duncanjwitham

There's 2 different aspects going on here. There's the EFL League 1 FFP restrictions, which basically limit us to spending 75% of our revenue on player wages (then 60% in subsequent years, if we're still in league 1).  As far as I know, there's no cap on individual player wages here, so we could spend it all on Ronaldo if we wanted, or on 25 average players.
But we also have an agreed business plan with the EFL for the next 2 years.  We haven't seen the exact details yet, but it's reasonable to assume it's modelled on the one we agreed last year as part of the points deduction (and is similar to ones agreed with Reading etc, so seems fairly standard).  That plan had both a cap on total wages (~£15m per season) and a cap on individual player wages (undisclosed to the public, presumably for commercial sensitivity reasons).  Plus other restrictions on transfer and agents fees etc.  It's reasonable to assume those restrictions all carry on for the next 2 seasons, but the amounts will probably be scaled down for League 1.

The thing is, I don't see any of the centre halves we have/are linked to being able to do anything other than play centre half (albeit I know very little about Roberts).  5 centre halves is just overkill when we're restricted on wage spending and squad size.  We're much better off having 3 or 4 proper centre halves and then a couple of players like Fozzy than can play there in an emergency.
I'm not even sure I'd want the likes of Cashin/Davies/Stearman/Chester playing regularly in the wide centre-half positions in a back 3 - you really need to be quite mobile to do that job properly.

The thing is, I don't see any of the centre halves we have/are linked to being able to do anything other than play centre half (albeit I know very little about Roberts).  5 centre halves is just overkill when we're restricted on wage spending and squad size.  We're much better off having 3 or 4 proper centre halves and then a couple of players like Fozzy than can play there in an emergency.
I'm not even sure I'd want the likes of Cashin/Davies/Stearman/Chester playing regularly in the wide centre-half positions in a back 3 - you really need to be quite mobile to do that job properly.

There were rumours on Saturday night that Stearman had already signed but wasn't announced yet.  I half wonder if Chester is an either/or with Davies, not both.  You have to assume that Cashin is going to be starting most weeks, and you probably want an experienced defender alongside him, which would either be Davies or Chester. Then Roberts would be competition for Cashin, and Stearman cheap experienced cover for the other one.  I don't see any point in having our academy develop a player like Cashin, let him establish himself in the team, only to bench him for a couple of 33+ year old players.  And I don't see Davies or Chester being here if they aren't going to play regularly - they're at the stage of their careers where they just want to play as long as they can, then retire into coaching/media work.

He used to work for Sky Sports before going freelance. No idea how good his connections are nowadays, but he's definitely not a faker.

He used to work for Sky Sports before going freelance. No idea how good his connections are nowadays, but he's definitely not a faker.

I think it depends on how you want your team to play.  It's basically the same situation we had with Vydra IMO.  They're both best when on the front foot, dribbling at people, making runs into the box, getting shots off etc.  Neither of them are great at linking the play up, playing pass and move, tracking back etc.  If you want to play quite direct (not necessarily hoof-ball, but at least progressing the ball forward quickly) then they're both quite effective.  If you want to control the game, keep the ball etc, then there's nowhere to fit them in the team - they don't have the skillset to play as one of the midfielders or lone strike, and they're wasted out wide.

There's no f in team either ........

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

Or it could be something like him wanting wording in his contract to guarantee him time off for media appearances (providing it doesn’t clash with playing matches for us etc).

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

I suspect how well he does is in large part down to which striker we end up with.  If we get a battering ram type, that he can run off, he could be very effective.  If we end up with a smaller, mobile type (like Plange), I suspect we'll get bullied a bit up front and end up opting for a more physical midfield than Sibley.

Or it could be something like him wanting wording in his contract to guarantee him time off for media appearances (providing it doesn’t clash with playing matches for us etc).

Or it could be something like him wanting wording in his contract to guarantee him time off for media appearances (providing it doesn’t clash with playing matches for us etc).

Or it could be something like him wanting wording in his contract to guarantee him time off for media appearances (providing it doesn’t clash with playing matches for us etc).

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

I suspect how well he does is in large part down to which striker we end up with.  If we get a battering ram type, that he can run off, he could be very effective.  If we end up with a smaller, mobile type (like Plange), I suspect we'll get bullied a bit up front and end up opting for a more physical midfield than Sibley.

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

I really don't think that's being fair tbh.  Obviously he wasn't absolutely amazing, and we probably overpaid slightly for him, and I know there were off-field issues, but for the most part he was always available, he played lots of games, we mostly used him in a way that suited his playing style, and he was reasonably productive over his entire time here.  Compared to a various other players that we payed silly money for, used completely wrongly and then paid to go away, there's a world of difference.

I suspect how well he does is in large part down to which striker we end up with.  If we get a battering ram type, that he can run off, he could be very effective.  If we end up with a smaller, mobile type (like Plange), I suspect we'll get bullied a bit up front and end up opting for a more physical midfield than Sibley.

I suspect how well he does is in large part down to which striker we end up with.  If we get a battering ram type, that he can run off, he could be very effective.  If we end up with a smaller, mobile type (like Plange), I suspect we'll get bullied a bit up front and end up opting for a more physical midfield than Sibley.

Not in the slightest - was mostly supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek comment.  But I half wonder if the people moaning about Mel Morris' "labyrinthine company structure" etc will still be moaning when it's Clowes structure, and when it has "nice" names, not nonsense ones.

So the good news is, we're going to stop having a holding company structure consisting of gibberish names (Gellaw, Sevco etc). The bad news is, we're replacing it with a holding company structure consisting of the words "Derby", "County" and "Rams" in various random orders.