213 replies to this topic

[Asanovic]

Leeds Ram, on 05 January 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Just coincidence that there was no rush to sit down and discuss the contract prior to the story, and then hey presto a new 3 year deal is agreed

No, that's what I'm saying - a contract was already being negotiated. Then the story was printed. Not the other way round.

[Leeds Ram]

Ambitious, on 05 January 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Selling players on big wages, Bailey will be on small wages as we signed him when he was an unproven league two midfielder... to as well sell him for less than we paid for him would be madness.

the players we need out are the high earners like Leacock, Bywater, Pearson..etc who are off, getting rid of Bailey wouldn't make much if any difference to our running costs.

Then why get rid of Moxey, football reasons that leave you no cover at left back ?

[Pudding Jack]

nahhhhhh! thats got to be nonsense.....'play off bid' theyre level with us arnt they.  i reckon that 'jorno' has just looked at the team sheets for next game...closed his eyes and stabbed a finger at the page.... it makes no sense.

[Ambitious]

Leeds Ram, on 05 January 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Then why get rid of Moxey, football reasons that leave you no cover at left back ?

Moxey wasn't good enough, as said by people previous, Clough gave him instructions he couldn't follow them and therefore didn't improve on his exeter days, we got a big higher than his valuation and he went, has it hindered us in anyway? not for me... Roberts this season looks twice the player Moxey ever did in a Derby shirt.

[Alpha Signia]

Pudding Jack, on 05 January 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

nahhhhhh! thats got to be nonsense.....'play off bid' theyre level with us arnt they.  i reckon that 'jorno' has just looked at the team sheets for next game...closed his eyes and stabbed a finger at the page.... it makes no sense.

Or read a thread on here about Bailey, seen how Derby fans like him, saw that we're over budget and thought it'd get some cheap attention.

The Mirror spends more time on messageboards than us lot.

[Ambitious]

Pudding Jack, on 05 January 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

nahhhhhh! thats got to be nonsense.....'play off bid' theyre level with us arnt they.  i reckon that 'jorno' has just looked at the team sheets for next game...closed his eyes and stabbed a finger at the page.... it makes no sense.

Below us.. that whole article smacks of idiocy! not getting the date right for when his contract runs out is really poor though, if he came on here then he'd find it in the player contract thread, not to mention on the official website, on his wikipedia...etc shows how much research he did.

[CornwallRam]

Ambitious, on 05 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

As would any board, at any club in the division.. and the world!

As previously stated we haven't really sold anyone for a poor offer where we've had a choice, with Commons we got money for him not sitting around on his arse waiting for the summer to eventually get his move, as Celtic could of offered him a contract when they brought him..

Hulse was disappointing but in hindsight, such a great decision to let go when we did... when 4million came in and he stayed, disappointing we didn't take that in honesty, but I liked him.

The club did accept the £4m for Hulse, it was Hulse that turned the move down - and imo, the club were correct to do so. £4m for nigel to play with could have given us a much stronger squad and the money to buy a decent replacement.

It is hard to know how GSE react to transfer bids. I've agreed with pretty much all the sales, apart from Moxey. Commons and Hulse were always going to leave and at least we got a bit back for them, the problem was in not replacing them.

Yet, I can't recall a bid coming in for any established first team player. It may be that some have been made and have just not been publicised, but, given that we always seem to hear rumours of transfers in the days before they happen, it seems odd that the club could or would keep a lid on something that would generally be seen to their credit. I know most rumours don't happen, but the sales of Hulse, Commons and Moxey, the loans of Bywater and Addison and pretty much every incoming transfer have appeared as rumours on the various message boards before the events.

My feeling is that the investors have refused to stump up any more cash, so the club have to find a way of making up the trading shortfall of c£5m. Thus, I reckon that we would take any decent offer, but GSE are not daft or desperate enough (yet) to sell of assets too cheaply.

It will be fascinating to watch what happens when a reasonable bid comes in for Ward, Brayford or even Bailey.

[Leeds Ram]

Ambitious, on 05 January 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Moxey wasn't good enough, as said by people previous, Clough gave him instructions he couldn't follow them and therefore didn't improve on his exeter days, we got a big higher than his valuation and he went, has it hindered us in anyway? not for me... Roberts this season looks twice the player Moxey ever did in a Derby shirt.

It has for me when Roberts has been out injured and we have had to bring in loan players or play people there who are normally CB's or even wingers ;-)

Anyway my point being that although it is most likely complete bull, it still wouldnt suprise me if Bailey went for an undisclosed fee before the end of the transfer window, hopefully this is not the case and we will get rid of all the deadwood and we are linked to buying rather than selling our few saleable assets.

[trekkie_ram]

I've heard we're swapping James Bailey & Frank Fielding for Dean Moxey & Lewis Price. Once this deal is concluded, we'll begin negotiations with Paris St Germain Crawley Town over £3.5m rated Claude Makelele Davis.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Leeds Ram, on 05 January 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I tend to agree, and as I said probably a load of rubbish, but the fact is that we have to get rid of players as we are over the budget, this is not an unknown fact, it is stated in pretty much every interview Clough does.

Therefore its more likely that we will be selling rather than buying, and therefore the story is not as far fetched as many make out.

We all agree any player has his price but £250k for Bailey does not make any financial sense and therefore I would suggest is very far fetched.?

[Leeds Ram]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, on 05 January 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

We all agree any player has his price but £250k for Bailey does not make any financial sense and therefore I would suggest is very far fetched.?

Sorry I thought the story said that they were making a bid, if they bid 250k and we say we wont accept less than £xxxx, then does it still make the story far fetched ?

[Ambitious]

Leeds Ram, on 05 January 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Sorry I thought the story said that they were making a bid, if they bid 250k and we say we wont accept less than £xxxx, then does it still make the story far fetched ?

Less than a million would be ridiculous for him, 1.5million would be short of what he is worth, 2million is probably fair enough... 2.5million is acceptable.

I also don't think GSE will sell for less than 2million... but I have more faith, with him over the pass 2 years we've showed play off form, without him... relegation form!

[Pudding Jack]

behave.....2.5 million? nige would bite their hand off for half that and get a replacment or 3.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Leeds Ram, on 05 January 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Sorry I thought the story said that they were making a bid, if they bid 250k and we say we wont accept less than £xxxx, then does it still make the story far fetched ?

Sorry Leeds, I think you are clutching at straws to make a point. You clearly don't trust the board and are intimating that they may sell Bailey for an undisclosed fee (ie next to nothing). I am saying it makes no sense at all for our board to undersell an asset. We are not short of money so don't have to embark on fire sales.

[CornwallRam]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, on 05 January 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Sorry Leeds, I think you are clutching at straws to make a point. You clearly don't trust the board and are intimating that they may sell Bailey for an undisclosed fee (ie next to nothing). I am saying it makes no sense at all for our board to undersell an asset. We are not short of money so don't have to embark on fire sales.

The constact need to cut costs would suggest that we are short of money - what we don't know is how serious it is and how much more the investors are prepared to cover any losses to stop things becoming critical.

[Martyn]

CornwallRam, on 05 January 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

The constact need to cut costs would suggest that we are short of money - what we don't know is how serious it is and how much more the investors are prepared to cover any losses to stop things becoming critical.

Did you never read any of ramblur's posts about the club finances?

[CornwallRam]

Martyn, on 05 January 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Did you never read any of ramblur's posts about the club finances?

Yes, why?

[11carl00]

I think 20% of the next sale goes to Crewe, so we would only really get £200k if it was true

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

CornwallRam, on 05 January 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

The constact need to cut costs would suggest that we are short of money - what we don't know is how serious it is and how much more the investors are prepared to cover any losses to stop things becoming critical.

There isn't a "constant need to cut costs" there is a wage structure and budget to achieve. Bailey and Brayford were part of that Budget. The main aim is to get rid of the high earners/under achievers like Leacock/Bywater/Pearson/Martin etc.

[CornwallRam]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, on 05 January 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

There isn't a "constant need to cut costs" there is a wage structure and budget to achieve. Bailey and Brayford were part of that Budget. The main aim is to get rid of the high earners/under achievers like Leacock/Bywater/Pearson/Martin etc.

Tom Glick claimed  that the club could sustain a wage bill of £10.5m - it was reported that this had been achieved last season - with the current high earners in post It is unlikely that the incoming players during the summer cost more in wages than the outgoing ones, therefore it appears that the wage budget has been reduced. This appears to me a need to cut costs.

Both Glick and Clough claimed that we needed a talismanic centre forward (after Tyson and Maguire were signed), a midfield general and cover at full back to attempt a top six finish. Clearly these players did not arrive. From that it is possible to infer that the management consider the squad below standard. Therefore, there is a clear imperative to spend some more money. That the club are prepared to run with abn understrength squad suggests that money is, indeed, tight.