Views on NC's signings as DCFC manager

[sage]

Arrogance personified. Goodnight Chihuahua.

[CumbrianRam]

Looked at Bris orignal post on page 11 and agreed with almost all of it, didn't seem negative at all.

Oh and Pringle was a bad signing but didn't cost us much, the worst NC had made by a mile is Croft, 4 year contract what the feck was that about! (Very un NC-like)

Best Brayford/Bryson, look a much weaker side when these two are out. Brayford has a strong case to be on of the best full-backs in the league and when Bryson isn't in the teamsheet if feel far less confident in the midfield as Bryson has that great "engine" managers bang on about all the time.

Roberts, Shackell, Robinson, Ward decent, don't rate Robinson as a footballer but has a decent strike rate and pace are the only things going for him. Roberts was solid after a shaky start, Shacks did well for his and was not helped with the many partners he had and Ward has a bit of quality that many players lack in this league, only Hughes in DCFC has more talent but it is a large gap mind you.

Barker was fine when fit and OK at this level but don't think he was as good as Shaks or Keogh (sorry, shoot me to death people) and I'd have a few more defenders before SB who play in this league.

Buxton not bad as back up wouldn't want him as regular starter though and he wouldn't get into the top League One sides, typical lower league centre half but seems like a nice lad.

Bailey, Cywka, Ben Davies started well but ended badly, never really suited the NC plan long term for differing reasons which are common knowledge

Porter, Pringle, Doyle, Hendrie, Martin bad, i'd put Tyson in this category too but he has time to turn it around, Porter looked slow and cumbersome also injury prone, Pringle and Doyle were kids who never looked capable of playing at this level, Hendrie was well past his best and Martin was a loan signing were comitted to a wide player in the formation where there were no wingers, odd signing.

Deeney baffling why he was signed and still here, now we have Morch who could be 3rd choice, think Doyle won't have much long to make an impact either if at all.

This years too early to judge, same about the keepers but Lego is starting to shine and Frank is dropping off. Coutts seems like a decent addition though, Jacobs also impressing, O'Connor fine but not a left back! Naylor out of favour, Freeman on the fringe of the starting 11, don't know what to make of Sammon, Gjokaj one for the future as is Hoganson.

The loan signings were a mixed bag, mainly not adding much to a side but a last time we had an excellent loan signing was Leon Osman in 2004! Much prefer playing our youth than that form other clubs!

Not a great record but not a terrible one, better than Jewell but that's not saying much as bar Green, Steve Davies and Commons Jewell was awful, liked the look of Ghaly when on loan was a class above our other players then.

Last DCFC game I watched at the ground was 2009, so my post aint valid wasted 15 mins there sorry. Rams player/BBC/SKY live games/highlights/replays are fine for me though, sorry.

[ramesses]

Firstly.. The season we signed him from Blackpool they finished around 17th.. And then they went on to finish 6th the season he had left.. Nottm Forest wanted him when they finished 19th or 20th, and his first season at us is when Forest made the playoffs..

Leacock maybe an average defender.. But in his career, along with Moore, he's achieved far more than Shaun Barker.. At least Leacock was part of a defence that conceded less than 55 goals over a season, part of a defence that finished in the top 10, part of a defence that got promoted and tasted PL football..

We signed a $1mill defender and made him one of our highest earners and his overall achievement in football is finishing 14th in the NPC.. Average as it comes..

And no top 10 NPC team made an approach or tried to sign him because you can find far better value for $1mill than an average NPC defender..

I had never seen so many embarrassing posts as a year or so ago when people rated Barker as one of the best CBs in the league and that he'd get in any team.. What a load of old tosh..

Mentioning Leacock brings back some bad memories.

When I think of Leacock’s dire performances after the promotion season I feel profoundly depressed. In the majority of matches he played he was barely able to maintain his concentration for longer than 20 minutes. He was poor. He was a liability. I remember thinking NC had lost the plot by sticking with him for so long. It was sad because at one time he’d shown a lot of promise.

However, my low mood about Leacock is lifted by the fact that I’m still chuckling at your post from last season when you said that Barker at his best wouldn’t be able to hold down his place in a top 6 championship side.

[Albert]

Firstly.. The season we signed him from Blackpool they finished around 17th.. And then they went on to finish 6th the season he had left.. Nottm Forest wanted him when they finished 19th or 20th, and his first season at us is when Forest made the playoffs..

Who did they replace him with, and was that defender better. You failed to offer explanation, only mentioned this. Are you saying that if Forest had signed him that they've have still finished around 19th or 20th, are you saying that Blackpool would have finished around the bottom half if he stayed?

Leacock maybe an average defender.. But in his career, along with Moore, he's achieved far more than Shaun Barker.. At least Leacock was part of a defence that conceded less than 55 goals over a season, part of a defence that finished in the top 10, part of a defence that got promoted and tasted PL football..

Oh wow, that was the funniest thing I've ever read. Leacock was one player in a backfour that played well with a much better midfield in front of them, and he had an experienced partner (who was certainly not cheap for his age or career record), in a team that was set up to grind out ugly 1-0 wins at times. Those combined led to the defensive record, not Leacock's overall ability.

Speaking of tasting Premier League football though, it was an utter disaster, are you saying that they were good enough for the top end of the Championship, but were a million miles away from the Premier League (which they were). That team never should have made it up, especially with the slump towards the end, but we did somehow, and oh boy, what a season that was. To even refer to Premier League Football as a way of justifying Leacock being better than Barker is laughable.

We signed a $1mill defender and made him one of our highest earners and his overall achievement in football is finishing 14th in the NPC.. Average as it comes..

Can you please stop using $s when you actually mean £s.

Actually, he was part of a team that finished 12th last year, but hey. Also, you can't judge a player who you've already said has had injury troubles on the team's overall performance. If one good player made a team then there wouldn't be move for good players at lower league clubs as those clubs would be marching up the league merrily. It does happen, but not that often. Barker has been our best defender for some time, and I don't quite understand how you can pass it off by referencing his injury problems on one hand, then the team's overall performance on the other.

And no top 10 NPC team made an approach or tried to sign him because you can find far better value for $1mill than an average NPC defender..

Again, how do you know that no other teams have made an approaching for him?

I had never seen so many embarrassing posts as a year or so ago when people rated Barker as one of the best CBs in the league and that he'd get in any team.. What a load of old tosh..

I'm never seen so many embarrassing posts as when you log on, but hey...

[Albert]

Dean Leacocks best was better than Barkers best.. The facts speak for themselves.. One made the PL, the other made 14th in the NPC

Wow... this is the funniest post I've seen yet!

Leacock at his best looked okay in a good team that was organised, and at his worst looked one of the worst players to ever play for us.

Barker at his best looked a class above the team and at his worst looked a bit shaky when playing on through injury.

Personally, I know which one I rate higher.

[Bris Vegas]

Mentioning Leacock brings back some bad memories.

When I think of Leacock’s dire performances after the promotion season I feel profoundly depressed. In the majority of matches he played he was barely able to maintain his concentration for longer than 20 minutes. He was poor. He was a liability. I remember thinking NC had lost the plot by sticking with him for so long. It was sad because at one time he’d shown a lot of promise.

However, my low mood about Leacock is lifted by the fact that I’m still chuckling at your post from last season when you said that Barker at his best wouldn’t be able to hold down his place in a top 6 championship side.

Barker at his best would make a top 6 side. What proof do you have of that? Proof states he's an average NPC defender whose highest finish is 14th and contributes to an average defence that ships over 55 goals a season and hasn't been wanted by anyone..

Humm.. It's ludicrous and biased thinking that would get into a top 6 side..

[Bris Vegas]

Wow... this is the funniest post I've seen yet!

Leacock at his best looked okay in a good team that was organised, and at his worst looked one of the worst players to ever play for us.

Barker at his best looked a class above the team and at his worst looked a bit shaky when playing on through injury.

Personally, I know which one I rate higher.

Jesus are you really that stupid? We got feckin pummelled in so many games that season how on earth do you think we managed to concede just 46 goals in the league and keep around 15 clean sheets? If our defence was so bad how did we do it? We won so many games 1-0, we beat WBA in the final 1-0, if Leacock and Moore were poor players during that time how did they manage that?

Yet you honestly think Barker who is part of a defence that concedes over 55 a season and his highest finish is 14th and hasn't been wanted by any of the top NPC teams ever has eclipsed that season? Feck me.. Unreal.. Deluded..

Barker for $1mill for an average defender whose been injured alot a good signing? Are you a comedian?

Also heres another question.. Should NC retire tomorrow and looking back who would be the better manager? NC or Phil Brown? Actually wait don't answer that.. I know which deluded response you would give me..

[RamNut]

Leacock looked ok at times, piss poor at others.

BD subbed him very early v stoke in the promotion run in and seemed to lose faith in him.

He matured but his distribution was variable and he seemed to doze off in games.

He seemed to go walkabout sometimes.

Barker has been unlucky to be injured so much.

So far he hasn't quite lived up to the hype imo but is ok-ish.

Best defenders in recent years = keogh and shackell,

altho it seems to be trendy now to slag off shackell and pretend that he wasnt as good as he was.

[RamNut]

Looked at Bris orignal post on page 11 and agreed with almost all of it, didn't seem negative at all.

Oh and Pringle was a bad signing but didn't cost us much, the worst NC had made by a mile is Croft, 4 year contract what the feck was that about! (Very un NC-like)

Best Brayford/Bryson, look a much weaker side when these two are out. Brayford has a strong case to be on of the best full-backs in the league and when Bryson isn't in the teamsheet if feel far less confident in the midfield as Bryson has that great "engine" managers bang on about all the time.

Roberts, Shackell, Robinson, Ward decent, don't rate Robinson as a footballer but has a decent strike rate and pace are the only things going for him. Roberts was solid after a shaky start, Shacks did well for his and was not helped with the many partners he had and Ward has a bit of quality that many players lack in this league, only Hughes in DCFC has more talent but it is a large gap mind you.

Barker was fine when fit and OK at this level but don't think he was as good as Shaks or Keogh (sorry, shoot me to death people) and I'd have a few more defenders before SB who play in this league.

Buxton not bad as back up wouldn't want him as regular starter though and he wouldn't get into the top League One sides, typical lower league centre half but seems like a nice lad.

Bailey, Cywka, Ben Davies started well but ended badly, never really suited the NC plan long term for differing reasons which are common knowledge

Porter, Pringle, Doyle, Hendrie, Martin bad, i'd put Tyson in this category too but he has time to turn it around, Porter looked slow and cumbersome also injury prone, Pringle and Doyle were kids who never looked capable of playing at this level, Hendrie was well past his best and Martin was a loan signing were comitted to a wide player in the formation where there were no wingers, odd signing.

Deeney baffling why he was signed and still here, now we have Morch who could be 3rd choice, think Doyle won't have much long to make an impact either if at all.

This years too early to judge, same about the keepers but Lego is starting to shine and Frank is dropping off. Coutts seems like a decent addition though, Jacobs also impressing, O'Connor fine but not a left back! Naylor out of favour, Freeman on the fringe of the starting 11, don't know what to make of Sammon, Gjokaj one for the future as is Hoganson.

The loan signings were a mixed bag, mainly not adding much to a side but a last time we had an excellent loan signing was Leon Osman in 2004! Much prefer playing our youth than that form other clubs!

Not a great record but not a terrible one, better than Jewell but that's not saying much as bar Green, Steve Davies and Commons Jewell was awful, liked the look of Ghaly when on loan was a class above our other players then.

Last DCFC game I watched at the ground was 2009, so my post aint valid wasted 15 mins there sorry. Rams player/BBC/SKY live games/highlights/replays are fine for me though, sorry.

Agree with nearly all of that......but not been to a game for 3 years! Good grief.

You've missed some *****.

[Albert]

Jesus are you really that stupid? We got feckin pummelled in so many games that season how on earth do you think we managed to concede just 46 goals in the league and keep around 15 clean sheets? If our defence was so bad how did we do it? We won so many games 1-0, we beat WBA in the final 1-0, if Leacock and Moore were poor players during that time how did they manage that?

Yet you honestly think Barker who is part of a defence that concedes over 55 a season and his highest finish is 14th and hasn't been wanted by any of the top NPC teams ever has eclipsed that season? Feck me.. Unreal.. Deluded..

Barker for $1mill for an average defender whose been injured alot a good signing? Are you a comedian?

Also heres another question.. Should NC retire tomorrow and looking back who would be the better manager? NC or Phil Brown? Actually wait don't answer that.. I know which deluded response you would give me..

Nigel or Brown on their Rams career? Nigel almost certainly.

Also...

[size=8]It's not $s, it's £s! There is a difference![/size]

Maybe you have a problem because of your location "judging by the name "Bris Vegas" and the time you're posting at, I'd say that you may be based on Australia at the moment, in which case your keyboard wouldn't have £s on it. Here's a little trick for the future: Hold down the "alt" key, type 0163 into the numpad, let go of the "alt" key. Congrats, you can write £s again.

Also, a teams ability to hold up against pressure has as much to do with a good midfield that has player who can defend as a team's centrehalf pairing. As you sit back and soak up pressure players from further up the field come back to help defend. Moore was a good player, and an experienced player, but his price was quite hefty for a 32 year old who'd only played an average of 20ish games a season for the last 5 years (if I recall correctly). The reason Barker's price was twice what Moore was rising to is that he was around 6 years his junior.

Long story short, want a good story of how good Leacock is, look what he's done in his career. One half decent season next to an experienced player, followed by an absolutely abysmal season, followed by a decline to being a poor League One defender (judging by the fact that he left Leyton Orient so quickly). But no, he must have been fantastic, I mean you said it and all...

Also, why do you keep saying that Barker's highest finish was 14th, it's was 12th.

You also seem to think I'm comparing the defence overall to the overall defence in 2006-07, please read my posts before repeating yourself again.

[Albert]

Looked at Bris orignal post on page 11 and agreed with almost all of it, didn't seem negative at all.

Oh and Pringle was a bad signing but didn't cost us much, the worst NC had made by a mile is Croft, 4 year contract what the feck was that about! (Very un NC-like)

Best Brayford/Bryson, look a much weaker side when these two are out. Brayford has a strong case to be on of the best full-backs in the league and when Bryson isn't in the teamsheet if feel far less confident in the midfield as Bryson has that great "engine" managers bang on about all the time.

Roberts, Shackell, Robinson, Ward decent, don't rate Robinson as a footballer but has a decent strike rate and pace are the only things going for him. Roberts was solid after a shaky start, Shacks did well for his and was not helped with the many partners he had and Ward has a bit of quality that many players lack in this league, only Hughes in DCFC has more talent but it is a large gap mind you.

Barker was fine when fit and OK at this level but don't think he was as good as Shaks or Keogh (sorry, shoot me to death people) and I'd have a few more defenders before SB who play in this league.

Buxton not bad as back up wouldn't want him as regular starter though and he wouldn't get into the top League One sides, typical lower league centre half but seems like a nice lad.

Bailey, Cywka, Ben Davies started well but ended badly, never really suited the NC plan long term for differing reasons which are common knowledge

Porter, Pringle, Doyle, Hendrie, Martin bad, i'd put Tyson in this category too but he has time to turn it around, Porter looked slow and cumbersome also injury prone, Pringle and Doyle were kids who never looked capable of playing at this level, Hendrie was well past his best and Martin was a loan signing were comitted to a wide player in the formation where there were no wingers, odd signing.

Deeney baffling why he was signed and still here, now we have Morch who could be 3rd choice, think Doyle won't have much long to make an impact either if at all.

This years too early to judge, same about the keepers but Lego is starting to shine and Frank is dropping off. Coutts seems like a decent addition though, Jacobs also impressing, O'Connor fine but not a left back! Naylor out of favour, Freeman on the fringe of the starting 11, don't know what to make of Sammon, Gjokaj one for the future as is Hoganson.

The loan signings were a mixed bag, mainly not adding much to a side but a last time we had an excellent loan signing was Leon Osman in 2004! Much prefer playing our youth than that form other clubs!

Not a great record but not a terrible one, better than Jewell but that's not saying much as bar Green, Steve Davies and Commons Jewell was awful, liked the look of Ghaly when on loan was a class above our other players then.

Last DCFC game I watched at the ground was 2009, so my post aint valid wasted 15 mins there sorry. Rams player/BBC/SKY live games/highlights/replays are fine for me though, sorry.

I don't get the concept of calling young development squad players "poor signings". It just doesn't make sense. What was "poor" about them? To call a signing poor there has to be something about the signing, something about it that wasn't worthwhile and shouldn't have been done in the first place, something that could be foreseen. Giving a kid a go on low wages doesn't fit that criteria even if they don't play a single game.

The same goes for injuries, unless they are pre-existing. How can you say Porter was a bad signing when he firstly looked pretty damn good (bagged a few in his first handful of games as well) before injury struck him down. As I've said in this thread before, there have only really been 4 truly poor signings, that is signings that were actually a waste of money and things that could have been foreseen:

Lee Croft - A waste of money, hasn't been good enough and a long contract to boot

Lee Hendrie - He may have come as part of another deal (Stewart to Sheffield United), but that doesn't excuse that he was a pointless signing who wouldn't have been on low wages

Dave Martin - I just don't get this one, he came on loan, signed permanently, never looked good, and he was no kid their

Chris Maguire - Came in, didn't feature. Even if we did get most of our transfer fee back, he still cost wages and never contributed anything to justify it

Those 4 were bad signings, apart from that we end up throwing in some players who've had bad injuries like Porter, or young players who started well and fell off and out of favour for various reasons (Cywka, Bailey, etc.).

I just really don't get the slating of young players either, do you just want to club to stop signing players between academy age and their early 20s? Calling Doyle a "poor signing" is just plain ridiculous and I don't get exactly what people are saying. By calling him a poor signing are you saying he was a waste of money? Because he almost certainly cost the club a negligible amount. Maybe you're saying that the club shouldn't waste their time on looking for talented young footballers, I just don't get what the point people are trying to make. I end up being left with only "padding lists of bad players" as the only explanation that makes sense when players like Doyle or Pringle are mentioned, that is unless people are actually worried about giving kids a chance.

[Bris Vegas]

Nigel or Brown on their Rams career? Nigel almost certainly.

Also...

[size=8]It's not $s, it's £s! There is a difference![/size]

Maybe you have a problem because of your location "judging by the name "Bris Vegas" and the time you're posting at, I'd say that you may be based on Australia at the moment, in which case your keyboard wouldn't have £s on it. Here's a little trick for the future: Hold down the "alt" key, type 0163 into the numpad, let go of the "alt" key. Congrats, you can write £s again.

Also, a teams ability to hold up against pressure has as much to do with a good midfield that has player who can defend as a team's centrehalf pairing. As you sit back and soak up pressure players from further up the field come back to help defend. Moore was a good player, and an experienced player, but his price was quite hefty for a 32 year old who'd only played an average of 20ish games a season for the last 5 years (if I recall correctly). The reason Barker's price was twice what Moore was rising to is that he was around 6 years his junior.

Long story short, want a good story of how good Leacock is, look what he's done in his career. One half decent season next to an experienced player, followed by an absolutely abysmal season, followed by a decline to being a poor League One defender (judging by the fact that he left Leyton Orient so quickly). But no, he must have been fantastic, I mean you said it and all...

Also, why do you keep saying that Barker's highest finish was 14th, it's was 12th.

You also seem to think I'm comparing the defence overall to the overall defence in 2006-07, please read my posts before repeating yourself again.

Barker can't claim a 12th position when he played less than half a season.. That's why I made the reference to Bob Malcolm as this was also pointless..

I'm not commenting on their Derby career.. I was commenting on their career..

I still can't believe you're trying to justify Barker being better than Leacock.. It's a deadend arguement as all the facts suggest you're wrong and you can't place a single fact to back up the idea that Barkers best was better than Leacocks best.. And Barker cost twice as much at around $1mill..

A team's ability to hold up has much to do with the midfield.. Yes, midfields can protect the defence but comon you're clutching at straws bigtime here.. Face it, that season Leacocks performances far outweigh anything Barker has done in his career.. If Barker was in that side instead of Leacock I doubt we'd have even made the playoffs.. I'm not even a Leacock fan, but he was solid that season and better than anything Barker has produced..

You keep mentioning Leacock now.. I'm not talking about his ability now, I'm talking about his top level in his career.. Why do you keep repeating yourself over and over with this? Barkers top level has been midtable NPC at best.. Leacock was a major part of the 3rd best defence in the league over a season.. Not a handful of games, over a season..

Long story short,, You're not providing me with any facts to suggest average $1mill Barker's best is better than half his price Leacock's best...

This has gone way off track anyway and I appologise as that's partly my fault..

As to the original point.. Barker a good buy? No way Jose

[Albert]

How on Earth can't Barker be considered to be part of that season, he played 20 damn matches! By that logic Steve Davies only played a significant role in one season at Derby, whilst Kris Commons only played 2 in his 3 years.

Also, if Barker cost "$1mill" as you say, then he was actually considerably less than double Leacock's price who cost us, accounting for inflation from 2006 to 2009 ~$770k. As such, if you suggesting that Barker cost "$1mill" is correct, then he cost less than twice the amount of Leacock. Considering that Barker has put in the best part of 100 good games in 2009, whilst Leacock played some good games in a good team back in his first season followed by a decline that has left him barely good enough for League One, then even by your own standards Barker was the better signing, unless it's all about performances in the first twelve months, in which case maybe Leacock's performances may have been better, sadly however there is no conclusive evidence either way, unless you're willing to enlighten us here by showing us it.

[Bris Vegas]

How on Earth can't Barker be considered to be part of that season, he played 20 damn matches! By that logic Steve Davies only played a significant role in one season at Derby, whilst Kris Commons only played 2 in his 3 years.

Also, if Barker cost "$1mill" as you say, then he was actually considerably less than double Leacock's price who cost us, accounting for inflation from 2006 to 2009 ~$770k. As such, if you suggesting that Barker cost "$1mill" is correct, then he cost less than twice the amount of Leacock. Considering that Barker has put in the best part of 100 good games in 2009, whilst Leacock played some good games in a good team back in his first season followed by a decline that has left him barely good enough for League One, then even by your own standards Barker was the better signing, unless it's all about performances in the first twelve months, in which case maybe Leacock's performances may have been better, sadly however there is no conclusive evidence either way, unless you're willing to enlighten us here by showing us it.

He didn't even play 50% of the season.. So how can you claim he was a regular in a side that finished 12th.. He wasn't.. If anyting during his time that season we conceded more goals than when he was out on the sidelines..

Ah, finally you admit that Leacocks one season was better than anything Barker has produced.. So, Leacock signing for around $350k which is most definately less than half of $1mill produced a solid season and helped the club earn around $60mill through the next 4 years because of promotion is a worser signing than a guy who cost $1mill whose highest finish with the club is 14th in the NPC and who contibutes to a team that concedes overr 55 goals a season in the 2nd tier.. Oh god this get's funnier and funnier..

And Barker hasn't managed 100 league games for the Rams.. And he's been here around 175 weeks, sucking down a cool (on average) $9.8k a match just to put in average displays..

Leacock was far the better signing.. He produced more on the pitch and was a better investment for the club off the pitch.. There is no arguement to be had.. Only a laughable one.

[Albert]

He didn't even play 50% of the season.. So how can you claim he was a regular in a side that finished 12th.. He wasn't.. If anyting during his time that season we conceded more goals than when he was out on the sidelines..

Ah, finally you admit that Leacocks one season was better than anything Barker has produced.. So, Leacock signing for around $350k which is most definately less than half of $1mill produced a solid season and helped the club earn around $60mill through the next 4 years because of promotion is a worser signing than a guy who cost $1mill whose highest finish with the club is 14th in the NPC and who contibutes to a team that concedes overr 55 goals a season in the 2nd tier.. Oh god this get's funnier and funnier..

And Barker hasn't managed 100 league games for the Rams.. And he's been here around 175 weeks, sucking down a cool (on average) $9.8k a match just to put in average displays..

Leacock was far the better signing.. He produced more on the pitch and was a better investment for the club off the pitch.. There is no arguement to be had.. Only a laughable one.

You keep quoting completely incorrect fees and wildly speculated wages, please stop doing that.

Leacock's fee was around $770k taking into account exchange rates at the time and inflation from 2006 to 2009. How you can equate that to $350k?

Are you saying that Steve Davies was not a regular until his last season, when he was only just a regular? What about Commons?

Leacock was terrible from June 2007 until the time he left in 2012 when I'm fairly sure he had his contract paid up. How on Earth is that a "better investment" than our captain who has made the club stronger on and off the pitch since 2009?

Also, you claim that we were better without Barker last season, yet offer no evidence for this. I might have a look into the numbers later, but I think you'll find the opposite. Don't make claims unless you have the evidence to back it though.

[Bris Vegas]

You keep quoting completely incorrect fees and wildly speculated wages, please stop doing that.

Leacock's fee was around $770k taking into account exchange rates at the time and inflation from 2006 to 2009. How you can equate that to $350k?

Are you saying that Steve Davies was not a regular until his last season, when he was only just a regular? What about Commons?

Leacock was terrible from June 2007 until the time he left in 2012 when I'm fairly sure he had his contract paid up. How on Earth is that a "better investment" than our captain who has made the club stronger on and off the pitch since 2009?

Also, you claim that we were better without Barker last season, yet offer no evidence for this. I might have a look into the numbers later, but I think you'll find the opposite. Don't make claims unless you have the evidence to back it though.

Erm.. No Leacock was an integral part of a defence that won promotion and the millions that went with it.. How the hell is he not a better investment than paying $1mill on a defender who has improved us about 5 places in the NPC from lower midtable to midtable.. How the feck is that better than Leacocks investment.. Leacock was cheaper than Barker, he improved us more and earned DCFC more money.. Barker has been a nothing player to the tune of $1mill plus..

What exchange rates are you talking about? Did we buy him in Canadian dollars from Fulham or something? What inflation? Seriously, clutch a little harder and those straws might snap..

A regular player is a player that starts regularly.. ie. more than 50% of the games.. If you don't understand this, then I guess you don't understand the term 'regular'

Barker started less than 50% of our games last season.. He therefore wasn't a regular..

[Albert]

Erm.. No Leacock was an integral part of a defence that won promotion and the millions that went with it.. How the hell is he not a better investment than paying $1mill on a defender who has improved us about 5 places in the NPC from lower midtable to midtable.. How the feck is that better than Leacocks investment.. Leacock was cheaper than Barker, he improved us more and earned DCFC more money.. Barker has been a nothing player to the tune of $1mill plus..

What exchange rates are you talking about? Did we buy him in Canadian dollars from Fulham or something? What inflation? Seriously, clutch a little harder and those straws might snap..

A regular player is a player that starts regularly.. ie. more than 50% of the games.. If you don't understand this, then I guess you don't understand the term 'regular'

Barker started less than 50% of our games last season.. He therefore wasn't a regular..

That means that Steve Davies barely had one "regular season" and that Commons was not a regular for us in his second season. Good work.

You keep quoting fees in $s, which I assume means US Dollars as there is no other indications. Also yes, inflation does exist. If you keep quoting numbers in $s I'll treat them as what you say they are.

Now, are you saying that Leacock, and Leacock alone got us promoted that season? He was the one major deciding factor that got us up?

...interesting opinion. Was he also the one deciding factor that sent us down in tatters and lead to us having financial ruin, or does he only get all the credit for the first part to you. Personally I think he was just an average defender with an experienced partner with a good midfield in front of him that allowed his rough edges to be overlooked a lot more. These rough edges have come into focus in the years since and he ultimately was a waste of money for the club overall.

[mozza]

i lost the plot reading this lot, all i'll say is one or two players mentioned, were

way, way out of their depth and seemed to hide a lot in the Prem..

'out of their comfort zone'.. so to speak..

[sage]

Or you could just watch both players a number of times then make a judgement in their respective qualities, like a normal person.

[Bris Vegas]

That means that Steve Davies barely had one "regular season" and that Commons was not a regular for us in his second season. Good work.

You keep quoting fees in $s, which I assume means US Dollars as there is no other indications. Also yes, inflation does exist. If you keep quoting numbers in $s I'll treat them as what you say they are.

Now, are you saying that Leacock, and Leacock alone got us promoted that season? He was the one major deciding factor that got us up?

...interesting opinion. Was he also the one deciding factor that sent us down in tatters and lead to us having financial ruin, or does he only get all the credit for the first part to you. Personally I think he was just an average defender with an experienced partner with a good midfield in front of him that allowed his rough edges to be overlooked a lot more. These rough edges have come into focus in the years since and he ultimately was a waste of money for the club overall.

Ok from that I just assume you don't understand what the term regular is..

Did I mention that Leacock alone got us promoted? Anyone? Nope, I didn't say that.. A waste of money? He was a sound sound investment.. A regular in a side who got promoted and earned us mega bucks.. A great contribution.

You're straws have just snapped..

We paid too much $$ for Barker whilst Leacock contributed alot to DCFC and made the club plenty of $$

Leacock > Barker

Snap.