£10m FFP Bill

[CornwallRam]

I think it's time to reveal that Ramblur is really Craig Ramage. Apparently he's spent the last few years studying accountancy. Amazing that he always sounds a bit thick on the radio, but so smart on here. ?

[AdamRam]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

As a result of something that's happened on here, I'm now going to log off for one last time, and simply let my membership run out to 9am on Tuesday, whereupon my membership will be permanently cancelled. Unfortunately, this means that I won't be able to reply to any quotes, mentions or PMs. Goodbye all.

I’m intrigued to what has happened...? 

[ramesses]

9 hours ago, sage said:

I'm hurt that you think I would interrupt a serious thread for a cheap laugh.

 

it's accrual world

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, curtains said:

Davies , Wisdom and Huddlestone had good seasons though. 

Wisdom isn't an over 30

davies did well .....agreed

huddlestone, i'm not so sure.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

Wisdom isn't an over 30

davies did well .....agreed

huddlestone, i'm not so sure.

The point is they are all good players that can do a good job again this season . Lawrence and Ledley might benefit from Frank and Jody pre season. 

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, ramblur said:

Where I show what I consider normal stuff to be. When I say bare minimum, it really needs to come down much more than that, and I'm sure Mel agrees.

A paper loss re goodwill impairment of #21m appearing in the consolidated accounts has nothing to do with the Club's position, neither does the other 15/16 item I highlighted earlier, a paper profit in Sevco 5112 of c#60m. Such things only distort the position in respect of the Club, particularly to the untrained eye.

Not really. Because the £21m impairment of goodwill comes after the operating loss of £33m even to the untrained eye.

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, curtains said:

MM can’t win can he. 

A few years of club stagnation with the Academy playing all the games might help. 

Sell all or best players. 

Thats the way to do it. 

Maybe get the number of senior players down to @15. And let a few u23s break through into the 18?

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

You've been around a fair old while Ramnut so you'll know that most clubs, most of the time, spend more than they receive in income. And always have done. They continue to survive (mostly, but there have been a few examples over the years where not) on the largesse of banks and owners/investors and in that way are different from most of the business world most of the time.  I guess some owners calculate that they will probably be able to recoup some/all of their money either by selling on or by entry into the EPL; others (and my view is that Mel falls into this category) work on the basis that they might get their money back (and would like to) but get pleasure from investing in an organisation that is important to them and, by extension, important to the people around them - a more emotional investment if you like than the John Henrys or Glazers of this world, or Cardiff or Villa.

As such every club to some degree is a 'selling club', that needs to sell players for financial reasons. The only difference is the degree. But that can also be a fig leaf to cover the fact that football is a game that routinely trades its practitioners - name the manager that has ever expressed themselves completely satisfied with their squad/team. They're always a couple of players short. And get a new manager in and they start all over again - it's not my squad.

You - and Ramblur, and Mel for that matter - are correct.  The degree to which wages (largely that of the players) is overtaking DCFC's income has now reached the point of being unsustainable.  It will be easier said than done to reduce it though given that all of those players probably like playing for a big club with great working facilities, probably like the idea of playing for Frank, have valuable contracts and lawyers and agents; it will be even harder to do so and keep the fan base happy (look at the differences on this board alone about who should stay and who should go) AND maintain a promotion push. And with an inexperienced manager in charge.  To misquote Warren East 'we are a sporting club that's overweight and we need to get fit'. But RR isn't an easy nut to crack anymore than Derby County.

The real irony of the situation we and other clubs find ourselves in is that FFP was meant, in theory, to stop all of this or, at least, make it happen less often.  Instead it appears to be exacerbating the situation with EPL TV money, as well as ambition, competitive instinct and new overseas owners, skewing the situation further.  In the meantime we will depend even more upon Mel (or his successor) continuing to help us through.  It may not be right but t'was ever thus.

It will, even more importantly in my view (in part because I don't see Mel walking away yet), depend upon us. The fans. And our ambitions. We have the ability to affect significantly how Mel sees the club and his role. More importantly, in the short term, we have the ability to affect Frank, Jody Morris and the young/new players that come through plus the older ones that stay - what if we get off to a poor start; what if we have a season like Brian's first season; what if we lose to that lot down the road, or Stoke; what if the younger players aren't up to the job straightaway (Will Hughes and Jeff Hendrick both needed time)? There will be any number of people lining up to say 'I told you so. Too inexperienced. Mel doesn't have a clue'. We can help, if we collectively want to. And if we do, who knows what we can achieve.

I totally agree. Thats why i wanted to highlight the problem. I felt there was too much insistance upon the fact that we can comply with ffp therefore everything must be ok. I was trying to highlight the problem in order to help change expectations.

I didn't really expect ww3. 

[Curtains]

14 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Maybe get the number of senior players down to @15. And let a few u23s break through into the 18?

Won’t work mate this is the 21st century not the 20th under Brian Clough .

You need a bigger squad these days of senior players. 

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, Spanish said:

I get fixated on the residual value of players mostly because it adds a complexity which for obvious reasons we don't get the whole picture.  Every year you are expected to revalue the squad based on a realistic onward selling value.  Maybe you would look at Butters and decide that he has had a few poor experiences recently and perhaps is stock is low.  You may prudently value him at £1m.  looking at George, series of injuries followed by a loss of form, contract up for renewal perhaps value him at £1m or nil if there is a danger that he will walk at the end of the contract.  This is all well and good but if you are up against FFP maybe you can't do this without incurring penalties.  So you are almost forced into maintaining Butters at a higher figure and you are forced to extend GT's contract..  If you are not prudent about making tough decisions over residual values then at some time you have to face the consequences, or hope someone injects more funds, or you get promotion.  One year's extravagance can lead to many years of constraints.  Cut costs where you can and sell players that have a positive impact on FRR (Vyds).  Hence 'If no-one wanrs them then offer them a free transfer? Get them off the wages' may not be the attractive option it may first appear.  if we are in a mess in this area don't expect Vyds money to go anywhere other than balancing the books and paying for those mistakes

@RamNut am I making any sense or ............?

 

Yes. But my gut instinct says don't extend a contract for anything other than footballing reasons.

I suspect the financial input from MM keeps us the right side of ffp no matter what.

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, curtains said:

Won’t work mate this is the 21st century not the 20th under Brian Clough .

You need a bigger squad these days of senior players. 

Grant, legzdins, wisdom, forsyth, buxton, keogh, thorne, hughes, bryson, martin, russell, ward, obrien, naylor, hendrick, dawkins, Bamford, freeman, gjokai, hoganson, whitbread, davies, sammon

18 seniors? 

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Grant, legzdins, wisdom, forsyth, buxton, keogh, thorne, hughes, bryson, martin, russell, ward, obrien, naylor, hendrick, dawkins, Bamford, freeman, gjokai, hoganson, whitbread, davies, sammon

18 seniors? 

Still didn’t work though 

Close but no cigar  

How many  U23s played ! 

[Carnero]

33 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Maybe get the number of senior players down to @15. And let a few u23s break through into the 18?

That's it in a nutshell. For me need to shift another 6 seniors out of the squad before player trading can commence on a 1 in 1 out basis.

6 seniors out + Bent/Baird/Shackell would remove at least £10m off the annual wage bill and allows an environment where young players get a chance.

[Carnero]

@curtains 6 seniors out (**say** Vydra, Anya, Butterfield, Ledley, Nugent, Blackman) would still leave a very competitive squad:

GK: Carson, Mitchell, Roos

DF: Wisdom, Keogh, Davies, Forsyth, Bogle, Pearce, Lowe (Olsson)

MF: Huddlestone, Bryson, Johnson, Thorne, Hanson, Elsnik, Guy

FW: Martin, Jerome, Zanzala, Lawrence, Weimann, Bennett, Thomas

24-man squad with c15 on "senior money" as @RamNut suggested

For me, this is what we should be aiming for before senior "ins" can come on a 1 in 1 out basis.

 

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, curtains said:

Still didn’t work though 

Close but no cigar  

How many  U23s played ! 

10 of them were under 23 and i forgot bennett.

but we've got our own crop now.

[RamNut]

@Carnero

finally we agree!

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, Carnero said:

@curtains 6 seniors out (**say** Vydra, Anya, Butterfield, Ledley, Nugent, Blackman) would still leave a very competitive squad:

GK: Carson, Mitchell, Roos

DF: Wisdom, Keogh, Davies, Forsyth, Bogle, Pearce, Lowe (Olsson)

MF: Huddlestone, Bryson, Johnson, Thorne, Hanson, Elsnik, Guy

FW: Martin, Jerome, Zanzala, Lawrence, Weimann, Bennett, Thomas

24-man squad with c15 on "senior money" as @RamNut suggested

For me, this is what we should be aiming for before senior "ins" can come on a 1 in 1 out basis.

 

Not how I would like it mate but hey ho what do I know. 

 

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

10 of them were under 23 and i forgot bennett.

but we've got our own crop now.

RamNut I am happy with our senior squad with a few tweaks 

I’m less happy with our present U23 squad. 

[Boycie]

10 minutes ago, curtains said:

RamNut I am happy with our senior squad with a few tweaks 

I’m less happy with our present U23 squad. 

Mate, all the best ones were out getting league experience bar Thomas who was it seems the closest to the first team. You can’t slag them off until they’ve failed, they ain’t failed in the first team yet?

Reserve footie is nothing like first team, like I said earlier throw some in pre season, we might be surprised, who knew Will Hughes would be that good?

Except the experts with 20/20 hind sight who’d probably never seen him play u21’s and prior.

The route or “pathway”  to the first team has been virtually blocked by expensive misfits since we got to Wembley.  It’s hardly the young lads fault.

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Mate, all the best ones were out getting league experience bar Thomas who was it seems the closest to the first team. You can’t slag them off until they’ve failed, they ain’t failed in the first team yet?

Reserve footie is nothing like first team, like I said earlier throw some in pre season, we might be surprised, who knew Will Hughes would be that good?

Except the experts with 20/20 hind sight who’d probably never seen him play u21’s and prior.

The route or “pathway”  to the first team has been virtually blocked by expensive misfits since we got to Wembley.  It’s hardly the young lads fault.

I’m willing to wait and see. 

Hanson and Bennett have had chances though mate. 

Not sure about Roos and Mitchell either if Carson goes or gets injured