January Window

[Anag Ram]

6 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

He took an interest in the Wednesday players rod. 

Erogenous zonal marking.

[Papahet]

Waghorn I'm guessing 

[admira]

If Warne has been texting this player, it begs the question whether he already had his phone number so maybe a Rotherham player?

[Srg]

Just now, admira said:

If Warne has been texting this player, it begs the question whether he already had his phone number so maybe a Rotherham player?

Unlikely. You can't just text players to ask them to come, that's tapping up a player and against the rules. We would have had to approach the club and had permission, and at that point, you could get the player's number anyway.

[Sparkle]

9 hours ago, ram59 said:

The business plan shouldn't be a punishment, it should ensure that we don't get in trouble again, which I fully understand and agree with. What I don't agree with is, the extra controls within the business plan. It is scandalous and has no merit that we can't spend part of our budget on transfer or loan fees. 100k spent on a transfer fee doesn't cost the club more than 100k spent on players' wages and doesn't have any more detrimental affect on the business, which is after all, the purpose of the business plan.

The business plan appears to be more symbolic for the grumpiness of other clubs 

[Jubbs]

By the sounds of Warne's interview he's not a player he knows from before. He mentioned about he gave the player the current player in that position at Derby so the new player can ask what Warne is like as a manager. If it was a player he knows, why would be telling the player to ask what Warne's like, they will already know?

My guesses is someone like Zohore.

[hintonsboots]

9 hours ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

Darnell Fisher signing. Agreed ro end contract

You’re Codding us ??

[Phoenix]

9 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Warne has come out numerous times and said that he’s not interested in Fisher, categorically. 

It would certainly be a surprise. 

Gibson' revenge

[Jimbo Ram]

2 hours ago, Srg said:

Unlikely. You can't just text players to ask them to come, that's tapping up a player and against the rules. We would have had to approach the club and had permission, and at that point, you could get the player's number anyway.

I made the same point fairly recently ?

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, admira said:

If Warne has been texting this player, it begs the question whether he already had his phone number so maybe a Rotherham player?

be surprised if PW spoke to a Rovrum player without first getting the blessing of their club. Don’t think it’s his style 

[YorkshireRam]

11 hours ago, Andicis said:

Genuine question, without knowing the ins and outs of the finances within the clubs, how can you comment on whether or not we were punished accordingly? Seems difficult to make a claim one way or the other. 

We've not been able to buy a player for 2 and a half years... We were forced into selling players due to our perilous financial situation in administration, including lots of upcoming academy talent. This created a subsequent need to rebuild the squad which is now being hindered by a weird rule in the business plan that we can only make free transfers. 

Ultimately signing a player on a free transfer who's at the top end of our wage allowance, say £11k a week- over the course of a season that'll be half a million or so spent. Paying £100k for a player who's only on £4k a week works out cheaper, so this isn't about reckless spending, it's an unnecessarily inhibitive rule that's stopping us rebuilding our squad following the punishments we already received over the course of the last couple of seasons.

[ram59]

11 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

We've not been able to buy a player for 2 and a half years... We were forced into selling players due to our perilous financial situation in administration, including lots of upcoming academy talent. This created a subsequent need to rebuild the squad which is now being hindered by a weird rule in the business plan that we can only make free transfers. 

Ultimately signing a player on a free transfer who's at the top end of our wage allowance, say £11k a week- over the course of a season that'll be half a million or so spent. Paying £100k for a player who's only on £4k a week works out cheaper, so this isn't about reckless spending, it's an unnecessarily inhibitive rule that's stopping us rebuilding our squad following the punishments we already received over the course of the last couple of seasons.

I totally agree and when you add in that a free agent is unlikely to command a fee in the future, whereas a punt on a young 100k player may bring in a return many times his original fee. You can only assume that the business plan is deliberately designed to obstruct the club's progress rather concentrating on it's viabilty.

[Eastdevonram]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

I totally agree and when you add in that a free agent is unlikely to command a fee in the future, whereas a punt on a young 100k player may bring in a return many times his original fee. You can only assume that the business plan is deliberately designed to obstruct the club's progress rather concentrating on it's viabilty.

I wonder for how much longer they are going to keep punishing the club for

[Eastdevonram]

1 minute ago, Eastdevonram said:

I wonder for how much longer they are going to keep punishing the club for

And has another other club has had this much punishment? 

[YorkshireRam]

59 minutes ago, ram59 said:

I totally agree and when you add in that a free agent is unlikely to command a fee in the future, whereas a punt on a young 100k player may bring in a return many times his original fee. You can only assume that the business plan is deliberately designed to obstruct the club's progress rather concentrating on it's viabilty.

I still feel fairly uneasy about the lack of clarity we got over how far the EFL's witch-hunt was motivated by Steve Gibson threatening to sue them if they didn't retrospectively punish us... That coupled with the reveal that leaks to the press were coming directly from Trevor Birch's office, and i became fairly obvious that there was something underhand going on.

I don't believe the EFL was acting vindictively with this business plan, but it doesn't make sense to not allow transfer fees when they aren't even explicitly linked to reckless spending that would endanger the club- that's the bit I can't grasp

[ram59]

5 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

I still feel fairly uneasy about the lack of clarity we got over how far the EFL's witch-hunt was motivated by Steve Gibson threatening to sue them if they didn't retrospectively punish us... That coupled with the reveal that leaks to the press were coming directly from Trevor Birch's office, and i became fairly obvious that there was something underhand going on.

I don't believe the EFL was acting vindictively with this business plan, but it doesn't make sense to not allow transfer fees when they aren't even explicitly linked to reckless spending that would endanger the club- that's the bit I can't grasp

It's like the decision not to allow us to offer new contracts to the young players last season. All it achieved was to allow other clubs to snap up these players for a song and to reduce the income or value of the club. Those who suffered from this decision were the creditors of the club. It also affected the saleabilty of the club, which nearly resulted in the club folding, is that what they wanted?

[FlyBritishMidland]

I wonder if the restriction of no transfer fees is related to the size of debt, particularly football related.  It’s well known we had the highest debt for a club entering admin, but we probably had the highest football debt too, e.g money owed to Arsenal.  It wouldn’t be a surprise if the EFL said “you can’t spend on new players when you still owe money for the ones you have” as future payments would still be due.

[KBB]

It does look a bit "wrong" if we exit admin and then start chucking money around. There will be people and businesses who potentially could have lost everything due to losing out on money owed by the club.

For me, it wouldn't sit right for us to have debts reduced and removed by the amin process and the "so many pence in the pound" exit procedure, only to then "find" money for transfer fees.

There has to be a balance in the process, which we see with the wages we can offer to attract players like NML, Didzy, Collins, Barks, Smith and others who would be good signings for teams in the league above.

We knew it would be a long, often hard, process to rebuild the club, over a course of years not months.

Bizarrely I quite like the fact we cant pay excess wages and transfer fees, as let's be honest it's what got us in the problem in the first place.

Up the free transfer Army.

[ram59]

37 minutes ago, KBB said:

It does look a bit "wrong" if we exit admin and then start chucking money around. There will be people and businesses who potentially could have lost everything due to losing out on money owed by the club.

For me, it wouldn't sit right for us to have debts reduced and removed by the amin process and the "so many pence in the pound" exit procedure, only to then "find" money for transfer fees.

There has to be a balance in the process, which we see with the wages we can offer to attract players like NML, Didzy, Collins, Barks, Smith and others who would be good signings for teams in the league above.

We knew it would be a long, often hard, process to rebuild the club, over a course of years not months.

Bizarrely I quite like the fact we cant pay excess wages and transfer fees, as let's be honest it's what got us in the problem in the first place.

Up the free transfer Army.

We wouldn't be 'finding' money for transfer fees though, we would be taking the money out of our current wages allowance. At the end of the day, the business is now owned by new owners who had no connection to the previous owner and the EFL is restricting their ability to take the club forward. All football debts had to be cleared, so no football club is worse off as a result of our administration. Sure, we have made some great signings, but that is down to our management and the whole club attracting these players. Many other clubs working under the same restrictions wouldn't have been able to sign these players. The EFL shouldn't 'over' punish Derby because we are a big club.

[B4ev6is]

4 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

I still feel fairly uneasy about the lack of clarity we got over how far the EFL's witch-hunt was motivated by Steve Gibson threatening to sue them if they didn't retrospectively punish us... That coupled with the reveal that leaks to the press were coming directly from Trevor Birch's office, and i became fairly obvious that there was something underhand going on.

I don't believe the EFL was acting vindictively with this business plan, but it doesn't make sense to not allow transfer fees when they aren't even explicitly linked to reckless spending that would endanger the club- that's the bit I can't grasp

Well I think they are acting vindictively with so called business plan.