The accounts 16/17

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Ah yes so was I. But I followed up with a so Rowett doesn't have 'financial restraint' as an excuse for his transfer choices.

But he does 

Analogy of      Mitrovic   or  Jerome 

[SecretDave]

10 hours ago, ramblur said:

No problem. Yes it would, as it would be a qualifying cost, no matter who paid the bill. If it were an Academy cost it would be exempt from FFP anyway.

Now I'm on, and not in answer to your question, I didn't like the uncertain part of my last post , so I did a calculation trying to reconcile the consolidated loss back to the club loss and got to within£19,980 of reconciling. That's near enough for me in this instance, so I'd be a bit more confident now at guessing our FFP result for the year. In the previous year, a loss of £14,725,353 gave an FFP result (according to the club) of £9m, though we don't know if this figure was rounded. As there's no way of knowing, I'll have to assume that it was £9m exactly. In that case, the 16/17 loss of £7,872,715 should have produced an FFP loss of £2146,362. However, I reckon exempt items such as youth development and infrastructure depreciation, both probably increased over the year, so I reckon our FFP result could well be below £2m. If this were so, then neither the sale of Hughes or Ince would have been FFP related, as we'd still have stayed within the £13m average without their sales.

I don't think this year is going to be quite as bad as I first thought. Although the profit on player sales will have dropped from £16m to £2m (unless we sell anyone this June), this fall would only take us to an FFP result of less than £16m. Increased revenues might chip some off this, but unfortunately amortization will almost certainly rise because of TH ,CD and CJ. I've a feeling that our share of Old Trafford receipts (even with no Tv) will outdo the 16/17 cup revenues, so that would be a step in the right direction. I've a feeling that wages will be critical to the result, but I find it difficult to call, although I did forget Academy loanees who weren't loaned out in 16/17, as every little helps.

With guaranteed wage reductions in 18/19, and with turnover possibly increasing yet again, this particular year might not be as difficult as I first thought. The large hike in turnover during 16/17 took me completely by surprise, particularly the scale of it.  

So, does all of this mean that we don't need to sell a player for big money this summer to keep within the FFP rules?  I'm hoping it all means we don't have to let Vydra go just to balance the books.  If he does go, it should only be for silly money in my opinion.

[archied]

20 minutes ago, SecretDave said:

So, does all of this mean that we don't need to sell a player for big money this summer to keep within the FFP rules?  I'm hoping it all means we don't have to let Vydra go just to balance the books.  If he does go, it should only be for silly money in my opinion.

I’m hoping the same Dave , also hoping that we are able to spend a bit to but have made enough of the right noises and enough walk away from deals the last few windows to be able to shop again properly without selling clubs believing it’s derby county so they have to pay double what we would sell for to any other championship club

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, archied said:

I’m hoping the same Dave , also hoping that we are able to spend a bit to but have made enough of the right noises and enough walk away from deals the last few windows to be able to shop again properly without selling clubs believing it’s derby county so they have to pay double what we would sell for to any other championship club

This is very relevant 

[ramblur]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

So basically all this talk of Rowett operating under great financial restraints due to FFP is baloney!?

Don't think you could say that, Roy. I only said not as difficult as I first thought, but it still makes it difficult (this year and next). As far as this year goes, I was wrong to say that academy loans outward would make a difference, because I'd forgotten that such expenses were FFP exempt anyway. Predicting future FFP is very difficult now - wages were always going to be a problem when you don't know any of the individual elements, and 'gut feelings' are pure guesses. The only thing I can say with any degree of confidence is that amortization would have risen this year (FFP negative), whilst I guess that turnover will probably increase. 'The Yard' should be pretty profitable, and there'll be income from Rams TV , though there'll also be costs, so that one's hard to call. Wages could go either way , but it seems to me we need this to be FFP positive to have a chance of staying below £13m, without transfer profits in June. However, if we breach the average, we'd still stay comfortably within the £39m over 3 years target, but as I've said before, going above £13m in any year could cause problems in 2 other 3 year cycles, and thus I'd guess we'd want to avoid this scenario if possible.

Turning to next year, there are bound to be 'natural' players' wages savings, but on the other hand (as a starting point) we wouldn't have the c£2m profit on transfers that this year has brought, so much of such wage savings would be cancelled out.

As far as June transfers this year go, we'd probably have to receive a pretty big offer to tempt us to sell Vyds,  as his net book value might be very close to the original fee +16% ( I make that c£10m). He wouldn't be my ideal candidate, because not only do we need a good offer, we then have to replace a quality player. Martin and Bryson would be much better candidates, as you've very little net book value there.

Mel paid £21,528,146 on transfer instalments in 16/17, but only got £8,894,274 back. I showed earlier that, as at 30/6/17, the future net instalments had moved slightly in his favour.  Unfortunately, this year's activity would have swung it back the other way. Just imagine what the situation would have been if Ince and Hughes hadn't been sold.

Finally, I said in an earlier post that Diag Ram might come on to tell me I was talking nonsense. I didn't mean to imply this was the kind of language he'd use, just that (at the time) I wondered myself if I was talking nonsense! However, the reconciliation I did has made me more confident. If the club loss and the losses from the 3 new companies had been included in the consolidated loss, then the reconciliation would have been millions (rather than thousands) out. I'm not even going to bother looking for the missing thousands.

PS. I forgot to point out that we could benefit from add ons in respect of a few players at any time. These would go straight to the bottom line as transfer profits and would thus affect FFP favourably.

 

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Ah yes so was I. But I followed up with a so Rowett doesn't have 'financial restraint' as an excuse for his transfer choices.

y 

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, SecretDave said:

So, does all of this mean that we don't need to sell a player for big money this summer to keep within the FFP rules?  I'm hoping it all means we don't have to let Vydra go just to balance the books.  If he does go, it should only be for silly money in my opinion.

See my recent reply to Roy. Don't fancy repeating all that!

[superzak]

What ever happens surely depends on how many 'outs' can be achieved. The squad is still far to big to be considering any 'ins' until then.