed transfer cost represented a good deal.