191 replies to this topic

[curb]

WilkoRam, on 27 February 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

He didn't sign Bywater, Pearson, Addison, Savage or S Davies

We've already sold off Porter, Pringle, Moxey, Croft (Loan - doubt we'll see again), Anderson, Hendrie, Martin, Cywka

So not including Bueno as he was a loan and the 5 he didn't sign then he's signed 26 players in, 8 of them already gone. Maguire cant even make the banch.

Of the remaining list - Barker, Brayford, Bailey, Shackell, Ward and Fielding I would rate as good players. 6 out of 26. Great eye for a player, must be that extensive scouting network we have.

He did sign Bywater, Pearson, Addison, Savage & S Davies, he gave them all new contracts, he thought at some point they were worth signing.
Bueno I added as he was a year long loan at a significant fee, not the usual 2 months and never heard of again. I had Roberts as a reasonable signing, as he has contributed this season, I also added Bryson as I was feeling generous.

[WilkoRam]

Ah I see. Fair point re contracts.

[bcnram]

WilkoRam, on 27 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

So Nigel got rid of expensive under performers who now play at lower levels to Derby (bar Hulse and Commons). This is seen as a feather in his cap? A mark of how amazing a manager he is? My your own admission the players were poor so he just got rid of poor players, how much they were on is insignificant. It would be different if he had to ship out 10 players who were amazing and on high wages, then you could grasp the praise but he hasn't. If those same players had been on peanuts and he'd got rid and the wage bill was already low then would he still be considered great? He can't be praised simply because Jewell overvalued players. He's being lorded up due to letting poor players on big salaries leave? Jesus I could do that.

He needs to be judged on what he brings in, who he signs, how we play and results.

I am fairly certain that you do not have a grasp on the enormity of the problem that he faced. It is not simply a case of letting poor players on big salaries leave. You have to get another team to take them, and as they are poor players the buying team will not pay the salary that Jewell/Davies paid. At that point the player's agent says that his player is going nowhere unless something is done about the salary and so on. Derby don't want to pay it all as there is no point. That is when the negotiations start. What would you do? Cross them off your list of players and the problem goes away? Not in real life it doesn't.

[emjlc02]

bcnram, on 28 February 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I am fairly certain that you do not have a grasp on the enormity of the problem that he faced. It is not simply a case of letting poor players on big salaries leave. You have to get another team to take them, and as they are poor players the buying team will not pay the salary that Jewell/Davies paid. At that point the player's agent says that his player is going nowhere unless something is done about the salary and so on. Derby don't want to pay it all as there is no point. That is when the negotiations start. What would you do? Cross them off your list of players and the problem goes away? Not in real life it doesn't.

He didnt get anyone to take them though they either put them in the reserves and when the contract was out they werent renewed or the money men made a deal to pay them off.

[WilkoRam]

emjlc02, on 28 February 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

He didnt get anyone to take them though they either put them in the reserves and when the contract was out they werent renewed or the money men made a deal to pay them off.

Cheers, saved me a reply.

[bcnram]

Seems like you like the easy option all the time :-)

.

[Ambitious]

Leeds Ram, on 27 February 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

You sure glick has not brainwashed you or you not him?

Trying to get something better than we got on less wages, of course it's not going to work :-)

I would openly accept Paul Lambert on Cloughs wages (or lower) and norwich letting him go for nowt, so therefore I would be open to getting something better on less wages.

Unless you are suggesting for one minute that Lambert wouldn't take a pay **** and Norwich wouldn't let him go for free... you little scamp, surely they would?

there is loads of brilliant proven managers out there willing to be one of the lowest earning managers in the division (if not the lowest if rumours are too be believed)

it's a glorious job, just waiting for world greats... the only reason we've got Clough so cheapily is because of family ties and the fact his qualifications mean that he couldn't get another job in professional football now the rules have changed.

[Leeds Ram]

Ambitious, on 28 February 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

I would openly accept Paul Lambert on Cloughs wages (or lower) and norwich letting him go for nowt, so therefore I would be open to getting something better on less wages.

Unless you are suggesting for one minute that Lambert wouldn't take a pay **** and Norwich wouldn't let him go for free... you little scamp, surely they would?

there is loads of brilliant proven managers out there willing to be one of the lowest earning managers in the division (if not the lowest if rumours are too be believed)

it's a glorious job, just waiting for world greats... the only reason we've got Clough so cheapily is because of family ties and the fact his qualifications mean that he couldn't get another job in professional football now the rules have changed.

So you admit, u pay peanuts u get monkeys.

[Ambitious]

Leeds Ram, on 28 February 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

So you admit, u pay peanuts u get monkeys.

Yes, it's the same in every walk of life... we're not in a position where money is readily available though so we have to unearth gems which in my opinion explains the large amount of young players in the team.

We are looking to work within our restrictions and since the Americans are offering to cover losses whilst we get to that stage how can we argue, since there is no one else looking to support us financially why cut off our nose to spite our face. We could only argue if they started piling up the club debt (like the 3 amigos) or if they started ruining the club for the fans like price hikes (ken bates) or if they stopped someone from buying the club that would be more than happy to make annual losses.

I think with the board, we have to be happy with what we have since there is no one out there and be happy they aren't piling up the debt, and they're putting money into the club!

Obviously there is always going to be managers out there to take the place of Clough, but with our budget we're always going to be taking a gamble on someone and again on our budget it would take someone special to get us promotion and we're much more likely to go down than up, so with Clough in my head it's certainly 'better the devil you know'

Don't think for a minute I am extremely pleased with the efforts of everyone involved, but I am content as there isn't anyone out there so why force out our only source of financial support, much like Forest did.

[curb]

Ambitious, on 28 February 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

Yes, it's the same in every walk of life... we're not in a position where money is readily available though so we have to unearth gems which in my opinion explains the large amount of young players in the team.

We are looking to work within our restrictions and since the Americans are offering to cover losses whilst we get to that stage how can we argue, since there is no one else looking to support us financially why cut off our nose to spite our face. We could only argue if they started piling up the club debt (like the 3 amigos) or if they started ruining the club for the fans like price hikes (ken bates) or if they stopped someone from buying the club that would be more than happy to make annual losses.

I think with the board, we have to be happy with what we have since there is no one out there and be happy they aren't piling up the debt, and they're putting money into the club!

Obviously there is always going to be managers out there to take the place of Clough, but with our budget we're always going to be taking a gamble on someone and again on our budget it would take someone special to get us promotion and we're much more likely to go down than up, so with Clough in my head it's certainly 'better the devil you know'

Don't think for a minute I am extremely pleased with the efforts of everyone involved, but I am content as there isn't anyone out there so why force out our only source of financial support, much like Forest did.

That's an honest post, I can relate to that.
What I don't understand is the rubbish people come out with when we're so obviously crap, they convince themselves that it's some sort of masterplan.

[Leeds Ram]

Ambitious, on 28 February 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

Yes, it's the same in every walk of life... we're not in a position where money is readily available though so we have to unearth gems which in my opinion explains the large amount of young players in the team.

We are looking to work within our restrictions and since the Americans are offering to cover losses whilst we get to that stage how can we argue, since there is no one else looking to support us financially why cut off our nose to spite our face. We could only argue if they started piling up the club debt (like the 3 amigos) or if they started ruining the club for the fans like price hikes (ken bates) or if they stopped someone from buying the club that would be more than happy to make annual losses.

I think with the board, we have to be happy with what we have since there is no one out there and be happy they aren't piling up the debt, and they're putting money into the club!

Obviously there is always going to be managers out there to take the place of Clough, but with our budget we're always going to be taking a gamble on someone and again on our budget it would take someone special to get us promotion and we're much more likely to go down than up, so with Clough in my head it's certainly 'better the devil you know'

Don't think for a minute I am extremely pleased with the efforts of everyone involved, but I am content as there isn't anyone out there so why force out our only source of financial support, much like Forest did.

But Glick has stated that Derby County are not for sale, and they would not welcome any bids, we alreadly know that they have turned down at least one bid for the club.

Of course the Americans will cover our losses, as did Forests Chairman commit to before his death (23m for the next 3 years), the alternative could result in them losing all their investment to date, so they have little choice, what remains to be seen, is there interest now in us, which appears to be very little.

You say they are not piling up the debt, which could be correct, but what happens next season, when ST's decline once again, this will either result in a bigger loss, or a further cut in the wage budget.

[ramblur]

Éire Ram, on 27 February 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Improve our scouting network? With the exception of Bueno and Buijs, we don't seem to look outside of the United Kingdom to recruit players, which is something I don't understand, especially as John Metgod has contacts such as Vincente del Bosque. You'd think it would give us a head start in signing some good players from Europe who are approaching the end of their contract or available at a reasonable. i.e. Bisgaard, Idiakez, Reich and Rasiak. But Nigel seems satisfied with recruits from the lower leagues and the SPL, which is not much better than our lower divisions.

Sorry for delay in replying-not been too good.Can you still pick up quality Europeans to fit into our wage structure? I'm sure times have changed since 04/05.