Asanovic70

I've had a lot of spats online with Forest fans (twitter) so posting on here instead. If you look at the amount of money they have now spent, it may have been the more boring & predictable approach, but perhaps they would have been better off signing the loanees that actually contributed to them getting promoted in the first place, (Spence, Garner, Davies) maybe paying slightly over the odds, as they appear to be doing so now, but for players, like at Brentford, whose value would increase, allowing them to get a good return on their money.

The influx of signings could also affect those players such as Yates who earned the club promotion but then find themselves possibly on the fringes.

Cooper surely can't be authorizing each & every deal & Marinakis has reportedly taken control of transfer negotiations. Strangely, Forest have a sensible enough coach in charge who is probably selective in who he'd bring in, whilst we had Billy Davies who was agitating for the club to spend all of its £60m PL money on signings. He & Marinakis would have got on well.

The squad looks bloated, like their owner, but as seen with Brentford, the PL is also about a well-run, smaller sides using their resources well (as in Germany with Freiburg). There must also be an element of trust at Brentford, as the midfield & defence remain stable units; you get a chance to perform, maybe make a mistake, but of course, if you perform badly across a period of time, your place in the team is in jeopardy. Forest appear to have adopted the approach of stocking up on players and probably chopping & changing the team which doesn't lead to continuity.

It is an exciting time of course, for the Forest fanbase, but there must be a few of them who look at what happened to us, and wonder if this is sustainable  because Marinakis could end up being a Greek version of Mel Morris.

However, it might be ironic to read John Percy on twitter in a couple of years posting articles about NFFC desperately seeking a takeover to avoid financial meltdown.

I think I agree with Miggins, though I  really do take on board what @Gee SCREAMER !! posts as he has undertaken manual labour in challenging conditions, and he says such conditions can also take place indoors (in fairness). 

 I do think some flexibility should have been shown, it is probably too late to amend kick-off times, the inconvenience it causes to travelling fans though there is a rail strike on. 

But I agree that it will be challenging for both players & fans. (a) the players will be expected to run around in these conditions, hence the official drinks break intervals, and surely they will play with one idea of conserving energy, adapting tactics etc (b) fans will be exposed to extreme heat,  some with health conditions may choose not to attend, but both fans & players are being put at unnecessary risk when our healthcare services & professionals are already under great strain, pre-/(exacerbated) after Covid.

1 - 1 

Hourihane, RGS

Charlton 0 - 2 Derby

FRGS Collins (penalty)

0-1 

I was being flippant @Tyler Durden, every city/locality has its exclusive areas. You can live posh in the NW (Cheshire) similar to the Surrey stockbroker belt. 

Money is a great lure as well. Footballers are hired guns, they go where the money is. And the PL is where it is compared to other major leagues.

7 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

So invested in the 'project' that he only signed a one year deal. Let's call a spade a spade, he's gone there for the money. Forest's history has had zero impact on his decision.

Exactly, at West Ham, Lingard played well but then he was motivated by the desire to show Man United that he was worth keeping. Maybe the World Cup may inspire him who knows.

I  look forward to the Forest signing who admits that it was Hooters, or 'ooters, as Monsieur Biancone pronounces it, that brought him to Nottingham, especially that all you can eat Wings offer on Mondays.

1 hour ago, alram said:

the reality is there is more financial risk in the championship as we have seen, when was the last time a prem club went out of business

The thing is that the PL was not set up for middle-ranking clubs, it was set up for the then big 5, the elite, or clubs now bankrolled by states (Man City, now Newcastle). It asks the middle-ranking clubs to mortgage themselves. It's like that scene from Alice Through The Looking Glass where Alice runs just to stand still. 

PL clubs don't go out of business, they end up getting relegated instead due to financial problems, like Portsmouth, so that they then  cascade down the divisions. Parachute payments were brought in to cushion the blow that saw the likes of Swindon, Bradford cascade down the divisions. You could argue Sheff W never really recovered from Carbone etc, and like us, Chansiri spent big but ultimately failed. Sunderland another example. Millions spent to finish mid-table/bottom half.

Twice the PL has caused Derby severe damage, (a) 2002, Pickering relinquishing control, the ABC loan etc, £54m (b) 2008, the 11pt season, part of the PL revenue (£30m) going on servicing that historic debt. Indirectly, it led to a third (c) Mel Morris' ill-fated tenure, chasing the PL dream.

Forest are almost doing what we did in microcosm. Yes, it's exciting, we were all carried away by the money Morris spent. But one thing already noticeable at Nottingham Forest is how few Academy players will be able to come through. It was the likes of Worrall & Yates upon which they gained promotion (character).  

This is a club, that like ours, does not learn. They wasted money under Platt, early noughties, before a very good side came close to promotion (Paul Hart), vis us & Clough's platform/McClaren, the Doughty family waiving £75m debt, the comedy that was al-Hasawi. We paid Lawrence nearly £40k a week, now they're paying someone 3x that salary in a season.

It is just my personal opinion that's it's unsustainable because Nott'm Forest occupy a similar place in the food chain as us & some of the other clubs mentioned. They only need a handful of these signings to disappoint, and it will hamper/impact their future activity (vis Swansea). Eventually, Brentford will go down, not through any great fault of their own but because the PL asks sides at that level to keep re-inventing the wheel & eventually they get caught. The same happened to us. Christian Dailly sold for a sizeable fee, replaced by Prior but eventually we bought Bragstad.

The elite can absorb these losses, but an Ozil can still hamper an Arsenal, the wages a distraction (impact in dressing-room) as well as a major outgoing for the club.

I often think the anticipation, the journey appears more fun than arrival & possibly the memory of that surprise promotion after an abject start will live more in Forest fans' memory than the PL itself as does winning at Wembley in 2007 does for us.  I'd love us to have a side with a few home-grown players (Carsley), some with real stature (Stimac) & the enigmatic (Wanchope) giving it a right good go, a side that didn't need tons of money thrown at it. Otherwise I don't really see the appeal. It has damaged us twice & a third time indirectly.

@alram

What is the point of throwing everything just to stay in the PL? All it means is that you get the chance to throw another lot of money the season after. The PL largesse is exaggerated, Forest have just ensured £10m of the purported £170m goes to Lingard.

Promoted sides can spend £100m & still take hammerings (Fulham, Villa). Established sides can spend hundreds of millions (Everton) & then be involved in a relegation battle. 

Like you, and others, I care about the long-term future of Derby after what happened, hence why I understood your reservations (Hourihane). But you're contradicting yourself when you say Forest are having a go, but then imply they are gambling their way to oblivion. There are different ways of approaching the PL (Brentford), Forest are buying into the notion that you simply have to chuck money at it. 

We have an owner who just posted that he doesn't want fans to get in debt over their season tickets. 'That it is not worth getting in debt over'. I've rarely heard anyone in a (club) boardroom capacity talk in such a responsible manner. 

2 hours ago, alram said:

for all of us laughing at lingard i am a bit gutted they appear to be going for it so much to be honest,

Behave, you were getting apoplectic when you heard we were going to sign Hourihane! OK, that's because of what previously happened (understandable), but Forest, if they buy Dennis, could take their spending into nine figures. I think the best way to get promoted out of the Championship - without incurring massive debt - is to build over a few seasons, sell a  player, re-invest, Swansea & Brentford as examples.

Forest are certainly going for it, alright. Going to be broke. Boom & bust, that's modern football. After what happened to us, they're welcome to it.

Forest may stay up, but what they are doing is unsustainable. Look at Leicester. Benevolent owners, sold players for big money (Chilwell, Maguire) & now reported to have to sell before they can buy.

Forest have spent big but on young players rather than proven performers, there's a lack of experience in the team bar Lingard. It's never a good idea to sign players attracted by wages, which was one of the reasons which led to our downfall. 

How things can  quickly change

I remember reading some comments by Nigel Doughty from an AGM/chairman's statement in 2008  (posted online) where he advocated Forest continue their prudent approach (the much criticised transfer committee) following promotion &, without directly mentioning names, stated how he wished to avoid the scenario of paying silly wages/poor signings made by rival clubs (our disastrous PL season).

Flash forward three years, and Mr Doughty reluctantly put his beloved side up for sale after sections of the Forest fanbase protested, their wage bill spiralling after three seasons of near-misses under Billy Davies.

Part of me is envious, but a greater part of me thinks Forest achieved promotion by being smart in the market last season & that they appear to have dispensed with this approach. There's no way I'd be happy to pay a player £120k a week, even for a year. For that money, Forest would have done better to use these resources to bring Garner back on a permanent deal. Whatever your view on Garner, he was part of a successful midfield that was well-balanced. I'd say the Forest midfield looks weaker going into the new season than it did last May.

There's an argument that a promoted club should bring in only a certain number of players in key areas, and this is what Jim Smith did with some smart signings like Laursen & in particular, Asanovic (creativity), as well as other players making the step to the next level (Carsley, Sturridge, first season). It also makes you wonder how much input Steve Cooper had regarding the signing of Lingard or if it is an act of desperation.

Of course, I'd rather be in the Championship etc, but I'd rather be in our situation now with a responsible owner who appears to be saying all the right things, and is even counselling the fanbase not to get themselves into debt (the season ticket situation). We will eventually turn things round under such an owner. The PL is the law of diminishing returns for middle-ranking clubs.

I accept that Bremen can offer top tier football, but most of their signings are frees & their manager has never coached at the top level. I don't think it's the wisest move, and I think there's a bit of a legacy from Forest showing interest. I expect him to return to England within a year.

Jan '23: Lee Buchanan joins Premier League strugglers, Nott'm Forest, on loan with a view to a permanent deal in the summer.

I think he's one of these players who thinks he's better than he is. Tbh, I am more disappointed in Marco Gabbiadini who I think is his agent. I don't think Buchanan has been well-advised, though Gabbiadini has shown himself adept at finding a contractual loophole.

@BucksRam, I was being ironic/flippant, but parent clubs aren't sentimental, they want to see a player progress. At the moment, we're disadvantaged by the fact that we are in League 1. Other sides may appear 'lesser', but they can offer what the parent club may prefer that player to experience.

That loan was when Rochdale was in League 1 (googled to confirm). So Roberts has some idea of what to expect. It was also at a side fighting relegation, he'll probably be expecting to come into one which ought to be challenging for the top half & better.

Derby County 'target' subject of six-figure Leeds United bid - report - Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk)

Leigh Curtis /Sep '20 well before he replaced Nicholson at the DET. We've been linked to Roberts before. Linked to RB Leipzig as well. The only concern is that a club higher up/Champ'ship chance their arm & try to gazump us.

Yes, I'm talking about Luton.

I think it's a great move for both. One is young & wants to prove himself at the next level so Brighton will monitor his progress. Wildsmith is at a bit of a crossroads in his career but  has joined another big-hitter which needs to regroup. It's an opportunity to rebuild his confidence & reputation. Look at Lee Camp, career faltered at Derby, ended up being a cult hero at the club whose name we dare not speak. It does happen.

The worse that happens is that Wildsmith prospers (keeps his place on merit) & Brighton cut short Rushworth's loan, he ends up elsewhere in League 1 etc, & we just bring in another promising GK.

 Competition is part & parcel of football, and it's probably what we lacked last season (depth).

Quite believable, Rosenior could use his contacts (Brighton) in the loan market. Rushworth played for Walsall last season so Brighton appear to be carefully managing his progress. Maybe prefer a keeper with a bit more experience, but the likes of Pope burst on to the scene with a loan at York City when they were still in the league & later at Bury in his early 20s. The Brighton correspondent mentions about giving a young player an opportunity.

He  (Rushworth) is probably being coached/monitored well as Ben Roberts has helped coached the likes of Walton (Ipswich) & Sanchez.

If it happens, two GKs in a week. My cup runneth over.

Portsmouth were keen so if we can pip them, this would certainly soften the blow of losing Buchanan. 

‘He is the complete modern day goalkeeper’ - The Brighton verdict on Portsmouth target Carl Rushworth

Quote

‘What the club tells us is that he is the complete modern day goalkeeper, a good shot stopper, agile, good with his feet and has great distribution and is expected to have a very good career.

Brighton are keen for him to play first team football at the next level after his loan at Walsall.

Quote

That would be the next step for him to be playing regular football higher up than League Two – and Portsmouth (League 1) could be that place.

Quote

‘It would be an interesting test to see if he can step up to fill Gavin Bazunu’s shoes (on loan at Portsmouth but joined Southampton from Man City) but sometimes it’s about giving those younger players an opportunity and seeing what they can do.

We could have two GKs with different points to prove, the older one to prove that he warranted more starts at SWFC, the other to showcase his talents to his parent club.

 Sibley needs a run in the team, he probably knows that a lot is up to him now & the relationship he forms with Rosenior. It may be a case that as a more creative footballer, he has to take some punishment & learn not to always react which is a back-handed compliment that other players are struggling to cope with him.

I think Sibley may have been one of the victims of the restrictions we faced, we had to play with two holders/defensive oriented midfielders (4-2-3-1) in order to make us competitive & not get overrun (pragmatic) with the emphasis on matching our opponents in terms of work-rate, & Rooney preferred the experience of Ravel Morrison to both Sibley & Watson.

Morrison's departure could offer Sibley an opportunity. If you look at their appearances last season, RM about 25 starts, Sibley 11 (15 subs appearances). As for his disciplinary record, one red was rescinded (WBA) & Morrison was guilty of as stupid a challenge & overreaction (Forest, away) as any shown by Sibley.

 I like to think he will step up. His position is difficult as a creative player who is being asked to influence the game on a consistent basis. He may get more time to do this in League 1.

I think last season showed that when two key experienced players left, this had a detrimental effect on the squad/team (Shinnie & Jagielka). Experienced players bring nous & know-how, as well as a bit of grittiness to proceedings. We also need to bring in a few players in their prime (26 onwards), which may prove difficult as these often command fees & wages & everybody else is competing for their signature.

We need to get a balance, the right amount of older heads alongside the promising youngsters. Hourihane is interesting, but a surprise to be linked with us after playing for Sheff United (relegated PL side who could probably afford to pay his wages). He may be a player attracted by the prospective of joining a long-term project at a big club that has fallen but is expected to regroup after being on loan at Swansea & Sheff United.

I'm not going to have a go at a poster who may feel disquiet after what has happened. We do need to learn from our lessons (says a gambler/mug punter) but unfortunately football is about boom & bust, & we all buy into it, getting carried away (Pickering, ABC loan, crippling debts, to Mel Morris). We have to learn to be reasonable & we need to be prepared to buy into a project like the Swansea fans did over the last decade & a half. 

Not as well versed as others on here in terms of finance , vis @Carnero, etc, but the fact that we are paying 25p in the pound means we will be subject to EFL scrutiny for two seasons, I think, as creditors would  rightly feel aggrieved if we suddenly began to revert to type & pay overinflated wages & fees.

But the fact that we could have an experienced defender alongside Cashin bodes well, and the quality of player that we are being linked with may help us retain the ones  already at the club (Byrne, Buchanan).

6 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Why would Morris take over Derby again? He has spent years trying to sell the club and failed. Morris doesn’t want to own Derby, he can’t afford it most likely anyway. 

I know, but why has Morris not helped facilitate a sale then? I know we had several chancers, but other reputable parties have stepped forward (Appleby, Morgan etc).  As for not affording it, our budget/wage bill has been reduced, yet he may think he has a captured audience in the 20-25k mark. 

15 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

I'll go nowhere near Derby if Morris "takes us over" or for a ride again.

I was just positing a scenario, as I said, it would be extremely divisive. I'd never criticize another fan for making that choice.

But we have seen with the Glazers at Man United, another divisive ownership, that fans still turn up. I remember the depressing clip (BBC) of a Man United fan replying in the affirmative that he'd still pay £££s for his replica kit/tickets etc despite so many others objecting. 

Morris does not care about the fan-base, he could have been more flexible during administration. Kieran Maguire has mentioned in the past that his other businesses did not suffer during the pandemic, so I get the impression that he isn't in the desperate situation the late Lionel Pickering found himself, virtually losing everything.

Morris has shown a disregard towards authority (EFL) in the past, so is it so hard to imagine him showing a similar lack of respect towards Derby supporters?

But I'd like to point out that if Morris thinks retaining ownership would work, then he is fooling himself. I think it would be a bad idea in the long-term, and apathy could set in. We may get back to the Championship (Hull under the unpopular Elams), but I think most of us will never forget/forgive him for what he put the club/its playing staff/employees through.

The longer this process drags on, the less certain I feel though I like to think something will get sorted out.

However, the nightmare scenario is that Morris retains control of us. I don't know how this would work. I remember a Middlesbrough fan, during twitter spats, defending Gibson and making a comment that Morris was the one in the background still controlling proceedings. Didn't he appoint Quantuma? . In a recent article, John Percy, mentioned how Appleby had agreed a deal in January but it was mysteriously called off. Percy stated that it was Steve Morgan who was dealing with Steve Gibson

Other twitter users were cynical about Kirchner, stating that Quantuma panicked & selected him as PB due to pressure from the EFL etc. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but why go with an unknown quantity - who we now realize was using us for his own ends/investment vehicle? - when someone proven at running a club, and the very club itself for sale, was prepared to make an offer. The choice of Kirchner meant that some of Appleby's backers went elsewhere (Riley). 

Another twitter user posted a comment along the lines that Morris would simply take us over again. That would alienate the fanbase but would he care? The club would be run on a shoestring (wages, budget) but would still command a large fan-base/Season ticket sales. The matchday revenue would still be quite significant even if it dropped by a large margin. He knows he has a captured audience. He'd make Mike Ashley look like a dream in comparison.

Perhaps Morris thinks he can claw back some of the money he has lost whilst retaining the club & the ground, which may increase in value if we return back to the second tier.

Some observers (Nixon) have pointed out that somebody along the way has to take a hit in order to enable a sale to go through. I feel Morris is not prepared to do this. And his retention of the stadium as separate from the club has proved to be the major sticking block.

Kirchner, a risk?

More like a flaming liability. He's left us right in it, but hopefully now the adults are in the room, we'll get things sorted. It won't be pleasant & another points deduction is likely (creditors).

Thanks for nothing, C(o)(c)K.

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

But I think the more subtle and interesting mistake is that we held on to players for too long.  We should never have convinced Bryson to stay when Burnley wanted him, for example.  The same with Keogh, Martin, and probably a lot more.  We ended up renewing their contracts and paying near-premier league salaries while we were in the championship.

Yes, but at the time it was done, Rush was 'protecting assets' , but it actually rebounded on the club as you describe, tying us down to expensive contracts & inflating the wage bill in one fell swoop. We're all wiser & definitely sadder after events (hindsight), but  cashing in on one of them & re-investing in the team - you cite Brentford as the best example - is what we should have done. The only  trouble is that I can't remember us receiving many high bids., like for Martin, for instance.

Definitely a risk now, the 35p in the pound over 3x years appears meaningless, he had two months to organize the transfer of funds. 

Kirchner now looks more like a Walter Mitty figure. Or Billy Liar. 

5 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

I think I mentioned before, he blocked me for suggesting he was best man at Gibbo’s wedding.

 Nixon's credibility is shot to pieces now, his comments about the Kirchner deal, 'the champagne's on ice', all ready to go etc.

I think I'd trust one of our tea-ladies more now regarding gossip. Unfortunately, we're down to just Rita at the moment as Marge, Ethel, & Doris  have all signed for Chelsea, Villa, & Palace in the past month.