Retained List

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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

Surely you'd only get a £0 valuation if you were dead and could no longer play!

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Surely you'd only get a £0 valuation if you were dead and could no longer play!

Or had entered the final year of your contract, hadn't been playing regular football and were on such a high wage that you were of no interest to other teams. Unfortunately that sounds very familiar for a few of our players.

[AdamRam]

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

Is that fact (bold) ? I have looked, albeit I’m sure I could have missed it, and there doesn’t appear to be anything saying you have to take these into consideration ?

You do mention you are guessing, however I also presume you have some source from this. Genuine question as I did spend time looking and found nothing around anything you mention, however note that I’m far from an expert in these matters.

[erathirea]

Interesting aside- if these players are now on "vastly reduced sums", then other clubs may be more willing to purchase them (even if it's on a free) or cover a larger portion of wages.

 

Take Butterfield. I have no idea what he was on 2 years ago. Let's say it was £20k. With 3 months left of this season, he's offered a contract extension which requires him to be paid, let's say, £7k, for 15 months. Makes sense for him, as rather than get £260k for 3 months, he get's just under £500k for 15 months. Yes, it's a lower wage, but it's more money. Now, lets say a team like Wigan thinks he could do a job for them, but only at ~£5k a week.

At £20k a week, he was never going to be sold to them and take a £15k pay cut.

A loan would have also cost us a lot more money.

If he get's loaned to them, and they pay £5k a week, we pay £2k a week for the last year of his contract. Not great, but a lot less than what we would have spent.

Other option is they say "we'll have him for free, and offer him £5k a week for 3 seasons. He might think that's a better option than rotting in reserves for another season and then maybe only being offered £3k a week in League 1.

 

Either way, everybody wins.

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Or had entered the final year of your contract, hadn't been playing regular football and were on such a high wage that you were of no interest to other teams. Unfortunately that sounds very familiar for a few of our players.

But it's book value - who is to say what price you'd get unless you actually sold?!

[FindernRam]

Every time I think I'm getting a grip on FFP something tells me I'm not.

Can someone explain in simple terms apart from wages and buying/selling prices how a player under contract affects FFP?

Is a player under contract classed as an asset? How do you value him? Bought at £10m 3 year contract, 1 year left, therefore current value £3m, linear write down? Wages £1m so net value £2m to club.

This puts asset value higher but net revenue stays same.

If we dump, asset value is reduced, costs are reduced so net income rises, isn't that why we sold PP?

We sold ground so reduced asset value for increased revenue. 

Makes no sense to me. No wonder accountants are rich!

 

[SaintRam]

38 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Every time I think I'm getting a grip on FFP something tells me I'm not.

Can someone explain in simple terms apart from wages and buying/selling prices how a player under contract affects FFP?

Is a player under contract classed as an asset? How do you value him? Bought at £10m 3 year contract, 1 year left, therefore current value £3m, linear write down? Wages £1m so net value £2m to club.

This puts asset value higher but net revenue stays same.

If we dump, asset value is reduced, costs are reduced so net income rises, isn't that why we sold PP?

We sold ground so reduced asset value for increased revenue. 

Makes no sense to me. No wonder accountants are rich!

 

I could be wrong but here's my take:

FFP seems to factor in valuations of assets, so that simply selling an asset at that valuation doesn't benefit a club for the purposes of FFP. I don't fully understand the why of it, but a number of people have discussed it at length and that seems to be how it works. 
So the value of a player isn't the same as their initial cost / contract length. I've never seen any actual insight into how that valuation is determined (but I'm hoping that if you manage to agree a far reduced contract with a player their value is also lowered), but that value is recorded as a loss if the player is released. 
So, if the player earns £1m a year in wages but is on the books as a £4m asset, it makes more sense (in regards to FFP and literally nothing else) to give them a one year extension over releasing them, because that year you'll only record -£1m rather than -£4m. And even over the 3 year FFP evaluation period, you're still better off (by £1m) to give that player 3 years rather than release them. It's properly insane.

We sold PP because the independent valuation was higher than the value it was listed as an asset, so the difference was recorded as profit. If we'd sold it for the same value it was on the books, it would have done nothing for us.

[Wolfie]

This is what springs to mind when I try and make sense of FFP & accounting....

[DarkFruitsRam7]

On 03/06/2019 at 20:02, G STAR RAM said:

When playing staff decisions are being made based on financial issues rather than footballing issues you really have to question how the club is being run.

Obviously there will be some who think this is another MM masterstroke but in my eyes this is completely ridiculous.

 

On 03/06/2019 at 20:08, Mafiabob said:

Exactly

We've done it because of mistakes made in 2015/16. We're still suffering from them but I'd like to think that we've learned our lesson.

[Carnero]

1 hour ago, SaintRam said:

I could be wrong but here's my take:

FFP seems to factor in valuations of assets, so that simply selling an asset at that valuation doesn't benefit a club for the purposes of FFP. I don't fully understand the why of it, but a number of people have discussed it at length and that seems to be how it works. 
So the value of a player isn't the same as their initial cost / contract length. I've never seen any actual insight into how that valuation is determined (but I'm hoping that if you manage to agree a far reduced contract with a player their value is also lowered), but that value is recorded as a loss if the player is released. 
So, if the player earns £1m a year in wages but is on the books as a £4m asset, it makes more sense (in regards to FFP and literally nothing else) to give them a one year extension over releasing them, because that year you'll only record -£1m rather than -£4m. And even over the 3 year FFP evaluation period, you're still better off (by £1m) to give that player 3 years rather than release them. It's properly insane.

We sold PP because the independent valuation was higher than the value it was listed as an asset, so the difference was recorded as profit. If we'd sold it for the same value it was on the books, it would have done nothing for us.

Yes that's pretty much it, though the writing down of the asset has to hit the P&L eventually, unless we plan on giving life long contracts to players!

The extending of contracts will only assist in moving the loss to a year when there's enough spare loss available to meet the FFP rules... mad.

Just get promoted and we can write them all down to to their real value of £0 in one fell swoop.

[irobinson]

6 hours ago, erathirea said:

Interesting aside- if these players are now on "vastly reduced sums", then other clubs may be more willing to purchase them (even if it's on a free) or cover a larger portion of wages.

 

Take Butterfield. I have no idea what he was on 2 years ago. Let's say it was £20k. With 3 months left of this season, he's offered a contract extension which requires him to be paid, let's say, £7k, for 15 months. Makes sense for him, as rather than get £260k for 3 months, he get's just under £500k for 15 months. Yes, it's a lower wage, but it's more money. Now, lets say a team like Wigan thinks he could do a job for them, but only at ~£5k a week.

At £20k a week, he was never going to be sold to them and take a £15k pay cut.

A loan would have also cost us a lot more money.

If he get's loaned to them, and they pay £5k a week, we pay £2k a week for the last year of his contract. Not great, but a lot less than what we would have spent.

Other option is they say "we'll have him for free, and offer him £5k a week for 3 seasons. He might think that's a better option than rotting in reserves for another season and then maybe only being offered £3k a week in League 1.

 

Either way, everybody wins.

Except Wigan lol

[jono]

Can I just say at this point I’ll happily accept a new contract. If someone could manage the 6 years to see me through to my pension I’d settle for mouldering in the reserves for 3k a week, just don’t expect me on time for training every day, I mean fair play and all that. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 hours ago, AdamRam said:

Is that fact (bold) ? I have looked, albeit I’m sure I could have missed it, and there doesn’t appear to be anything saying you have to take these into consideration ?

You do mention you are guessing, however I also presume you have some source from this. Genuine question as I did spend time looking and found nothing around anything you mention, however note that I’m far from an expert in these matters.

No its not fact but I can't think of any other basis for valuing players. It's very subjective hence why DCFC have chosen to use this method in my opinion.

6 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

But it's book value - who is to say what price you'd get unless you actually sold?!

In which case no player would ever lose any value and would remain on the books what was paid for them. That would lead to massive FFP problems. 

5 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We've done it because of mistakes made in 2015/16. We're still suffering from them but I'd like to think that we've learned our lesson.

Learning our lesson now maybe but wasn't a new contract handed out to Chris Martin after 2015/16?

[DarkFruitsRam7]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Learning our lesson now maybe but wasn't a new contract handed out to Chris Martin after 2015/16?

Learning them slowly I might add!

[Sparkle]

All those surprisingly retained will be gone by August- this is all purely about Derby county’s financial year and FFP 

[Warren Hobhead]

On 03/06/2019 at 21:08, Mick Harford said:

You mean Wasserman Media Group client Paul Clement? Who went to ex Wasserman Media Group employee Sam Rush, to get permission to buy a lot of Wasserman Media Group clients such as Johnson, Butterfield, Camera, Bent and Ollson, for big fees on large contracts?

Johnson had just won promotion to the Prem and been their star player. Butterfield was player of the year at Huddersfield and was seen statistically speaking as a top Championship midfielder. 

We’d lost Hughes and Bryson. 

I don’t believe it was some dodgy fraudulent decision to recruit Brad and Butters. But of course, them being on Wassermann’s books will have helped. 

Bent was here pre-Clement. 

Forsyth was crocked, we needed a left back, Olsson was highly rated. 

No idea why Camara was signed. 

 

 In terms of the topic of the thread, I find it utterly bizarre that we have retained players to offset financial issues who we will not be picking to play for us. Also, and forgive me if already mentioned, but why would these players agree to such deals? I won’t post my thoughts on that, but yeah. 

[Woodley Ram]

8 hours ago, SaintRam said:

I could be wrong but here's my take:

FFP seems to factor in valuations of assets, so that simply selling an asset at that valuation doesn't benefit a club for the purposes of FFP. I don't fully understand the why of it, but a number of people have discussed it at length and that seems to be how it works. 
So the value of a player isn't the same as their initial cost / contract length. I've never seen any actual insight into how that valuation is determined (but I'm hoping that if you manage to agree a far reduced contract with a player their value is also lowered), but that value is recorded as a loss if the player is released. 
So, if the player earns £1m a year in wages but is on the books as a £4m asset, it makes more sense (in regards to FFP and literally nothing else) to give them a one year extension over releasing them, because that year you'll only record -£1m rather than -£4m. And even over the 3 year FFP evaluation period, you're still better off (by £1m) to give that player 3 years rather than release them. It's properly insane.

We sold PP because the independent valuation was higher than the value it was listed as an asset, so the difference was recorded as profit. If we'd sold it for the same value it was on the books, it would have done nothing for us.

So Middlesbrough ‘s Gibson is probably not happy with the contract extensions to the 3 players rather than selling PP? Maybe that’s what he considers as not taking the rules seriously.

for me I would love to know the lawyer that came up with this to see if can do anything with the £5.50 I have saved 

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, Warren Hobhead said:

Also, and forgive me if already mentioned, but why would these players agree to such deals? I won’t post my thoughts on that, but yeah. 

Please do

[Warren Hobhead]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Please do

No. 

I just find a lot that we do under this regime is stuff that we as fans would criticise if others were doing it. 

I’m probably boring but I want my club to operate soundly and efficiently. Instead, for the last four years we’ve had some mental poo or bust approach and more about turns than a Hollywood thriller. Look at the managerial appointments. We go from one style of Gaffer/football to the opposite with each change. It’s barmy. 

Selling the stadium, offering unwanted players extensions, building a team based on a core group of loanees... I don’t agree with it. 

Results suggest our youth teams are doing well. I’d love to see us give more of these players a chance and accept a genuine transition season. There was this idea last summer that we were about to enter a transitional season. Yet we hired a big name manager, on big money, brought his mate in from Chelsea, then still recruited some expensive players and failed to move out plenty of high cost players who the latest new man deemed surplus. 

I hope there’s a master plan I don’t know about and we are genuinely trying to move back to a more sustainable Derby County, like the Clough years.

[Archied]

9 minutes ago, Warren Hobhead said:

No. 

I just find a lot that we do under this regime is stuff that we as fans would criticise if others were doing it. 

I’m probably boring but I want my club to operate soundly and efficiently. Instead, for the last four years we’ve had some mental poo or bust approach and more about turns than a Hollywood thriller. Look at the managerial appointments. We go from one style of Gaffer/football to the opposite with each change. It’s barmy. 

Selling the stadium, offering unwanted players extensions, building a team based on a core group of loanees... I don’t agree with it. 

Results suggest our youth teams are doing well. I’d love to see us give more of these players a chance and accept a genuine transition season. There was this idea last summer that we were about to enter a transitional season. Yet we hired a big name manager, on big money, brought his mate in from Chelsea, then still recruited some expensive players and failed to move out plenty of high cost players who the latest new man deemed surplus. 

I hope there’s a master plan I don’t know about and we are genuinely trying to move back to a more sustainable Derby County, like the Clough years.

Trouble is the clough years were not sustainable, the owners were losing money and wanted out whilst crowds were dwindling