Soft Transfer Embargo

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Just now, Srg said:

Exact quotes...

"Obviously, I am massively interested in how it goes across to the summer because we want to know what business we can do. We need to do business in the summer because of the players we are losing who are out of contract."

He preceded this, by saying "I have only read and heard reports of a soft transfer embargo."

I hadn't seen the last quote so thanks for that.

We were led to believe at the fans forum that everything was rosey, I will continue to believe that is still the case.

[angieram]

2 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I've no idea why Boro and co are unhappy - they wouldn't complain if we had sold players and made ourselves weaker and players are just as much assests as the ground and the training ground. I suspect that they are either bothered about the amount paid or that we had the ability to do so to get us out of a financial hole.

Because this is where you and I completely agree. I think Mel should have announced it at the last Forum. It's big news. But we now know why they were able to say confidently that we would be within P and S guidelines so early.

And we also agree about financial discipline - and so do Mel and Pearce, which is why Mel referred at the Forum to having made mistakes and why they made a big deal about the cost of those players who hadn't contributed. Any business that spends more than its income on wages alone is not being managed well. Mel has been guilty of supporting a succession of managers and thinking like a fan - laudable in many ways but unsustainable. I suspect that Stephen Pearce has had some behind the scenes influence over time. It's why I hate with a passion the likes of Ramage and his 'go on Mel look down the back of the settee and find the money for a centre half'. We've been making that gamble for several seasons and he is too stupid to realise it.

The good news is that we appear to have a manager who knows and accepts what the situation is, that we have over this season and next the opportunity to move on/not renew the contracts of a number of the high earners that will give us some financial control back, that selling the ground gives us some (not much) financial room to manoeuvre (but we can only do that once) and that we appear to have a couple of younger players coming through who might be able to fill some of the gaps. We (the fans) have also helped by renewing season tickets in greater numbers. 

But. In my view this season (18/19) is not the transitional season on the pitch. It's next season (19/20). If we are able to buy/free transfer/loan well, if we have luck with injuries and form, if the young players match their promise (like Bogle has done) and if we have some luck then we could be OK. But there are a lot of ifs in that sentence and a lot of strong and financially strong clubs to compete with. Should be fun.

 

I agree with all of that apart from the bit about announcing the sale at the Forum.

What could he say? "I've sold the ground to myself in order to meet the P&S requirements". ?

This wasn’t 4 mates down the pub; it was a public Forum televised for a large number of people. 

It would either have sounded like bragging or jumping the gun before EFL approval. I  expect it would have created even more of a furore than it has now!

You are spot on with everything else though and the fact that we can be seen to be putting right the wrongs of previous seasons both on and off the pitch already fills me with hope.

Although it is being talked about separately, the thread about Ajax v Derby is really pertinent here. The model Derby are trying to emulate is just that, as anyone who took a Moor Farm trip will know as the vision is up there for everyone to read. 

[ilkleyram]

12 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

in 2016-2017 it was thought to be 2017-2018 that would be the transitional season.

 

the date of that season gets kicked down the road as much as the Brexit date.......?

The good news is that you can get promoted even in a transitional season - Jim's team did.  We're not out of it for this season yet, and if we go up then the transitional season becomes completely different.

In some ways every year is a transitional season because things change, players and/or managers, but it just feels that 19/20 will be significant - loanees gone, experienced players not renewed/sold, young players allowed to come through, new loanees, smaller squad - and the scale of change much larger than it was at the beginning of 18/19

[ilkleyram]

14 minutes ago, angieram said:

I agree with all of that apart from the bit about announcing the sale at the Forum.

What could he say? "I've sold the ground to myself in order to meet the P&S requirements". ?

This wasn’t 4 mates down the pub; it was a public Forum televised for a large number of people. 

It would either have sounded like bragging or jumping the gun before EFL approval. I  expect it would have created even more of a furore than it has now!

You are spot on with everything else though and the fact that we can be seen to be putting right the wrongs of previous seasons both on and off the pitch already fills me with hope.

Although it is being talked about separately, the thread about Ajax v Derby is really pertinent here. The model Derby are trying to emulate is just that, as anyone who took a Moor Farm trip will know as the vision is up there for everyone to read. 

I really agree with you about the Ajax/Derby model and it looks - from my Rams TV view of the 23s and 18s - that we have some good potential coming through.  We're all experienced enough to know that potential doesn't always turn into reality but that's part of the fun of being a fan.

I understand the point you're making about the Forum and the ground sale, but the news came out so soon afterwards (I think within 24 hours but it may have been slightly longer) that it can't have been waiting for any external approval. And it is/was an important piece of news - 'look guys, we've had real difficulty in meeting P and S because of our wage bill so we've done this because we can't get the wage bill down quickly enough and didn't want to go into embargo.  This is another example of Mel investing heavily in the club'. 

It might have raised some difficult questions in the forum but they're all skilled enough operators to deal with that.  I just think it was an opportunity missed.

[BramcoteRam84]

I think starting to dawn on people (well it is me anyway) the scale of the rebuild required. I have to say I’m shocked by the recent set of results, in particular I’m stunned that our wage bill increased from around £34m in 16/17 to over £40m in 17/18!! Either Rowett wasn’t cutting the cloth accordingly as I thought he was and Huddlestone and Davies are on mega money or the deals we did in 16/17 for Johnson Butterfield et al have big year on year wage increases or a combination of the two.

Either way a wage bill of £40m when we have a turnover of £30m is shocking and needs addressing. Hopefully the likes of Bent Weimann Baird Shackell leaving the club should show in the 18/19 numbers but then that would depend on what we’re paying the likes of Waggy Flo Jo and Marriott.

Austerity beckons but hopefully we can remain competitive. That team in 13/14 cost a fraction of this one and was much better - it just took time for Clough to build it.

[WharfedaleRam]

Never mind asking the EFL to investigate us, surely Mr Gibson should be investigating why Boro, who have been a top 6 side most of the season, are failing to get more than 23,000 people in their ground I.e. about 1 in 3 empty seats. Could it possibly have anything to do with poo football and a poor choice of manager?!

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

And we also agree about financial discipline -  It's why I hate with a passion the likes of Ramage and his 'go on Mel look down the back of the settee and find the money for a centre half'. We've been making that gamble for several seasons and he is too stupid to realise it.

selling the ground gives us some (not much) financial room to manoeuvre...

Seems that selling the ground is effectively "looking down the back of the sofa" isn't it?

 

p.s. Were you at the forum? If so, we should have had a pint ?

[bigbadbob]

11 hours ago, IlsonDerby said:

This winds me up about the whole thing. Mel had it independently valued, he didn’t just pluck a figure out of thin air and pump that into the club. Has Gibson got this problem with all clubs who don’t own their own ground or just those that are A threat to their play off bid? 

He’s paying flint and assombalonga around 100k a week between them and wants to talk about fair. 

De Saart. He’d have developed. 

Would he?

[G STAR RAM]

Maybe Gibson is annoyed that this appears to be a paper transaction with no business rationale?

 

[Spanish]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Maybe Gibson is annoyed that this appears to be a paper transaction with no business rationale?

 

Gibbo will be doing this next year

[ronnieronalde]

This is similar to the i-pro deal in my opinion, the club needed to find an income stream and to increase turnover.

Until the rules change you can't break the rules.

The only reason I disliked the i-pro deal so much was because of the individuals involved and the way the deal was announced.

Mel needs to do whatever he needs to do within the rules. If he can sell the stadium to himself and that get's the club over a difficult period, it's the leagues fault for allowing it to happen.

I like Steve Gibson but think he's clutching at straws and isn't exactly someone shy of throwing the cash around chasing the dream.

[ram59]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Maybe Gibson is annoyed that this appears to be a paper transaction with no business rationale?

 

I wonder what he thinks about Brighton, their owner has another company which paid for the Amex and currently owes £174m, with running costs of over  £6m and who's only income is the £1m it receives in rent from the football club. 

It appears that from these figures that Brighton have paid around £8m towards the £180m building and running costs of the Amex to date. Incidentally, the football also owes the parent company well over £100m. We'd be having a meltdown on here with those kind of figures. 

[Mafiabob]

On 17/04/2019 at 13:02, BramcoteRam84 said:

I think starting to dawn on people (well it is me anyway) the scale of the rebuild required. I have to say I’m shocked by the recent set of results, in particular I’m stunned that our wage bill increased from around £34m in 16/17 to over £40m in 17/18!! Either Rowett wasn’t cutting the cloth accordingly as I thought he was and Huddlestone and Davies are on mega money or the deals we did in 16/17 for Johnson Butterfield et al have big year on year wage increases or a combination of the two.

Either way a wage bill of £40m when we have a turnover of £30m is shocking and needs addressing. Hopefully the likes of Bent Weimann Baird Shackell leaving the club should show in the 18/19 numbers but then that would depend on what we’re paying the likes of Waggy Flo Jo and Marriott.

Austerity beckons but hopefully we can remain competitive. That team in 13/14 cost a fraction of this one and was much better - it just took time for Clough to build it.

And for Mac to fulfil its potential 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

I wonder what he thinks about Brighton, their owner has another company which paid for the Amex and currently owes £174m, with running costs of over  £6m and who's only income is the £1m it receives in rent from the football club. 

It appears that from these figures that Brighton have paid around £8m towards the £180m building and running costs of the Amex to date. Incidentally, the football also owes the parent company well over £100m. We'd be having a meltdown on here with those kind of figures. 

Doesn't sound like Brighton have created a profit through a paper transaction so I don't really see the comparison?