How is it Derby can afford to buy players at £2.75 million?

[SteveTheSeagull]

Are we really that skint we can't put in a decent bid for players? How are Derby doing it? Floundering FFP? Better crowds? Or just more willing to put their hand in their chequebook. Thing thing that really annoys me about BHA is how stingy we can be.


http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/spo...news/aston-villas-andi-weimann-agrees-9484565

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

What on earth are you talking about? We agreed a 1.5 million fee with NEC for Jananbaksh.
.

 

[Mattywerewolf]

There was me thinking that Derby were in a similar position to us a year ago...

couple of years flirting with promotion
lose manager

expected wheels to fall off and players not to be signed, late signings in desperation and a poor resulting season....

Looks like they are coming back much stronger....

 

[nwgull]

What on earth are you talking about? We agreed a 1.5 million fee with NEC for Jananbaksh.
.

This. We also paid something of that order for Baldock last summer. Saying that we're not able or willing to pay transfer fees is bollocks.

 

[Mattywerewolf]

agree, the problem has been where we have spent it relative to the competition and how the Finn used it on the field

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Derby paying that amount is an exception rather than a rule - few Championship teams will
be spending that amount on one player this season.

From our perspective we have has an offer of 1.5 million accepted on a player, and 1 million bid on another so claiming we don't spend any money is unfair.

The delays to getting anything over the line comes down to agent and player power, holding out to the last minute, and also probably ourselves being a bit too Mr Nice Guy which is not in itself a bad thing.

 

[B.W.]

Derby paying that amount is an exception rather than a rule - few Championship teams will
be spending that amount on one player this season.

From our perspective we have has an offer of 1.5 million accepted on a player, and 1 million bid on another so claiming we don't spend any money is unfair.

The delays to getting anything over the line comes down to agent and player power, holding out to the last minute, and also probably ourselves being a bit too Mr Nice Guy which is not in itself a bad thing.

I would say OUR inability to get deals over the line is a very, very bad thing. We just can't afford another summer like the last one (with resultant season disaster).

 

[Icy Gull]

This. We also paid something of that order for Baldock last summer. Saying that we're not able or willing to pay transfer fees is bollocks.

True, it's just selling the club to decent players that appears the problem, bit of a worry too given the facilities.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

I would say OUR inability to get deals over the line is a very, very bad thing. We just can't afford another summer like the last one (with resultant season disaster).

Yep this. And it started with the Ward willy waving. The alarm bells rang from that day on. So it was proved.

 

[glasfryn]

True, it's just selling the club to decent players that appears the problem, bit of a worry too given the facilities.

thing I find difficult to understand is those at the club can sell ST's to over 20k but cannot convince players to play for us, we have a relitively new ground and brand new training ground and crowds in excess of 25k.
there is really something radically wrong somewhere

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

It cannot cost Derby much less to run their stadium than the Amex costs, can it ?

So, their non-playing budget should be the similar to us for the Financial Foul Play accounts.


Yet they can afford decent signings, and we relax, 'safe' in the knowledge we have a small, mostly poor squad.


The only explanations I can see is that either this year Derby are going to be busting FFP ( maybe gambling it will fall apart shortly ), or that they are selling an expensive player very soon.

 

[supaseagull]

It cannot cost Derby much less to run their stadium than the Amex costs, can it ?

So, their non-playing budget should be the similar to us for the Financial Foul Play accounts.


Yet they can afford decent signings, and we relax, safe in the knowledge we have a small, mostly poor squad.


The only explanations I can see is that either this year Derby are going to be busting FFP ( maybe gambling it will fall apart shortly ), or that they are selling an expensive player very soon.

Clearly ffp isn't holding clubs back except for those who want to use it as an excuse for not shelling out for decent players.

 

[B.W.]

True it's just selling the club to decent players that appears the problem, bit of a worry too given the facilities.

I think this is a massive worry.

 

[middletoenail]

It cannot cost Derby much less to run their stadium than the Amex costs, can it ?

So, their non-playing budget should be the similar to us for the Financial Foul Play accounts.


Yet they can afford decent signings, and we relax, 'safe' in the knowledge we have a small, mostly poor squad.


The only explanations I can see is that either this year Derby are going to be busting FFP ( maybe gambling it will fall apart shortly ), or that they are selling an expensive player very soon.

I think you might be surprised. Just subsidising the travel I believe costs the club a small fortune, I'm sure it's at least a seven figure number?

 

[mikeyjh]

It cannot cost Derby much less to run their stadium than the Amex costs, can it ?

So, their non-playing budget should be the similar to us for the Financial Foul Play accounts.


Yet they can afford decent signings, and we relax, 'safe' in the knowledge we have a small, mostly poor squad.


The only explanations I can see is that either this year Derby are going to be busting FFP ( maybe gambling it will fall apart shortly ), or that they are selling an expensive player very soon.

I don't know a huge amount about it but I think clearly our off field expenses are markedly lower, I made this point it another thread - That are (football) wage bills are similar now, but we seem to have more flexibility to spend money and 'comfortably' met FFP last season, given that your revenues are (or were) higher than ours, it can only be the Brighton's off field activities are proving very expensive..... There's a lot of guesswork there but.....

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I think you might be surprised. Just subsidising the travel I believe costs the club a small fortune, I'm sure it's at least a seven figure number?

OK, that makes sense, but that leads onto the wider question of why does subsidising travel count as an FFP cost ?

Surely sustainable transport strategies should be encouraged, and exempt from FFP ?

 

[middletoenail]

OK, that makes sense, but that leads onto the wider question of why does subsidising travel count as an FFP cost ?

Surely sustainable transport strategies should be encouraged, and exempt from FFP ?

Possibly so, but my accounting/FFP knowledge isn't up to answering that. But even so, it's a million quid more that Tony has to subsidise.

 

[ofco8]

True, it's just selling the club to decent players that appears the problem, bit of a worry too given the facilities.

This. We were told whilst residing at Withdean, that when the club was up and running at Falmer there would be no trouble attracting decent players we were after.

 

[Return of the Rev]

Are we really that skint we can't put in a decent bid for players? How are Derby doing it? Floundering FFP? Better crowds? Or just more willing to put their hand in their chequebook. Thing thing that really annoys me about BHA is how stingy we can be.


http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/spo...news/aston-villas-andi-weimann-agrees-9484565

If only we could find the missing 83 millions!

 

[SteveTheSeagull]

If only we could find the missing 83 millions!

But does that really justify not spending out?