17/18 Financial Results

[rynny]

25 minutes ago, The Key Club King said:

FFP is not stupid at all. It's a well-intentioned attempt at levelling the playing field. 

It is those that are cheating, or "going against the spirit of the law", to circumnavigate the rules that make it look stupid. And we are one of those clubs unfortunately. 

How does it level the playing field? Those that have more income can spend more, not exactly levelling the playing field. In fact the EFL have realised this and changed it from Financial Fair Play to Profitability and Sustainability.

We will have cleared this with the EFL before announcing it to make sure we are doing nothing untoward, if the EFL had any problem with what we have done then they would have attempted to put a stop to it, we would have heard about it when the deal happened (which was at least 10 months ago).

It is quite absurd that you suggest we are either cheating or going against the spirit of the law. 

[ram59]

32 minutes ago, The Key Club King said:

FFP is not stupid at all. It's a well-intentioned attempt at levelling the playing field. 

It is those that are cheating, or "going against the spirit of the law", to circumnavigate the rules that make it look stupid. And we are one of those clubs unfortunately. 

It may be well intentioned, the idea to protect clubs from overspending, but this in its self favours the big clubs with big incomes. 

QPR, when they got promoted, had a loss of about £75m, but the club was in no danger because the owner was happy to GIVE the club the money and not loan it to them. Why shouldn't a multi billionaire fan of Burton Albion size club be able fund his club's rise to the top. Bournemouth only achieved what they did because they were prepared to break the rules and take the chance. 

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, R@M said:

... I can assure you nothing is ignored, maybe missed through ignorance though.

 

Say that again... very slowly...

 

Come back to me.

[R@M]

2 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Say that again... very slowly...

 

Come back to me.

I have, and presume you just need It saying slower and with an explanation to understand the descriptive nuances of the English Language?

Ignore: to refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information

 

Hope that helps.

[Mucker1884]

44 minutes ago, R@M said:

I have, and presume you just need It saying slower and with an explanation to understand the descriptive nuances of the English Language?

Ignore: to refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information

 

Hope that helps.

No offence intended, my friend, but seeing as you are keen to help, (for which I am very much appreciative), can you explain why your "ignore" concentrates solely on a deliberate act, whereas my "Ignore" can be unintentional?...

ignore (v.) 1610s, "not to know, to be ignorant of," from French ignorer "be unaware of" (14c.), or directly from Latin ignorare "not to know, be unacquainted; take no notice of, disregard" (see ignorant).

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-origin-of-the-word-ignorant-rooted-in-the-word-ignore

 

It appears my "Ignore" is extremely similar to your "Ignorance"?

 

I'm actually not too fussed of course, but if you're willing to continue the lesson, I'm all ears.  Despite appearances, I'm actually quite a keen learner.  ("Never too old, an' all that!)

Don't worry about the public stage on my account... it won't be the first time I've been made a fool of on T'Internet... nor the last, I suspect!  

[SaintRam]

2 hours ago, The Key Club King said:

FFP is not stupid at all. It's a well-intentioned attempt at levelling the playing field. 

It is those that are cheating, or "going against the spirit of the law", to circumnavigate the rules that make it look stupid. And we are one of those clubs unfortunately. 

The only thing FFP is really trying to do is preventing clubs from spending what they don't have so they don't go bust. It does nothing to level the playing field.

• Clubs that earn more revenue can spend more, there is no limit on spending if you can afford it.
• Clubs that spend what they don't have, but then achieve a competition win/promotion that means they CAN now afford it, when broken down over the FFP period, are not punished.
• Clubs, in the Championship, that have been relegated from the PL get parachute payments over 3 years that counts as revenue for the purposes of FFP - meaning they have a huge financial advantage over clubs attempting to stay withing the FFP limits.
  

 

The name "Financial Fair Play" is a complete misdirection. If you want a system that "levels the playing field" you have to have NFL style wage caps, and/or hard net spend limits for each league per season.

[angieram]

38 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

The only thing FFP is really trying to do is preventing clubs from spending what they don't have so they don't go bust. It does nothing to level the playing field.

• Clubs that earn more revenue can spend more, there is no limit on spending if you can afford it.
• Clubs that spend what they don't have, but then achieve a competition win/promotion that means they CAN now afford it, when broken down over the FFP period, are not punished.
• Clubs, in the Championship, that have been relegated from the PL get parachute payments over 3 years that counts as revenue for the purposes of FFP - meaning they have a huge financial advantage over clubs attempting to stay withing the FFP limits.
  

 

The name "Financial Fair Play" is a complete misdirection. If you want a system that "levels the playing field" you have to have NFL style wage caps, and/or hard net spend limits for each league per season.

That graphic is really telling.

So 5 clubs last season started with way more than our TOTAL revenue stream for the year before even a penny piece of their own revenue was added. Of those remaining, two who busted back up out of the Championship in their last season of parachute payments (so it still took them three years!) look like coming straight back down again and will start next season a further 42 million pounds better off than us; another - QPR - are already in FFP trouble.

Yet there are still threads all over this Forum demanding that the club spend enough to compete at the top of the league. 

Under these circumstances I think anything legal the club can do to try to make us competitive in the middle of this quagmire of regulation, then good luck to them. I like the explanations at last week's Forum that we are learning from past lessons and trying to take a balanced approach but we need to set ourselves back on an even kilter in order to do it - it looks like the transfer of ownership of Pride Park is how we are achieving this. 

I also just wanted to let you all know that Mel hasn't run off with the family silver yet as I saw him at Pride Park this morning and he waved to me and my hubby!

[cannable]

10 hours ago, curb said:

We tried to buy our way out of the league and failed, doesn't mean it was wrong to try, not many people were criticising him when we were splashing the cash.

Fans a lay people though. Mel Morris gave a first-time manager, whose entire coaching experience was either at youth level or at top clubs, a war-chest of £25,000,000 to spend at Championship level. 

Signing Bradley Johnson, because he became available, for a club record fee was absolutely shambolic. 

[AdamRam]

30 minutes ago, angieram said:

also just wanted to let you all know that Mel hasn't run off with the family silver yet as I saw him at Pride Park this morning and he waved to me and my hubby!

Moving in day ? 

[bigbadbob]

On 02/04/2019 at 15:04, KCG said:

I'm not going to join in the pointless speculation.

FFP does seem to be a bit of a mess though.

Are you an accountant? Are you an expert on ffp?

[Inglorius]

10 hours ago, David said:

Its a great defence to have, I didn't ask for it, but guess what, not one of us asked for any of this, that doesn't mean we wasn't grateful at the time and that's the point I was making that yes it's ok to be critical, just remember how you felt at the time. 

As you wasn't on the forum at the time, we can only rely on your honesty when I ask were you happy with the signings, if not which and why?

I can tell you from being here at the time, many on this forum were happy, many were embracing the memes of Sam Rush always getting his man and laughing off other clubs as being bitter as we spent pound after pound. 

I don't think many on here are criticising the plan, it's the execution of said plan that quite rightly is coming under justified scrutiny for the club being in the financial mess that it is at the moment 

[Inglorius]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

Signing Bradley Johnson, because he became available, for a club record fee was absolutely shambolic. 

He was only available at the right price which was Norwich's inflated valuation of him which we were daft enough to match 

[cannable]

42 minutes ago, Inglorius said:

He was only available at the right price which was Norwich's inflated valuation of him which we were daft enough to match 

We literally discovered his availability at 9pm the night before and he’d signed by 6pm the following day.

[SaintRam]

13 minutes ago, cannable said:

We literally discovered his availability at 9pm the night before and he’d signed by 6pm the following day.

Hindsights 20/20 though. He won player of the year in a team that got promoted after having a dominant second half of the season. Pretty much everyone, although many may claim differently, were absolutely creaming themselves when we signed him - even knowing the fee. 

I don't think the logic regarding signing him is that mental. What's mental is the manager signed him with the apparent intention of using him in a completely different role. That's ducking mental. And not something the folks on the business side can really account for.

As the defensive midfielder we turned him into, he was definitely never worth £8m. Not even close. But he's at least got something about him this season in a set-up that suits him a little better. Half a season of good performances out of his entire contract is a travesty for the money, I do grant you, but every signing is a gamble and he seemed a pretty safe bet when he was made available.

[ram1964]

On 02/04/2019 at 13:02, Kinder said:

Turns out we’ve sold Pride Park to another company owned by Mel.  Sorry, not actually that exciting!!

Did he get a good deal?

[rynny]

1 hour ago, SaintRam said:

Hindsights 20/20 though. He won player of the year in a team that got promoted after having a dominant second half of the season. Pretty much everyone, although many may claim differently, were absolutely creaming themselves when we signed him - even knowing the fee. 

I don't think the logic regarding signing him is that mental. What's mental is the manager signed him with the apparent intention of using him in a completely different role. That's ducking mental. And not something the folks on the business side can really account for.

As the defensive midfielder we turned him into, he was definitely never worth £8m. Not even close. But he's at least got something about him this season in a set-up that suits him a little better. Half a season of good performances out of his entire contract is a travesty for the money, I do grant you, but every signing is a gamble and he seemed a pretty safe bet when he was made available.

Think you are a little harsh on him there. When he first signed he was playing very well, then under Wassall he had some very good performances (Hull 4-0 stands out) then when Mac came back he was outstanding at DM. He has certainly had more than half a season of good performances, and that is someone who isn't really a fan of him. 

[R@M]

6 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

No offence intended, my friend, but seeing as you are keen to help, (for which I am very much appreciative), can you explain why your "ignore" concentrates solely on a deliberate act, whereas my "Ignore" can be unintentional?...

ignore (v.) 1610s, "not to know, to be ignorant of," from French ignorer "be unaware of" (14c.), or directly from Latin ignorare "not to know, be unacquainted; take no notice of, disregard" (see ignorant).

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-origin-of-the-word-ignorant-rooted-in-the-word-ignore

 

It appears my "Ignore" is extremely similar to your "Ignorance"?

 

I'm actually not too fussed of course, but if you're willing to continue the lesson, I'm all ears.  Despite appearances, I'm actually quite a keen learner.  ("Never too old, an' all that!)

Don't worry about the public stage on my account... it won't be the first time I've been made a fool of on T'Internet... nor the last, I suspect!  

Similar, but the origin of the word, as described in your link, is not the definition. To ignore is an act of deliberate omission. Ignorance is the position of not being aware. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

40 minutes ago, rynny said:

Think you are a little harsh on him there. When he first signed he was playing very well, then under Wassall he had some very good performances (Hull 4-0 stands out) then when Mac came back he was outstanding at DM. He has certainly had more than half a season of good performances, and that is someone who isn't really a fan of him. 

You're right Rynny that it's unfair to lambast Johnners for the situation in which he found himself. 

 

He's been ok. But he's basically the walking embodiment of completely ill-thought tactics at the expense of a coherent strategy. Not his fault because he didn't make the decisions but we are where we are. 

Compare to George Thorne.  Arguably we'll lose as much on George but there has never been the same criticism around Georges signing.

Bradley is a victim of a poorly thought through decision by derby management. 

[cannable]

2 hours ago, SaintRam said:

Hindsights 20/20 though. He won player of the year in a team that got promoted after having a dominant second half of the season. Pretty much everyone, although many may claim differently, were absolutely creaming themselves when we signed him - even knowing the fee. 

I don't think the logic regarding signing him is that mental. What's mental is the manager signed him with the apparent intention of using him in a completely different role. That's ducking mental. And not something the folks on the business side can really account for.

But signing players shouldn’t have anything to do with hindsight… it was blatantly obvious what we were signing. 

These are extracts from his farewell article on a now defunct Norwich fan site; 

“Even those who never rated Johnson particularly highly – and that’s me included – felt the Norwich world lurch a little. There aren’t many players over the last decade who have divided opinion quite like Johnson at Carrow Road. Earnest, wholehearted Ipswich-slayer or technically-stunted, sloppy, pass-fumbler? Truth is, he was both, and that's why he garnered so much affection. His mistakes made him more human, and last season made him a hero. It was an intoxicating mix – heroes with a dash of human frailty are always the ones you really root for.

The evidence was that in a midfield full of ball-players and deft touches, Johnson was a pug among greyhounds.”

It was abundantly clear he wasn’t going to fit. I wasn’t exaggerating, we literally discovered his availability at 9pm the night before we signed him. Why weren’t the questions asked of Clement; ‘Do you know where he’s going to fit? Have you thought this through? Are you absolutely desperate because we don’t have time to negotiate the deal?’

[WystonRam]

6 hours ago, HantsRam said:

You're right Rynny that it's unfair to lambast Johnners for the situation in which he found himself. 

 

He's been ok. But he's basically the walking embodiment of completely ill-thought tactics at the expense of a coherent strategy. Not his fault because he didn't make the decisions but we are where we are. 

Compare to George Thorne.  Arguably we'll lose as much on George but there has never been the same criticism around Georges signing.

Bradley is a victim of a poorly thought through decision by derby management. 

Difference is George Thorne was a very good buy at £2.5m v £8m (?) and has suffered injuries that were not his fault. I don’t see how we will lose as much on him as we will on Johnson.