£10m FFP Bill

[RamNut]

3 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

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. 

Totally agree 100%

[cheron85]

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

What points am i supposed to be grilling him on?

You seemed to be celebrating a perceived win you'd had in your ongoing 'debate'

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Its wierd that people are more interested in responding aggressively than recognising a few simple facts. Do we really want to sell our best players every season in order to offset losses incurred by overspending? we would have to double the sales we've made so far if to cover the losses. 

There was no aggression in my response whatsoever - Not sure where you got that from

And yes, we will need to sell players every now and then to make money - That's the business model of pretty much every football club in the country - You develop players, sell them and hopefully put the proceeds into improving the whole club/team - Man Utd are on of the few sides who make enough from sponners/commercialisation to balance the books - Everyone else sells to improve - Like say Spurs - Sold Gareth Bale, invested that money, have a much better team now

Are you honestly saying you'd rather dwell in mid-table obscurity just to keep the books balanced? Are you saying you wouldn't sell one player to improve the quality of the team overall? - That's the speculation that you take - Sell one to improve all

8 minutes ago, curtains said:

The problem is if Mel wants his money back if we get to the Premiership.

Why can’t you understand that. 

1) There's no indication at the moment that he wants to sell the club

2) Like all owners ever they make their profit upon selling the club - He's speculated that with investment Derby could go up and then become worth more - That will only happen if someone is willing to pay more AND Morris wants to sell

[RamNut]

Quote

There was no aggression in my response whatsoever - Not sure where you got that from

Not referring to you.

[RamNut]

Quote

Are you honestly saying you'd rather dwell in mid-table obscurity just to keep the books balanced? Are you saying you wouldn't sell one player to improve the quality of the team overall? - That's the speculation that you take - Sell one to improve all

Thats the question that we all need to consider.

Under NC the wages were much lower, the transfer spend was much lower. We were probably closer to a sustainable model. 

We got into a habit of splashing big fees on very ordinary players with little resale value. anya ?

we surely need to lower our expectations, and cut spending. A year ago (and before) i argued that we should be building a young team around will hughes. Now we'll have to do it without Will. And we are further encumbered by wage hungry 30 somethings. Thanks Gary.

 

[Curtains]

12 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

You seemed to be celebrating a perceived win you'd had in your ongoing 'debate'

There was no aggression in my response whatsoever - Not sure where you got that from

And yes, we will need to sell players every now and then to make money - That's the business model of pretty much every football club in the country - You develop players, sell them and hopefully put the proceeds into improving the whole club/team - Man Utd are on of the few sides who make enough from sponners/commercialisation to balance the books - Everyone else sells to improve - Like say Spurs - Sold Gareth Bale, invested that money, have a much better team now

Are you honestly saying you'd rather dwell in mid-table obscurity just to keep the books balanced? Are you saying you wouldn't sell one player to improve the quality of the team overall? - That's the speculation that you take - Sell one to improve all

1) There's no indication at the moment that he wants to sell the club

2) Like all owners ever they make their profit upon selling the club - He's speculated that with investment Derby could go up and then become worth more - That will only happen if someone is willing to pay more AND Morris wants to sell

So how much would they have to pay as it stands.   That’s the whole point if Mel were to sell he would need to slim the club down. 

Hence the not sustainable comments I assume. 

[eddie]

36 minutes ago, RamNut said:

So afterall that, you have finally admitted that there is a debt that could in the future become payable.

Alleluya 

give yourself another gold star.

My 2c (add it to your running total)...

I recall that there was a (relatively) small amount of debt put aside at the time the bank pulled the rug out from under Keith, Murdo Mackay, Sleightholme etc and handed control over to the Amigos, payable only upon return to the Premier League.

Sorry this doesn't fit your agenda.

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, eddie said:

My 2c (add it to your running total)...

I recall that there was a (relatively) small amount of debt put aside at the time the bank pulled the rug out from under Keith, Murdo Mackay, Sleightholme etc and handed control over to the Amigos, payable only upon return to the Premier League.

Sorry this doesn't fit your agenda.

What agenda?

i'm trying to highlight a few simple facts about our trading losses and the consequences of those losses.

Q. Do you think we can continue to rely on one individual to subsidise the club to this extent. If not, then what do we cut?

Q. Do you think we can build a successful team if every season we have to sell to raise significant transfer income to offset losses? If not, then what would you cut?

or do we do spend spend spend until we can't fail to go up and damn the consequences.

or what?

[AdamRam]

4 minutes ago, RamNut said:

What agenda?

i'm trying to highlight a few simple facts about our trading losses and the consequences of those losses.

Q. Do you think we can continue to rely on one individual to subsidise the club to this extent. If not, then what do we cut?

Q. Do you think we can build a successful team if every season we have to sell to raise significant transfer income to offset losses? If not, then what would you cut?

or do we do spend spend spend until we can't fail to go up and damn the consequences.

or what?

Are you talking about a hypothetical scenario where Mel is not supporting the club ? Seems a bit difficult to answer your question without understanding what you are referring to, why can we not rely on MM money?

Morris always said that he did not come into the club to lose money, no suprise there but to me he looks to be trying to address the situation by not only promotion but investment into other activities eg academy, TV channels etc... 

[Ramet]

10 minutes ago, RamNut said:

What agenda?

i'm trying to highlight a few simple facts about our trading losses and the consequences of those losses.

Q. Do you think we can continue to rely on one individual to subsidise the club to this extent. If not, then what do we cut?

Q. Do you think we can build a successful team if every season we have to sell to raise significant transfer income to offset losses? If not, then what would you cut?

or do we do spend spend spend until we can't fail to go up and damn the consequences.

or what?

Fair play ramnut you wont drop it will you.look the club is in an ok position.the club itself is in no debt.mel has no intention of claming that money back.but it has reached a point where we HAVE to get things back inline. We went for the push which if i remember most people called for it, it didnt pay off.and yes if we raise and nurtre youth and we gain a profit that allows the club to move forward whats wrong with that?

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, Ramet said:

Fair play ramnut you wont drop it will you.look the club is in an ok position.the club itself is in no debt.mel has no intention of claming that money back.but it has reached a point where we HAVE to get things back inline. We went for the push which if i remember most people called for it, it didnt pay off.and yes if we raise and nurtre youth and we gain a profit that allows the club to move forward whats wrong with that?

All sounds very easy. 

So what happens to the current senior players and name who should be let go. 

[Ramet]

Ramnut you got yourself in some kind of panic over this without a full understanding of which ramblur has tryed his best to inform you of the facts but you just wont seem to swallow it.you have every right to ask the questions but when some one answers you why cant you take the answer.

[RamNut]

4 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Are you talking about a hypothetical scenario where Mel is not supporting the club ? Seems a bit difficult to answer your question without understanding what you are referring to, why can we not rely on MM money?

Morris always said that he did not come into the club to lose money, no suprise there but to me he looks to be trying to address the situation by not only promotion but investment into other activities eg academy, TV channels etc... 

I personally don't think the level of financial input from MM can possibly continue at present levels, and i personally don't think its good for the club. Furthermore i don't think we can build a successful team is every year we have to flog our most saleable asset(s).

I would rather we tackled the over spending therefore i would also question some of our decisions last year. 

Maybe things are going to change as contracts expire, and spending should reduce. But we have to get away from the need to sell, sell, sell. 

 

[RamNut]

6 minutes ago, Ramet said:

Ramnut you got yourself in some kind of panic over this without a full understanding of which ramblur has tryed his best to inform you of the facts but you just wont seem to swallow it.you have every right to ask the questions but when some one answers you why cant you take the answer.

I'm not in a panic. I'm chilled. 

i'm happy to accept in good faith some of his answers. I could look up the dcfc accounts for £2 but it doesn't change anything. We are losing alot of money. As a result we have to sell. Even when we sell we are still reliant on mel to a degree that is inappropriate. And we have accumulated a huge debt to MM. I think he would have to agree if he possibly bring himself to do it. His just holding a grudge cus he can't take a joke.

[Ramet]

8 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I'm not in a panic. I'm chilled. 

i'm happy to accept in good faith some of his answers. I could look up the dcfc accounts for £2 but it doesn't change anything. We are losing alot of money. As a result we have to sell. Even when we sell we are still reliant on mel to a degree that is inappropriate. And we have accumulated a huge debt to MM. I think he would have to agree if he possibly bring himself to do it. His just holding a grudge cus he can't take a joke.

Ok mate.most of what you are saying are genuine concerns but i can tell you derby own mel nothing in debt it is only to the holding company. We do not NEED to sell that is reading the paper to much.however we do need to adjust some things. competitive side are never build on young up and coming sides so the sale of an asset here and there is not a problem if the cash is used to address running running cost and inject into the team

[RamNut]

20 minutes ago, Ramet said:

Fair play ramnut you wont drop it will you.look the club is in an ok position.the club itself is in no debt.mel has no intention of claming that money back.but it has reached a point where we HAVE to get things back inline. We went for the push which if i remember most people called for it, it didnt pay off.and yes if we raise and nurtre youth and we gain a profit that allows the club to move forward whats wrong with that?

Lol. I'd be quite happy. I've made points which are valid and might have prompted a bit of interesting debate, but instead its been the usual forum response of sensitive egos and rage for no apparent reason. 

The bit i disagree with above, is that the club is in an ok position. It isn't. It might yet achieve an ok position, but thats not where we currently are.

sorting the spending out is a pre-requisite to achieving anything.

my own fear is that we are over-spending on the academy too, but hey ho, i'm quite happy for others to hold alternative views.

[RadioactiveWaste]

On "sustainability", weren't GSE covering £5-7m annual losses under austerity football?

 

[Ramet]

5 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Lol. I'd be quite happy. I've made points which are valid and might have prompted a bit of interesting debate, but instead its been the usual forum response of sensitive egos and rage for no apparent reason. 

The bit i disagree with above, is that the club is in an ok position. It isn't. It might yet achieve an ok position, but thats not where we currently are.

sorting the spending out is a pre-requisite to achieving anything.

my own fear is that we are over-spending on the academy too, but hey ho, i'm quite happy for others to hold alternative views.

Again i have no doubt you have good points.the over spend on the academy is a must if we are to be able to move forward but it will take time

[AdamRam]

29 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I personally don't think the level of financial input from MM can possibly continue at present levels, and i personally don't think its good for the club. Furthermore i don't think we can build a successful team is every year we have to flog our most saleable asset(s).

I would rather we tackled the over spending therefore i would also question some of our decisions last year. 

Maybe things are going to change as contracts expire, and spending should reduce. But we have to get away from the need to sell, sell, sell. 

 

I wouldn’t argue about last years decisions, however do feel that is as much down to the manager rather than the owner, although you could argue that MM allowed that control to someone that took the club imo backwards.  However over his tenure, I beleive we are in a better position now, off the field that when he took over.  Once again it could be argued that at that time we had a better on field position, however that could have happened with or without his involvement.

I can’t really comment on the accounts, however I would presume that he has a business contingency plan that involves both playing in the PL and not, and we will adjust our budgets accordingly throughout the next few years based upon this.  

The only sellable asset that we have got rid of so far was Hughes,  and I’m not sure that this was as much down to balancing the books as the managers call.

[RamNut]

26 minutes ago, Ramet said:

Ok mate.most of what you are saying are genuine concerns but i can tell you derby own mel nothing in debt it is only to the holding company. We do not NEED to sell that is reading the paper to much.however we do need to adjust some things. competitive side are never build on young up and coming sides so the sale of an asset here and there is not a problem if the cash is used to address running running cost and inject into the team

The group owe mel £95.6m. Any potential purchaser would surely acquire the whole group. Some posters have suggested that mel would want his money back. Others have said he would write it off. We don't know. But the debt exists, and may or may not become relevant in the future.

we do not need to sell?  I think significant sales have become essential.

i'm pretty sure that transfers have to be self-financing now, and that we require the profits on sales for reasons that i have already given. 

for what its worth, i agreed with the sales of hendrick and ince, but if we have to sell every year - which is the position i think we've got ourselves into  - then thats not good. 

When we do rebuild i hope we will have learned from our errors. Don't pay what we can't reasonably afford to pay. If we do get to another play-off final and fail again, then next time let anyone go who wants to move to the prem. Don't try and match those wages and end up in a spiral of escalating wage costs.

[RamNut]

40 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

On "sustainability", weren't GSE covering £5-7m annual losses under austerity football?

 

Probably. But £5-7m is a lot less than mel is covering now, (and thats even with the benefit of millions in player sales that we weren't achieving back then).