ramblur Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think people are forgetting that GSE are still repairing the damage from the three amigos, ie recovering from the £60m in debts. We still ran at a fairly high loss of around £7m last year (correct me if I am wrong). I'd rather we play less exciting football for a few years so that we are sound financially, than end up a la Portsmouth/Darlington/Port Vale and especially Rangers. All credit to GSE, and all credit to Clough for working with such a small budget. What's all this nonsense about recovering from £60m of debt? The accounts clearly show that the net debt at the end of 07/08 was £21.8m.As our owners had injected no new money at this point in time,it can be safely said that the LOG were responsible for this position,with parachute payments of £23m to follow (again down to their achievements).Indeed,the net debt figure would have been somewhat lower if it hadn't been for our owners' intervention in the Jan 08 window,with the needless waste of a substantial sum.Compare this situation with the 10/11 net debt figure of £25.5m (to rise further in 11/12)-however this time there isn't a vast sum of money earned by a previous administration to fall back on. I would suggest to you that what we are really recovering from is the reckless Jan 08 spending allied to a flawed policy of throwing a shedload of new players together in 08/09 and expecting them to gel into a promotion team in an inglorious one year assault,which had to be dismantled thereafter.If conventional wisdom had been applied,by adding a few decent players to the rump of the LOG squad (and not having squandered cash in Jan),then things might have been different and sustainable for more than one year.The chute payments would have allowed a 2 year assault,and in the 3rd year any expensive LOG contracts would have started to fall out.Who knows,half decent players like Jones and Mears might have been persuaded to stay if they hadn't previously been told that they would be consigned to the dustbin along with the rest of the LOG's squad-a squad that performed dismally in the Prem,but which hadn't fared so badly the previous year in the Championship. If anyone doesn't believe the 07/08 net debt figure,then I suggest a visit to the following:- [url=http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/search/label/Derby%20County]http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/search/label/Derby%20County Go to the penultimate graphic towards the end of the article.I noticed that the commentary following this makes no mention of £9m+ of new secured borrowing taken out by this administration in 08/09,though it's clearly visible in the 08/09 accounts.If anyone doesn't believe my assertion that our owners put in no new money in 07/08,then there's the choice of trying to find some in the accounts (good luck),or trying to find reference to same in the SwissRambler piece (ditto). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Pretty much just you. We over spent and under achieved when we got promoted and all the parachute money was been eaten by players on high pay long term contracts that did not deserve it imho. We then had to spend 3 years getting shot of these players for little or no transfer fees and bring in players that wanted to play, and had to be paid. When NC took over we had a 1st team squad in excess of 30 players. The only overspending following promotion was the reckless Jan 08 variety.The LOG spending was well covered by the £14.172m net cash inflow from operating activities clearly identified in the accounts.The fact that they borrowed money to finance spending (because the vast bulk of tv money was to come later) obviously meant that this spending didn't eat into the £14m and it should therefrore come as no surprise that there was a bank of cash at the year end.Add the Jan 08 spending to this cash and you'll see that the LOG borrowing is more than covered by this cash mountain ,in the same season. I think you'll find that the chute payments were squandered predominantly on an axis of players from Sav through to Porter (I made it 19 in all) that featured on the 08/09 wage bill,and the subsequent pay offs that arose thereafter.Everyone seems to want to mention Clod,but there are a few juicy specimens amongst the 19.Whatever Clod cost to pay off should be seen in the context of the £23m of inherited riches (in fact there's strong evidence that this figure was over £1m higher,due mainly to a higher 2nd payment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The loss was around 7.5 as said. The screen is costing 1mil but it will have paid for itself by the end of the season, therefore in theory will generate 1mil a season extra. Why bother with a director of football when the new CEO can do that job? You're quoting the headline loss (£7.7m),whereas alexxxxx appears to be attempting to give a cash loss.After various adjustments for paper losses and the movements in debtors and creditors over the year,the net cash outflow from operating activities was £3.943m. Whilst on the subject of movement in creditors,when giving my presentation on the accounts I mentioned that a large reduction in creditors (which formed a chunk of the £3.943m) was a good thing.I was probably a bit premature here as I'd forgotten that deferred income (as in advance S/T sales) is classed as a creditor.Given that the advance sales for 11/12 were less than those for 10/11,then part of the creditor reduction was down to a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Silver,I agree with much of what you say.I can find no evidence of creaming off-all I can see is what appears to me to be an obvious attempt to ensure that this season they don't have to inject any more cash to cover cash losses. Whilst you say that we would be in a far worse position without the cash injections,it would equally be true to say that we'd have been in a far better position if Jan 08 and 08/09 had been handled better. I can find little negative to say about Gadsby and the LOG,but I think Gadsby was wrong to spout off about paid directors,given that we had same in the promotion season.I also think he was wrong to talk of a reliance on loan players during his failed bid,as every club usually dips into the loan market.If he'd confined his remarks to a reliance on loanees as full team members he may have had a point. For what it's worth,he may well have been speaking the truth in his August 08 outburst.The accounts to 30 June 08 clearly show that there had been no inward investment up to that point,and also show that nearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 My frustration comes from this time last summer we were told that we could not get in Waghorn and Eustace (maybe a good thing with the emergence of Hendrick) because we could not move out Bywater, Lescott & Pearson. They and Green have now been moved out and and yet we are still told that we have to sell to buy. As others have said Glick is supposed to be one of the best at generating commercial revenue and yet still with all of that we have to wheel before we deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 My frustration comes from this time last summer we were told that we could not get in Waghorn and Eustace (maybe a good thing with the emergence of Hendrick) because we could not move out Bywater, Lescott & Pearson. They and Green have now been moved out and and yet we are still told that we have to sell to buy. As others have said Glick is supposed to be one of the best at generating commercial revenue and yet still with all of that we have to wheel before we deal! Perhaps it's because a pound sign has become an empty square box! Still trying to work out how this happened-IT frustrates me,no doubt a sign of advancing years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stedcfc Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Last year we went and bout 8/9 players and were unable to sell the ones they wanted I just think this year they want to make sure we offload people who are leaving being Davies Addison croft before we go and buy so we don't have a situation where we've bought Davies' replacement and then can't sell him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Ramblur said: "Whilst you say that we would be in a far worse position without the cash injections,it would equally be true to say that we'd have been in a far better position if Jan 08 and 08/09 had been handled better." You are, of course, right. However, you are saying this with the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the next few years panned out. I didn't see many supporters protesting about the approach at the time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Ramblur said: "Whilst you say that we would be in a far worse position without the cash injections,it would equally be true to say that we'd have been in a far better position if Jan 08 and 08/09 had been handled better." You are, of course, right. However, you are saying this with the benefit of hindsight and knowing how the next few years panned out. I didn't see many supporters protesting about the approach at the time..... Whilst I wasn't a forum contributor at the time,I can honestly say that I had grave misgivings over what happened in Jan 08 onwards,and I'd be a little surprised if a lot of others hadn't shared my views. Whether with the benefit of hindsight or otherwise,it's still a fact.Too many blame the LOG for everything-in my view they did a lot to transform the finances of the club,and they did so off their own bats,without shedloads of cash earned by a previous administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think that part of the job spec for the new CEO is very telling. To paraphrase - Derby County need to be the best buyers and sellers of players in the division. To me that says that GSE realise that making a profit from standard operations is nigh on impossible. The aim is to generate cash, from either buying low and selling high, or selling on our home grown players. What is going to be interesting is what happens to the cash. Will it be profit for the owners or firepower for the manager? I would say that the latter makes the most business sense because if it worked (which imo is unlikely) it could achieve a very cheap promotion, which would allow the owners to sell for a decent profit. If they just keep creaming of a bit of profit whilst never improving the team, revenue would just keep falling and they would have a hard time ever getting back their investment. I can see the attraction of concentrating on developing the kids, but my big concerns would be the size of Crewe's trophy cabinet and the new EPPP rules which look like they have the potential of negating any investment in the acadamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Where is the money?! We all know the answers and the reasons to what we're doing but it doesn't make it easy when other teams are going against the grain; and we seem to be strictly sticking to the rules in place. From an investors point of view, its brilliant these regulations are in place because it means they can hide behind these reasons for not investing but anyone who thinks not investing is the key to winning or believes you dont need to invest to improve is filled to the brim on the americans reasons, personally, I have become bemused by the situation. I'm finding it near on impossible to get excited about a season knowing that we're set up on a budget which is below that of a ridiculous amount of npower champ sides, but all we can do is next season go in with an open mind, expect very little... As long as we stay up i'll be happy and go on from there, the excitement of football has all about gone when it comes to Derby! I respect anyone who can remain excited despite the likelyhood that players will leave and unlikely be replaced like or like, and more gambles took, for me, however, its fading and the similaraties in how us and conventry went about our business are similar, and could go down a similar path next season!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 You're quoting the headline loss (£7.7m),whereas alexxxxx appears to be attempting to give a cash loss.After various adjustments for paper losses and the movements in debtors and creditors over the year,the net cash outflow from operating activities was £3.943m. Whilst on the subject of movement in creditors,when giving my presentation on the accounts I mentioned that a large reduction in creditors (which formed a chunk of the £3.943m) was a good thing.I was probably a bit premature here as I'd forgotten that deferred income (as in advance S/T sales) is classed as a creditor.Given that the advance sales for 11/12 were less than those for 10/11,then part of the creditor reduction was down to a bad thing. thanks ramblur. Out of interest, using my long forgotten business studies learnings, how can S/T sales be classed as a creditor? That doesnt seem to make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 because instead of sitting in sales in the profit and loss they sit as a creditor in the balance sheet, where when the new season begins the move to sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 My frustration comes from this time last summer we were told that we could not get in Waghorn and Eustace (maybe a good thing with the emergence of Hendrick) because we could not move out Bywater, Lescott & Pearson. They and Green have now been moved out and and yet we are still told that we have to sell to buy. As others have said Glick is supposed to be one of the best at generating commercial revenue and yet still with all of that we have to wheel before we deal! Lescott! How much did we sell him for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I think that part of the job spec for the new CEO is very telling. To paraphrase - Derby County need to be the best buyers and sellers of players in the division. To me that says that GSE realise that making a profit from standard operations is nigh on impossible. The aim is to generate cash, from either buying low and selling high, or selling on our home grown players. What is going to be interesting is what happens to the cash. Will it be profit for the owners or firepower for the manager? I would say that the latter makes the most business sense because if it worked (which imo is unlikely) it could achieve a very cheap promotion, which would allow the owners to sell for a decent profit. If they just keep creaming of a bit of profit whilst never improving the team, revenue would just keep falling and they would have a hard time ever getting back their investment. I can see the attraction of concentrating on developing the kids, but my big concerns would be the size of Crewe's trophy cabinet and the new EPPP rules which look like they have the potential of negating any investment in the acadamy. That’s pretty much the way I see it. On the positive side, Clough only has both arms and one leg tied behind his back – he can still hop about if he really wants to. I’ve not heard much about EPPP recently and had completely forgotten about it. Clough and TG regularly mention the academy and the need to develop our own players but never mention it. I’m hoping that's because they think its implementation isn’t going to be as bad as some originally feared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 The loss was around 7.5 as said. "The screen is costing 1mil but it will have paid for itself by the end of the season", therefore in theory will generate 1mil a season extra. Why bother with a director of football when the new CEO can do that job? How ??, does that mean the season after it will make a million pounds profit ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 How ??, does that mean the season after it will make a million pounds profit ?? Advertising. And yes, that's the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Advertising. And yes, that's the idea. I know what the idea is, but they will not make that much I betcha, it mightt pay for itself in 5 years, but defo NOT one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I know what the idea is, but they will not make that much I betcha, it mightt pay for itself in 5 years, but defo NOT one. Ok, I bow to your better judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 If they bought the screen from Currys you got money knocked off for every goal England scored in Euro 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.