Derby likely to sell Vydra plus others

[Topram]

9 hours ago, feisty said:

We are where we are. It may mean the youngsters get a go. Some will make it.  Others won't. But maybe it's worth a try

I’d love to give Thomas and other youngsters ago like guy... still think we need to be able to sign 1/2 good players and a few young league 1/2 players

[Topram]

We should of signed Ollie Watkins last year

[Lakes]

21 minutes ago, Highgate said:

And what if you thought the manager was making the wrong decisions and pushing the team in the wrong direction?  Would you still support that manager?

There is a big difference between supporting the team while they are on the pitch and supporting the manager in general. 

I personally will give any manager time no matter what, a manager cannot be judged after 1 season, this all comes down to personal mind sets, what you might see as "wrong decisions" i might see as good decisions, but to answer your question if i thought the manager was doing the wrong thing i would not back him. i suppose my comment wasn't worded in the best way. 

[RiddingsRam]

43 minutes ago, Topram said:

We should of signed Ollie Watkins last year

Hindsights wonderful

[RedSox]

5 hours ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

Steve Nicholson has just put an article where he believes Vydras valued will have doubled from the £8m we paid. Would people be happier with £16m?

Got a link?  I can't see anything other than a Poll asking fans to offer their valuation.  Must have missed it.

[IlsonDerby]

Out:

Bent, Shackell, Baird free

Bryson and Nugent Nominal to cover paying their contracts up

Martin £3m

Keogh £1.5m 

Vydra £10-12m

Blackman £1m 

I reckon that's around £9.5m saved in wages (with some fairly dodgy estimates) plus maybe £16m coming in. £5m taken straight away to offset some of the loss this season with £11m to spend on 3 players. Loans and under 23s to make up the rest of the short comings. 

Squad:

GK (1) Carson Mitchell Roos

RWB (1) Wisdom Anya Bogle 

CB (3) Davies Foz Pearce Huddlestone Hanson  

LWB (1) Anya Lowe Weimann

CM (2) Thorne Huddlestone Johnson Butterfield Ledley Hanson Guy Elsnik 

AM (2) Lawrence Weimann Butterfield Thomas Elsnik

CF (1) Jerome Winnall 

 

In: 

Striker - Hugill (west ham) loan ? 

Energetic CM to do Huddlestone's running - ? 

AM to force Lawrence and Weimann to up their game - Palmer (if it was an injury that kept him out of the team as Owen Bradley alluded to. If not then no point). Ohtzumer is leaving Walsall for free this summer also. 

Younger CB to learn from Davies - Liam Lindsay fee required

LWB - ? 

 

5 in, 9 out. No more than 3 permanent 'ins'. 

Would be happy to listen to offers for any of the CMs to free up extra wages. Would listen to a worthwhile offer for Anya but only if we make back what we spent as he's versatile which is crucial in a smaller squad and seems to have a good attitude. 

 

[Sexydadbod]

If it was down to me, I'd be using this summer to build towards a 4-3-3 team again(where our most successive recent period came in) and base any signings around the template I'm about to use:

                              Carson

 *New          Wisdom        Davies       *New

                        Huddlestone

               *New                       *New

   *New                *New           Lawrence

 

Back-up team(including many under 23s to save money):

                      Roos

Bogle       Pearce      Forsyth     Lowe

                       Thorne

            Elsnik               Guy

 Weimann        Jerome           Thomas

Suggestions:

Right back: Nsue

Left back : Knudsen

Centre mids: Josh Brownhill and Palmer(loan)

Right wing: Marcus Maddison

Striker: Lee Gregory

Which leaves a team of:

                         Carson

   Nsue      Wisdom  Davies  Knudsen

                         Huddlestone

                 Brownhill          Palmer

      Maddison        Gregory          Lawrence

 

It's not perfect, but we would be better balanced and have overlapping full backs and energy in the midfield. That team wouldn't cost a lot either if we sell the likes of Vydra, Keogh, Johnson, Nugent, Bryson, Anya, Ledley, Martin-even if we take financial hits on them. Then the likes of Bent, Shackell and Baird being released to save on wages due to their contracts ending.

Butterfield is the one who is unlikely to have any suitors so he may be an issue. Blackman's another one, although the team he is currently at may make his deal permanent.

[Sexydadbod]

1 hour ago, EnigmaRam said:

Would you sell Vydra and replace with Dack, Maddison and Marriott? Might even get Souttar aswell. I'd take that deal right now. Suit the formation better, offer more team play, younger and more creative.

Absoultely as it would make the team as a whole more balanced straight away

[Topram]

34 minutes ago, RiddingsRam said:

Hindsights wonderful

Sure is, plenty of people had mentioned him before he went to Brentford 

[Topram]

34 minutes ago, RiddingsRam said:

Hindsights wonderful

Sure is, plenty of people had mentioned him before he went to Brentford 

[Woodley Ram]

For Vydra I would want at least £10m plus add ons 

[SamUltraRam]

 

This was in the Derby Telegraph in March 2018

"Here is a full list of when Derby County players' contracts expire:
2018
Darren Bent

Chris Baird

Jason Shackell

Kelle Roos

2019
Craig Bryson

Andreas Weimann

Jacob Butterfield

Bradley Johnson

Nick Blackman

Marcus Olsson

David Nugent

Curtis Davies

Tom Huddlestone

Alex Pearce

Joe Ledley

Cameron Jerome

Max Hunt"

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-contracts-expire-when-414294

So it's this time next year when Rowett can finally mould his own team

It also means that Carson, Keogh, Forsyth, Wisdom, Thorne, Lawrence, Vydra, Martin, Anya etc are contracted to at least 2020 if this is correct.

At least Vydra's contract isn't up in a year - this is when other clubs take advantage.

[SamUltraRam]

Another thing with the Vydra situation and FFP is interesting.

If he was sold for say £10m, we wouldn't get all that up front. It also means we are probably due more of the transfer fees for Ince, Hughes & Christie some time soon & also pay more of the Lawrence fee to Leicester.

I've still got a gut feeling that the low fee for Will Hughes to Watford may have included some write off of the balance due to Watford for Vydra & Anya which remember totalled about £12m

Add to this the apparent FFP offset of notional values ( which i don't actually understand ) & it's clear that the real financial situation is unlikely to be fully understood by the average fan.

[Parsnip]

Derby Evening Telegraph have put a poll on facebook asking how much Derby fans think Vydra is worth.

Shouldn't we be getting paid for providing most of their content?

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Waffle said:

Where will he go?

Newly relagated premiership teams apart from WBA ( they have seen what he can’t do) and possibly Fulham if they went up 

[1967Ram]

13 hours ago, Topram said:

We will be paying to watch ***** football with an average side because of Morris’s mistakes trying to run a football business 

So the change is it will be ***** football with an average side rather than a good side ?

[BramcoteRam84]

11 hours ago, YouRams said:

The worst part for me is if we knew we’d have to cut again next season if we didn’t go up, why did we loan all our youth out? They should’ve been in and around the team if we’re rebuilding on a budget, we’ve just put ourselves further back with poor decisions again! 

Or out getting first team experience to be ready to play at this level.....which is what they did, now Rowett will see if they’re ready.

We’re going to have to sell, that’s obvious. We’ll get more than £8m. Anything over £10m will be decent. We have the right manager to work to a budget and remain competitive - he’s done it at every club he’s managed. Selling Thomas would really piss me off though, only £1m - may as well play him.

It’s certainly going to be an interesting summer. But good to see some people are starting to recognise the constraints GR is working under - but in the eyes of the few he’s still to blame for selling Hughes and Ince because it’s a convenient stick to beat him with when our financial results last year suggest otherwise.

[ramblur]

On ‎15‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 23:17, Cam the Ram said:

I know Gary and Mel have said we need to make money, but unless Mel is running low I can't understand why. The wages are definitely an issue that needs to be sorted, but generating money from transfer fees in order to abide by FFP seems wrong to me. I know nothing like Ramblur does (I think that's his forum name?), but from what I gathered FFP is about the previous 2 seasons and an estimation of the current season. Our issues all stem from the £30 million spend season which was now 3 seasons ago and we managed to pass FFP this year with that season, the 16/17 and a prediction of 17/18 submitted. So for next season it should be the 16/17 season, which we near enough broke even on sales, the 17/18 season which we made near £10 million profit and an estimation of the 18/19 season which hypothetically leaves us with £30 odd million to spend and still be within FFP guidelines. As I said, I don't know much about FFP and I know there's more to it than just transfer fees, but I personally can't see why we're in such a mess other than the high wages

I reckon that our 16/17 FFP loss could have been as low as £2m, which implies we could have incurred further losses totaling £37m over the following 2 years. However, if we were to do this, we'd be left with a measly £2m in 19/20, clearly untenable. You have to look forwards as well as backwards, as in any year that you exceed £13m, you pay the price in the following 2 years.

Our headline loss in 16/17 was just under £8m, and as I reckon that our exemptions are running at c£6m, that's where I get the £2m from. However, if you take the £16m transfer profit out of the equation, you'll see that on normal income and expenditure, the FFP loss would have been £18m, £5m above the annual allowable loss, and this is the crux of our problem. Even if we cut expenditure/increased income/both to the overall tune of £5m, we would merely get back to the hilt of the allowable loss. It's unclear whether this season will have made inroads into this £5m, so for the sake of argument, I'll assume that it was neutral, and that we'd need to cut back by a minimum of this amount next year.

We get off to a good start, with Bent, Baird and Shackell off the payroll, and if you could add Bryson to the list, we wouldn't be far off. However, there are 3 big problems to overcome in the form of Bradley, Butters and Nick. The original all in cost of the first 2 was well over £10m, and I suspect their book values may still be pretty close to this ( In 15/16 and 16/17 we spent £51m in total on players, yet book values, via amortization, were only written down by £8.4m, which highlights an ongoing problem). Even if we offloaded the pair, we'd likely be looking at a pretty hefty loss, even with wage savings. In Bradley's case, giving an extended contract would only push the problem to another year. In Nick's case, we'd probably be looking at a loss, but not on the same scale, and I doubt very much that the sale of Vydra (profit) would even cover the 3 combined losses on the others. I hope we get the much needed benefit of some 'maturing' add-ons.

For those dreading a return to the austerity of the NC days, I'd remind you that in his last full season the overall wage bill was £12m, compared to the 16/17 £34.6m, and the revenues then were little more than half of 16/17 levels, so it'd take one humdinger of a cost cutting exercise to get back to those levels, even allowing for wage inflation.

As things currently stand, I can't see us being under £13m this year, unless revenues have again risen dramatically, or add-ons have become due at the season end.

If we can steer through the choppy waters of next year unscathed by FFP, then the future looks a lot brighter from 19/20 onwards. 

[archied]

6 minutes ago, ramblur said:

I reckon that our 16/17 FFP loss could have been as low as £2m, which implies we could have incurred further losses totaling £37m over the following 2 years. However, if we were to do this, we'd be left with a measly £2m in 19/20, clearly untenable. You have to look forwards as well as backwards, as in any year that you exceed £13m, you pay the price in the following 2 years.

Our headline loss in 16/17 was just under £8m, and as I reckon that our exemptions are running at c£6m, that's where I get the £2m from. However, if you take the £16m transfer profit out of the equation, you'll see that on normal income and expenditure, the FFP loss would have been £18m, £5m above the annual allowable loss, and this is the crux of our problem. Even if we cut expenditure/increased income/both to the overall tune of £5m, we would merely get back to the hilt of the allowable loss. It's unclear whether this season will have made inroads into this £5m, so for the sake of argument, I'll assume that it was neutral, and that we'd need to cut back by a minimum of this amount next year.

We get off to a good start, with Bent, Baird and Shackell off the payroll, and if you could add Bryson to the list, we wouldn't be far off. However, there are 3 big problems to overcome in the form of Bradley, Butters and Nick. The original all in cost of the first 2 was well over £10m, and I suspect their book values may still be pretty close to this ( In 15/16 and 16/17 we spent £51m in total on players, yet book values, via amortization, were only written down by £8.4m, which highlights an ongoing problem). Even if we offloaded the pair, we'd likely be looking at a pretty hefty loss, even with wage savings. In Bradley's case, giving an extended contract would only push the problem to another year. In Nick's case, we'd probably be looking at a loss, but not on the same scale, and I doubt very much that the sale of Vydra (profit) would even cover the 3 combined losses on the others. I hope we get the much needed benefit of some 'maturing' add-ons.

For those dreading a return to the austerity of the NC days, I'd remind you that in his last full season the overall wage bill was £12m, compared to the 16/17 £34.6m, and the revenues then were little more than half of 16/17 levels, so it'd take one humdinger of a cost cutting exercise to get back to those levels, even allowing for wage inflation.

As things currently stand, I can't see us being under £13m this year, unless revenues have again risen dramatically, or add-ons have become due at the season end.

If we can steer through the choppy waters of next year unscathed by FFP, then the future looks a lot brighter from 19/20 onwards. 

Thanks ramblur , I don’t always grasp the full workings of your financial post but certainly grasp enough to value your input and get an understanding of the problems faced by rowett and mel ,, how frustrating to own the club , have the money and want to invest in the club but have your hands tied ,,, really wish some others would use the info you bring to take a more balanced view on rowett but like that old saying you can lead a horse to water

[ramblur]

1 minute ago, archied said:

Thanks ramblur , I don’t always grasp the full workings of your financial post but certainly grasp enough to value your input and get an understanding of the problems faced by rowett and mel ,, how frustrating to own the club , have the money and want to invest in the club but have your hands tied ,,, really wish some others would use the info you bring to take a more balanced view on rowett but like that old saying you can lead a horse to water

Cheers archied. I think it'll be 19/20 before Gary is fully in control of matters. I thought it was pretty significant that earlier this season Gary said something along the lines that 'we' had decided to make a profit on transfers this year. I'm not sure there are too many managers/ coaches around who'd want to set this as a season's prerequisite............ but I fully understand Mel's position. Even if we achieved a £13m FFP loss without any transfer activity, I reckon that Mel would still be digging deep to the tune of £10m+ just to cover cash losses on operations, and that's not really sustainable, and an unfair ask of him.

By the way, if you, or anyone else, don't understand any part of what I say, just ask. I'm very patient, and health permitting, I'd go through everything line by line if needs be. There's no such thing as a silly question, if sincere, because all it means is that the person asking the question doesn't understand something.......and there are millions of things I don't understand in this life.