EnigmaRam

None of them really make me want to rush to buy one when they’re available

Would be better without the collar 

52 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

They may make us better (unlikely we'll sign 2 new starters...) but we still have a wage budget to manage. We could sign 23 new players which would make use better, but the wage bill will be blown out the water.

Bird is our best midfielder, whereas Thompson should already be ahead of Smith in the pecking order. It should be the older players in decline who should be replaced first, not our best and/or most promising youngsters. Funnily enough, new contracts can be signed. One of our youngsters needs us to get promoted this season, whilst the other needs to be given game time.

I have no idea how you've jumped to the conclusion that I want DRobinson and Radcliffe to step into the first team with high expectations. The role I have laid out for them is infrequent game time, because we would already have 6 senior first team players in the area of the field they play in (New, Bird, Hourihane, Smith, Thompson and Sibley). 6th choice typically barely gets any game time as it is, never mind making that a 7th! They don't need first team football at a lower level. They need a small amount of expose to higher level of football (L1) this season, before earning a higher level of loan next season.

As if Bird being in/out of the squad was the only factor...

He doesn't want to be stuck playing in L1 for another year. I can't blame him as the manger should be able to achieve that after 2 seasons in charge

I was quite clear in the reasoning against short term cover:
"Signing short term cover is not an option, as this indicates they are squad players rather than starters who would improve the [starting 11]. If they would improve the [starting 11], they would be season long signings." 

The point here is, if they're good enough for a team chasing promotion, the loaning club will only send them out for the season. They may even put a recall clause in there. We don't want to sell Bird, so we wouldn't be signing someone for a season 'just in case' we do sell him.

Not sure where you get an 11/18 man squad from. 6 central midfield players would be a 23 man squad. Any more and you start having an unhealthy squad size

Yes I got the reasoning. Just not convinced it’s correct though 

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

8 weeks = 14 games
Rest of season = 32+ games

We have 2 options:
1. Sign 1 player to be a starter, and utilise fringe players such as DRobinson and Radcliffe to fill in when required until Bird is fit
2. Sign 2 players, not use fringe players and harm their development, AND limit game time for first teamers such as Thompson and Sibley, further harming their development and future sell-on value.

Signing short term cover is not an option, as this indicates they are squad players rather than starters who would improve the squad. If they would improve the squad, they would be season long signings, resulting in option number 2.

Why would we sell Bird in January? Our aim is promotion and selling Bird would be to the detriment of that. He's our best midfielder so we should be doing everything to keep him. We do that by getting promoted...

I don’t get why you say we can’t sign a short term player? We could get one on loan, knowing Birds going to be out for awhile, whilst also having lots of games in the pizza cup. It’s quite feasible we get one in on a permanent signing as a DM in place of Smith, then one short term loan to cover BIrd in the advanced midfield role (whilst battling with Thompson) until Jan and assess then. 
 

If Birds sold we can try and make it a full season loan, if not they go back.

1 hour ago, Gabby'sThighs said:

I don't think he's actually as slow as people make out. He's slow in the first 5-10 yards but usually makes that up, a bit like Bowser in Mario Kart. Plus, he can tackle. It's true that better, quicker forwards will probably show him up though.
I'd like to see him at DM too!

Bowser? Mario Kart? New German CB?

Him being played demonstrates the deal was nowhere remotely close to happening. So not quite sure how it could have been pushed through, without giving him away for a fraction of his worth 

Can we get back on topic here? 
 

It was definitely 4 at the back on Saturday 

4 minutes ago, sage said:

Well that's certainly an enigma

Not really. Just straight up common sense 

He’s a very witty chap. 

2 minutes ago, sage said:

Que?

11 minutes ago, sage said:

Rooney was cramping up. Tommo was blowing out of his harris as was Wash and Waggy.  

Yes, that’s why I put psychological AS MUCH AS physical

Warne said in his interview he okayed an overload system. I saw it as Fozzy being pushed up to draw the midfielders and defence across which left more space for NML with Rooney providing the cover behind. 
 

I felt the subs were psychological as much as Physical. All the defenders including Sonny and Elder finished In a winning team, keeping a clean sheet which will give them all a confidence boost they sorely needed 

2-2 

Washington 

I’m sure most of us could have come up with a better strategy and list of players than what’s come through the door. It’s not like any of them are unknowns from some far flung league. 
 

I hope next years recruitment  much better and younger with the opportunity to increase in value and come into their prime playing years. 
 

The cycle of no return on investment has been killing this club for years. Surely the senior leadership must know this? We all bloody lived through it!

Tbf Warne said himself there was arguments in the room when going over transfers. I’m sure that’s natural in any club or business, where competing needs and budget comes into play.

I’d be worried more if everything was Rosie, as they wouldn’t be seeing what we’re seeing, on the pitch and in recruitment. 

Rooney? 

Knowing our business model we’ll sell him, then pay a loan fee in excess of the sum received for selling him. The Derby Way

I’m sorry but you can’t sell your young assets, that are your better players just so you can sign a 30+ has been just to try and get out this league. If you’re selling them, then you need to bring in other young players with potential to sell on at a profit. 
 

Rodrigues, smith, Knibbs, Bernard etc

Otherwise you just run out of assets, and if you don’t get promoted you’re stuffed. Looks like we’re stuffed as things stand 

Although Cashin hasn’t been very good this season so far, he’s been the best defender of the 3. Who replaces him? And won’t it just make the defence worse? 

2-1 collins

2 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

We didn't sign him when he was still employed by Nottingham Forest, though, which is my point. 

A permanent transfer, of course, would be no problem. I'm working under the assumption Fornah would be in a Derby shirt as a Forest player and everything that comes with it. 

If that’s all people have to worry about I seriously need to make some significant life changes 

If it is a loan then it’s the shortest commute 😬

Isn’t it the first season Clowes has set a budget for a football club. It could be bloody anything 🤷‍♂️🤣 

Never in doubt, good lad Collo

16 minutes ago, angieram said:

There's trouble behind me at the match today! 😂

 

Bradley Johnson? 🤣