Ghost of Clough Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Mason bennet, £1000 per week? Behave. He's still a youth player so I believe it's £55. Only £945 off. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dph Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 He's still a youth player so I believe it's £55. Only £945 off. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> to young to have national insurance number yet so gets no wage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 to young to have national insurance number yet so gets no wage Hmmmm... I'm not sure about that. (sure about national insurance number, just not the wage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If he is getting paid it will be no more than £50 a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hi Ramblur - welcome back Much as I hesitate to disagree with someone of your stature, your 55% thing is a bit off. Firstly, at this stage the Championship FFP rules are only currently a proposal which has been accepted in principle, but the clubs meet again in February at Pride Park (funnily enough) to finalise and, if possible, agree the final details. Secondly, the current proposal is for clubs to limit their wages to their turnover - although 'turnover' has yet to be fully defined - nijections of share capital and parachute payments are, apparently sticking points. Thus, for next year, a club is limited to 100% of turnover. The proposal aslo includes a declaration of intent to gradually move the percentage downwards with the overall aim of 60% at some point in the future. It is my opinion that the rules will never actually come into force. There are too many owners who desperately want promotion and need to be free to use their cash (borrowed or not) to give their clubs an advantage. Hi Cornwall,and thanks.You're quite right about the lead in (adjustment) period and the 55% is contentious.I only mentioned it because I think the lower league clubs have had their 'allocation' reduced from 60% to 55% ,and I thought our own proposals were to be broadly based on this model.If it were to be 60%,my point is actually emphasised.I based my arguments on the position that we were going to eventually end up with because it appeared to me that we may be well below our final 'allocation' come July 1st. It's also worth remembering that similar proposals have been brought forward before and been voted down when it came to the crunch.It's hard to see West Ham and Leicester (to name just 2) voting for it-I don't think it was a straightforward majority vote required last time(may have been 2/3 majority,but not sure). I've seen your point on capital injections mentioned on other forums.To me this is a simple issue-capital injections are on the capital side of the business divide and turnover is on the revenue side.Capital can't be revenue,by definition.The point is that clubs can invest as much as they like of their own new money on player purchases,but such activity is constrained by whatever proportion of turnover that players' wages are permitted to be (this being the "fair play" element).My own opinion is that clubs will trim squad sizes and concentrate on quality,relying more on academies to fill in gaps.To this end,I think the reduction of subs from 7 to 5 was ridiculous (an obstacle to the development of academy players).They should have reduced to 5,with a provision to include a further 2 from the academy. Sorry I was so long replying-I settled down to lapping up the pre match radio yap on Saturday,only for the internet connection to go down at 2.30.Would you believe that it's only just come back on?Had looked forward to the match all week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I suspect that the 'strange payments' such as image rights and and other spurious payments will continue to not be part of the declared wage and outside the rules. I think the new rules are vital for the survival of football in the long term but it will take a few years to get real control. But then again, they have to start somewhere!!! They're already working at the top. City would have spent themselves silly trying to win the title but Mancini's got his hands tied behind his back as much as anyone this transfer window. That's an immediate impact. If these financial rules have happened in Europe, they can happen here. Not enough was made in the press about the Euro FFP. I think it will change the game forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Doesn't our £10m figure include all the youth players, coaches, scouts, physios, kitchen staff and everyone aswell? No,,players' wages relate to players only,so only "youth players" is relevant.When they divulged players' wages it was possible,by deduction, to work out what the wages of non players were,and I can tell you that it was extremely high.Your "everyone as well" includes administration-no doubt the biggest chunk of the 'non player' divide.From now on we may still see a relatively high total wage figure,which may lead some to think that the players' bill is high (which it may not be).Why are they now so reluctant to divulge players' wages when we were bombarded with it in the past (as my links,the tip of the iceberg,show)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think businessmen would invest in the short term to achieve their medium and longer term ambitions. It's unclear why the finances have to be quite so short-term (and so tight). I don’t think the manager’s being supported in the way I’d expect from ambitious owners who have the resources to back their ambition. For example, if GSE/owners had made the funds available last transfer window then NC could have brought in all the players he said he needed. This could have been done with the understanding that every player without a future at the club would be shown the door as soon as possible. It’s obviously a bit more expensive (in the short term) to invest in new players before all the unwanted players are gone - but the books could have been balanced over the medium term and it wouldn’t have taken Lester type ambition/funding to have achieved this. When I think how NC could have used the players he wanted to bring in last summer in the first half of this injury hit season I despair. With a “talismanic striker”, a “midfield general”, and some decent cover for our full backs NC would probably have had us well in the top six by now and seriously challenging for the top two. Would broadly agree-if money had been available (via fresh capital) for players,then it would have been possible to improve the team (and increase gate revenues) whilst simultaneously tackling revenue deficits.We're currently in a good position,yet Glick tells us the best we can hope for is a "Bryson" type signing (what he actually means is a low budget signing that he hopes would be a Bryson,rather than a Martin or Maguire-but this version is less impressive).Given the position we may find ourselves in this month,if they actually had capital to invest it would surely make sense to invest in some quality-if a promotion bid failed,that quality would still be there for the following seasons.My suspicion is that we've now entered 'total self sufficiency' mode,and that's a very hard ask for Clough.Don't forget that the aim wasn't just promotion,but promotion with a team that would be able to survive the increase in status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 No,,players' wages relate to players only,so only "youth players" is relevant.When they divulged players' wages it was possible,by deduction, to work out what the wages of non players were,and I can tell you that it was extremely high. In the last accounts "other wages" worded out to be £4.91m which sounds very high. That is the season we sacked Jewell, so makes me wonder what pay-off his lot had to have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 remember the wages figure is plus national insurance/signing on fees/bonus payments/agents payments Scrub agents' payments,they're 3rd party and nothing to do with players' wages.I think employers' NIC was about 12.5% the last time I looked (admittedly ages ago).I suspect signing on fees would be apportioned over the length of contract,for the purpose of FFP calculation.In our accounts the fee is charged in full to the year in which it arises (ie not capitalised and spread over length of contract). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I've seen your point on capital injections mentioned on other forums.To me this is a simple issue-capital injections are on the capital side of the business divide and turnover is on the revenue side.Capital can't be revenue,by definition. Do they have financial accounting rules to stop this being circumnavigated though? For example, if Leicester’s super-rich Thai owner decided to buy a couple of “special” season tickets in an executive box for his family for £12 million then that would go on the books as turnover? I don’t know much about accounting but I do know that where there is a rule there’s a loophole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 In the last accounts "other wages" worded out to be £4.91m which sounds very high. That is the season we sacked Jewell, so makes me wonder what pay-off his lot had to have? I seem to remember that in 08/9 the figure was £6m-are you quoting 09/10,which were last presented accounts? We don't know how much is of the non recurring variety,but I can remember looking at the "who's who" on the OS about a year ago and seeing a lot of very expensive looking job descriptions.Was looking forward to the 10/11 accounts to see if the figure had reduced,but this new policy has scuppered that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Do they have financial accounting rules to stop this being circumnavigated though? For example, if Leicester’s super-rich Thai owner decided to buy a couple of “special” season tickets in an executive box for his family for £12 million then that would go on the books as turnover? I don’t know much about accounting but I do know that where there is a rule there’s a loophole! Well it's an interesting point,but the 'policers' would see a sudden inexplicable surge in revenues and investigate.I've no doubt the whole thing will be continuously probed and tested and that new regulations will evolve to plug loopholes.Anyway,I'm off to read about Sat's game-all I know so far is that Theo scored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I seem to remember that in 08/9 the figure was £6m-are you quoting 09/10,which were last presented accounts? Yes I was looking at 09/10, 08/09 is actually even worse it was £6.5m! And that year we sacked Billy & his cronies. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> Was looking forward to the 10/11 accounts to see if the figure had reduced,but this new policy has scuppered that! What do you mean? What policy? It should still be in the accounts as normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yes I was looking at 09/10, 08/09 is actually even worse it was £6.5m! And that year we sacked Billy & his cronies. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> What do you mean? What policy? It should still be in the accounts as normal. I mean the reluctance to give players' wages all of a sudden (and therefore the ability to calculate non players by deduction).I tried to keep up as best I could in my absence-did they eventually relent and give the 09/10 players' figure,and if so,what did they come up with? (Last I heard,in a RD interview,Glick refused to give the figure,saying other clubs didn't disclose it). According to Pearson,Jewell's pay off didn't reflect the full value of his o/s contract.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I mean the reluctance to give players' wages all of a sudden (and therefore the ability to calculate non players by deduction).I tried to keep up as best I could in my absence-did they eventually relent and give the 09/10 players' figure,and if so,what did they come up with? (Last I heard,in a RD interview,Glick refused to give the figure,saying other clubs didn't disclose it). I must say I hadn't noticed any reluctance to do that but I think I missed the last interview with RD. In the article about the release of the 08/09 Accounts (http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Glick-reveals-accounts-says-Rams-sound-footing/story-11574716-detail/story.html) from 2010-04-02 they gave them as being "currently standing" £11.5m, so I'd have thought that's what they were predicting them to be for the year end 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I must say I hadn't noticed any reluctance to do that but I think I missed the last interview with RD. In the article about the release of the 08/09 Accounts ([url=http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Glick-reveals-accounts-says-Rams-sound-footing/story-11574716-detail/story.html]http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html) from 2010-04-02 they gave them as being "currently standing" £11.5m, so I'd have thought that's what they were predicting them to be for the year end 2010 Thanks for link-I had that bookmarked ages ago,but for some reason it wouldn't display for me.So I take it there was no final,definitive figure given along with presentation of 09/10 accounts? There've been some pretty hefty removals since then:- McEveley,Teale,Connolly,,Hendrie,Hulse,Commons,Sav,Varney spring to mind,along with lesser lights like Porter,Price etc-and yes I realise that there's been recruitment also. If you missed the RD interview,Glick got very ratty when asked the question.In his latest RD interview it was obvious that Gibson didn't dare ask him what players' wages currently stood at,or what the budget stood at.He did however try to establish a new base point by asking if we'd be back to budget if Bywater,Pearson and Leacock left,but he managed to evade that one-can't ever let us know we're on budget,otherwise 'can't sign anyone because we're over budget on wages' wouldn't work anymore.Thankfully my immune system isn't attacking my cynicism producing mechanism. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hi Cornwall,and thanks.You're quite right about the lead in (adjustment) period and the 55% is contentious.I only mentioned it because I think the lower league clubs have had their 'allocation' reduced from 60% to 55% ,and I thought our own proposals were to be broadly based on this model.If it were to be 60%,my point is actually emphasised.I based my arguments on the position that we were going to eventually end up with because it appeared to me that we may be well below our final 'allocation' come July 1st. It's also worth remembering that similar proposals have been brought forward before and been voted down when it came to the crunch.It's hard to see West Ham and Leicester (to name just 2) voting for it-I don't think it was a straightforward majority vote required last time(may have been 2/3 majority,but not sure). I've seen your point on capital injections mentioned on other forums.To me this is a simple issue-capital injections are on the capital side of the business divide and turnover is on the revenue side.Capital can't be revenue,by definition.The point is that clubs can invest as much as they like of their own new money on player purchases,but such activity is constrained by whatever proportion of turnover that players' wages are permitted to be (this being the "fair play" element).My own opinion is that clubs will trim squad sizes and concentrate on quality,relying more on academies to fill in gaps.To this end,I think the reduction of subs from 7 to 5 was ridiculous (an obstacle to the development of academy players).They should have reduced to 5,with a provision to include a further 2 from the academy. Sorry I was so long replying-I settled down to lapping up the pre match radio yap on Saturday,only for the internet connection to go down at 2.30.Would you believe that it's only just come back on?Had looked forward to the match all week! Hi Ramblur The link below is pretty interesting. It appears to be a PowerPoint from a brainstorming workshop designed to find solutions to some of the Championship FFP rules. Forgive me if my reading of the material is not up to scratch, but it appears to indicate that the EUFA FFP rules - which govern the Premier League allow for owners to pump in upto £40m per season of which £35m has to be new capital. It is also interesting to see that Man City's owners are getting around things with a £400m shirt sponsorship deal. The sponser happens to be - by pure coincidence - a company owned by the brothers of the majority shareholder. Apparently the authorites are looking closely at the deal. [url=http://www.ffw.com/pdf/Financial-Fair-Play-Regs.pdf]http://www.ffw.com/pdf/Financial-Fair-Play-Regs.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hi Ramblur The link below is pretty interesting. It appears to be a PowerPoint from a brainstorming workshop designed to find solutions to some of the Championship FFP rules. Forgive me if my reading of the material is not up to scratch, but it appears to indicate that the EUFA FFP rules - which govern the Premier League allow for owners to pump in upto £40m per season of which £35m has to be new capital. It is also interesting to see that Man City's owners are getting around things with a £400m shirt sponsorship deal. The sponser happens to be - by pure coincidence - a company owned by the brothers of the majority shareholder. Apparently the authorites are looking closely at the deal. [url=http://www.ffw.com/pdf/Financial-Fair-Play-Regs.pdf]http://www.ffw.com/p...r-Play-Regs.pdf Thanks for that-certainly stormed my brain and nearly finished me off,I just can't cope with this kind of thing anymore! I suppose the Prem is a lot different to the Championship,in that all of the revenues (including Europe) produce massive profits (if you strip out player amortisation),therefore a lot of player acquisition can be funded from revenue rather than capital sources.It's hard enough for a Championship club to break even on the revenue divide of the business,without further expecting it to finance acquisitions in the main from revenue surpluses (which is the route I suspect we're taking). Still,you may be right and there may be a restriction on capital spend in conjunction with the revenue constraints.It was the bit about classing the capital as turnover (and therefore boosting the 60%,or whatever,wages spend) that I had an issue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hey Ramblur, great to have you back. Hope you are feeling ok! I thought what you wrote at the start of this thread was interesting: "To be fair to this administration (cue gasps all round) ,given numerous issues similar to this,I can fully understand their current low wage policy.This,in my opinion ,has led to the formation of a half decent base of a team,but it's the next stage that perplexes me.I think most would agree that we need an injection of real quality as the next step,but how do we achieve this if we aren't prepared to pay the going rate on wages for someone of real ability (even ignoring a fee).I believe that any real quality is going to have to come from the academy,hence the fast tracking of certain teenagers.I'm prepared for the long haul and remain fascinated (yet frustrated) by the whole business." I'm not sure we need a real injection of quality as the next step, especially if it's expensive. The squad as is has an outside chance of promotion. If the wages wasted on the likes of Pearson, Leacock, Bywater etc are used to bring in 3-4 signings of the quality of Barker/Shackell/Bryson over this and the next transfer window we'll be well set for a strong challenge next season. This will be operating at a sustainable level too. I'm sure Clough is the sort of manager who likes a team without egocentric superstars and a modest wage structure surely helps achieve this. Unless we unearth a real gem, the one position we may need to spend bigger on is the elusive goalscorer, but we seem to keep finding players this season who can do a job. I also think that the club is nicely placed for competing in the Premiership if it happens in the next 2-3 years. A team good enough to go up which is self-sustainable should be in a great position with a decent sized ground and the TV riches to come along too. If existing contracts are planed properly, then wage increases will be given after success and reduced with a relegation. Competing against long term Premiership teams reeling from FFP will only help us too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.