Retained List

[jono]

3 hours ago, EnigmaRam said:

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

I’m p retry sure in contract law the basic remedy for breach or termination is all about loss suffered so if you have 6 months notice but get a job after 3 months then what you will now be getting gets deducted from what is theoretically owed .. there’s some maths going on revolving around players ensuring they don’t lose out in total and the club finding a way to terminate or sell whilst a player is in contract and so getting something to settle what’s owed. I have a feeling it’s like like “sign this new contract and you will get the total sum owed whatever happens but we the club stand to get a leg up covering the cost by “selling” you. And then roll in some FFP jiggery pokery. This is accountants and lawyers doing their thing. I just hope ours are on the ball

[EnigmaRam]

3 hours ago, AdamRam said:

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.

Nobody’s gonna pay them what they are on and if someone did come in for them they would get there contract paid up as Archied said so still get the same money from DCFC. I would imagine there’s an agreement to go somewhere for free/nominal fee if an offer came in but as we’ve seen it’s hard to shift them.

all are league 1 standard so how much can they expect to get as a salary? Probably around a quarter of what they are on

[StantonRam]

hi all

I was trying to start a debate based on the theoretical premise of "what if we just have the players on the list?".  My theoretical team & cover stuck to that game, resulting yes in some odd choices but that's the point of the game, because if we don't like those choices then we'll need some in and some out, the question is where and at what cost?  For example, if we don't fancy Thorne or Hudds in the holding role (both still under contract & being paid as it stands) then who DO we fancy that we can realistically afford or is still here?

BTW Keogh is "Psycho" as in the old Talking Heads song..."Psycho Keogh, ques' que sai, fa fa fa fa fa fa etc"

Why critique something based on the idea of a self restricting premise (and then trying to make the most of the limitations as an exercise) as though it was in fact a completely free choice based on any player from anywhere being available?

LR2

 

[AdamRam]

25 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Nobody’s gonna pay them what they are on and if someone did come in for them they would get there contract paid up as Archied said so still get the same money from DCFC. I would imagine there’s an agreement to go somewhere for free/nominal fee if an offer came in but as we’ve seen it’s hard to shift them.

all are league 1 standard so how much can they expect to get as a salary? Probably around a quarter of what they are on

I get why they would sign an extended contract for reduced terms, however there is no way imo that they would agree an extension that split their wages over 2 years. If they got paid exactly the same from these two years as they would for one year it would make no sense whatsoever.

Think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Mafiabob]

27 minutes ago, LondonRam2 said:

hi all

I was trying to start a debate based on the theoretical premise of "what if we just have the players on the list?".  My theoretical team & cover stuck to that game, resulting yes in some odd choices but that's the point of the game, because if we don't like those choices then we'll need some in and some out, the question is where and at what cost?  For example, if we don't fancy Thorne or Hudds in the holding role (both still under contract & being paid as it stands) then who DO we fancy that we can realistically afford or is still here?

BTW Keogh is "Psycho" as in the old Talking Heads song..."Psycho Keogh, ques' que sai, fa fa fa fa fa fa etc"

Why critique something based on the idea of a self restricting premise (and then trying to make the most of the limitations as an exercise) as though it was in fact a completely free choice based on any player from anywhere being available?

LR2

 

I totally got you, but with some threads, they’ll be times when’s there mocking (I’ve been guilty), hope you don’t get put off posting, your view is just as equal as everyone’s 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

 

42 minutes ago, LondonRam2 said:

hi all

I was trying to start a debate based on the theoretical premise of "what if we just have the players on the list?".  My theoretical team & cover stuck to that game, resulting yes in some odd choices but that's the point of the game, because if we don't like those choices then we'll need some in and some out, the question is where and at what cost?  For example, if we don't fancy Thorne or Hudds in the holding role (both still under contract & being paid as it stands) then who DO we fancy that we can realistically afford or is still here?

BTW Keogh is "Psycho" as in the old Talking Heads song..."Psycho Keogh, ques' que sai, fa fa fa fa fa fa etc"

Why critique something based on the idea of a self restricting premise (and then trying to make the most of the limitations as an exercise) as though it was in fact a completely free choice based on any player from anywhere being available?

LR2

 

Apologies, I miss understood, I thought when you said Phsyco with Davies in brackets, I got it wrong.

So yes, totally agree with the defense.

[Rample]

Not sure if it's on here as only tracked back a few pages but Karic, Rashid, Eyoma and Elsnik released at U23 level.

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, KentRam14 said:

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?
 

Yes, contracts always run up to 30th June. So it appears some which were to expire on 30th June 2019 have been extended to 30th June 2020

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?

No. FFP is based on profitability so no reason to do this. Also the assessment would only represent original cost plus any associated fees. These could not be revalued upwards.
or
Could it be a way of reducing tax payable by using depreciation as an expense?

Tax? ??? Anyone paying tax on £100m of losses would be bankrupt a long time ago! 

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

Don't worry...you're in good company 

 

2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

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’.

On the assumption these players have been released or have played no part in the squad by time the next accounts are signed off, how could the auditors justify anything other than a £0 value?

 

[Rampage]

4 hours ago, LondonRam2 said:

hi all

I was trying to start a debate based on the theoretical premise of "what if we just have the players on the list?".  My theoretical team & cover stuck to that game, resulting yes in some odd choices but that's the point of the game, because if we don't like those choices then we'll need some in and some out, the question is where and at what cost?  For example, if we don't fancy Thorne or Hudds in the holding role (both still under contract & being paid as it stands) then who DO we fancy that we can realistically afford or is still here?

BTW Keogh is "Psycho" as in the old Talking Heads song..."Psycho Keogh, ques' que sai, fa fa fa fa fa fa etc"

Why critique something based on the idea of a self restricting premise (and then trying to make the most of the limitations as an exercise) as though it was in fact a completely free choice based on any player from anywhere being available?

LR2

 

Last paragraph made me feel not that bright for the first time on this forum. I am alone in this? Any attempt to make s critique of your post on a self limiting premise within the context of a possible free choice is purely coincidental LR2 ?

[BodminRam]

Just a thought. could Ashley Cole know more about the FL situation than us, hence waiting to see if he stays, before signing, cant see him staying if the latest Lee Bowyer rumour occurs.

[California Ram.]

So from our retained list - who’s up for sale if we were to get an offer 

Carson ?

wisdom

forsyth (lowe ?)

thorne 

 

anya

butterfield

 

Blackman

martin 

huddlestone ? 

Obviously Gloucester-live will add luke thomas to that list. 

And we’ll have to cope with bogle rumours

Quite a wage bill between them 

 

[Will Hughes Hair]

1 minute ago, singaporeram said:

Obviously Gloucester-live will add luke thomas to that list. 

I'm not sure if it's irony, or something else, but Thomas is one of the few likely to generate a reasonable fee from that list.

[JfR]

24 minutes ago, BodminRam said:

Just a thought. could Ashley Cole know more about the FL situation than us, hence waiting to see if he stays, before signing, cant see him staying if the latest Lee Bowyer rumour occurs.

It's probably a lot simpler than that. If he wants to keep on playing, he probably wouldn't get a whole lot of game time here. He was second choice when he only Malone to compete with, now we've got Forsyth back from injury, Lowe back from Aberdeen, and Shinnie signing on as well he probably won't get as much time as he would like, and would probably be better off looking elsewhere. Alternatively, he may have just decided to retire from playing now, which was what he said he was likely to do when he first came. 

[TommyPowell]

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

i am no expert but surely an asset true value is only realised when the asset is sold so if it isnt sold it remains at the book value

[Spanish]

2 hours ago, TommyPowel said:

i am no expert but surely an asset true value is only realised when the asset is sold so if it isnt sold it remains at the book value

If the player’ s contract expires then he becomes a free agent and his old club will receive nothing

[StantonRam]

hi all

Thanks for the messages of support, and I'm happy to clarify if I wasn't clear about my intentions.

The fact is that unless or until something changes then what we have is the retained list.  If we offload people before their contracts end that's expensive.  If we just leave someone on the bench that's a bit of a waste if they're experienced &/or have done well before.  We can wish for all kinds of things, but for the moment FL has to work with the personnel on the list, and the new season is only 2 months away due to our late finish.

That makes my game worth playing I think.  There won't be wholesale changes, where would we get the money to do that under FFP?  Therefore, we have to look to what we have.  I was just pointing out that what we have is not as bad as some people think.  Familiarity does perhaps breed contempt to some degree.  At the time we all clamoured for Wisdom to be signed, and he was.  We all said that Waghorn would be a good addition, and in he came.  We all welcomed the return of Huddlestone and the return to fitness of Thorne, albeit out on loan.  We all wondered why Martin was sent out on loan, and now he's back.

My central point is that these are, at this level, still good players, and a good manager should be able to pick a team that's competitive at this level based on what we have.  All I did was to select a team based on facts rather than a kind of fantasy team where people suggest a team consisting of players such as "new CH", "new LB" etc, or suggesting people that we can't afford.

I did omit Shinnie, simply because I don't know anything about which position he would occupy, but since he's been signed then by all means use him when playing the game.  It's also reasonable to assume that by August everyone will be fit I think.

We seem to be oversupplied in some positions and undersupplied in others.  We have 3 recognised LB for one position, but only 3 central defenders including Evans for 2 positions.  If Shinnie is a holding midfielder then that's 4 people (Thorne, Hudds, Brad & Shinnie) for one or two positions.  And so it goes on.  Unless the ins and outs address these imbalances or improve things then why spend the money?

Maybe this season will be a case of people competing for certain roles (e.g. Martin v Waghorn) and may the best man win, or the one in the best form at the time anyway.  That presupposes that everyone is hungry to grab a place of course.

In most professions, as a manager you have to deploy the resources you have to best effect.  This applies everywhere, and no amount of wishing you had someone or something else will change it.  This time maybe we'll see what FL can do without recourse to PL standard loan players.

LR2

 

[VulcanRam]

10 minutes ago, LondonRam2 said:

hi all

Thanks for the messages of support, and I'm happy to clarify if I wasn't clear about my intentions.

The fact is that unless or until something changes then what we have is the retained list.  If we offload people before their contracts end that's expensive.  If we just leave someone on the bench that's a bit of a waste if they're experienced &/or have done well before.  We can wish for all kinds of things, but for the moment FL has to work with the personnel on the list, and the new season is only 2 months away due to our late finish.

That makes my game worth playing I think.  There won't be wholesale changes, where would we get the money to do that under FFP?  Therefore, we have to look to what we have.  I was just pointing out that what we have is not as bad as some people think.  Familiarity does perhaps breed contempt to some degree.  At the time we all clamoured for Wisdom to be signed, and he was.  We all said that Waghorn would be a good addition, and in he came.  We all welcomed the return of Huddlestone and the return to fitness of Thorne, albeit out on loan.  We all wondered why Martin was sent out on loan, and now he's back.

My central point is that these are, at this level, still good players, and a good manager should be able to pick a team that's competitive at this level based on what we have.  All I did was to select a team based on facts rather than a kind of fantasy team where people suggest a team consisting of players such as "new CH", "new LB" etc, or suggesting people that we can't afford.

I did omit Shinnie, simply because I don't know anything about which position he would occupy, but since he's been signed then by all means use him when playing the game.  It's also reasonable to assume that by August everyone will be fit I think.

We seem to be oversupplied in some positions and undersupplied in others.  We have 3 recognised LB for one position, but only 3 central defenders including Evans for 2 positions.  If Shinnie is a holding midfielder then that's 4 people (Thorne, Hudds, Brad & Shinnie) for one or two positions.  And so it goes on.  Unless the ins and outs address these imbalances or improve things then why spend the money?

Maybe this season will be a case of people competing for certain roles (e.g. Martin v Waghorn) and may the best man win, or the one in the best form at the time anyway.  That presupposes that everyone is hungry to grab a place of course.

In most professions, as a manager you have to deploy the resources you have to best effect.  This applies everywhere, and no amount of wishing you had someone or something else will change it.  This time maybe we'll see what FL can do without recourse to PL standard loan players.

LR2

 

I understand where you are going with this but it doesn't reflect real life. Using this system would see the squad go backwards as you are replacing quality with far less quality. As the old saying goes, stand still and you go backwards.

Thorne couldn't even get into Luton's team. Martin couldn't get into Hull's team. Huddlestone doesn't fit how FL wants to play. Butterfield and Blackman won't be here in a month but equally have been playing at a level far below what we need.  Wisdom isn't what Frank needs to grow the team because he doesn't attack.

By all means play these players as you suggest, but we will not challenge for promotion, which is the aim.

In real life, clubs in our position need PL loan players to up the quality of the overall squad because we don't have the money to buy it in. That and perhaps get lucky and find a Pukki on the cheap. That's what allows us to challenge.

Hypothetically you might be right. But it doesn't reflect reality if we want to move forward and improve.

[RoyMac5]

41 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

I understand where you are going with this but it doesn't reflect real life. Using this system would see the squad go backwards as you are replacing quality with far less quality. As the old saying goes, stand still and you go backwards.

Thorne couldn't even get into Luton's team. Martin couldn't get into Hull's team. Huddlestone doesn't fit how FL wants to play. Butterfield and Blackman...That and perhaps get lucky and find a Pukki on the cheap. That's what allows us to challenge.

Hypothetically you might be right. But it doesn't reflect reality if we want to move forward and improve.

The point was surely about being able to use the resources there is at Derby, which are of a good standard - 'Roos who' would have been the cry but 4 months ago - to best effect. Did Norwich really sign Pukki by chance?! Thorn couldn't get into a successful team, Martin was just a sub, Hudds is only good enough for Italy. Blackman and Butterfield are now lower league players (like Holmes was)…

Moving forward and improving needs a GOOD manager to make a team - without that we could sign POTY after POTY and they won't do us any good. 

[Ghost of Clough]

12 hours ago, Rample said:

Not sure if it's on here as only tracked back a few pages but Karic, Rashid, Eyoma and Elsnik released at U23 level.

Eyoma was expected due to performances. Rashid wasn’t getting game time. Elsnik was unfortunately expected (he wants first team football?). Karic was slightly unexpected, but with our depth in quality and youth at LB, I’m not surprised. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 hours ago, TommyPowel said:

i am no expert but surely an asset true value is only realised when the asset is sold so if it isnt sold it remains at the book value

Yes but, at the end of each season, the club has ro re-assess the value of each player and either maintain them at their current value or write their value down.

Main factors they would use for this, at a guess, would be age, length of contract, current performance, interest from other clubs, re-sale value in comparison to similar players. 

In the case of our players, that have not been getting in the squad, most factors would point to a £0 valuation.