Tribunal Update

[cannable]

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Easy in hindsight isnt it?

What above average players were available for the same money that we were spending that:-

(a) were available

(b) were being recommended on here

Also, I very much doubt MM has much input into who we are signing.

People did call out that spree though and your second point is an unfair expectation. 

You don’t go for Shackell. Keane if you’re still feeling lazy, Tarkowski would have been excellent but even he wouldn’t have been exactly a gem. 

Weimann wasn’t a winger full stop. You’re £2,500,000 up and have a better winger if you just keep Ward. 

We only signed Bradley Johnson because the club (so no plan, no scouting) became aware of his availability under 24 hours before the window shut. 

In Butterfield’s first interview with Radio Derby he says his role is to control the game and play the most passes on the pitch, ie, where Thorne played. 

Blackman and Camara aren’t even worth writing about. Shockers.

Ince was the only expensive signing we got right that season and we had him on loan anyway. 

In 2015, £25,000,000 was still a ridiculous amount to be spending. It’s what you’d spend to prepare for the Prem. We ended up just making ourselves worse. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, cannable said:

People did call out that spree though and your second point is an unfair expectation. 

You don’t go for Shackell. Keane if you’re still feeling lazy, Tarkowski would have been excellent but even he wouldn’t have been exactly a gem. 

Weimann wasn’t a winger full stop. You’re £2,500,000 up and have a better winger if you just keep Ward. 

We only signed Bradley Johnson because the club (so no plan, no scouting) became aware of his availability under 24 hours before the window shut. 

In Butterfield’s first interview with Radio Derby he says his role is to control the game and play the most passes on the pitch, ie, where Thorne played. 

Blackman and Camara aren’t even worth writing about. Shockers.

Ince was the only expensive signing we got right that season and we had him on loan anyway. 

In 2015, £25,000,000 was still a ridiculous amount to be spending. It’s what you’d spend to prepare for the Prem. We ended up just making ourselves worse. 

There was the utter panic aspect when Bryso and Hughes went down v Bolton, but you're right, that spending spree has haunted the club ever since.

[Ghost of Clough]

There are very few sustainable clubs in this league. The likes of Bournemouth and Watford even struggled for sustainability in the Premier League. Half of the Championship May have had a punishment or been investigated in relation to FFP/P&S. The few we know about are: Leeds, Forest, Derby, Wednesday, Birmingham, Reading, Blackburn, Bournemouth.

Here’s a list of the clubs (no particular order) most likely considered to be sustainable: 
1. Millwall - Haven’t posted a profit in the last 5 years. Close to making the playoffs for a couple of seasons. 
2. Wigan - Relatively small losses each year, posting a profit in 16/17. Spent time in L1. 
3. Bristol -  Reliant of sales to make a profit (once in 5 years). Close to making the playoffs for 3 seasons. 
4. Preston - Made a profit once in 5 years. Pushed themselves in 18/19 to make the playoffs after getting close for a few years but still missed out. 
5. Brentford - Reliant on sales, posting a profit just once in the last 5 years. Made the playoffs twice and close a couple other times. 
7. Barnsley - Low losses, posting a profit once. Spent time in L1. 
8. Luton - Made a profit in L1 and most likely in the Championship too. Unlikely to stay in the Championship for long due to their budget.

Only two clubs have posted a profit twice in the last 5 sets of released accounts.

Hull have posted a profit twice, thanks to parachute payments on both occasions. They now see themselves in League 1.
QPR have posted a profit on three occasions, twice due to parachute payments. 

Between all 24 clubs set to be in the Championship next season a profit has only been made on 14 occasions in the last 5 years with 6 of those with the benefit of parachute payments. 

[cannable]

11 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

There was the utter panic aspect when Bryso and Hughes went down v Bolton, but you're right, that spending spree has haunted the club ever since.

We already wanted one of Butterfield or Dale Stephens. We ended up shutting ourselves and just paying Huddersfield what they wanted.

Don’t ostracise Dawkins and there’s another midfield option there. £7,000,000 saved not having to get BJ!

[Sparkle]

13 minutes ago, cannable said:

We already wanted one of Butterfield or Dale Stephens. We ended up shutting ourselves and just paying Huddersfield what they wanted.

Don’t ostracise Dawkins and there’s another midfield option there. £7,000,000 saved not having to get BJ!

We all know those injuries to both Bryson and Hughes cost us a lot more than them and yes we paid over the top hideously for A very average Butterfield and Johnson and to top that up we brought in an old shackle and a useless Camara and Blackman - good grief Blackman never showed anything at any point in his career which was lengthy at that point ( at least Pearson was 50/50 with the ridiculously priced Anya and the decent player in Vydra 

[duncanjwitham]

44 minutes ago, cannable said:

We only signed Bradley Johnson because the club (so no plan, no scouting) became aware of his availability under 24 hours before the window shut. 

In Butterfield’s first interview with Radio Derby he says his role is to control the game and play the most passes on the pitch, ie, where Thorne played. 

It's this stuff that really winds me up about that whole season.  It's not that we paid a lot of money, it's not that we overpaid, it's that we signed them without really knowing what we wanted them for, or how they were going to fit into the team.  If you want to play out from the back, you don't sign Shackell and Johnson.  If you want someone to cover Hughes injury, you don't sign Butterfield.  Blackman had only ever had one good spell in his career, and that was doing exactly what we had (£5m+ worth of) Tom Ince already doing in the team (cutting in from wide right), so why sign him? You can say that about almost every signing we made that season - no thought or planning about what they were being signed for, and almost all varied from poor to disastrous.

Paul Clement supposedly had connections at Real Madrid, Chelsea, PSG and so on.  When Hughes and Bryson went down, we should have gone straight to those clubs and said "Our 2 best creative/attacking midfielders are injured for months - which youth players have you got that can do a job for us? We play good football, and they'll get almost guaranteed first team football for a season".  It's win-win for everyone involved, and it's got to be a better plan than spending £11m+ on 2 guys that couldn't even do what they were signed for.

[Tamworthram]

42 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

There are very few sustainable clubs in this league. The likes of Bournemouth and Watford even struggled for sustainability in the Premier League. Half of the Championship May have had a punishment or been investigated in relation to FFP/P&S. The few we know about are: Leeds, Forest, Derby, Wednesday, Birmingham, Reading, Blackburn, Bournemouth.

Here’s a list of the clubs (no particular order) most likely considered to be sustainable: 
1. Millwall - Haven’t posted a profit in the last 5 years. Close to making the playoffs for a couple of seasons. 
2. Wigan - Relatively small losses each year, posting a profit in 16/17. Spent time in L1. 
3. Bristol -  Reliant of sales to make a profit (once in 5 years). Close to making the playoffs for 3 seasons. 
4. Preston - Made a profit once in 5 years. Pushed themselves in 18/19 to make the playoffs after getting close for a few years but still missed out. 
5. Brentford - Reliant on sales, posting a profit just once in the last 5 years. Made the playoffs twice and close a couple other times. 
7. Barnsley - Low losses, posting a profit once. Spent time in L1. 
8. Luton - Made a profit in L1 and most likely in the Championship too. Unlikely to stay in the Championship for long due to their budget.

Only two clubs have posted a profit twice in the last 5 sets of released accounts.

Hull have posted a profit twice, thanks to parachute payments on both occasions. They now see themselves in League 1.
QPR have posted a profit on three occasions, twice due to parachute payments. 

Between all 24 clubs set to be in the Championship next season a profit has only been made on 14 occasions in the last 5 years with 6 of those with the benefit of parachute payments. 

Depends on what you define as sustainable I guess. Take your first, Millwall for example (I think they made a profit in June 2019 accounts by the way). From what I can see, this decade they have only made a profit twice: £297,000 and £23,000. Over that period the have amassed net losses in excess of £37m (so, sustainable for EFL purposes although some of those years must have been in league 1 where the benchmark is lower).

According to their accounts they have creditors falling due within twelve months of £100m (if my memory serves me correctly) but £93m of that is owed to their parent company. They also don’t seem to own their own ground. Their net liabilities are something like £81m

Only in the crazy world of football finances would such a thing be considered sustainable.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

I've seen that Ryan Conway has retweeted a couple of Athletic articles about SWFC with us mentioned.

Before I sign up for the free trial. Does anyone have the Athletic and wouldn't mind sharing the bit about Derby please?

[cannable]

3 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

I've seen that Ryan Conway has retweeted a couple of Athletic articles about SWFC with us mentioned.

Before I sign up for the free trial. Does anyone have the Athletic and wouldn't mind sharing the bit about Derby please?

I’ve just cancelled The Athletic

It’s not worth it if all you’re gonna read is the stuff about Derby 

It’s basically stuff that’s just been mentioned in this thread - The EFL wanting time charge ourselves and Wednesday at different times to alter the impact of a points deduction 

Our legal teams have been sharing information 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Depends on what you define as sustainable I guess. Take your first, Millwall for example (I think they made a profit in June 2019 accounts by the way). From what I can see, this decade they have only made a profit twice: £297,000 and £23,000. Over that period the have amassed net losses in excess of £37m (so, sustainable for EFL purposes although some of those years must have been in league 1 where the benchmark is lower).

According to their accounts they have creditors falling due within twelve months of £100m (if my memory serves me correctly) but £93m of that is owed to their parent company. They also don’t seem to own their own ground. Their net liabilities are something like £81m

Only in the crazy world of football finances would such a thing be considered sustainable.

I was looking at the group accounts for Millwall here. 18/19 was their best year, but they still lost £702k.

[GenBr]

10 minutes ago, cannable said:

Our legal teams have been sharing information 

We're both using the same lawyer aren't we? Nick de Marco is representing both us and Wednesday, so if that's the kind of info we can expect out of the Athletic i think you were right to cancel your subscription.

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Depends on what you define as sustainable I guess. Take your first, Millwall for example (I think they made a profit in June 2019 accounts by the way). From what I can see, this decade they have only made a profit twice: £297,000 and £23,000. Over that period the have amassed net losses in excess of £37m (so, sustainable for EFL purposes although some of those years must have been in league 1 where the benchmark is lower).

According to their accounts they have creditors falling due within twelve months of £100m (if my memory serves me correctly) but £93m of that is owed to their parent company. They also don’t seem to own their own ground. Their net liabilities are something like £81m

Only in the crazy world of football finances would such a thing be considered sustainable.

We've ended up creating the worst of all worlds in an attempt to keep everyone happy.  We appear not to want a free for all where the richest (largest crowds/wealthiest owners) prosper best nor a highly controlled and regulated system with minimum/maximum wages and controlled spending, aiming at creating some level of sporting and financial equity.  

What we have is a middle ground trying to rein in the wealthy with rules and regulations they try to circumvent, skewed hugely by EPL TV money and parachute payments that artificially create exorbitant wealth through failure, all overseen by an organisation that's out of its depth.  It's a complete shambles.

[Angry Ram]

3 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

You’re never that old Angry!

First went with my old man at 4 years old.. Don’t remember it much though..

[Angry Ram]

3 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

We actually agree on something?

My whole post was a lie.. Normal service resumes. ?

[angieram]

4 hours ago, cannable said:

I’ve just cancelled The Athletic

It’s not worth it if all you’re gonna read is the stuff about Derby 

It’s basically stuff that’s just been mentioned in this thread - The EFL wanting time charge ourselves and Wednesday at different times to alter the impact of a points deduction 

Our legal teams have been sharing information 

Not specifically about this current article but I have enjoyed the Derby County content from The Athletic over the year I have been subscribed and will definitely renew. (If I can get a deal again.)

[cannable]

1 minute ago, angieram said:

Not specifically about this current article but I have enjoyed the Derby County content from The Athletic over the year I have been subscribed and will definitely renew. (If I can get a deal again.)

Not worth a tenner a month though 

[NottsRam77]

6 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

It's this stuff that really winds me up about that whole season.  It's not that we paid a lot of money, it's not that we overpaid, it's that we signed them without really knowing what we wanted them for, or how they were going to fit into the team.  If you want to play out from the back, you don't sign Shackell and Johnson.  If you want someone to cover Hughes injury, you don't sign Butterfield.  Blackman had only ever had one good spell in his career, and that was doing exactly what we had (£5m+ worth of) Tom Ince already doing in the team (cutting in from wide right), so why sign him? You can say that about almost every signing we made that season - no thought or planning about what they were being signed for, and almost all varied from poor to disastrous.

Paul Clement supposedly had connections at Real Madrid, Chelsea, PSG and so on.  When Hughes and Bryson went down, we should have gone straight to those clubs and said "Our 2 best creative/attacking midfielders are injured for months - which youth players have you got that can do a job for us? We play good football, and they'll get almost guaranteed first team football for a season".  It's win-win for everyone involved, and it's got to be a better plan than spending £11m+ on 2 guys that couldn't even do what they were signed for.

One man 

 

Sam rush 

[Mucker1884]

19 hours ago, GenBr said:

We're on rookie numbers atm. We need to start posting more if we want to catch up with Wednesdays 600 pages!

We could just copy and paste, like we do with their songs?

[angieram]

29 minutes ago, cannable said:

Not worth a tenner a month though 

I paid £30 for the year. There are loads of special offers on again at the moment, too.

[RadioactiveWaste]

39 minutes ago, angieram said:

I paid £30 for the year. There are loads of special offers on again at the moment, too.

Someone's got to keep Ryan Conway in polo necks. ?