The Administration Thread

[RadioactiveWaste]

15 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The whole point of the 60% limit in League 1 is to make clubs sustainable and live within their means. And the whole point of a post-admin enforced business plan is to make sure a club doesn't fall into admin again (i.e. the business is not a punishment, it's more like a safety net).  If we genuinely are restricted to 40-50% (and given it's the Mail, I'm far from convinced), then either the EFL do no believe 60% is a sustainable figure so they should change it for all clubs, or they are punishing us when the rules suggest they shouldn't.

Probably it is 60%, mail probably did some duff (or highly disingenuous) maths relating to our projected revenue and came up with it being different so they could write a story about it.

[RIMBAUD]

Guys. Stop reading that paper. 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

That figure must be based on a % of projected income, either 60% or 70% surely? It wouldn't make much sense to set a fixed maximum figure when it's uncertain as to what the club's income is going to be before season tickets had even gone on sale. And why, having satisfied all of the EFL's conditions for exiting Administration should the club be restricted to a lower % of turnover than even existing L1 clubs? And what about Football Fortune income, which by its very nature is unpredictable? What are we allowed to spend that on if not improving the squad? 

This looks like the Mail trying to create a story that's more dramatic than "Derby restricted to same % of income as every other club". I'd be very surprised (and annoyed) if we're being held to an overall wage limit that bears no relation to our actual income. 

The £8m figure will be for players only, just like the quoted £12m figure for last season will have been. I believe total wage bill last season was actually about £20m

£8m may only be 50%, rather than the 75% allowable under L1 SCMP, but it will have been agreed to by Clowes. We have high running costs, so it's understandable that we wouldn't be running much higher.

Total club wages will be closer to £12m. This would put us roughly level with Ipswich, with only Sheff Weds likely being the only club with a bigger wage bill this season.

[Crewton]

23 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The £8m figure will be for players only, just like the quoted £12m figure for last season will have been. I believe total wage bill last season was actually about £20m

£8m may only be 50%, rather than the 75% allowable under L1 SCMP, but it will have been agreed to by Clowes. We have high running costs, so it's understandable that we wouldn't be running much higher.

Total club wages will be closer to £12m. This would put us roughly level with Ipswich, with only Sheff Weds likely being the only club with a bigger wage bill this season.

Yes, that makes sense (the 50%) but it would be useful to know if the allowable total is fixed based on the budget in the agreed Business Plan or whether it has some flexibility if income is higher. For instance, the BP may be based on 16,000 ST's and 20,000 average, but what if we sell 18-20,000 STs and average 24,000? The Mail article may not be the full picture.

[Tamworthram]

36 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The £8m figure will be for players only, just like the quoted £12m figure for last season will have been. I believe total wage bill last season was actually about £20m

£8m may only be 50%, rather than the 75% allowable under L1 SCMP, but it will have been agreed to by Clowes. We have high running costs, so it's understandable that we wouldn't be running much higher.

Total club wages will be closer to £12m. This would put us roughly level with Ipswich, with only Sheff Weds likely being the only club with a bigger wage bill this season.

We may have high running costs (compared to other L1 teams) but surely this is mostly (if not fully) offset by our higher income. In other words, the remaining 25% of our total income is likely to be significantly higher than the likes of Burton, Accrington, Fleetwood etc. 

[RoyMac5]

22 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

We may have high running costs (compared to other L1 teams) but surely this is mostly (if not fully) offset by our higher income. In other words, the remaining 25% of our total income is likely to be significantly higher than the likes of Burton, Accrington, Fleetwood etc. 

What is our income likely to consist of this season? Anyone know roughly? @Ghost of Clough

[Ghost of Clough]

35 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

We may have high running costs (compared to other L1 teams) but surely this is mostly (if not fully) offset by our higher income. In other words, the remaining 25% of our total income is likely to be significantly higher than the likes of Burton, Accrington, Fleetwood etc. 

Burton will have running costs of about £2m on a revenue of £5m (40%)
We'll have running costs of £10m on £15-20m revenue (66-50%)

[Tamworthram]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Burton will have running costs of about £2m on a revenue of £5m (40%)
We'll have running costs of £10m on £15-20m revenue (66-50%)

Out of interest, how have you arrived at those figures? 

[WystonRam]

Updates on Companies House

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00049139/filing-history

[Ghost of Clough]

32 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Out of interest, how have you arrived at those figures? 

Burton - based on 2020 and 2021 accounts and adjusting for Covid.

Derby - based on 2018 accounts and 'guessing' at the how much has dropped due to relegation 

[ram59]

One of the positives of having to work within restricted limits set by the EFL, is that players won't be coming for financial reasons, they'll be coming because they've been sold the playing for Derby County story. Hopefully, this will be reflected in team spirit and a passion for the club, similar to last season, but no points deduction and a stronger squad compared with the opposition.

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, ram59 said:

One of the positives of having to work within restricted limits set by the EFL, is that players won't be coming for financial reasons, they'll be coming because they've been sold the playing for Derby County story. Hopefully, this will be reflected in team spirit and a passion for the club, similar to last season, but no points deduction and a stronger squad compared with the opposition.

Well unless they’ve just not managed to get a contract anywhere else. Maybe they didn’t want to risk holding out for a better offer. As  others have mentioned, there probably is a good number of decent players out of contract so it could be a buyers market. 
 

I don’t care too much why they’ve come (sorry if I’m being a bit cynical but I don’t really buy into this idea of seasoned pro’s joining the club just to be part of the project). I’ll form my opinion based on what I see in terms of ability, work rate and commitment on the pitch.

[FindernRam]

41 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t care too much why they’ve come (sorry if I’m being a bit cynical but I don’t really buy into this idea of seasoned pro’s joining the club just to be part of the project). I’ll form my opinion based on what I see in terms of ability, work rate and commitment on the pitch.

Whilst in general I agree with the cynicism there are notable exceptions Curtis for one. I hope some of these new guys show the passion!

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, FindernRam said:

Whilst in general I agree with the cynicism there are notable exceptions Curtis for one. I hope some of these new guys show the passion!

Yes. I’d agree on Curtis but it’s different for him and none of the new signings will have the same emotional attachment but, I’m not judging them for their reasons for coming.

[PistoldPete]

21 hours ago, Crewton said:

Yes, that makes sense (the 50%) but it would be useful to know if the allowable total is fixed based on the budget in the agreed Business Plan or whether it has some flexibility if income is higher. For instance, the BP may be based on 16,000 ST's and 20,000 average, but what if we sell 18-20,000 STs and average 24,000? The Mail article may not be the full picture.

Agreed. Why isn’t this business plan open to scrutiny by fans? Don’t we have a right to know where our season ticket money will be spent.

[Wolfie]

57 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Agreed. Why isn’t this business plan open to scrutiny by fans? Don’t we have a right to know where our season ticket money will be spent.

Not unless you're a shareholder, no. Rightly or wrongly we're all just customers paying to be entertained, at the end of the day.

Open up the business plan to fan scrutiny and you'd get 20,000 different views on whether it's right or not. Plus you'd open it up to all our competition. Nothing to be gained from it IMO.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Wolfie

[curb]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Agreed. Why isn’t this business plan open to scrutiny by fans? Don’t we have a right to know where our season ticket money will be spent.

You’re buying a series of tickets to football matches, you’re only right is entry to those games, and that’s conditional.

[rsmini]

 

[rsmini]

 

[PistoldPete]

48 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Not unless you're a shareholder, no. Rightly or wrongly we're all just customers paying to be entertained, at the end of the day.

Open up the business plan to fan scrutiny and you'd get 20,000 different views on whether it's right or not. Plus you'd open it up to all our competition. Nothing to be gained from it IMO.

I am not suggesting we have any input on the plan. Just to know what it is. If there is wage cap and a transfer ban what will the season ticket money be spent on?