Thursday deadline.

[cesus]

Just now, JHRover said:

Ah yes.

Sky Sports essentially run the EFL through their multi-million rights package.

B Sky B were once significant shareholders in Leeds United

Sky Bet are headquartered in Leeds and have additional lucrative sponsorship arrangements with Leeds.

Murky.

SKY Bet the company that makes millions from transfer bets, after punters hearing the false stories that are made up on SKY sports news. Absolute snakes but hey the authorities love their cash!

[HowieFive0]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't know if you are being purposely disingenuous or actually aren't getting it.

The £11m you are claiming they gain per season in ST sales doesn't 100% go on transfer sales. You have policing, staffing, power etc (general overheads of a business) to deduce from that (which you conveniently summed up as half a million hahahahaha). Likewise, you also get further income from commercial activity/sponsorship. The £80m sum also doesn't include additional fees that come with any transfer (ie: huge agent fees, signing on fees, bonuses). They, like pretty much every Championship club, fails to turn a profit. 

Derby County
Company name: The Derby County Football Club
Owned by: Sevco 5112, owned by Candy Crush tycoon Mel Morris
Turnover: £22.6m (£21.5m)
Pre-tax loss: £14.7m (-£10.1m)
Staff costs: £31.9m (£21.8m)
Wage-to-turnover ratio: 141 per cent
Highest paid director: £194,583 (£449,578)
Net debt: Not stated; £3m bank loan
Bank: Barclays
Auditor: Smith Cooper
Y/E: 30 June 2016

 

That is the fees spent by Derby published June 17.

Blackburn Rovers
Company name: Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic
Owned by: Venky's London Ltd, owned by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private, an Indian company with interests in poultry, processed food, animal vaccines and pharmaceuticals
Turnover: £22m (£22.4m)
Pre-tax loss: £1.5m (-£17.3m)
Staff costs: £25.3m (£30.1m)
Wage-to-turnover ratio: 115 per cent
Highest paid director: £150,304 (£177,969)
Net debt: Not stated, loans of £87.3m (£87.1m) to parent and £14.2m (£12.9m) bank overdraft
Bank: State Bank of India
Auditor: PM+M Solutions for Business
Y/E: 30 June 2016

This is ours.

 

Everything about Derby's books screams breaking FFP in comparison to ours but it's only us who uses the rules as a refusal to spend in case of "non-compliance."

 

Wake up will you.

To put it into perspective in 15/16 they spent approx 40m and gained nothing. Didn't sell a player for a fee. That's a substantial increase in wages, fees spent and not a single figure to balance it back. No action was taken.

 

FFP is taken over three years apparently  dont exceed £39M ..comply at the end and then you start again with  another three year cycle? .This gives them two seasons to go gung ho but reign it in come the third to comply.Daft rules but seem to be the rules.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, HowieFive0 said:

FFP is taken over three years apparently  dont exceed £39M ..comply at the end and then you start again with  another three year cycle? .This gives them two seasons to go gung ho but reign it in come the third to comply.Daft rules but seem to be the rules.

That is exactly the case. Financial Fair Play allows clubs like Derby to flaunt the rules to gamble on promotion and, if they don't, reign themselves back in within 3. Bournemouth gambled, got up and paid the fine with the substantial prize on offer in the PL.

 

Also notice how Derby County's wages went up £10m in a single year. Isn't that actually deliberately flaunting FFP rules?

[HowieFive0]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

That is exactly the case. Financial Fair Play allows clubs like Derby to flaunt the rules to gamble on promotion and, if they don't, reign themselves back in within 3. Bournemouth gambled, got up and paid the fine with the substantial prize on offer in the PL.

And with Derbys so called three year cycle coming to an end they re free to splurge again ..no wonder Lampard said yes ...no way he d have gone there in a cost cutting season in order to comply to FFP.

[RevidgeBlue]

Oh dear, unleaded's info has had the "everything is under control" brigade scurrying for cover this afternoon.

It doesn't really matter whether the manager turned down a bigger budget or whether he wants to "build slowly" imo. Either approach is crackers. TM should be trying to squeeze every last penny out of the owners to invest in the squad and improve the quality of the playing staff.

Spending money is not the problem, if It's spent wisely it will always result in a healthy return on investment. It's spending it BADLY on ageing bell ends like Danny Murphy That's the problem.

If TM and that so called "Head of recruitment" (That's a laugh) are doing their jobs properly that shouldn't happen.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, HowieFive0 said:

And with Derbys so called three year cycle coming to an end they re free to splurge again ..no wonder Lampard said yes ...no way he d have gone there in a cost cutting season in order to comply to FFP.

Maybe he saw the ST sales and thought "well, I can spend!" 

[tomphil]

The FUP was probably created by suits who've  a remit to fill the Prem and the top end Champ  competing for the Prem places yearly with big city types who look good on TV with full grounds despite daft kick off times and prices.

Created to prevent the very thing Jack did with us and others followed. One or two have bucked the trend and will be safe if they can stay in the Prem or invest parachutes wisely but they'll gradually phase it out and soon it's a big boys parade only.

Edited July 25, 2018 by tomphil

[HowieFive0]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Oh dear, unleaded's info has had the "everything is under control" brigade scurrying for cover this afternoon.

It doesn't really matter whether the manager turned down a bigger budget or whether he wants to "build slowly" imo. Either approach is crackers. TM should be trying to squeeze every last penny out of the owners to invest in the squad and improve the quality of the playing staff.

Spending money is not the problem, if It's spent wisely it will always result in a healthy return on investment. It's spending it BADLY on ageing bell ends like Danny Murphy That's the problem.

If TM and that so called "Head of recruitment" (That's a laugh) are doing their jobs properly that shouldn't happen.

AGAIN until the window shuts we wont know ..infact probably not know the full truth even then.

If Unleaded is privy to such info regarding TM turning transfer money away then im sure hes privy to what players if any we are targeting.This info is more important at the moment than any.

Unleaded ..?

Edited July 25, 2018 by HowieFive0

[RoverCanada]

Thought I'd take a quick glance at Derby vs us out of curiosity... (I may have been beaten to the punch! Although Dreams of 1995's numbers appear to be from 15/16. not 16/17)

Rovers are probably looking at a base revenue (i.e. before considering player trading) of £15-17m this year. Derby's base revenue is more like £30m+ (for 16/17, they had £8.7m in matchday revenue, £7.9m in broadcast revenue, and £12.4m in commercial revenue). Derby's revenue has grown pretty respectably to, from £15m back in 2013.

Suppose Derby's owners are fine with £13m losses on average per year. That puts their spending at £43m in a year (before player trading, which has generally been low for Derby in recent years, but it spiked to a profit of £16m last year - the main reason they appear to be within FFP at the moment - which would theoretically increase that number to £59m). Now, suppose Venky's are only comfortable with.... £3m losses in a year (and this is a number you can debate endlessly - should they incur £13m losses because they're billionaires and they owe it to us after their misdeeds, etc etc., or is that last thing we need heaps of more debt? Is Venky's capable of adding so much more debt?). That puts our spending at £18-20m, which is £25-27m less than Derby's (before player trading...). Venky's could lower that gap to £15-17m if they decide to incur £13m of losses.

(You can also exclude some infrastructure, academy, and charitable spend under FFP, so that increases those numbers by another few million depending on the club. It'd probably be a decently high number for Rovers given our category 1 academy)

---

Another important consideration - at least for looking a single year's transfer expenditure - is that player trading profits can be booked immediately. Fee received minus a player's amortised book value. Suppose a player is bought for £10m and signs a 4-year contract. The amortisation cost is then £2.5m for each year of the contract, so a player signed today doesn't immediately cost £10m in accounting terms; they're added to the costs over a period of time. Suppose that player is sold at the start of year 4 of the contract for £10m - that's considered a £7.5m profit vs the remaining book value of £2.5m.

Taking Derby's recent activity as an example, if they've bought Marriott for £2.5m on a 3-year contract, that's a £0.83m cost for this year and the next two years (Derby's amortisation costs have been steadily rising over the years)... While they bought Vydra for £8m in 2016, signed him to a 4-year contract, thus putting his book value at £4m this year. So, if they've just sold him for £10m, they can book a £6m profit this year. (Derby had player trading profits of £16m in 16/17)

I find it odd some are ignoring some of the huge sales some of these Championship clubs are making in this same window. As was posted above, based on the estimates out there, few Championship clubs are actually net spenders so far this window. Something we don't have the luxury, or to put it more positively, we've decidedly not cashed in on the likes of Dack, Lenihan, etc.

In sum, you can't look at reported transfer fees in any individual window in a vacuum...

Amid all this are wages, of course... which deserve more attention than headline transfer fees.

Edited July 25, 2018 by RoverCanada

[SBlue]

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here @Bigdoggsteel but I can assure you that the non-playing staff wage bill at Derby will be more than £500,000 alone.

That's around just 30 staff on minimum wage.

[Bigdoggsteel]

26 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't know if you are being purposely disingenuous or actually aren't getting it.

The £11m you are claiming they gain per season in ST sales doesn't 100% go on transfer sales. You have policing, staffing, power etc (general overheads of a business) to deduce from that (which you conveniently summed up as half a million hahahahaha). Likewise, you also get further income from commercial activity/sponsorship. The £80m sum also doesn't include additional fees that come with any transfer (ie: huge agent fees, signing on fees, bonuses). They, like pretty much every Championship club, fails to turn a profit. 

Derby County
Company name: The Derby County Football Club
Owned by: Sevco 5112, owned by Candy Crush tycoon Mel Morris
Turnover: £22.6m (£21.5m)
Pre-tax loss: £14.7m (-£10.1m)
Staff costs: £31.9m (£21.8m)
Wage-to-turnover ratio: 141 per cent
Highest paid director: £194,583 (£449,578)
Net debt: Not stated; £3m bank loan
Bank: Barclays
Auditor: Smith Cooper
Y/E: 30 June 2016

 

That is the fees spent by Derby published June 17.

Blackburn Rovers
Company name: Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic
Owned by: Venky's London Ltd, owned by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private, an Indian company with interests in poultry, processed food, animal vaccines and pharmaceuticals
Turnover: £22m (£22.4m)
Pre-tax loss: £1.5m (-£17.3m)
Staff costs: £25.3m (£30.1m)
Wage-to-turnover ratio: 115 per cent
Highest paid director: £150,304 (£177,969)
Net debt: Not stated, loans of £87.3m (£87.1m) to parent and £14.2m (£12.9m) bank overdraft
Bank: State Bank of India
Auditor: PM+M Solutions for Business
Y/E: 30 June 2016

This is ours.

 

Everything about Derby's books screams breaking FFP in comparison to ours but it's only us who uses the rules as a refusal to spend in case of "non-compliance."

 

Wake up will you.

To put it into perspective in 15/16 they spent approx 40m and gained nothing. Didn't sell a player for a fee. That's a substantial increase in wages, fees spent and not a single figure to balance it back. No action was taken.

 

Are you using info from 2015? My god, get with the times or you have no valid points worth discussing.

Jesus you keep mentioning power/electricity as an outgoing like it can make or break a club. Comical

Anyway, the main issue your figures above are from 2015. We are now in 2018. Keep up 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here @Bigdoggsteel but I can assure you that the non-playing staff wage bill at Derby will be more than £500,000 alone.

That's around just 30 staff on minimum wage.

I just guessed that. How many non playing staff do rovers employ? 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

Thought I'd take a quick glance at Derby vs us out of curiosity... (I may have been beaten to the punch! Although Dreams of 1995's numbers appear to be from 15/16. not 16/17)

Rovers are probably looking at a base revenue (i.e. before considering player trading) of £15-17m this year. Derby's base revenue is more like £30m+ (for 16/17, they had £8.7m in matchday revenue, £7.9m in broadcast revenue, and £12.4m in commercial revenue). Derby's revenue has grown pretty respectably to, from £15m back in 2013.

Suppose Derby's owners are fine with £13m losses on average per year. That puts their spending at £43m in a year (before player trading, which has generally been low for Derby in recent years, but it spiked to a profit of £16m last year - the main reason they appear to be within FFP at the moment - which would theoretically increase that number to £59m). Now, suppose Venky's are only comfortable with.... £3m losses in a year (and this is a number you can debate endlessly - should they incur £13m losses because they're billionaires and they owe it to us after their misdeeds, etc etc., or is that last thing we need heaps of more debt?). That puts our spending at £18-20m, which is £25-27m less than Derby's (before player trading...). Venky's could lower that gap to £15-17m if they decide to incur £13m of losses.

(You can also exclude some infrastructure, academy, and charitable spend under FFP, so that increases those numbers by another few million depending on the club. It'd probably be a decently high number for Rovers given our category 1 academy)

---

Another important consideration - at least for looking a single year's transfer expenditure - is that player trading profits can be booked immediately. Fee received minus a player's amortised book value. Suppose a player is bought for £10m and signs a 4-year contract. The amortisation cost is then £2.5m for each year of the contract, so a player signed today doesn't immediately cost £10m in accounting terms; they're added to the costs over a period of time. Suppose that player is sold at the start of year 4 of the contract for £10m - that's considered a £7.5m profit vs the remaining book value of £2.5m.

Taking Derby's recent activity as an example, if they've bought Marriott for £2.5m on a 3-year contract, that's a £0.83m cost for this year and the next two years (Derby's amortisation costs have been steadily rising over the years)... While they bought Vydra for £8m in 2016, signed him to a 4-year contract, thus putting his book value at £4m this year. So, if they've just sold him for £10m, they can book a £6m profit this year. (Derby had player trading profits of £16m in 16/17)

I find it odd some are ignoring some of the huge sales some of these Championship clubs are making in this same window. As was posted above, based on the estimates out there, few Championship clubs are actually net spenders so far this window. Something we don't have the luxury, or to put it more positively, we've decidedly not cashed in on the likes of Dack, Lenihan, etc.

In sum, you can't look at reported transfer fees in any individual window in a vacuum...

Amid all this are wages, of course... which deserve more attention than headline transfer fees.

Thank you. Very detailed and well explained. Hopefully it's clearer to some posters on here now. 

[pomster]

Thought this was about transfere rumours etc ... Better go and double check!

Edited July 25, 2018 by pomster

[islander200]

Traore from Boro rumoured to be joining Wolves for 18 million.One less winger at Boro less likely Chapman will be moved on

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, islander200 said:

Traore from Boro rumoured to be joining Wolves for 18 million.One less winger at Boro less likely Chapman will be moved on

Surely that depends who comes in. 

I can see Philips from WBA coming in there. Maybe someone else aswell allowing Chapman to leave

[BG1492]

Like I said yesterday I heard we could have been getting one signed today but nothing happened. I think it’s fair to say no one really knows what’s going on behind the scenes with transfers. Also the guy who told me someone would be signing won’t be being trusted again ???

[Bigdoggsteel]

Hearing varying reports on the Marriott fee. Seems it is 5 million, but some reporting only 2 million of that is upfront... 

Announce Maddison and Armstrong! 

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I don't think its mainly wages but these stupid and daft fees for very average transfer fees. Waghorn moving for 8 mil is a pathetic and seems how crazy this market is

But also makes £3million for Armstrong a comparative bargain...

[bluebruce]

3 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

If I told you that several people (who have met with / worked for) the owners have told me that Venkys are ALWAYS willing to spend more would you believe me? 

No. Because, history.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, islander200 said:

Traore from Boro rumoured to be joining Wolves for 18 million.One less winger at Boro less likely Chapman will be moved on

Likely they will sign a pricey, proven replacement though.

[Tormund]

Chapman won’t be a starter from Boro, no chance. 

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

39 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

Thought I'd take a quick glance at Derby vs us out of curiosity... (I may have been beaten to the punch! Although Dreams of 1995's numbers appear to be from 15/16. not 16/17)

Rovers are probably looking at a base revenue (i.e. before considering player trading) of £15-17m this year. Derby's base revenue is more like £30m+ (for 16/17, they had £8.7m in matchday revenue, £7.9m in broadcast revenue, and £12.4m in commercial revenue). Derby's revenue has grown pretty respectably to, from £15m back in 2013.

Suppose Derby's owners are fine with £13m losses on average per year. That puts their spending at £43m in a year (before player trading, which has generally been low for Derby in recent years, but it spiked to a profit of £16m last year - the main reason they appear to be within FFP at the moment - which would theoretically increase that number to £59m). Now, suppose Venky's are only comfortable with.... £3m losses in a year (and this is a number you can debate endlessly - should they incur £13m losses because they're billionaires and they owe it to us after their misdeeds, etc etc., or is that last thing we need heaps of more debt? Is Venky's capable of adding so much more debt?). That puts our spending at £18-20m, which is £25-27m less than Derby's (before player trading...). Venky's could lower that gap to £15-17m if they decide to incur £13m of losses.

(You can also exclude some infrastructure, academy, and charitable spend under FFP, so that increases those numbers by another few million depending on the club. It'd probably be a decently high number for Rovers given our category 1 academy)

---

Another important consideration - at least for looking a single year's transfer expenditure - is that player trading profits can be booked immediately. Fee received minus a player's amortised book value. Suppose a player is bought for £10m and signs a 4-year contract. The amortisation cost is then £2.5m for each year of the contract, so a player signed today doesn't immediately cost £10m in accounting terms; they're added to the costs over a period of time. Suppose that player is sold at the start of year 4 of the contract for £10m - that's considered a £7.5m profit vs the remaining book value of £2.5m.

Taking Derby's recent activity as an example, if they've bought Marriott for £2.5m on a 3-year contract, that's a £0.83m cost for this year and the next two years (Derby's amortisation costs have been steadily rising over the years)... While they bought Vydra for £8m in 2016, signed him to a 4-year contract, thus putting his book value at £4m this year. So, if they've just sold him for £10m, they can book a £6m profit this year. (Derby had player trading profits of £16m in 16/17)

I find it odd some are ignoring some of the huge sales some of these Championship clubs are making in this same window. As was posted above, based on the estimates out there, few Championship clubs are actually net spenders so far this window. Something we don't have the luxury, or to put it more positively, we've decidedly not cashed in on the likes of Dack, Lenihan, etc.

In sum, you can't look at reported transfer fees in any individual window in a vacuum...

Amid all this are wages, of course... which deserve more attention than headline transfer fees.

So basically they spend decent money on quality players and use a high value sale every year to cover losses?  Then rinse, wash, repeat.

Hmm....sounds a familiar model.

[Al]

20 hours ago, blondie said:

Chapman scored for Boro, apparently playing well.

Pillock should have thrown it!

[chaddyrovers]

15 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

But also makes £3million for Armstrong a comparative bargain...

I agree