£10m FFP Bill

[ramblur]

On 10/06/2018 at 10:29, RamNut said:

Its even worse when you think that that the £21m loss was also after receiving £7m in profits on players, and the £36m loss was after receiving £9m from player sales plus an extraordinary £9m in income from something else (undefined). 

My other conclusion was that championship clubs simply cannot afford to pay transfer fees, so any club which is spending (e.g. Rumours of forest, or villa or whoever ) is simply heading for a financial crash at some point if they don't go up.

The first figure was a part year loss that actually diminished sharply over the full year. The #36m loss was the consolidated loss and not the Club loss. The Club account's profit on transfers was only #200k, and the exceptional income within the club was #12m - I'm not going to waste any of my time explaining differences to you, but this is what you get when you poke your unqualified snout into things you can't hope to understand. Try binning the consolidated accounts for a start, or go and dine at The Baron's table. 

[Curtains]

This business of pretending we have no money so other clubs won’t fleece us is not desirable if that’s what’s going off here. 

[ramblur]

16 hours ago, RamNut said:

Stop being so rude. 

everybody welcomes your insight, which is why i referenced you several times in earlier posts. You can pick a quarrel if your prefer however  the facts seem fairly certain.

we are spending way beyond our income

we are excessively reliant on a sugar daddy to bankroll an unhealthy situation.

we need to cut costs to avoid having to sell our best players or ask MM to write another multi-million ££££ cheque.

Its unsustainable.

Remember this trademark one liner from a couple of years ago, made after I spent a lot of time further explaining something :- '............and it gets worse'.  When I took exception to the snide comment, do you not remember your reply :- ' Stop being a grumpy old (something)'

Thus it appears RamNut can be rude to anyone he likes, but nobody can be rude to RamNut.

[Curtains]

21 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

In part, I agree with this. It's a bit of a double edged sword, this transparency malarky.

As @Ramet said, fans bemoan a lack of transparency, however, it means that clubs may now see as a soft touch when selling, and low-ball us. 

That said, probably half the clubs in the championship are in a similar situation, some worse off (Villa), and a few better.

It appears to me we have in the past paid high wages to players which other clubs couldn’t compete with which helped to inflate the market in the Championship and I think now we are rowing back on that but I hope it’s not too much to the detriment of Frank Lampards ability to compete. 

[ramblur]

14 hours ago, RamNut said:

@ramblur

i'm going to have to pick the bits out of this....

And thats healthy is it? That a thumping loss has to be offset by substantial player sales.

Fine and dandy that For 12 months the figures would be different, but what a way to get out of the poo.

Fine. But there was also a £9m profit that year on player sales to reduce the overall losses.

I didn't say it was £8m. Look back in this thread and you can find whoever said it. (I can't be bothered). The point i was making was that it is way more than the £8m quoted. Which you have now confirmed. ?

My real interest is in trying to determine what a sustainable model should look like, and i don't think a sustainable model should rely on big dollops of annual income from player sales or sugar daddies. Obviously increasing revenues as far as poss, but there are going have to be some radical cuts in my humble opinion if we are ever to achieve it on championship level turnover. 

QED.

 

The 15/16 player sale profits were only #200k. Try working out for yourself why the consolidated figure is so much higher - better still, tell the forum.

I've been pointing out for a long time , over numerous posts, that net costs will have to fall drastically if we want to avoid turning to player sale profits/ exceptional income ......... so you can stuff your QED where the sun don't shine.

[ramblur]

5 hours ago, RamNut said:

He winds himself up.

Ah, the inevitable one liner at last . Goodbye and good riddance ( for the rest of my life). Others can read your garbage if they like.

[RoyMac5]

Hey @ramblur slow down mate, have a beer. The temperature is rising here! ? ?

[Ramet]

26 minutes ago, curtains said:

Really. 

Do you have info we dont then ....... please do tell

[ramblur]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Hey @ramblur slow down mate, have a beer. The temperature is rising here! ? ?

I've slowed down to a stop, Roy, and have got rid of an irritation for ever. I feel good.

[Ramet]

9 minutes ago, ramblur said:

The 15/16 player sale profits were only #200k. Try working out for yourself why the consolidated figure is so much higher - better still, tell the forum.

I've been pointing out for a long time , over numerous posts, that net costs will have to fall drastically if we want to avoid turning to player sale profits/ exceptional income ......... so you can stuff your QED where the sun don't shine.

Still no idea

[ramblur]

35 minutes ago, curtains said:

Rambler everyone is entitled an opinion mate. 

What are people to think when MM says the current model in the Championship is not sustainable 

I've no problem with Mel saying things are unsustainable, as I believe it myself. What I do object to is someone freely admitting he's no accounting skills, yet trying to persuade members they should be looking at the consolidated accounts, as opposed to the Club accounts. It's no surprise he's got his knickers in a twist several times over. Financial stuff's different to opinions on football, as facts play a huge part. If you don't understand what you're saying, then you shouldn't be saying it in the first place.

[ramblur]

10 minutes ago, Ramet said:

Still no idea

Sorry, can't tell you yet. It's actually quite simple, and a good example of what you might get............when you obsess with the consolidated accounts, instead of concentrating on the ones that really matter. Cast your mind back to 15/16 - who did we sell for a transfer profit of #9m? You've already given your answer below.?

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just to chip in, I've had frustration with people with a strong opinion but much knowledge in my professional field before.

"It's radioactive"

Yeah, but what isotopes, at what activities from what source in what form"

"But it's radioactive"

Etc.

So I get Rambler's frustration.

[CornwallRam]

I see people asking if we're a sustainable Championship club.

I'm not sure that's actually possible without being part of an international multi-club ownership group or working hand in glove with a super agent.

The vast riches and exposure that promotion brings means that owners will always be willing to spend beyond their footballing income to try to achieve promotion. Add to that the inflationary effect of the parachute payments system and any ambitious club is forced to over-spend. Clubs like ours also need to remain competitive to maintain the already insufficient revenue streams. That has a knock on effect that means even clubs looking to survive have to spend too much just to try to avoid being hammered every week.

Owning a Championship club looks like a dodgy lottery to me. Five or six owners get subsidised tickets with a greater chance of winning. Another ten owners have to spend about £20m a year on a basic ticket and three lucky owners get a prize worth £100m...less the £100m or so needed to try to stay in the Premier League.

It's madness. It can't go on - but there's no sign of it changing any time soon.

Mel owns a money pit. The problem is that he loves the money pit and wants it to thrive. If he stops pouring his money in it will collapse around his ears. He won't want to be the man who destroyed the club and he won't want to write off the £100m he has so far 'invested'. Unless he fancies buying an overseas club to act as a front for investment to be siphoned  into Derby County, his only choice is really to keep the money flowing and hope that he wins the promotion lottery or sell at a considerable loss. 

[Wolfie]

39 minutes ago, curtains said:

This business of pretending we have no money so other clubs won’t fleece us is not desirable if that’s what’s going off here. 

Why not?

Would you choose to go into a negotiation openly saying you've got loads of cash? Far better to let them think we'll walk away if the prices get too high.

Also it's clearly to try and keep a lid on fan expectations, after an expensive few seasons.

 

[Curtains]

8 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Why not?

Would you choose to go into a negotiation openly saying you've got loads of cash? Far better to let them think we'll walk away if the prices get too high.

Also it's clearly to try and keep a lid on fan expectations, after an expensive few seasons.

 

If I was MM I’d sell the club to a rich investor. 

Either that or continue as he is supporting the club. 

[eddie]

20 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Just to chip in, I've had frustration with people with a strong opinion but much knowledge in my professional field before.

"It's radioactive"

Yeah, but what isotopes, at what activities from what source in what form"

"But it's radioactive"

Etc.

So I get Rambler's frustration.

Basically, we are living on a nuclear reactor. The planet is only inhabitable because of U-235, U-238, Th-232 and K-40 present within the Earth - without it, the mantle would have solidified, plate tectonics come to a premature end and the world would have frozen a couple of billion years ago. Radiation is a good thing, by and large. It's too much radiation in the same place that causes problems.

[ramblur]

30 minutes ago, curtains said:

If I was MM I’d sell the club to a rich investor. 

Either that or continue as he is supporting the club. 

How much do you think a rich investor would pay for the club,though, curtains? Including his original 20% purchase and subsequent buy out of the rest, allied to close on #100m (that we know of) ploughed in subsequently, then he must surely be in up to #150m. Who's going to pay that for a Championship club?

[ramblur]

22 minutes ago, eddie said:

Basically, we are living on a nuclear reactor. The planet is only inhabitable because of U-235, U-238, Th-232 and K-40 present within the Earth - without it, the mantle would have solidified, plate tectonics come to a premature end and the world would have frozen a couple of billion years ago. Radiation is a good thing, by and large. It's too much radiation in the same place that causes problems.

But is it that, or Microsoft's new features ( that I didn't want, and which could have cost me 100 euros if the download had come later in the month - 4c a Mb) that have fecked my keyboard.............and can we get cover for a 65 year old with high blood pressure? These are the issues of our time?

[RadioactiveWaste]

23 minutes ago, eddie said:

Basically, we are living on a nuclear reactor. The planet is only inhabitable because of U-235, U-238, Th-232 and K-40 present within the Earth - without it, the mantle would have solidified, plate tectonics come to a premature end and the world would have frozen a couple of billion years ago. Radiation is a good thing, by and large. It's too much radiation in the same place that causes problems.

I know that some reaction products have been found in certain geological layers, suggesting a bit of fizzling has gone on. My understanding is the heat and pressure in the earth's core is "legacy" rather than ongoing reactions such as the sun. But much as I've decent knowledge on certain wastes, I'm not a geologist.

And yes, there's radioactivity all through the planet and coming through the atmosphere, hence the background does we'll all be getting.

And too much in the one place, in rad protection terms, is exactly right.