Derby likely to sell Vydra plus others

[ramblur]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

? ? Why do you think that is then Ramblur, just Mel wanting to keep his cash input lower?

I did hear Mel say recently that we'd tried to go toe to toe with the 'chute recipients, but that it hadn't worked out, and he obviously couldn't keep up that level of spend indefinitely. Therefore we had to look at a more sustainable model. When I looked at the 16/17 accounts I noted that future transfer instalments had swung back slightly in his favour, but that the 17/18 activity had swung it back the other way again. I doubt that he'd want to fund a cash loss of £10m+ on operations and also dig deep for capital expenditure as well ( he also talked recently of £1m+ on various pitch improvements), so I could easily see Vydra going, and 1 or 2 others (hopefully for some cash) to swing it back again more in his favour, and possibly give some leeway for signings of the more modest variety.

Much as I dislike this residual value business, it does mean that we could probably go for some younger players in the £2m/£3m kind of range. If the RV/s were put at the total original cost, then any such signings could even be FFP positive if they replaced players on higher wages. At least at these kind of levels you wouldn't be facing major losses (such as might happen next year) should player/s not live up to valuation.

However, I can't possibly know what's going on inside Mel's head.

[Rev]

36 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I did hear Mel say recently that we'd tried to go toe to toe with the 'chute recipients, but that it hadn't worked out, and he obviously couldn't keep up that level of spend indefinitely. Therefore we had to look at a more sustainable model. When I looked at the 16/17 accounts I noted that future transfer instalments had swung back slightly in his favour, but that the 17/18 activity had swung it back the other way again. I doubt that he'd want to fund a cash loss of £10m+ on operations and also dig deep for capital expenditure as well ( he also talked recently of £1m+ on various pitch improvements), so I could easily see Vydra going, and 1 or 2 others (hopefully for some cash) to swing it back again more in his favour, and possibly give some leeway for signings of the more modest variety.

Much as I dislike this residual value business, it does mean that we could probably go for some younger players in the £2m/£3m kind of range. If the RV/s were put at the total original cost, then any such signings could even be FFP positive if they replaced players on higher wages. At least at these kind of levels you wouldn't be facing major losses (such as might happen next year) should player/s not live up to valuation.

However, I can't possibly know what's going on inside Mel's head.

It was so much easier when RV was a percentage of the fee depending on the length of contract.

Is it the case that clubs can no longer use that method, or is it the case we've chosen not to?

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, reveldevil said:

It  was so much easier when RV was a percentage of the fee depending on the length of contract.

Is it the case that clubs can no longer use that method, or is it the case we've chosen not to?

I presume you meant amortization, as opposed to RV? Whilst I can't be bothered to look at new financial regs, 2 others in the know have both said it's a requirement of new financial regs that took effect from 15/16.

[europia]

Not really a story, just stating the obvious. 

[Derby_Dave]

41 minutes ago, europia said:

Not really a story, just stating the obvious. 

Yep, after trawling through this thread this statement pretty much sums it up. 

[CWC1983]

The purse strings will be definetly tightened this sumner and any signings will needs to be funded by sales, unless Mel has a change of heart. 

 

 

 

[Yani P]

Then you read the story of the Newcastle promotion where they basically admitting totally ignoring the FFP and having the highest wage bill in EFL history....its all in the telling isnt it ....

[dcfcfan1]

FFP is a load of *****

 

[angieram]

16 minutes ago, Yani P said:

Then you read the story of the Newcastle promotion where they basically admitting totally ignoring the FFP and having the highest wage bill in EFL history....its all in the telling isnt it ....

Yes. It makes shocking reading. Yet the EFL seem powerless to do anything about it. They are still only half-heartedly chasing QPR's fine from four years ago.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/05/18/newcastle-united-brink-financial-catastrophe-promotion-back/

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, Yani P said:

Then you read the story of the Newcastle promotion where they basically admitting totally ignoring the FFP and having the highest wage bill in EFL history....its all in the telling isnt it ....

They didn't breach the 3 year FFP allowance though.

[Yani P]

Its still a process that is pretty much ignored and appears to have no teeth when a breach is made

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, Yani P said:

Its still a process that is pretty much ignored and appears to have no teeth when a breach is made

The vast majority of clubs must be adhering, otherwise we'd have heard of more breaches. Some have undergone embargos and Bournemouth paid their fine when they went up. I could almost guarantee that if we ignored it and faced sanctions, some of those calling for this line of action wouldn't be slow to put the boot into Mel if it went pear shaped.