Duracell Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 What I don’t get is what people are actually debating about. One side is arguing that we’ve had a great summer window orchestrated by some incredibly astute work behind the scenes which has allowed us to buy and sell while remaining within FFP. The other side is saying this person is wrong. They are arguing that we’ve had a great summer window orchestrated by some incredibly astute work behind the scenes which has allowed us to buy and sell while remaining within FFP. The only thing the sides disagree on is about an embargo which both sides agreed never happened anyway. Am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 27 minutes ago, Ramleicester said: I have no expectations to be believed as people on here only trust in their own opinions and seem to lack the capacity to listen and consider others. So I will shut up with lesson learned lol. For what it's worth I think what you said is perfectly plausible and reasonable. Please don't tar all of us on here with the same brush. Thank you for the insight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 FFP certainly generates a lot of heat for a subject that is pretty much out of sight except for a few directly involved. Haven't Wendies been under embargo for months before anybody sussed that there was a problem? The League, I hope, have learnt the lessons of how to make these krap rules work on an engaged rather than reactive basis. It is likely that they do speak to clubs that appear close to breaches so as to understand what the club's forward plans are. Armed wit that they could actively monitor future financial activity to see whether it matches the previous plan and if not seek updates., pretty simple. The point being to avoid hitting clubs with penalties and also take appropriate action if a club decides to buy all the players in the hope that they will be promoted before the accounts are produced. Putting a club under watch is an effective way of policing FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramleicester Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, RamNut said: Unfortunately thats the nature of social media. What you have said is interesting and you have captured our attention. The previous analysis by the accountants on here suggested that everything re FFP was relatively rosy. So my question would be, why did we need to negotiate to avoid a transfer embargo? What are our actual FFP losses (as opposed to the estimates)? Despite the leg pulling i'm perfectly happy to believe that we have a solid financial team now that the exec has been purged of the dodgy dealing, Ince Scouting Agreement making, nudge nudge wink wink merchant. So tell us a bit more. That is the point I was making that is all. I am a bit bitter as a very good friend of mine has lost his job amongst all of this. He is not a high flying footballer who can sit at home on umpteen thousand a week he is a guy who after working his nuts off has had to go and is now looking for a job. The 'accountants' on here only have access to the public issued accounts which are only about 40% of the picture. It is very complicated and in any situation like that it is totally natural to talk to the authorities that control the sanctions. That clarifies interpretations and enables any business to plan forward. QPR did not do that and therefore ended up with the book thrown at them. The point I was making is that DCFC have done that very well over the last few months so Mel and co can sit at the forum last night and rightly say that they are within the rules with great confidence. Just a shame that good people had ro lose jobs and some of the people previously responsible sit in new positions with fat salaries or payoffs. I am exiting this forum now. Did you see the very abusive post that has now been moderated. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 @Ramleicester Could you comment as to whether Swiss Ramble's assessment is right......? https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1013693002911543296 He estimated a £4m FFP shortfall, so club would need to cut wages or sell players to meet target. I understnd that fees are spread over the duration of the contract whereas income from sales is recorded immediately. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if the £11m? Vydra fee does cover all of the outgoing spend in year 1 of the new contracts. But it has been a remarkable window; starting with talk of slashing the wages and ending up with nine new signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ramleicester said: The 'accountants' on here only have access to the public issued accounts which are only about 40% of the picture. It is very complicated and in any situation like that it is totally natural to talk to the authorities that control the sanctions. That clarifies interpretations and enables any business to plan forward. This all makes sense in relation to Mel's FFP speech last night (in fact Colin Gibson said that mel had recorded a club video about FFP and then backtracked a little when he realised that it hadn't gone out yet) I got the impression that a lot of the examples Mel was giving about how to game the rules must have stemmed from very real conversations with the FL about what was and was not acceptable To me the daftest one was how he hypothetically described two teams that were both about to breach FFP for the year, could agree to sell each other a player for £40 million quid each on the last day of the year. Net spend would be nothing, but it would count as income and therefore they'd both avoid FFP penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Ramleicester said: It is very complicated and in any situation like that it is totally natural to talk to the authorities that control the sanctions. That clarifies interpretations and enables any business to plan forward. QPR did not do that and therefore ended up with the book thrown at them. The point I was making is that DCFC have done that very well over the last few months so Mel and co can sit at the forum last night and rightly say that they are within the rules with great confidence. This piece is a different tone entirely to how you came on here. Talking about ‘agreements’ and avoiding embargoes. Basically we’ve discussed FFP with the League - that’s good to hear, but hardly revelationary or unexpected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramet Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Give ramleicester a break he is only posting what he knows. Im not sure if he is right or wrong but at least cut the abuse until we find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ramet said: Give ramleicester a break he is only posting what he knows. Im not sure if he is right or wrong but at least cut the abuse until we find out. Do you have that breakdown yet on the £200m you say Mel has put into the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 Poor @Ramleicester - comes on here to share some info and gets a load of grief. Same thing tends to happen with anyone offering ITK info. What he states sounds plausible enough to me and it'd be a pretty weird line of BS to be honest. As it is, it seems the guy's been hounded off the platform very soon after joining which is a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 59 minutes ago, i-Ram said: Do you have that breakdown yet on the £200m you say Mel has put into the club? Initial £75m to buy the club, but that's not investment. That was back in 2014. FFP losses of £13m per annum since, plus probably another £7m p/a of allowable losses on top takes you to £80m in those four years. Add the two together plus a bit of wriggle room takes you to £160m so far, add in his £10m annual subs to DCFCFans.uk and it's about right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.