Wayne Rooney to Derby - Confirmed (Merged)

[ZiderEyed]

Why not have every player as a player-coach and chuck money at it?

Its cheating, plain and simple.

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, ZiderEyed said:

Why not have every player as a player-coach and chuck money at it?

Its cheating, plain and simple.

Mel Morris uses a Ditionary.

Doesn't have a c in it!

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Announcing the deal Mel Morris said "The commercial opportunities this creates are widespread and significant .... on the back of Wayne joining the club we have just been offered a record-breaking sponsorship deal with our principle shirt sponsor 32Red"

Surely this raises a serious question about sponsorship as I thought that there were rules in place to judge fair value for sponsorship deals. Otherwise SL could arrange to see stadium naming rights to Pula for , say, £100m as a way of injecting more of his money into the club and getting around the ffp limits and thereby gaining an advantage.

In this case 32Red were already Derby's shirt sponsor and I'm guessing had previously agreed a deal for this season's sponsorship. To my mind that established the level of  "fair value" for Derby's shirt sponsorship. What has happened here is that 32Red has sponsored Wayne Rooney, in addition to sponsoring Derby County and that is a dangerous precedent to allow. That it has been done within the cloak of a new " record breaking shirt sponsorship deal" is sadly not unexpected given Morris's recent track record with the sale of Pride Park.

Fully agree with this.

2 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Why not have every player as a player-coach and chuck money at it?

Its cheating, plain and simple.

This too.

[CyderInACan]

On 07/08/2019 at 20:50, Up The City! said:

I get what your saying, but isn't giving him the number 32 going a little bit too far?

Half the age of the types of birds he usually goes for . . . 

[DerbyFan]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Here's another thing too!

Read the other day, that several other clubs are sponsored by 32Red I believe- if I was them I would be fuming that Derby have suddenly got this cash injection for a move of questionable repute.

Leeds, Middlesbrough and Preston. All of whom have stuck or tried to stick to the spirit of FFP too- absolute joke. They also sponsor Aston Villa and Rangers but the former especially FFP cheats and the latter financial irregularities which saw them demoted to the bottom division so a bit meh but those other current Championship clubs- a nonsense.

Why exactly does it matter that other clubs are sponsored by them?

Do you think that all of those clubs would have been paid the same amount by them in the first place? Of course they wouldn't, the get the amount that 32red deem reasonable for the exposure they will be given. In fact, due to this I'd imagine that originally Leeds were getting paid more than we were, as they are the club that's on TV the most from the Championship every year, guaranteed, so they would get more exposure from them.

Why is it a move of questionable repute? It's a perfectly reasonable transaction, sponsor pays club for exposure, a star player will give them more exposure, club pays said player via income which happens to include sponsorship money, what's wrong with that exactly? Is that not how all sponsorship deals work? Does your sponsor not effectively help to pay your players via them adding to your income?

If anyone has a problem with the number 32 that will be on his back then they'd need to stop players from every club with a sponsor that has a number in it from wearing said number. If the problem is only because it's a gambling sponsor, it is double standards as no one said anything about Blackburn using number 10. If they find that Rooney wearing the number 32 is against sponsorship rules because it's associated with 32red, every sponsor and every club should be treated in the same way. Why should the profile of the player mean the situation is any different? If the problem is stealth advertising on children's shirts via a squad number then I'm sure you will find children idolising Danny Graham too, and wearing his name and number on a shirt. If you can look at the 32 on the back and associate it with the 32 on the front, then you can look at the 10 on the back and associate it with the 10 on the front, it's exactly the same.

We have stuck to the FFP rules too, there is no spirit of FFP, it's either allowed, or it's not, what we did was allowed, it's there in black and white (pardon the pun), if the clubs didn't want the rules to say what they say then they shouldn't have voted them in, it's really that simple. I don't see how removing the part about profit from selling of fixed assets can be an oversight as has been mentioned previously, there are 24 clubs in the Championship, that's at least 24 pairs of eyes checking over the FFP rules when they voted for them, if they were all so worried about them being secure then someone would surely have noticed.

Villa also passed FFP and what on earth has Rangers being demoted 7 years ago got to do with 32red sponsoring them for the last 5 years?

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I certainly don't use them but won't be now.

Definitely boycott worthy. Incidentally I still query Derby and FFP and whether as a once off and I assumed it was a half season or season long loan at first would be in breach regardless but it absolutely makes a mockery despite this. Cash done from this they can free up on other players even if they were just about in line with it.

If I was Leeds, Middlesbrough or Preston- all sponsored by the same company- I'd be spitting feathers!

Regardless of those 3 sponsored by the same but put at a disadvantage, we should all be pretty pissed off about this. Would be nice to see a boycott by fans of the other 23 clubs.

Why exactly would we be in breach of FFP? Including the 4 loanees we had on the books last season (a season for which we don't actually yet know the accounting figures) we have let 17(!!!) players go, 11 of which were either experienced players or high value buys and would likely be on quite high wages, and that's not including half a season of Ledley as he left last January. We've bought in 7 (even if you include Rooney who's not here yet) only 1 that we've actually paid a fee for, which on a 5 year contract doesn't add much even in straight line amortisation. We made between £2.5 - 3m in fees for players sold (including EPPP compensation for Delap) and we also have the compensation for Lampard et al, which is supposed to be north of £4m.

2 hours ago, Fiale said:

So if this company is financing players a team could not otherwise afford should not everyone in the Championship be boycotting 32red as they in essence trying to sabotage your teams chances in the league well beyond normal sponsorship we have come to accept.

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Announcing the deal Mel Morris said "The commercial opportunities this creates are widespread and significant .... on the back of Wayne joining the club we have just been offered a record-breaking sponsorship deal with our principle shirt sponsor 32Red"

Surely this raises a serious question about sponsorship as I thought that there were rules in place to judge fair value for sponsorship deals. Otherwise SL could arrange to see stadium naming rights to Pula for , say, £100m as a way of injecting more of his money into the club and getting around the ffp limits and thereby gaining an advantage.

In this case 32Red were already Derby's shirt sponsor and I'm guessing had previously agreed a deal for this season's sponsorship. To my mind that established the level of  "fair value" for Derby's shirt sponsorship. What has happened here is that 32Red has sponsored Wayne Rooney, in addition to sponsoring Derby County and that is a dangerous precedent to allow. That it has been done within the cloak of a new " record breaking shirt sponsorship deal" is sadly not unexpected given Morris's recent track record with the sale of Pride Park.

32red can sponsor us for whatever amount they see fit for the exposure they will be given, they are not a related party. They are entitled to renegotiate a sponsorship arrangement, they pay more, we get Rooney, they get more exposure, ergo paying more was good value - unprecedented situation yes, but perfectly allowed given they have no links to our club other than being a sponsor, as they are with other clubs.

Your owner could not do that as that would be a related party transaction, that is where fair value comes in.

1 hour ago, ZiderEyed said:

Why not have every player as a player-coach and chuck money at it?

Its cheating, plain and simple.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fully agree with this.

This too.

You know that the club knows that they have to factor in 100% of Rooney's wages for FFP purposes right? Rob Dorsett said this live on Sky whilst he was reporting from outside Moor Farm on the day Rooney signed.

Someone has decided that the rules say they only have to factor in 50% with a player coach role (it's actually the SCMP rules for League 1 and 2 clubs that say this - not the Championship rules) and loads of people, including yourselves have run with it even though it's not true.