Derby Fail to Pay Players On Time (Again)

[Tyler Durden]

4 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

We can talk about 'if's, but's and maybe's' all day but my contention was quite simply that the fact that unfair dismissal was upheld is not in itself an absolute vindication of Rush, nor of his conduct. I've provided ample reasoning for this stance in the post you've quoted.  My point was that by failing to adhere to any of the correct disciplinary procedures, even refusing to provide reasons for Rush's dismissal, the club themselves (rather than the weight of evidence) ended any chance they had of winning the tribunal. 

To be honest, the mechanics of the process are of little interest to me given I know from experience that good employers lose cases to horrible employees every day and that great employees are shafted by shitty employers every day. It's only the final outcome that is ever truly binary.

To be fair that the first time I've seen the transcript of ET judgement so was of interest to me as employment law is something that I've always been a keen student of.

Appreciate your comments and have resisted the urge to probe further into the ETs findings as I don't want to go off tangent and turn this thread into a Sam Rush/employment law discussion.

I agree with your comments regards it doesn't necessarily follow that if a case has been thrown out on technicalities or the employer not following protocols then this doesn't automatically mean the claimant is innocent of said charges, in Sam Rush' case I guess we will never know.

[Carl Sagan]

At this point the players have apparently only received 50% of their December salaries.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12187058/Derby-unable-to-pay-first-team-in-full-amid-doubts-over-club-takeover

The claim is that there is a legally binding agreement for the takeover to proceed, but we've run out of cash unless that happens. Stephen Pearce has apologized to the players.

[oldtimeram]

Bloody disgrace

[Premier ram]

Why at this club does everything take twice as long to complete than anywhere else , transfesr , investigations , takeovers they all seem to drag on

[dcfcreece1601]

3 minutes ago, Premier ram said:

Why at this club does everything take twice as long to complete than anywhere else , transfesr , investigations , takeovers they all seem to drag on

I thought that,  a few times in the last few years we have supposedly spent months doing a deal to sign certain players , didn't jozwiak take months and months? Never known nothing like it 

[roboto]

6 minutes ago, Premier ram said:

Why at this club does everything take twice as long to complete than anywhere else , transfesr , investigations , takeovers they all seem to drag on

As has just been mentioned in another thread. Man City took 7 months (before the influx of owners who need to go through FFP vetting) and Burnley's recent takeover was 8 months in total. We found out about this takeover in October which was only 4 months ago and the longest time period we know of is that MM first spoke with BZG/BZI in May last year, which will take us to about the 8 month mark now.

Neither of these are twice as long as other takeovers of note.

I understand it's frustrating though. We now live in a time where people are demanding immediacy.

[RoyMac5]

45 minutes ago, roboto said:

Neither of these are twice as long as other takeovers of note.

I understand it's frustrating though. We now live in a time where people are demanding immediacy.

It's not just the length of time, it's the uncertainty over the 'financial standing' of the potential new owners. We'd all be a bit more relaxed about 'Man City type' owners. This lot look more like Venky's type!

[Carl Sagan]

On the subject of paying the players, Stephen Pearce said today on Talk Sport that the academy players have been paid, and the DCFC regular staff. The senior playing staff and coaches are the ones who have not been paid. 

[Grumpy Git]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

On the subject of paying the players, Stephen Pearce said today on Talk Sport that the academy players have been paid, and the DCFC regular staff. The senior playing staff and coaches are the ones who have not been paid. 

Why do I have a mental image of Cocu sat in a big La-Z-Boy smoking a fat cigar?

[RoyMac5]

Dorsett on SSN saying Mel has taken out a new loan to ensure players paid.

[Cisse]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Dorsett on SSN saying Mel has taken out a new loan to ensure players paid.

I guess I better visit club shop then.

[Uptherams]

Does anyone look at our squad and scratch their head trying to figure out how our wage bill is so high? 

There genuinely must be a handful of players on ridiculous contracts. 

Holmes and Te Weirek going. Add Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott in too. £5-6m? 

I don't think we should replace all high earners with younger players. But if an older player can barely get in the side or barely does anything then just get rid. I like Waghorn, but there will be a player out there that can offer us more than Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott combined, earn a third of the wages and cost us a fraction in transfer fees. This lot cost us a combined £17m in transfer fees alone. 

I like Curtis Davies. I want him to stick around. Let's offer him a player coach role. He earns a coaches wage. If he is required on the bench or to play, give him a bonus per game. 

We've got to end this nonesense once and for all. Our academy appears to be churning out talent at a high rate. We don't need so many experienced do nothing first team players. 

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Does anyone look at our squad and scratch their head trying to figure out how our wage bill is so high? 

There genuinely must be a handful of players on ridiculous contracts. 

Holmes and Te Weirek going. Add Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott in too. £5-6m? 

I don't think we should replace all high earners with younger players. But if an older player can barely get in the side or barely does anything then just get rid. I like Waghorn, but there will be a player out there that can offer us more than Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott combined, earn a third of the wages and cost us a fraction in transfer fees. This lot cost us a combined £17m in transfer fees alone. 

I like Curtis Davies. I want him to stick around. Let's offer him a player coach role. He earns a coaches wage. If he is required on the bench or to play, give him a bonus per game. 

We've got to end this nonesense once and for all. Our academy appears to be churning out talent at a high rate. We don't need so many experienced do nothing first team players. 

The last time we had an official figure for the wages was in the 17/18 accounts when the entire club (playing staff, academy, coaches, office staff, etc) wages, social security and pensions came to £40.5m.

Quick finger in the air calculations would suggest this figure has dropped to around the £25m mark. I don't think that's even top top in the Champiomship!

[Anag Ram]

16 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Does anyone look at our squad and scratch their head trying to figure out how our wage bill is so high? 

There genuinely must be a handful of players on ridiculous contracts. 

Holmes and Te Weirek going. Add Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott in too. £5-6m? 

I don't think we should replace all high earners with younger players. But if an older player can barely get in the side or barely does anything then just get rid. I like Waghorn, but there will be a player out there that can offer us more than Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott combined, earn a third of the wages and cost us a fraction in transfer fees. This lot cost us a combined £17m in transfer fees alone. 

I like Curtis Davies. I want him to stick around. Let's offer him a player coach role. He earns a coaches wage. If he is required on the bench or to play, give him a bonus per game. 

We've got to end this nonesense once and for all. Our academy appears to be churning out talent at a high rate. We don't need so many experienced do nothing first team players. 

I'm not having a go at you but one of the reasons our wage bill is high is the fact we seem to have a back room staff of hundreds! 

Every friend and former player is touted as a potential coach. 

We need Paul McKenna to convince the team they can play, then someone to coach heading, then where to run in the box to make space. 

The rest can put cones out. 

 

[Uptherams]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The last time we had an official figure for the wages was in the 17/18 accounts when the entire club (playing staff, academy, coaches, office staff, etc) wages, social security and pensions came to £40.5m.

Quick finger in the air calculations would suggest this figure has dropped to around the £25m mark. I don't think that's even top top in the Champiomship!

Considering how long it's been since we were in the PL, rightly so. It's understandable that many more clubs should have a higher wage bill as they still have players and staff from when they were in the PL or are still receiving parachute payments. In a typical season our revenue is just shy of £30m. Whilst I think we should be looking at and hopefully will increase revenue and find new sources, our wage bill should be under £20m. I think a club like us, should not be spending more than 66% of revenue on wages. We'd still be making a loss. 

The fact that we are churning out so many academy players highlights how we could and probably should strive to be in the bottom third wage bill for Championship clubs. 

I don't mind if we go on to sell many of these players coming through the system. If they out grow the club they deserve their shot elsewhere. But we've got to start commanding higher fees. Sibley, Bird, Knight and Buchanan should command a fee of £50m combined, minimum. 

Maybe we'll finally be under £20m wage bill come the end of this month. 

[sage]

16 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

Considering how long it's been since we were in the PL, rightly so. It's understandable that many more clubs should have a higher wage bill as they still have players and staff from when they were in the PL or are still receiving parachute payments. In a typical season our revenue is just shy of £30m. Whilst I think we should be looking at and hopefully will increase revenue and find new sources, our wage bill should be under £20m. I think a club like us, should not be spending more than 66% of revenue on wages. We'd still be making a loss. 

The fact that we are churning out so many academy players highlights how we could and probably should strive to be in the bottom third wage bill for Championship clubs. 

I don't mind if we go on to sell many of these players coming through the system. If they out grow the club they deserve their shot elsewhere. But we've got to start commanding higher fees. Sibley, Bird, Knight and Buchanan should command a fee of £50m combined, minimum. 

Maybe we'll finally be under £20m wage bill come the end of this month. 

I think we wouldn't get half that if we tried to sell this window. 

[Uptherams]

8 minutes ago, sage said:

I think we wouldn't get half that if we tried to sell this window. 

And that's the trouble. We should be selling players at the right times. The difference £25m can make to the club is significant. £50m is the kind of money that enables the club to stop getting into these situations. Being able to sell a player every 18 months for £10m should be the difference between us making a loss and breaking even. 

The club need to recruit someone with market leading commercial experience asap. The stadium has no sponsor. England's all time goalscorer is the manager. There's between £5m-£10m per season extra to be made in commercial revenue whilst we are in this league from these two factors. 

[GenBr]

2 hours ago, Uptherams said:

Does anyone look at our squad and scratch their head trying to figure out how our wage bill is so high? 

There genuinely must be a handful of players on ridiculous contracts. 

Holmes and Te Weirek going. Add Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott in too. £5-6m? 

I don't think we should replace all high earners with younger players. But if an older player can barely get in the side or barely does anything then just get rid. I like Waghorn, but there will be a player out there that can offer us more than Waghorn, Lawrence and Marriott combined, earn a third of the wages and cost us a fraction in transfer fees. This lot cost us a combined £17m in transfer fees alone. 

I like Curtis Davies. I want him to stick around. Let's offer him a player coach role. He earns a coaches wage. If he is required on the bench or to play, give him a bonus per game. 

We've got to end this nonesense once and for all. Our academy appears to be churning out talent at a high rate. We don't need so many experienced do nothing first team players. 

We have drastically reduced the wage bill in recent years. The main problem at the moment is that we have lost virtually all of our income overnight. Stephen Pearce said last night that the revenue of the club was virtually zero at the moment. We'd probably still be losing money even in non Covid times, but it probably would have been a lot easier for Mel to cover if we weren't in a global pandemic at the moment

[Nuwtfly]

Am I right in thinking that the players have still not been paid, despite giving Wayne a new contract today?

I'm sure these two are very separate financial entities, but seems a bit out of step to be dishing out a new contract when you haven't paid those already on contracts...

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

4 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Am I right in thinking that the players have still not been paid, despite giving Wayne a new contract today?

I'm sure these two are very separate financial entities, but seems a bit out of step to be dishing out a new contract when you haven't paid those already on contracts...

I was just thinking the same myself. Just the other day somebody posted a reason as to why the season ticket payments may have stopped, on the same kind of lines would it not be illegal in some way to sign a contract with somebody knowing full well you couldn’t pay them? 
 

initial reports stated that WR would be named once the takeover has finally completed. If the takeover isn’t complete then this would surely BZI would have had to rubber stamp this or you’d be back to negotiating table as you’d be saddled with a round of new contracts for manager and back room that you might not want.