Boycie Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I doubt Hughes or Bennet were there, masons only 16 now and Will 17. Our American friends have been here what, 4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Think we had Hughes from age of 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Dave Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Guys, do you not read between the lines here????? Quote: The right-back is another key member of Derby's team and they would need to be a rethink on the size of fee mentioned to make the story anywhere near believable. Rethink of the size of fee...they are just saying come and get him but you will ahve to pay more...FFS open your eyes and then they say..... Quote: "It is really important people realise that we will not be selling any assets cheaply because we are perceived to be cash-strapped." NOT SELLING ANY ASSETS CHEAPLY...come on who they kidding and we have this guy rsmini saying " nice to see one of the board coming out and speaking at last....Again Open your eyes mate. this Sam Rush has already started if you ask me as they dont say who the guy is formt he board. You are all being very kind to this post. I would say what a stupid post based on zero fact. Hope you are wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I doubt Hughes or Bennet were there, masons only 16 now and Will 17. Our American friends have been here what, 4 years? 5 years at the end of January, Clough 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrudeRAM Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Is it possible to cut the wage bill further than NC already has? I don't think Brayford will go but i bet hughes will be on his way, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrudeRAM Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 You are all being very kind to this post. I would say what a stupid post based on zero fact. Hope you are wrong though. Obviously, that's the way the American's work: every player at derby is for sale at the right price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Is it possible to cut the wage bill further than NC already has? I don't think Brayford will go but i bet hughes will be on his way, unfortunately. I think it is, as we have players we do not need. Around 5 players. I think our defense is looking for a big shake up in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeedsCityRam Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Obviously, that's the way the American's work: every player at derby is for sale at the right price. I think thats the case with every club to be fair - even Real Madrid managed to prise Ronaldo away from Man Utd to take the most extreme example. I've no problem with the principle so long as the transfer money is reinvested into improving the team as a whole (not treading water). Like most posters have identified, we're probably 4 quality first teamers away from being a genuine top 6 team - CB, LB, dominant MF & a striker. Would I be happy with Hughes going to fund this? Absolutely. Hopefully the arrival of Sam Rush with his expertise in the area of sports agents means we can get top dollar for whatever of our starlets we sell (although due to the undisclosed nature of most of our business, this may be hard to judge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Obviously, that's the way the American's work: every player at derby is for sale at the right price. There is absolutely no such thing as 'not for sale' in football, and there never has been. Even for someone like Messi, if some oligarch came in with a cheque for a billion Euros to Barcelona and an offer of a couple of a million a week in wages, there would be serious grounds for negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrudeRAM Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think thats the case with every club to be fair - even Real Madrid managed to prise Ronaldo away from Man Utd to take the most extreme example. I've no problem with the principle so long as the transfer money is reinvested into improving the team as a whole (not treading water). Like most posters have identified, we're probably 4 quality first teamers away from being a genuine top 6 team - CB, LB, dominant MF & a striker. Would I be happy with Hughes going to fund this? Absolutely. Hopefully the arrival of Sam Rush with his expertise in the area of sports agents means we can get top dollar for whatever of our starlets we sell (although due to the undisclosed nature of most of our business, this may be hard to judge) Completley agree but i doubt the money will be reinvested for clough to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think Hughes was there,possibly Mason as well? In no way am I arguing against the strategy (I applaud it),just that the extra amount invested wouldn't impact that much on admin expenses (if that's where they're located) compared to before Will Hughes was signed when he was 14 I think, I'm sure he wasn't here. Our Academy expenses can't be that high, we just pick up all the good players Forest are too stupid to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Will Hughes was signed when he was 14 I think, I'm sure he wasn't here. Our Academy expenses can't be that high, we just pick up all the good players Forest are too stupid to keep. I thought I heard age 13 in the last few months,which would put him in maybe/maybe not territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Completley agree but i doubt the money will be reinvested for clough to spend Not really sure what you're basing that statement on mate, I think the board have been pretty reasonable in allowing Clough to spend what he recoups from transfers. e.g. Davies & Shackell got us Keogh, Coutts, Jacobs and Sammon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I think it is, as we have players we do not need. Around 5 players. I think our defense is looking for a big shake up in the summer. 5 players we don't need? How small a squad do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 5 players we don't need? How small a squad do you want? With replacements of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 With replacements of course. Who are the 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Doyle, Deeney,Croft, Bailey are the first 4 that come to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Doyle, Deeney,Croft, Bailey are the first 4 that come to mind I don't really think of Croft as being part of the club. His loan takes him to the end of his contract with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Doyle, Deeney,Croft, Bailey are the first 4 that come to mind Exactly. + Roberts is retiring at the end of the season? O'connor is on a two year contract? I would tell him he can leave in the summer. The situation with Tyson, Ball and Robinson could see two of the three leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.