Jump to content

2nd Oldest Football Club O'Nottsaurus Forest


stoners

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

@Elgin_Ram, wasn’t havin’ a pop mate, Start is a Jam single, was only doing a pun of me own. ? 

 

Never nice to have to explain your puns. Bitterest pill you'll have to swallow today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On ‎04‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 15:22, Cam the Ram said:

Yep that's our problem at the minute. As far as I'm aware, we aren't in a position where we absolutely must sell people like Vydra to bring in transfer fees, it's the wages that's our problem. This season we'll hopefully get rid of a few of the higher earners who aren't pulling their weight, if we manage to find teams willing to pay and then sign younger players (+ Terry) and make use of the academy.

I

As I have stated in another thread,  I think we have to raise some money from fees by the end of the month and reduce wages over the course of the whole window.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sage said:

As I have stated in another thread,  I think we have to raise some money from fees by the end of the month and reduce wages over the course of the whole window.  

Funnily enough I just this minute replied to that thread ?

 

Still don't see why we're in desperate need of bringing in money from transfer fees though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cam the Ram said:

Funnily enough I just this minute replied to that thread ?

 

Still don't see why we're in desperate need of bringing in money from transfer fees though

To meet our 3 year FFP cycle which ends 30th June. He had to sell Ince and Hughes before that date last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sage said:

To meet our 3 year FFP cycle which ends 30th June. He had to sell Ince and Hughes before that date last year.

Yes, I understand that part, but in terms of actual FFP figures, how do you know we're so close to breaking the rules that we're forced to sell so quickly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cam the Ram said:

Yes, I understand that part, but in terms of actual FFP figures, how do you know we're so close to breaking the rules that we're forced to sell so quickly? 

I don't know for sure. I am reading between the lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sage said:

I don't know for sure. I am reading between the lines. 

The way I understood FFP to work (only the basics) is that over a 3 year period you are allowed a total loss of no more than £39 million. The 3 year period looks at the accounts for the previous 2 seasons and a projection of the current season. Then for transfers, the total fee for a player is divided by the number of years on the contract they signed. So for example Huddlestone cost £2 million in 2017/18 and signed a 2 year contract, so for FFP £1 million would be added to the 2017/18 accounts and £1 million to the 2018/19 projection. I had a quick look through our signings over the past 5 or 6 years and tried to do a mock up of how the FFP for outgoing fees might look for this 3 year period.  I got the transfer fees from transfermarkt so they aren't 100% accurate, but I doubt they're too far off. A few of the smaller fee signings were left out like Carson and McAllister because I'm/transfermarket are unsure on the fees for them. And I also didn't include loans because there were no loan fees included on there either 

c9008ff861eec53f79dd64184575ebea.png

I'm also unsure what happens in terms of the FFP accounts with signings like Albentosa and Ince who left before the end of their original contract end dates, but I included them anyway. 

So I had us at only just over the FFP limit for the 3 year period and that's before you even include the Hendrick, Grant, Ince, Hughes, Christie and other sales which would surely be near the £30 million mark. Those figures added to the McClean bid suggest to me FFP isn't the big worry, just getting the wage bill down is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

The way I understood FFP to work (only the basics) is that over a 3 year period you are allowed a total loss of no more than £39 million. The 3 year period looks at the accounts for the previous 2 seasons and a projection of the current season. Then for transfers, the total fee for a player is divided by the number of years on the contract they signed. So for example Huddlestone cost £2 million in 2017/18 and signed a 2 year contract, so for FFP £1 million would be added to the 2017/18 accounts and £1 million to the 2018/19 projection. I had a quick look through our signings over the past 5 or 6 years and tried to do a mock up of how the FFP for outgoing fees might look for this 3 year period.  I got the transfer fees from transfermarkt so they aren't 100% accurate, but I doubt they're too far off. A few of the smaller fee signings were left out like Carson and McAllister because I'm/transfermarket are unsure on the fees for them. And I also didn't include loans because there were no loan fees included on there either 

c9008ff861eec53f79dd64184575ebea.png

I'm also unsure what happens in terms of the FFP accounts with signings like Albentosa and Ince who left before the end of their original contract end dates, but I included them anyway. 

So I had us at only just over the FFP limit for the 3 year period and that's before you even include the Hendrick, Grant, Ince, Hughes, Christie and other sales which would surely be near the £30 million mark. Those figures added to the McClean bid suggest to me FFP isn't the big worry, just getting the wage bill down is

We will see. I am not convinced we did bid £6m for McClean in Jan. Surely if we had that much money we would have bought a better CF than Jerome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sage said:

We will see. I am not convinced we did bid £6m for McClean in Jan. Surely if we had that much money we would have bought a better CF than Jerome. 

McClean has said as much though. He said he had 2 good opportunities to leave (and specifically mentioned us) but said West Brom refused to let him go. That definitely sounds like more than paper talk to me. I too would have wanted him to spend big on a forward, but this is Rowett, he had a bit of a fetish for experienced players with promotion experience 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cam the Ram said:

The way I understood FFP to work (only the basics) is that over a 3 year period you are allowed a total loss of no more than £39 million. The 3 year period looks at the accounts for the previous 2 seasons and a projection of the current season. Then for transfers, the total fee for a player is divided by the number of years on the contract they signed. So for example Huddlestone cost £2 million in 2017/18 and signed a 2 year contract, so for FFP £1 million would be added to the 2017/18 accounts and £1 million to the 2018/19 projection. I had a quick look through our signings over the past 5 or 6 years and tried to do a mock up of how the FFP for outgoing fees might look for this 3 year period.  I got the transfer fees from transfermarkt so they aren't 100% accurate, but I doubt they're too far off. A few of the smaller fee signings were left out like Carson and McAllister because I'm/transfermarket are unsure on the fees for them. And I also didn't include loans because there were no loan fees included on there either 

c9008ff861eec53f79dd64184575ebea.png

I'm also unsure what happens in terms of the FFP accounts with signings like Albentosa and Ince who left before the end of their original contract end dates, but I included them anyway. 

So I had us at only just over the FFP limit for the 3 year period and that's before you even include the Hendrick, Grant, Ince, Hughes, Christie and other sales which would surely be near the £30 million mark. Those figures added to the McClean bid suggest to me FFP isn't the big worry, just getting the wage bill down is

As several of us have previously remarked the straight line depreciation is no longer valid, the club has to assess the value of a player each season so hudz for example may still be valued at 2m if the club are confident of a resale value.  The big worry is if you carry a value to the end of the contract and they walk for free.  That would be an immediate large loss to manage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Spanish said:

As several of us have previously remarked the straight line depreciation is no longer valid, the club has to assess the value of a player each season so hudz for example may still be valued at 2m if the club are confident of a resale value.  The big worry is if you carry a value to the end of the contract and they walk for free.  That would be an immediate large loss to manage

If it's up to the club to decide the values, surely when the next yearly accounts come around they'll assess who's likely to be released in the near future and lower their value accordingly? Seems silly to me that the club are doing it that way if it's as easy to make such a huge loss as you suggest, when from the outside looking in we would be fine for FFP doing it the 'normal' way

Still, if we're able to make a £6 million bid for McClean then it appears the club don't appear that concerned with breaching FFP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cam the Ram said:

Still, if we're able to make a £6 million bid for McClean then it appears the club don't appear that concerned with breaching FFP

Plus we’ve received a fair whack for Two Shots and Ince that wouldn’t have been foreseen in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/06/2018 at 22:40, Cam the Ram said:

If it's up to the club to decide the values, surely when the next yearly accounts come around they'll assess who's likely to be released in the near future and lower their value accordingly? Seems silly to me that the club are doing it that way if it's as easy to make such a huge loss as you suggest, when from the outside looking in we would be fine for FFP doing it the 'normal' way

Still, if we're able to make a £6 million bid for McClean then it appears the club don't appear that concerned with breaching FFP

i'm not an accountant but Directors in any industry can't value an asset at a figure that without it being fair.  Hudz could be written down to zero I suppose but younger players would be more difficult.  Then you could have a problem if you have say GT and Butters where you fear you would struggle to avoid taking a loss but you are close to breaching FFP.  Maybe a reason why they renewed GT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens

This is where forest fans short term memory loss kicks in and they conveniently forget making fun of us for our dads army signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...