Free agents in the summer

[Caerphilly Ram]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Better to negotiate a total budget for wages and transfer fees - then allow us the freedom to choose how to spend the money.

ie. £10k pw week on a free transfer on a 2 year deal or £5k pw week on a £500k signing on a 2 year deal

A hundred times this! If we’re working to an agreed business plan, fine, if there’s an acceptable budget to be spent within that plan then let the club spend it as appropriate, so long as it’s within the agreed limits. 

[TomTom92]

18 hours ago, Agadirram said:

"Scope for creativity".  "A bit cheeky".   "Loopholes".     Didn`t go too well last time.

If the EFL want to retrospectively change their stance again then that’s on them. 
 
You don’t ask you don’t get.

[TomTom92]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

It might be a good question but I’d be amazed if the EFL allowed us to buy a player on a deferred payment basis given the financial difficulties we have just emerged from. I also think, after the way Mel “bent the rules” and antagonised the EFL, to try and “be a bit cheeky” and find loopholes to take advantage of would be seriously wrong. 

Totally understand that we might get rebuffed but it’d be nice for the question to be asked. 
 
I know it’s the PL and not the EFL but Chelsea found a loophole to get round FFP. I know it’s immoral and a fat load of good it’s done them. But I’d also say us being forced to go through the motions for another season is immoral.

[Tamworthram]

29 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

Totally understand that we might get rebuffed but it’d be nice for the question to be asked. 
 
I know it’s the PL and not the EFL but Chelsea found a loophole to get round FFP. I know it’s immoral and a fat load of good it’s done them. But I’d also say us being forced to go through the motions for another season is immoral.

I’m not sure “immoral” is the right word regarding next season if we’re still under the same restrictions. Plus, coming close to reaching the playoffs (assuming we fall short this year) isn’t exactly “going through the motions”.

Whether we like it or not, the restrictions we are under are there to punish us and/or stabilise our finances for two years following administration. To allow is to buy now pay later would defeat both of those aims and I would expect (perhaps even hope) we don’t even ask the question. Our best hope IMO is that the restrictions are there purely to stabilise (and not punish) us and, if we’ve performed significantly better than budgeted, the business plan is amended to an extent to allow some leeway. 

[vonwright]

The ongoing business plan is a strange requirement, I think.

The new owners are not the old owners. There is no reason to think they need any more help achieving "stability" than the owners of any other club. It's not like "the club" is some independent thing which is inherently unstable. Derby just had (highly) unstable ownership.

So the business plan only makes sense as an ongoing punishment. In which case: is that really fair? Would we think it fair if the EFL said: "If a club goes into administration, it will lose 12 points in the first season, and six points in each of the next two"?

To me, it makes a great deal of sense to have strict rules on the losses clubs can make, strict rules to close potential loopholes (and personally I'd include in that things like cross-selling stadiums), and severe punishments for those who breach the rules. But the rules should be - as far as possible - aimed at the seasons in which the rule breaking took place, so that a) it's targeted at the owners who breached the rules, and b) it prevents clubs profiting from breaking the rules.

What is the justification for a punishment which hangs over the club long after the people who breached the rules have gone?  

 

[Caerphilly Ram]

On 30/03/2023 at 22:23, Caerphilly Ram said:

Josh Key (23) - Exeter right back, 3 goals and 1 assist in 34 league one apps… we need a specialist rb.

Thought he looked really good for them tonight, wouldn’t complain if he was someone we tried to sign in the summer 

[silhillian]

10 hours ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Thought he looked really good for them tonight, wouldn’t complain if he was someone we tried to sign in the summer 

Impressed with him and Collins, both out of contract in the summer. Also Sam Smith scored again for Cambridge, take a punt on him too.

[MadAmster]

Deeney will be 35 in June. No thanks. Ash Barnes might be a good shout but his wages might be prohibitive.

Whoever we get in, we have to get them in for the right reasons. Namely, they can do a job we want doing and we play to their strengths. No more buying a Centre Forward and then play him on the left wing or buying a player who score rucks of goals from knockdowns and flicks on from his strike partner and using pace to latch on to through balls and then play him as a target man. That's what we did with Hales. Zak would not be the hero is today if we'd got him to play the O'Hare role. Horses for courses please, not more square pegs in round holes.

[Jimbo Ram]

16 hours ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Thought he looked really good for them tonight, wouldn’t complain if he was someone we tried to sign in the summer 

You talking to yourself again CR 🤣

[Caerphilly Ram]

22 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

You talking to yourself again CR 🤣

Always! It was a bit of self-congratulation I suppose…. but my mother warned me that too much of that can make you go blind 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Caerphilly Ram

[Jubbs]

16 hours ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Josh Key

Swansea and Blackburn competing for his signature as of last week, don't think we'll be able to compete.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Jubbs said:

Swansea and Blackburn competing for his signature as of last week, don't think we'll be able to compete.

Also would cost a compensation fee as he's 23.

[Dan_Ram]

On 18/04/2023 at 15:05, vonwright said:

The ongoing business plan is a strange requirement, I think.

The new owners are not the old owners. There is no reason to think they need any more help achieving "stability" than the owners of any other club. It's not like "the club" is some independent thing which is inherently unstable. Derby just had (highly) unstable ownership.

So the business plan only makes sense as an ongoing punishment. In which case: is that really fair? Would we think it fair if the EFL said: "If a club goes into administration, it will lose 12 points in the first season, and six points in each of the next two"?

To me, it makes a great deal of sense to have strict rules on the losses clubs can make, strict rules to close potential loopholes (and personally I'd include in that things like cross-selling stadiums), and severe punishments for those who breach the rules. But the rules should be - as far as possible - aimed at the seasons in which the rule breaking took place, so that a) it's targeted at the owners who breached the rules, and b) it prevents clubs profiting from breaking the rules.

What is the justification for a punishment which hangs over the club long after the people who breached the rules have gone?  

 

I think the justification discussed at the time was to deter clubs from entering administration as a method of getting around P&S rules.

If a mid-table club could accept a 6-9 point penalty and have their P&L history reset then come the end of the season, most of the clubs outside the top 6 that had amassed enough points would be doing it. Then they could go on a spending spree the next season so it is in essence an ongoing punishment.

[Dan_Ram]

Personally I think one of the big priorities this summer is to pick up as many talented/Semi-talented youngsters as we can that have ben released from other academies to re-stock and retain our Tier 1 status.

We had a purple patch of picking up players like Ebiowei and Plange who were released from other academies that not only improved our academy but quite quickly progressed on to the first team and I believe players like Sonny Blu Lo-Everton have impressed since they have come in although understandably the focus has been on the first team until now.

Obviously with restrictions still in place we will probably maintain a small squad again next year so having quality youngsters pushing to get in to the first team will strengthen our bench & depth.

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

11 hours ago, silhillian said:

Impressed with him and Collins, both out of contract in the summer. Also Sam Smith scored again for Cambridge, take a punt on him too.

Thought Collins was absolutely superb last night, would be ecstatic to see ua go for him in the summer. A real stand out player for them in the middle of the park last night.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 hours ago, Dan_Ram said:

I think the justification discussed at the time was to deter clubs from entering administration as a method of getting around P&S rules.

If a mid-table club could accept a 6-9 point penalty and have their P&L history reset then come the end of the season, most of the clubs outside the top 6 that had amassed enough points would be doing it. Then they could go on a spending spree the next season so it is in essence an ongoing punishment.

Administration doesn't 'reset' P&S, only failing P&S 'resets' the P&S figures.

[GangwayD]

On 19/04/2023 at 08:52, silhillian said:

Impressed with him and Collins, both out of contract in the summer. Also Sam Smith scored again for Cambridge, take a punt on him too.

Sam Smith at Cambridge would be a good shout.  Seems to be blossoming later in his career as at 25 he's only really scored goals this last few seasons, but I'm sure we'd create more chances than Cambridge.

Very impressed with Exeter's Josh Key on Tuesday but with Championship clubs sniffing then doubt we'd get him.

It's going to be an interesting Summer as the re-build starts again. 

Cheers

Gangway D from the terrace 

Edited April 20, 2023 by GangwayD

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, GangwayD said:

Sam Smith at Cambridge would be a good shout.  Seems to be blossoming later in his career as at 25 he's only really scored goals this last few seasons, but I'm sure we'd create more chances than Cambridge.

Very impressed with Exeter's Josh Key on Tuesday but with Championship clubs sniffing then doubt we'd get him.

It's going to be an interesting Summer as the re-build starts again. 

Cheers

Gangway D from the terrace 

Sam Smith would be a risky move. He's scored 5 in 5, but only 6 in the 36 league games before that. 15 league goals last season, but his previous best was only 7 and that was in League 2.

Josh Key is 23 which means compensation. Championship clubs are already interested, so no chance

[BathRam72]

On 19/04/2023 at 08:52, silhillian said:

Impressed with him and Collins, both out of contract in the summer. Also Sam Smith scored again for Cambridge, take a punt on him too.

About time he found his calling, his singing career is taking a real twist for the worse.

[Sparkle]

37 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Sam Smith would be a risky move. He's scored 5 in 5, but only 6 in the 36 league games before that. 15 league goals last season, but his previous best was only 7 and that was in League 2.

Josh Key is 23 which means compensation. Championship clubs are already interested, so no chance

Harsh to say that, unlikely maybe but players will decide where they want to play when they have a choice. Despite needing to pay a compensation fee we could always appeal that fee past our restrictions or even agree with the previous club when we could actually pay cash to them. We could even loan them a player to match up the cost of a deal who knows. What I am basically saying is that it is always possible to do a deal if the parties are willing.