I was looking at the progress the Rams have made since Nigel Clough became manager in January 2009 and to make it a bit clearer, I've summarized the seasons below. It looks as though, with the exception of 2010/2011 which was a really poor season, that there has been a steady improvement.

A case could be made that if the club simply keeps making gradual improvements, as we have been, that promotion is assured... eventually. Slow but sure does the trick, and all of that.

The problem is that, as I indicated in my column last week, there is a monster called ‘Financial Fair Play’ which is about to rear its ugly head.

From the 2014/2015 season onwards, Championship clubs are permitted to make a loss of no more than £3M before sanctions, including transfer embargoes kick in. The Rams are currently losing close to £8M per year.

So a case can be made that slow but sure is not going to work; that the Rams need to be promoted to the Prem this season (2013/2014) or they may have to begin dismantling the team in order to dramatically cut losses next season (2014/2015), so as not to incur penalties.

Of course, regardless of FFP, the Rams current level of money losing is not sustainable for the long term; losses have to be cut to more reasonable levels.

How real is the threat of FFP? Are Championship clubs taking steps to comply?

For a better idea on how it can be achieved I recommend following the link below to an excellent article from earlier this month, which talks about Brighton's efforts to cut costs, as well as the Championship in general.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24024109

It contains this quote from David Burke, Brighton's head of football operations:

"We know the ins and outs of every part of it and we have had to save about £3m in total across the club... That has meant a huge effort from the club to reduce costs. It has enabled us to hit this first year with a player budget which is the same as last year."

And this one:

"My experience of the transfer window is that practically every club hasn't bought players and is trying to get rid of players - hence why the wages are coming down and there is a glut of players, especially midfielders."

That puts a new perspective on the whole situation with John Brayford: why we did not receive a larger fee for him, why it was important for the club that he should move, and what plans the club has for using the money received.

All of this also makes us realise that the Rams' directors have a very real challenge in front of them: they need to cut a great deal of cost in a manner which allows the club to continue improving; and they can spend little to nothing on transfer fees to bring players in.

Supporting the Rams is rarely dull.

Photo: Action Images

davenportram added 16:12 - Sep 19 Bill, this is well written article and succeeds in fostering doubt in the mind of the reader regarding our ability to comply with FFP. It implies that the sale of Brayford was merely cost cutting. However, you have (accidentally I hope) ignored the true financial limit of FFP being £8m losses this year (they£3m you mention plus the allowance of £5m capital investment) so in the last accounts to June 12 we would comply with the limits due to be imposed for accounts relating to this season. From the end of June 2012 we have removed players on large wages and cut costs so I expect the accounts to June 2013 (due out between now and the end of the year) to show a loss of £8m or less. (Better than the FFP requirement that hits in 2014)

0

1960Ram added 06:43 - Sep 20 Davenport: I don't want to give the impression that I'm claiming expertise on this subject; I just want to get some discussion going among Rams fans about a subject that is important to the club, but has been widely ignored. That said, I don't think it matters - from an FFP perspective - how much we lose for the 2013/2014 season, since penalties do not apply for this year. But it certainly matters for 2014/2015. So if Will Hughes has to be sold, it should probably happen after 30th June, 2014. And we will likely not be able to spend any of the cash received. That would be popular, wouldn't it?

0

davenportram added 18:52 - Sep 22 But your assumption that we need promotion or sell a player because we don't meet FfP is false. We are allowed to lose £8m for the current year if £5m is invested by owners. we lost £8m two seasons ago. Last season is probably less and this season will have cut further. If we lose £6m the owners have to put in £3n to prevent sanctions. If will I'd sold after June next year then his sale can't count towards this seasons loss or the first instalment if FFP losses. And if the cost cutting continues at the present rate most if not all would be available.

0

davenportram added 18:53 - Sep 22 By the way you linked to an article stating clubs can lose £8m in the 2014-14 season yet say in your piece that the limit is £3m.
0

1960Ram added 22:37 - Sep 25 Davenport: I don't think you can add owners' financing to the allowed loss. The limit on owners' financing means - the way I read it - that owners are limited in how much money they can put in to finance operations. It cannot be counted as revenue to reduce the loss the club made. And I don't see DCFC losses dropping year over year as you want them to. Rather, I think they will get worse as attendances drop. Bill

0

pkay_brum added 18:52 - Oct 2 FFP may not be the solvency & stability solution that UEFA think it is; it's under legal challenge re: restraint of trade: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24333604 The lawyer (Dupont) that forced the Bosman ruling is behind the challenge. FFP may not restrain the moneybags owners from building Chelseas and Man Citehs but most surely, The Ram need to get on the EPL gravy train soon or they will atrophy...

0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Sheffield Wednesday Polls