Slade and his team ignore the embargo to produce City's best display of the season.

[the other bob wilson]

http://mauveandyellowarmy.net/

[Lawnmower]

Bob, I believe the embargo was due to losses rather than wage ratio. Also the £12m saving wasn't out of £30m, but from the £40m+ the wage bill would have been without the cuts.
Slade has every right to be annoyed by the club hierarchy as he clearly did his bit and is left with another obstacle to face.
Mind you, it can also be said that there is plenty of talent on the squad and yesterday was the first time he was flexible enough to utilise it- and still with the likes of Kennedy, Fabio, Macheda, KD, John etc... not starting.

Enjoyed the article though.

Let's hope that we can push on and get a decent points haul from our next 3 games and make ourselves genuine contenders

[Vimana.]

Really enjoyed reading that.
When pulled together and summarised, the events of the last few days are, once again , quite incredible.
To top that with a resounding win ..'only at Cardiff City' as the phrase goes .

[the other bob wilson]

Bob, I believe the embargo was due to losses rather than wage ratio. Also the £12m saving wasn't out of £30m, but from the £40m+ the wage bill would have been without the cuts.

The figures you give concerning that £12 million are more believable than than the ones I quoted, but I distinctly remember the Echo reporting that City had cut that sum off their £30 million wage bill.

[Lawnmower]

Bob, I believe the embargo was due to losses rather than wage ratio. Also the £12m saving wasn't out of £30m, but from the £40m+ the wage bill would have been without the cuts.

Slade has every right to be annoyed by the club hierarchy as he clearly did his bit and is left with another obstacle to face.

However even he isn't privy to the background , unpublished, information which none of us will see

[Lawnmower]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.
However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

It'll be interesting to see what the accounts say, when they come out.

[jamieccfc]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

those figures are just frightening who the bloody hell is agreeing we should be paying some of these players those figures i personally think we should ditch slade in the summer bring someone in like cooper who can work with the youngsters and try and bring the kids through we can't keep surviving these kind of losses

[Lawnmower]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

The wages wouldn't have been a big deal if we had - unfortunately it didn't work out and we are stuck with many players who don't justify their salaries.

[cardiff55]

I think it's because we made a loss of over £6m, the rules have since been changed to a loss of no more than £13m as I understand it. We fell under the old rules.

Dalman's comment regarding the a difference in the "interpretation" of the rules seems pretty stupid. I think he means that someone at Cardiff has incorrectly interpreted the rules! Be that Choo or Dalman or our accountants it seems to be a major error which will cost the club dearly.

I think it was a double whammy with players like Guerra, Eikram, Daehli, Berget, Burgstaller etc. We are committed to pay the fee over a period of time (maybe 2/3 years, or maybe up front), which will have an impact on future accounting procedures. then we decide to let them go/pay them off, so we pay up their contract and are still paying their transfer fees, and signing on fees and agent fees. Brilliant management. By this time we had already added Morrison, Manga, Gabbidon, Pilkington, Macheda to the payrol too, but obviously we decided to keep those.

The other point is that of Dalman saying the the jury was out on Slade. He actually said that the jury was out on everyone, including himself and Slade. Typical board members, cock up the monetary side of the club and then blame the manager.

[TT BLUEBIRD]

One Swallow doesn't make a summer !!

[the other bob wilson]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

Also, would Steve Borley's comment to the effect that it's almost impossible for relegated clubs not to break the FFP rules make more sense if it was applied to the wages ratio to turnover rule or the one about making too big a loss? I find it baffling that we could have made a loss last season based on the info in the public domain at the moment.

[the other bob wilson]

I think it's because we made a loss of over £6m, the rules have since been changed to a loss of no more than £13m as I understand it. We fell under the old rules.

I'd agree with that, it may explain how we managed to make a loss (assumign we did make one) last season - it almost seems as if, for a while, they didn't realise there were different FFP rules in the Championship!

[Lawnmower]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

I'd fully expect a few high earners and big signings to go in May.. Manga, Fabio, Macheda, KD would be 4 I'd expect to leave

[the other bob wilson]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

It'll be interesting to see what the accounts say, when they come out.

I agree about the players likely to leave in the summer - in fact. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two high profile departures this month.

[Lawnmower]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

It'll be interesting to see what the accounts say, when they come out.

The total wage bill shown on the y/e 31/5/14 accounts is just over £53 million, so maybe the £46 million is the figure for the playing staff?

I told you it was complicated 😄

[the other bob wilson]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

It'll be interesting to see what the accounts say, when they come out.

The total wage bill shown on the y/e 31/5/14 accounts is just over £53 million, so maybe the £46 million is the figure for the playing staff?

Regarding your reply to my last post. Medel and Caulker were signed for a combined transfer fee of around £20 million in y/e 31/5/14, so, surely, at least a portion of that figure should be shown in the accounts for that year? Therefore, with them both leaving the club during the following year shouldn't there be some sort of "compensation" for the figure shown previously from the income coming into the club from the fee received when they both left?

Thanks for that - if I've understood what you said correctly, doesn't that mean that Steve Borley's contention that converting debt to equity is just like moving money from one pocket into another is incorrect?

[October '68]

These two paragraphs here Bob, seems to sum up what is wrong with our club at the moment:

Yes, I know I'm saying this against a background where supporters, including myself, have been lining up to take potshots at our manager, but that's a fan's prerogative and the same shouldn't apply to the Chairman of the club. Mr Dalman can claim that he qualified what he said be adding that the jury was still out on all of us, but, surely, he would have been better off saying nothing. As it is, he came across as someone who was trying to pull our manager overboard, so he could clamber onto the lifeboat in his place.

Notwithstanding that, both Chairman and manager have made cryptic remarks in the last twenty four hours which have left me scratching my head in puzzlement. Mr Dalman remarked that "whether we make the play offs or not was not to do with signing one or two players, we've got bigger issues than that." in a radio interview and Russell Slade said "When you walk into this job you are always under pressure. I do think when a club gets in this situation, you have to look at the whole club not just what is going on on the pitch. It's the whole club where there needs to be scrutiny." in his post match interview yesterday evidence of a Chairman and manager at odds with each other, or a sign of further problems to be revealed soon? I suppose all will become clearer eventually.

That, and the following paragraph, about Gabbidon's revelations about the megalomaniac, lunatic that is our beloved Emperor. The sooner Dalman, Choo choo train, and Emperor Tan depart the better!

Thanks for the report a good read as always

[tapscott]

Saturdays result could very well signal the end for a constructive season for the Bluebirds ,cannot see City sruggling against relegation after that result, and ,as Nathan Blake states continuously,City are not consistent enough up to now to challenge for a top 6 placing and stay there until the final whistle blows in the final match.
I
firmly believe City have the players to be there at the very end of the season but the team is not set up to maximise each player s ability resulting in lack of cohesion.
Did Saturday s result at Wolves came about by playing a different formation leaving the likes of Whittingham ,Noone,Mason and Manga to be more comfortable and effective by playing their natural game.
Will City now stick with Saturdays set up and formation in the run in and give themselves more of a chance to succeed towards that end.

[Lawnmower]

Just looked back and found the echo article with the £30m.

However the wage bill for the previous season was shown as £46-£53m ( I guess depending on what was included) and although a few massive earners had been off loaded before the start of last season a few more big earners were also signed, so it's difficult to see that the wage bill could have been cut to £30m before Slade arrived.

It'll be interesting to see what the accounts say, when they come out.

The total wage bill shown on the y/e 31/5/14 accounts is just over £53 million, so maybe the £46 million is the figure for the playing staff?

Regarding your reply to my last post. Medel and Caulker were signed for a combined transfer fee of around £20 million in y/e 31/5/14, so, surely, at least a portion of that figure should be shown in the accounts for that year? Therefore, with them both leaving the club during the following year shouldn't there be some sort of "compensation" for the figure shown previously from the income coming into the club from the fee received when they both left?

Also, would Steve Borley's comment to the effect that it's almost impossible for relegated clubs not to break the FFP rules make more sense if it was applied to the wages ratio to turnover rule or the one about making too big a loss? I find it baffling that we could have made a loss last season based on the info in the public domain at the moment.

Once the debt is changed to shares then Tan can no longer demand the money at will. Any buyer would just have the other smaller debts to deal with and have to pay Tan for his shares.