How much do you think we have to spend on actual transfer fees?

[ImARam2]

5 hours ago, Foreveram said:

Teams relegated after only one season in the Premier League only receive year one and two payments, nothing for year three.

I'm aware of that, then they go back to anything between £102m to £140m for another season in the Premier, and the circle begins again.

On top of those figures, if they get into any of the European tournaments, they receive between another £25m to £50m if they reach the finals.

[CBX1985]

10 hours ago, MadAmster said:

On what are you basing that assertion?

22/23, we lost £10M, some of which was due to the mess MM had put us in and the costs of getting us out of Admin. Virtually the same average gate in 23/24 and other income is likely to have been similar as the one before. I expect us, based on that, to have a loss on last season but a lower one than the season before. That would mean we lost £10M in 22/23 plus maybe half of that again last season.

Your statement that we can "spend £8m more on wages to have the same revenue/spending point" doesn't seem to add up. Sending the extra gate/TV money would likely see us make yet another loss. That's David Clowes' money we'd be losing. He might be said to be "worth" £250M but what most people fail to understand is that the vast majority of that "worth" is land, buildings, plant, machinery, a football ground etc.  Unfortunately it is NOT liquid assets he can fritter away.

If I've got this all wrong, I would be ecstatic if someone could explain to me how/why so that I can better understand the current state of play. I would appreciate any explanation taking into account the £36M we already owe David Clowes.

Fair comments to a point - I should have said, to be wholly accurate we didn't have "operating losses" of £8m.  However, I would say year 1 of a new business being bought in the way it was is not really reflective of any position at all. 

I haven't gone through the reports for a while, but from reading them last year my recollection is that there were extraordinarily high extraordinary costs - and operational break even.  My point, which is fact and not opinion, is that if we increase operational income by £8m, the balance sheet would remain unchanged should we increase (within that period) spending by £8m.

[MadAmster]

12 hours ago, CBX1985 said:

Fair comments to a point - I should have said, to be wholly accurate we didn't have "operating losses" of £8m.  However, I would say year 1 of a new business being bought in the way it was is not really reflective of any position at all. 

I haven't gone through the reports for a while, but from reading them last year my recollection is that there were extraordinarily high extraordinary costs - and operational break even.  My point, which is fact and not opinion, is that if we increase operational income by £8m, the balance sheet would remain unchanged should we increase (within that period) spending by £8m.

Surely that "extra £8M" would only mean we break even rather than lose money?

[europia]

On 24/05/2024 at 09:05, MadAmster said:

Surely that "extra £8M" would only mean we break even rather than lose money?

That would be the most optimistic scenario. With the increased wage bill, the clubs outgoings will most probably exceed income. Last season an underwhelming fee for Max Bird was accepted, understandably to help balance the books. Sadly that scenario is likely to be repeated, should any of the young talent attract interest.  

Many championship clubs carry an eye watering amount of debt, a combined total of circa £1.6 billion(2022), presumably underwritten by the owners. It's a very precarious business model, as all DCDF fans are well aware. 

[Crewton]

9 hours ago, europia said:

That would be the most optimistic scenario. With the increased wage bill, the clubs outgoings will most probably exceed income. Last season an underwhelming fee for Max Bird was accepted, understandably to help balance the books. Sadly that scenario is likely to be repeated, should any of the young talent attract interest.  

Many championship clubs carry an eye watering amount of debt, a combined total of circa £1.6 billion(2022), presumably underwritten by the owners. It's a very precarious business model, as all DCDF fans are well aware. 

It wasn't to balance the books as such, it was to ensure we received a decent fee for a player who was out of contract in the summer and who'd made it clear he wanted to move on, with the bonus that we could loan him back and use some of the money received to sign CBT and Ebou on loan. It was a pragmatic decision under the circumstances.

[MadAmster]

10 hours ago, europia said:

That would be the most optimistic scenario. With the increased wage bill, the clubs outgoings will most probably exceed income. Last season an underwhelming fee for Max Bird was accepted, understandably to help balance the books. Sadly that scenario is likely to be repeated, should any of the young talent attract interest.  

Many championship clubs carry an eye watering amount of debt, a combined total of circa £1.6 billion(2022), presumably underwritten by the owners. It's a very precarious business model, as all DCDF fans are well aware. 

Was the Max fee underwhelming though? IMO, it seems he'd set his sights on a new challenge for whatever reason. He was out of contract and could have left in the summer for a paltry compensation fee. At least we got an IMO reasonable fee for an out of contract player. 

I'd love to know if the club offered him the opportunity to sign a new deal including a clause that he could leave for maybe £2M if we didn't go up.

[CBX1985]

On 24/05/2024 at 08:05, MadAmster said:

Surely that "extra £8M" would only mean we break even rather than lose money?

Well, it depends on the losses.  As I say, we do have extraordinary losses - and I suspect these carried into this season just gone, as we agreed a two year timetable of repayment (so more will appear in next set of accounts).  But they are extraordinary, and not operating, losses which is important.  

Extraordinary losses will always fall away (and if they do not they are not extraordinary and thus you are insolvent).  

So if we add a sum and then pay away that sum in wages, our position will not change.  So (disregarding changes in ST and the like) we have an extra £8m to spend on either a) wages or b) fees and wages without impacting on our financial position (within a one year horizon).   

[Foreveram]

On 22/05/2024 at 16:47, ram59 said:

Very interesting, is there a similar table for Lg1?

 

Our gates didn't suffer that much from lack of away support when we dropped down to Lg1, because PP seemed to be everyone's 'Wembley'. Next season will see a minimal increase from away fans especially when considering we will lose 3 of the highest away followings from this season.

[RamInSweden]

Do we think there will be any incoming transfer money from the sales of Bird, Bielik and Knight? Surely we didn’t give them away. Warne said it would take a huge fee to get Bird. Not sure it would have been anywhere near huge, but surely should be a decent chunk of add ons coming our way for some of those players.

[Magicman]

We need a budget of £ 5 million minimum 

[MadAmster]

On 23/05/2024 at 20:52, CBX1985 said:

Fair comments to a point - I should have said, to be wholly accurate we didn't have "operating losses" of £8m.  However, I would say year 1 of a new business being bought in the way it was is not really reflective of any position at all. 

I haven't gone through the reports for a while, but from reading them last year my recollection is that there were extraordinarily high extraordinary costs - and operational break even.  My point, which is fact and not opinion, is that if we increase operational income by £8m, the balance sheet would remain unchanged should we increase (within that period) spending by £8m.

Taken from the DCFC Annual Report and Financial Statement for the Period ended 30 June 2023. The 2nd paragraph appears to disagree with you.

 

QUOTE   UNQUOTE

[Foreveram]

On 22/05/2024 at 18:58, ram59 said:

An interesting statistic would be a comparison of Lg1 teams' average away numbers excluding the PP figure, with the PP figure. 

I would imagine that a number of teams running out at PP were astonished at the number and atmosphere of their fans that had turned out, in comparison to their normal away following.

Only three teams didn’t exceed their average away support at Pride Park, Charlton, Reading and Wycombe.

Wycombe was the only Saturday game of the three and only 472 fans attended.

Only three teams had their highest away attendance of the season at our ground, Barnsley, Burton and Shrewsbury.

Only four teams, Wigan, Portsmouth, Barnsley and Bolton bought more than 2,000 fans to Pride Park, I think this will be improved upon this season.

[jono]

On 16/05/2024 at 09:07, littleover ram said:

FFP is done over 3 years right? We should spend as much as our overdrafts will allow in anticipation of being in the PL in 2 or 3 years and out of the EFL’s jurisdiction 

Missing a piece of information here. It’s not “we” …..there is a man involved and it’s his debt / liability / obligation / guarantee that would be on the overdraft .. So does he want to run up that debt which would be in his lap when everything is added up. ?
 

Sort of like, I should take finance out on a new car, pending my scratch card win in 2 years time. 

[europia]

On 27/05/2024 at 08:55, Crewton said:

It wasn't to balance the books as such, it was to ensure we received a decent fee for a player who was out of contract in the summer and who'd made it clear he wanted to move on, with the bonus that we could loan him back and use some of the money received to sign CBT and Ebou on loan. It was a pragmatic decision under the circumstances.

I'm fairly sure the club needed the income from the sale of Max Bird. Yes, perhaps it was convenient if he wanted away from DCFC, but he's hardly stepped up career wise. If it worked out OK for all parties, all well and good.