New Contracts

[Rammed79]

Let them all go 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Huddlestone for a year.

Pearce for a year if he’s happy to stay as back-up.

[Spanish]

15 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Players are not valued, it's their registration that has a book value. After the Bosman ruling, over 23's can leave for free at the end of their contract, so that is always the value of their registration at the end of the contract.

If a contract is extended, the player's registration regains some value, but their book value cannot go above the actual cost of that registration, thus extending in the final few months of a contract only ever produces a low book value.

So there’s no opportunity to depreciate the rv as long as it is arguable basis.  Their bv is their rv?  If so we are truly hooked 

[CornwallRam]

21 minutes ago, Spanish said:

So there’s no opportunity to depreciate the rv as long as it is arguable basis.  Their bv is their rv?  If so we are truly hooked 

The club can manipulate the rvs according to the FFP situation, but it has to end in zero at the end of the contract - although I wonder if that is the true of U23s as they retain some value at the end of the contract due to compensation being due if they sign for anyone else. 

Ignoring youngsters, an example would be a player who cost £8m to sign and has a 4 year contract. Using amortisation at the end of year 1 he'd have a bv of £6m, y2 - £4m, y3- £2m and y4 - 0. With rv it could be something like this - Y1 (Club well inside FFP) - £4M, Y2 (FFP tight) £3m, y3 (FFP disastrous) £2.95m, y4 - 0. 

The start and end points have to be the same, but rv gives wiggle room in the middle. We could also offset a big hit on a player at the end of their contract by retaining a high rv on a player recently signed. eg, if we are about to lose £2m on Johnson, we might to chose to carry an rv on Marriott that is almost the same as his cost price - w could very easily argue that Marriott has gone up in value so writing him down is unreasonable.

[Spanish]

19 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

The club can manipulate the rvs according to the FFP situation, but it has to end in zero at the end of the contract - although I wonder if that is the true of U23s as they retain some value at the end of the contract due to compensation being due if they sign for anyone else. 

Ignoring youngsters, an example would be a player who cost £8m to sign and has a 4 year contract. Using amortisation at the end of year 1 he'd have a bv of £6m, y2 - £4m, y3- £2m and y4 - 0. With rv it could be something like this - Y1 (Club well inside FFP) - £4M, Y2 (FFP tight) £3m, y3 (FFP disastrous) £2.95m, y4 - 0. 

The start and end points have to be the same, but rv gives wiggle room in the middle. We could also offset a big hit on a player at the end of their contract by retaining a high rv on a player recently signed. eg, if we are about to lose £2m on Johnson, we might to chose to carry an rv on Marriott that is almost the same as his cost price - w could very easily argue that Marriott has gone up in value so writing him down is unreasonable.

I really missed that end bit = 0, seems to go against all accountancy rules.  Most players will have a value at the end of their contracts.  So someone like Marriott will present a loss until he is sold given that a contract extension is not going to retain the previous carrying value.  I must say I don’t get the sense of it at all.  Just encourages clubs to ignore the middle years in the hope of success because with failure it will be somebody else’s problem

[CornwallRam]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

I really missed that end bit = 0, seems to go against all accountancy rules.  Most players will have a value at the end of their contracts.  So someone like Marriott will present a loss until he is sold given that a contract extension is not going to retain the previous carrying value.  I must say I don’t get the sense of it at all.  Just encourages clubs to ignore the middle years in the hope of success because with failure it will be somebody else’s problem

I feel like I must really be missing your point here, but how do over 23 players retain value at the end of their contracts?

[LB_DCFC]

"to help build, to help youngsters through, to see what we can do when seven or eight players are out of contract and move on naturally. These are all massive achievements for me.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/01/18/frank-lampard-certainly-enjoy-wins-did-player-feel-losses/

Seems to pretty much confirm that those out of contract this summer are leaving. Think there are 10 out of contract, so wonder who'll stay. I'd say the only possible keeps are Roos, Hudds and maybe Bryson? (Frank seems to like him)

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/derby-county/vertragsende/verein/22 - Those out of contract (+ Pearce & Blackman)

[i-Ram]

I think it evident that most of those out of contract in the summer are unlikely to be offered new contracts.  But that is 5 months away.  It would be great to think that we can sell (?) or loan Anya, Butterfield, Ledley and Johnson before end of January to free up some costs to bring in a couple of really decent loan signings. If as I suspect there is no Johnson in the squad tomorrow, can only mean he has probably played his last game for the club.

[europia]

On 03/01/2019 at 13:26, jimbobram said:

Its all well and good saying let them all go, but that's a huge chunk of the squad gone, and if we don't have funds to replace them with young hungry players then we are struggling. Remember its those listed above + Wilson, Mount and Tomori. That's a lot of players.

Fair point. It's a problem when loan players are a core part of the team. 

[LB_DCFC]

8 minutes ago, europia said:

Fair point. It's a problem when loan players are a core part of the team. 

One thing I like about what we did last summer, though, was the purchase of Holmes. Pretty sure his role this season was to be more of an understudy to the loan players (more specifically mount i would guess but could be on the wing), have a year to properly bed in and then be first choice next season. Think we'll see similar next summer, some good loanees in and then some cheaper purchases or youth players to replace said loanees when they move on. Really appreciate Franks focus on the future, a stark contrast to some of our former managers 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Joe Ledley - I completely forgot he was at the club, is he still injured? 

[europia]

4 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said:

One thing I like about what we did last summer, though, was the purchase of Holmes. Pretty sure his role this season was to be more of an understudy to the loan players (more specifically mount i would guess but could be on the wing), have a year to properly bed in and then be first choice next season. Think we'll see similar next summer, some good loanees in and then some cheaper purchases or youth players to replace said loanees when they move on. Really appreciate Franks focus on the future, a stark contrast to some of our former managers 

Yes definitely, Holmes and Marriott are the sort of players we should have been signing a while back, rather than stupid money on Butterfield, Johnson, Anya etc. Not the players fault of course, fees are set by the clubs.

[LB_DCFC]

1 minute ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Joe Ledley - I completely forgot he was at the club, is he still injured? 

He was back training with the first team over a month ago. Think his career here is done

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/injury-update-derby-county-midfielder-2301765

[Carnero]

"I’m here for a much longer project than that, to help build"

Great stuff ?

[Dcfcsr92]

On 04/01/2019 at 16:08, CornwallRam said:

The club can manipulate the rvs according to the FFP situation, but it has to end in zero at the end of the contract - although I wonder if that is the true of U23s as they retain some value at the end of the contract due to compensation being due if they sign for anyone else. 

Ignoring youngsters, an example would be a player who cost £8m to sign and has a 4 year contract. Using amortisation at the end of year 1 he'd have a bv of £6m, y2 - £4m, y3- £2m and y4 - 0. With rv it could be something like this - Y1 (Club well inside FFP) - £4M, Y2 (FFP tight) £3m, y3 (FFP disastrous) £2.95m, y4 - 0. 

The start and end points have to be the same, but rv gives wiggle room in the middle. We could also offset a big hit on a player at the end of their contract by retaining a high rv on a player recently signed. eg, if we are about to lose £2m on Johnson, we might to chose to carry an rv on Marriott that is almost the same as his cost price - w could very easily argue that Marriott has gone up in value so writing him down is unreasonable.

Surely if this true i think we would cover that easily with marriott, holmes and bogle as boyle apparently worth 8m to burnley that got to cover johnson butterfield and anya between them 3 pearce was a free if i remember correctly? 

[G STAR RAM]

On 18/01/2019 at 21:05, europia said:

Yes definitely, Holmes and Marriott are the sort of players we should have been signing a while back, rather than stupid money on Butterfield, Johnson, Anya etc. Not the players fault of course, fees are set by the clubs.

To be fair I don't think the fans would have been happy if the injured Hughes and Bryson had been replaced with someone from Scunthorpe that nobody had heard of.

[G STAR RAM]

On 04/01/2019 at 16:08, CornwallRam said:

The club can manipulate the rvs according to the FFP situation, but it has to end in zero at the end of the contract - although I wonder if that is the true of U23s as they retain some value at the end of the contract due to compensation being due if they sign for anyone else. 

Ignoring youngsters, an example would be a player who cost £8m to sign and has a 4 year contract. Using amortisation at the end of year 1 he'd have a bv of £6m, y2 - £4m, y3- £2m and y4 - 0. With rv it could be something like this - Y1 (Club well inside FFP) - £4M, Y2 (FFP tight) £3m, y3 (FFP disastrous) £2.95m, y4 - 0. 

The start and end points have to be the same, but rv gives wiggle room in the middle. We could also offset a big hit on a player at the end of their contract by retaining a high rv on a player recently signed. eg, if we are about to lose £2m on Johnson, we might to chose to carry an rv on Marriott that is almost the same as his cost price - w could very easily argue that Marriott has gone up in value so writing him down is unreasonable.

As mentioned in another thread, our accounts are audited so there would have to be some sort of reasonable basis used or the accounts would be qualified. 

Not sure if there is an industry standard that is used or the club have to give some sort of report explaining the values but don't think it's as easy to manipulate as you suggest.

[G STAR RAM]

On 05/01/2019 at 11:33, Spanish said:

I really missed that end bit = 0, seems to go against all accountancy rules.  Most players will have a value at the end of their contracts.  So someone like Marriott will present a loss until he is sold given that a contract extension is not going to retain the previous carrying value.  I must say I don’t get the sense of it at all.  Just encourages clubs to ignore the middle years in the hope of success because with failure it will be somebody else’s problem

How can players have any value at the end of the contract? 

They are free to leave for free or the club can release them. 

A player without a contract clearly has 0 value to the club.

[McRamFan]

55 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

To be fair I don't think the fans would have been happy if the injured Hughes and Bryson had been replaced with someone from Scunthorpe that nobody had heard of.

Football fans, in general, know nothing of what is happening outside their club.  Who on here knew about Marriott - the player, not the hotel group...

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

To be fair I don't think the fans would have been happy if the injured Hughes and Bryson had been replaced with someone from Scunthorpe that nobody had heard of.

No but we could have tried for a couple of season long loans then used the breathing space to actually see if there were kids who could be developed for the following season just in case, or do some proper scouting if not.

 

Nobody would have been on Clements case for that - it was rank bad luck that the 2 were injured. But the response was poorly thoughtout, short term with high risk and in the end hasn't worked out at all well.

If those lessons have been finally learned then that's great...a bit late but good nonetheless. ?