Has the transfer embargo been lifted?

[Spanish]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

I don't want to sound harsh but why don't the club just terminate the contracts of the 8 youth players who featured against Chorley? From my recollection none of them looked particularly great against the national north side, certainly not to the point I'd want them playing any significant part in our championship campaign this year. Surely, the cost of terminating 8 youth player contracts can't be deemed financially crippling to the club?

there is very little good to say about Mel's tenure but the academy has something to be happy about, now we are to jettison these guys just manufacture a position where we can get some old gits in.

[Tamworthram]

39 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

People on here said it was PAYE and that we can’t have any other problems because we’re loss making. But could a gain on the stadium sale have caused problems with HMRC ? 

I wouldn’t have thought so. Surely it’s just an income received from the sale of an asset that, in our case, helps offset some of the trading losses incurred. Companies don’t pay capital gains tax (as far as I’m aware).

[Malty]

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Really good news this and suggests Pearce meant it when he said the club was building bridges with EFL. Hopefully we are also agreeing the outstanding P&S returns with them so that the accounts can be filed 

Well “news that isn’t bad” I suppose counts as good news these days for us!

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

there is very little good to say about Mel's tenure but the academy has something to be happy about, now we are to jettison these guys just manufacture a position where we can get some old gits in.

The club is in the bind of not being able to sign players atm in part due to this very issue. The cost of relegation is significantly more than the contracts of these 8 youth team players in which the majority (or maybe all of them) will not make a career with us anyway and end up being released in a year or two. It is an extreme measure but with the season only 2 1/2 weeks away we are up against a ticking clock. Unless this issue can be resolved quickly with the EFL I'm not sure what other options the club has. 

[Spanish]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

The club is in the bind of not being able to sign players atm in part due to this very issue. The cost of relegation is significantly more than the contracts of these 8 youth team players in which the majority (or maybe all of them) will not make a career with us anyway and end up being released in a year or two. It is an extreme measure but with the season only 2 1/2 weeks away we are up against a ticking clock. Unless this issue can be resolved quickly with the EFL I'm not sure what other options the club has. 

yep agreed, effing desperate.  The quickest solution is for efl to be sensible

[duncanjwitham]

22 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

Even if the EFL relent on the players that played against Chorely it’s far from a complete solution to the problems.

Of the 8 players we’d be looking to lose from the ‘professional standing’ list there are several that would or could possibly have been close to an involvement this season anyway.

However I doubt very much that the EFL will allow us to claim these players shouldn’t be included within our squad nos and then sit back and allow us to give those players an involvement this season! So players like Bardell, Solomon, Thompson, Aghastise, Williams and Duncan will more than likely be ‘de-registered’ as opposed to have contracts terminated and how does that leave them and how does that leave the first team squad when the inevitable injuries and suspensions hit?

It will still then only free up 4 spots from which we have 7 players looking to sign and so three of them won’t be getting a deal.

I *think* we can still use those players if we need to.  They aren't banned for the season or anything, they just won't count towards the 23-man limit now.  Obviously they might if they end up getting used in actual league games, so it might be a problem in January, if we're still under an embargo.

Edited July 20, 2021 by duncanjwitham

[nottingram]

10 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't want to sound harsh but why don't the club just terminate the contracts of the 8 youth players who featured against Chorley? From my recollection none of them looked particularly great against the national north side, certainly not to the point I'd want them playing any significant part in our championship campaign this year. Surely, the cost of terminating 8 youth player contracts can't be deemed financially crippling to the club?

How would that look to the families of young players entering our academy at X years old? How would it look to prospective signings, or just our reputation in general? 

Would be an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible thing to do. Those players stepped up admirably in an almost impossible situation through no fault of their own. It isn’t their fault, it isn’t even Derby’s fault. Something like this is fairly understandably not in the rule books because it’s relatively unprecedented but luckily it seems like common sense is taking hold. 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

9 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't want to sound harsh but why don't the club just terminate the contracts of the 8 youth players who featured against Chorley? From my recollection none of them looked particularly great against the national north side, certainly not to the point I'd want them playing any significant part in our championship campaign this year. Surely, the cost of terminating 8 youth player contracts can't be deemed financially crippling to the club?

Can teams just cancel contracts like that? There surely has to be some notice period, players are usually let go yearly I think. Also, maybe Derby don't want to get rid of these players. They are young and it's probably unfair to judge them in match with little preparation. 

[cosmic]

Some good news. Felt good for a second, then realised there is a wage limit and the likes of Jagielka and Morrison will probably want big bucks. Can also bet what Davies and Wisdom were on will be above the cap, so they will need to accept a salary decrease.

Would love to see a signing this week, though.

[Ravabeerbelly]

7 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I *think* we can still use those players if we need to.  They aren't banned for the season or anything, they just won't count towards the 23-man limit now.  Obviously they might if they end up getting used in actual league games, so it might be a problem in January, if we're still under an embargo.

So you think we can plead to EFL that these players are in no way of ‘professional standing’ and should count as such, allow us to make 4 new signing a only for us to then use these players anyway?

I don’t think so somehow 

[Ravabeerbelly]

2 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Can teams just cancel contracts like that?

No is the simple answer. A contract is a contract and can be terminated by mutual consent or following gross misconduct. The end!

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, nottingram said:

How would that look to the families of young players entering our academy at X years old? How would it look to prospective signings, or just our reputation in general? 

Would be an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible thing to do. Those players stepped up admirably in an almost impossible situation through no fault of their own. It isn’t their fault, it isn’t even Derby’s fault. Something like this is fairly understandably not in the rule books because it’s relatively unprecedented but luckily it seems like common sense is taking hold. 

Our reputation is shot to smithereens anyway quite honestly and how it would look to families I would imagine is dependent upon how the transition was handled by the club. I'm not knowledgeable about this sector but I would presume Derby could call up any number of clubs and recommend these lads for trials at either lower levels for a senior contract or at this level for a youth team contract and explain the situation we're currently in. 

Hopefully common sense takes hold but even if it does I think we're still going to have to think about squad size and who we can/can't bring in due to the over 21 rule not applying to us because of our specific embargo I believe. Yes, it's not fair on the younger players but situations in life means that oftentimes things aren't fair unfortunately. The club is in a situation where we'll be fighting tooth and nail to ensure survival this year and we do need senior pros to be able to do that. 

[kevinhectoring]

18 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I wouldn’t have thought so. Surely it’s just an income received from the sale of an asset that, in our case, helps offset some of the trading losses incurred. Companies don’t pay capital gains tax (as far as I’m aware).

It’s a capital gain which I believe does attract corporation tax but can be set off against trading losses. But could have been a very chunky gain ... 

[Ambitious]

I guess it frees up 4 positions, but with the stipulations around those 4 positions then I can't imagine it's going to be easy to decide. I would go for Jagielka, who has a more reliable injury history than Davies. Mengi on loan. Wisdom, who can cover CB and RB. The last position you would realistically want to go for a striker. 

I like Davies, but as a team with not much room to maneuver and limited cover, we simply can't go for a 36 year old who is coming off a season where he spent 90% of it in the treatment room when the maximum number of CBs we realistically have will be 2, with others that can cover. 

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

The club is in the bind of not being able to sign players atm in part due to this very issue. The cost of relegation is significantly more than the contracts of these 8 youth team players in which the majority (or maybe all of them) will not make a career with us anyway and end up being released in a year or two.

At the minute. If we can't get the EFL to go with the spirit of the rules I'd rather we kept what little is left of our integrity and keep the youngsters. Things will have to change by mid-August anyway.

[VulcanRam]

18 hours ago, Ramos said:

Exactly but even if they were to have gained that potential lost revenue they would have to return that value to the supporters anyhow in the form of either refunds or discounted tickets, rams tv etc in the future. By trying to stick to a realistic tickets to people in the stadium it allows them to plan and prepare aswell financially for those scenarios, ie full capacity, reduced, no fans and really to see how that impacts the cash flow within the club. 

And when you see policy on the hoof (are suddenly only double vaccinated fans going to be allowed in?) flexibility is certainly in order! 

[Leeds Ram]

8 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Can teams just cancel contracts like that? There surely has to be some notice period, players are usually let go yearly I think. Also, maybe Derby don't want to get rid of these players. They are young and it's probably unfair to judge them in match with little preparation. 

I've no idea on that front tbh and hadn't thought about it so that's a fair point. I guess it depends on the types of contracts used by the club. Yes, it wouldn't be the first solution at hand and it would be an extreme measure but if the EFL can't be brought around and the embargo still stands then we're in dire straits. 

[May Contain Nuts]

2 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Our reputation is shot to smithereens anyway quite honestly and how it would look to families I would imagine is dependent upon how the transition was handled by the club. I'm not knowledgeable about this sector but I would presume Derby could call up any number of clubs and recommend these lads for trials at either lower levels for a senior contract or at this level for a youth team contract and explain the situation we're currently in. 

Hopefully common sense takes hold but even if it does I think we're still going to have to think about squad size and who we can/can't bring in due to the over 21 rule not applying to us because of our specific embargo I believe. Yes, it's not fair on the younger players but situations in life means that oftentimes things aren't fair unfortunately. The club is in a situation where we'll be fighting tooth and nail to ensure survival this year and we do need senior pros to be able to do that. 

There's unfair and there's unethical. Jettisoning academy players because of the circumstances we face would fall squarely into the latter, it's a non-starter.

[Leeds Ram]

2 minutes ago, Coconut said:

There's unfair and there's unethical. Jettisoning academy players because of the circumstances we face would fall squarely into the latter, it's a non-starter.

Personally, I think it depends on where you situate your ethics. If I thought this kind of move allows the club a significantly better chance to stay in the division and ensure that we don't face further financial oblivion by dropping down a division then it's something I'd say the club should very reluctantly be doing. But I totally understand why people feel it's something the club should never do as these are young lads. 

[kevinhectoring]

8 minutes ago, Coconut said:

There's unfair and there's unethical. Jettisoning academy players because of the circumstances we face would fall squarely into the latter, it's a non-starter.

Yes and maybe this is one reason why the EFl has shown flexibility