Retained List

[GenBr]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

The special Paul Clement value for money award.

No, the accounting practice was changed and the club now values players at the end of each season.

That is a liability to the club, not an asset. Their value should reflect either what we could expect to achieve if we sold them or the benefit we could expect from them if they were playing for us.

Yes but if you have a contract says you are due £2m over the next 12 months, then why would you agree to being paid £2m over 24 months?

Ah - apologies, i misunderstood. In that case yes i agree with you. He would have no reason to sign such an agreement. I assumed his reduced terms would only be for the 12 month extension rather than his current contract. 

[Maestro]

17 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I have found the Elsnik one strange.

He looked good against Liverpool many years ago, and then won us a penalty shoot out when each side had taken about 16 penalties. I honestly thought he would kick on.

He went on loan to Swindon and by all accounts was different class.

I just wonder if his attitude was a bit off.

I spoke to Timi on Twitter about a project I was working on. Really nice lad, really talkative and engaging - this was before their pre-season tour in Spain. When I asked him his thoughts on Frank becoming manager, it was radio silence from him unfortunately; not too sure what to make of it either. I thought for a CM player like Timi who is still learning, having a legendary CM come in would be the absolutely best thing to happen to a young players career...

[Srg]

10 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Ah - apologies, i misunderstood. In that case yes i agree with you. He would have no reason to sign such an agreement. I assumed his reduced terms would only be for the 12 month extension rather than his current contract. 

Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here - but surely the reason to sign such an agreement is we are still paying them more than they feel they would get from teams as a free transfer? Otherwise, they owe us nothing and would walk regardless of our wishes to extend them for FFP reasons. It surely just makes sense from an FFP point of view that us paying them still more than they're worth and better than letting them go - which makes the system ludicrous, but that's another point entirely.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

It's the very first thing I've ever won!  You are now my favourite poster ever.  I'm guessing Sam Rush will present my award to me in a brown paper bag?

Afraid not, due to cost cutting measures you're going to have to settle for Mrs Ince I'm afraid.

2 hours ago, reveldevil said:

You asked what I would value them at, and I'd value them at the maximum amount they would cost us if they stayed. 

I don't understand the link though? What we pay them is going to cost the club, not generate benefits. Apologies if I'm missing your point!

2 hours ago, AdamRam said:

Is the valuation within the recently published accounts as at the end of this season and have they published each player’s valuation so we know that they haven’t reflected a reduced valuation for these individuals?

No, we are always a season behind with the accounts. My comments are based purely on what has been said on here and in DET. So yes it's possible reduced values will be reflected in next accounts but would then call into question why we have handed out new contracts to players who we are supposedly getting rid of.

1 hour ago, GenBr said:

Ah - apologies, i misunderstood. In that case yes i agree with you. He would have no reason to sign such an agreement. I assumed his reduced terms would only be for the 12 month extension rather than his current contract. 

Once again, I'm only speculating, have no idea what they have been offered.

[EnigmaRam]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Shrewd business if your assumption is correct. Not sure why Johnson would accept what you are suggesting though. His agent would need shooting if he's agreed to that.

Just a guess but say he was on £30k a week. We cut it in half to £15k but give an additional year. If we got an offer for him or he found another club we would still have to pay his salary so he wouldn’t be out of pocket. Same goes for butters, Blackman etc. This also will allow us to loan these players out to clubs that can’t afford to pay them £30k. All whilst spreading FFP over additional seasons.

this is just a guess but makes sense to me as nobody is gonna pay them what they are currently on and nobody losers out

[AdamRam]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, we are always a season behind with the accounts. My comments are based purely on what has been said on here and in DET. So yes it's possible reduced values will be reflected in next accounts but would then call into question why we have handed out new contracts to players who we are supposedly getting rid of.

I was referring to why the auditors would sign off the accounts, as this contract extension wouldn’t have been reflected in the previous ones. I’m only guessing, but maybe this way they can write the cost down over two seasons rather than one hit, which would help with FFP.

Once again it appears to be signs of us gambling with the finances of the club, when MM came into the club his intention was not to lose money, unless he has changed his outlook on this, the only way he is going to do that is by a return to the PL and with that increasing his investment into the club, interesting summer ahead.

 

 

[AdamRam]

50 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Just a guess but say he was on £30k a week. We cut it in half to £15k but give an additional year. If we got an offer for him or he found another club we would still have to pay his salary so he wouldn’t be out of pocket. Same goes for butters, Blackman etc. This also will allow us to loan these players out to clubs that can’t afford to pay them £30k. All whilst spreading FFP over additional seasons.

this is just a guess but makes sense to me as nobody is gonna pay them what they are currently on and nobody losers out

If I’m reading that right, Blackman and Butterfield wouldn’t gain an extra penny for the deal, what benefit would it be to them ?

[EnigmaRam]

5 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

If I’m reading that right, Blackman and Butterfield wouldn’t gain an extra penny for the deal, what benefit would it be to them ?

They wouldn’t lose a penny either and like I said it’s just a guess which makes sense. 

[AdamRam]

9 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

They wouldn’t lose a penny either and like I said it’s just a guess which makes sense. 

But they would, they would in effect be working a whole year for free.

They could go sign for a non league club for a year and still earn more so to me it doesn’t make sense.

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

If I’m reading that right, Blackman and Butterfield wouldn’t gain an extra penny for the deal, what benefit would it be to them ?

Don’t players get their contracts paid up if they transfer but don’t request a transfer ? In which case it’s poss they could get more than if just let go as they would have double the time period to find a club ,have their full contract honoured by us whilst getting payed by another club ,wages  and signing on bonus 

[TommyPowell]

17 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

They wouldn’t lose a penny either and like I said it’s just a guess which makes sense. 

if we didnt renew the contract they would get zero this way they get an amount regardless of where they go,that way the club retains their value for FFL purposes genius

[AdamRam]

43 minutes ago, Archied said:

Don’t players get their contracts paid up if they transfer but don’t request a transfer ? In which case it’s poss they could get more than if just let go as they would have double the time period to find a club ,have their full contract honoured by us whilst getting payed by another club ,wages  and signing on bonus 

Possibly, I don’t think it’s the full amount but I wouldn’t argue if someone said it was. Once again though, I still don’t see why a player would play for half the wages over double the period, say the player was going to receive 3m over 12 months, what benefit would it give them, they would now be receiving 3m over 24 months, just doesn’t make sense to me.

I would hazard more of a guess that they would be getting more than the 3m, nowhere near the original terms I guess more still more over a longer period.

 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, TommyPowel said:

if we didnt renew the contract they would get zero this way they get an amount regardless of where they go,that way the club retains their value for FFL purposes genius

How do they retain their value? An asset that is not used and can't be sold on for money has no value.

Beginning to wonder if Gibson has caught wind of this latest paper shuffling and his threat of taking legal action was based on things in addition to the sale of the ground.

[The Key Club King]

As it seems that Blackman and Butterfield will definitely leave, could it be that we have offered them a relatively small fee of say 50k for a year’s contract that gives them the option to leave for free whenever they want and still collect this money? This gives the player a relatively small amount of cash for doing nothing whilst allowing us to shift the FFP losses to the following year on the cheap. 

[NorfolkRam]

On 02/06/2019 at 17:32, B4ev6is said:

For me chris martin can stay thorn can if he can prove his fitness but ashley cole can go unless coaching role only.

I've always been a big fan of Thorne but he's done I'm afraid. Same for Martin. Far too many failures between them in the last 3 years to justify them getting anywhere near the match day 18.

[Ramos]

Probably been covered but here is a video of Mel explaining why the club would give out-of-contract players a new contract in face of FFP instead of releasing them. Guess it explains Blackman/ Butterfield

 

 

[Archied]

7 minutes ago, Ramos said:

Probably been covered but here is a video of Mel explaining why the club would give out-of-contract players a new contract in face of FFP instead of releasing them. Guess it explains Blackman/ Butterfield

 

 

Yep

[KentRam14]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, the accounting practice was changed and the club now values players at the end of each season.

 

Would the end of the season not be the 30th June - which is when most players contracts are made up to? Therefore these players contracts could fall into this accounting period?

Also would the benefit of having signing these players be to boost the asset side of the balance sheet - potentially inflating the retained earnings in the club to make the balance sheet balance?
or
Could it be a way of reducing tax payable by using depreciation as an expense?

Just interested Forgive me if i'm completely talking crap! ? 

[i-Ram]

55 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Beginning to wonder if Gibson has caught wind of this latest paper shuffling and his threat of taking legal action was based on things in addition to the sale of the ground.

I think this unlikely. I would say it’s pretty common for this to happen at most clubs.  It seems clear to me that Butterfield and Blackman still carry quite large residual values in our accounts. By offering them some modest financial incentive, they have signed new contracts with the knowledge on both sides that they will be allowed to leave once this current financial year ends. We will probably pay up their new contracts in part/fully to allow them to leave and join other clubs in July, and we then write their FFP cost off in next years accounts. Not ideal, but it buys some trading headroom and I suspect a lot more teams than Derby are kicking similar ‘cans down the road’.

[PodgeyRam]

Have to say I'm pleased to say Johnson get a new contract. I thought he was superb both before he was dropped by Frank and when he was brought back into the team.

Sure there were times when his ball control let him down, but he did a damn sight better than Huddlestone last season playing that holding role. 

However, I thought with Shinnie coming in Johnson would be going. At the very least one of Huddlestone or Johnson will be leaving this summer I'd imagine. Or maybe both will go. We'll see.