Jump to content

Has the transfer embargo been lifted?


oldtimeram

Recommended Posts

Assuming the BBC update earlier in the week is true, let's face it there is absolutely nothing to suggest it is. Maybe the huge sticking point is the 30 million. If so, the 30 million from the stadium could swing it massively in our favour in terms of finances and may mean we can spend a bit of cash.

I'd imagine the EFL would look a right set of burks if they spend all this time trying to destroy Derby and it ends up strengthening our position, Steve Gibson would be livid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Assuming the BBC update earlier in the week is true, let's face it there is absolutely nothing to suggest it is. Maybe the huge sticking point is the 30 million. If so, the 30 million from the stadium could swing it massively in our favour in terms of finances and may mean we can spend a bit of cash.

I'd imagine the EFL would look a right set of burks if they spend all this time trying to destroy Derby and it ends up strengthening our position, Steve Gibson would be livid.

He sure would.

I'd guess Derby are saying "OK, here's accounts for the years in question now compliant with FRS102, noting the input from the ICD/LAP ruling" and the EFL saying "No, why has anything changed other than the ammoritsation policy?" and us saying "we have to submit accounts in line with FRS102 noting the ruling, that is what we are required to do. Unless you can point to something that is not FRS102 complaint, accept them" (or more accurate fancy correctly spelled words to this effect).

IF we produce accounts that put us in the clear I think everyone who isn't Steve Pearce is going to shout "VOODOO!!!!" at them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/07/2021 at 17:48, Charlotte Ram said:

The exact figure is £600,000 p.a. which is £11,538/week

Heard to the contrary now...

"Nixon wrote in The Sun on Sunday previously (25.07. 21, pg. 62) that Derby were being restricted to one-year deals on new signings, on a maximum wage of £4,500-a-week."

https://the72.co.uk/243312/alan-nixon-provides-major-Derby-county-transfer-update-as-championship-start-date-beckons/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rample said:

Heard to the contrary now...

"Nixon wrote in The Sun on Sunday previously (25.07. 21, pg. 62) that Derby were being restricted to one-year deals on new signings, on a maximum wage of £4,500-a-week."

https://the72.co.uk/243312/alan-nixon-provides-major-Derby-county-transfer-update-as-championship-start-date-beckons/

No chance of anyone stellar at that salary cap, and that salary cap is less than the £11,000/week other clubs were/are allowed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Some believe that even using the standard amortisation we would be ok, are they wrong?

Dunno. Liked @RoyMac5’s response.  I’d have thought applying straight line amortisation is not something you’d have a dispute about. Maybe one issue relates to the stadium sale and how much profit is taken in each period. That in turn might impact HMRC issues. The problem is, at every turn Mel has added another layer of complexity and it’s all come home to roost. And I guess he’s having also to deal with buyers’ expectations which reduces his room for manoeuvre 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rample said:

Heard to the contrary now...

"Nixon wrote in The Sun on Sunday previously (25.07. 21, pg. 62) that Derby were being restricted to one-year deals on new signings, on a maximum wage of £4,500-a-week."

https://the72.co.uk/243312/alan-nixon-provides-major-Derby-county-transfer-update-as-championship-start-date-beckons/

Not seen anyone quote that bar Nixon then, have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rample said:

Heard to the contrary now...

"Nixon wrote in The Sun on Sunday previously (25.07. 21, pg. 62) that Derby were being restricted to one-year deals on new signings, on a maximum wage of £4,500-a-week."

 

Perversely, this might help us in negotiations with players and their agents 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not seen anyone quote that bar Nixon then, have you?

It was the same figure Bolton had to operate within when they were under an embargo in the championship in 2018.

Out of interest they finished 23rd, 12 points from safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rample said:

It was the same figure Bolton had to operate within when they were under an embargo in the championship in 2018.

Out of interest they finished 23rd, 12 points from safety.

It would seem strange to set a limit which the EFL and the club know is unaffordable. 

Far better to set the limit on a case by case basis, whatever that amount is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nixon has said previously that the restrictions keep changing, the lower wage amount may have been the compromise to remove the professional standing ruling for the Chorley players but we're in discussions with the EFL to increase it.

Does make sense with what Rooney has said when saying it wasnt enough that we can now sign 4 players as it doesnt matter if its 0 or 4, at that wage none of the triallists will sign on that low a wage.

Edited by DCFC1388
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

I would think for Mel to agree to this fan meeting on Weds the idea would have been for the HMRC to be paid & some signings in rather than the position we're currently in just so it eliminates abit of the fans anger/frustration

In an absolute nutshell this 

you would think wouldn’t u 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

I would think for Mel to agree to this fan meeting on Weds the idea would have been for the HMRC to be paid & some signings in rather than the position we're currently in just so it eliminates abit of the fans anger/frustration

Is that when that meeting is Wednesday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Some believe that even using the standard amortisation we would be ok, are they wrong?

I have a feeling we're going to be using a new amortisation policy, wack the £30m stadium money in there and push as much amortisation into those years as possible.

Straight-line leaves us in a tight position, so why not ease that issue if we can do it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rample said:

Heard to the contrary now...

"Nixon wrote in The Sun on Sunday previously (25.07. 21, pg. 62) that Derby were being restricted to one-year deals on new signings, on a maximum wage of £4,500-a-week."

https://the72.co.uk/243312/alan-nixon-provides-major-Derby-county-transfer-update-as-championship-start-date-beckons/

We've successfully proven with our transfers dealings over recent years that there's no direct correlation between a players salary and the skill of that player likewise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...