Clough interview

[DCFC1983]

I do not post regularly and only when I feel something should be clarified.

Regulars on here will know that I have posted reliable information in the past.

I would just like to clarify that Shackell was sold as Nigel said 'to enable the club to strengthen in other areas'. In an ideal world, the club wanted to keep Shackell. But the sale enabled us to purchase a defender and a striker. There is no truth in any other rumour that has circulated relating to Jason Shackell.

The official amount received for the player was never disclosed. Let me assure you it was well in advance of the 1.2 million that has been speculated. The reason for not disclosing the amount is simple - so that other clubs do not know the resources we have at our disposal as this would enable them to play hardball when we are negotiating fees for other players.

I know for a fact that Richard Keogh was sought after from last January (after we played Coventry) onwards by the club. See Nigels comments immediately after the Forest game; 'we have a specific player in mind'. We did not publicise this interest until July. The fee paid was lower than what has been reported. The Shackell money was also partly used to purchase Sammon. The fee paid for Sammon was less that what was reported.

[sage]

Interesting. Very Interesting.

[DCFCfranco]

That's what I thought happened.

[ramblur]

Thank DCFC1983.Nothing you say comes as the slightest surprise to me.

[ChaddesdenRam]

I can't reveal my source but let me put it this way it is extremely reliable. Look at it how you want but I concur the fee was more than 1.2 million.

[curb]

You could explain the reasons a zillion times on here and nobody would listen because they only see the club through rose tinted glasses.

The perception of the club from the fans who used to go but don't any more is one of extremely dour football and an unambitious manager and board.

The sale of Shackell last summer did them a lot of damage.

Yes we have had the odd decent performance and a few good wins, but it's still only one decent entertaining game in three, probably one in ten away, one in five in previous seasons, even worse at times.

It's a hell of a lot to pay now for that sort of a ratio, and it's going to take a hell of a lot to tempt back those lost supporters, once you get out of the habit of going you wonder why you bothered in the first place.

[uttoxram75]

You could explain the reasons a zillion times on here and nobody would listen because they only see the club through rose tinted glasses.

The perception of the club from the fans who used to go but don't any more is one of extremely dour football and an unambitious manager and board.

The sale of Shackell last summer did them a lot of damage.

Yes we have had the odd decent performance and a few good wins, but it's still only one decent entertaining game in three, probably one in ten away, one in five in previous seasons, even worse at times.

It's a hell of a lot to pay now for that sort of a ratio, and it's going to take a hell of a lot to tempt back those lost supporters, once you get out of the habit of going you wonder why you bothered in the first place.

They came back in the late 80's/early 90's curb after the little blip in division 3........they'll come back again. Don't think we're far off tbh.

Loved the match on NYD, 3-1 v a team sitting third with half our team costing nowt and under 21.

[DCFC1983]

Curb I have to say you are mistaken.

The performances this season, particularly at home, have been of a consistently high standard. The football we play is exciting to watch and seeing Will Hughes is worth the admission fee alone.

They are not too far off. It's an interesting time to be a rams fan.

[curb]

Curb I have to say you are mistaken.

The performances this season, particularly at home, have been of a consistently high standard. The football we play is exciting to watch and seeing Will Hughes is worth the admission fee alone.

They are not too far off. It's an interesting time to be a rams fan.

No, you're not reading what I wrote.

I said the view of the fans who are now staying away is of very poor football and an unambitious manager and board.

What YOU think of the football at the moment is immaterial, it's still going to take a hell of a lot to change the mindset of those people, and a lot of them will now stay away for good as other things become more important.

[eddie]

No, you're not reading what I wrote.

I said the view of the fans who are now staying away is of very poor football and an unambitious manager and board.

What YOU think of the football at the moment is immaterial, it's still going to take a hell of a lot to change the mindset of those people, and a lot of them will now stay away for good as other things become more important.

I read what you wrote - and you categorically stated that we had "one decent entertaining game in three" at home. You then went on to suggest that the ratio was one in ten away, as though that was relevant at all as far as home attendances were concerned.

One in three? That's FOUR games this season where you suggest that you have been entertained at home? Wow! You are hard to please - because I think that it has been extremely entertaining this season at Pride Park. Still, perhaps we have different definitions of entertainment.

[curb]

I'm not arguing with you, just stating the reasons why attendances are down and the atmosphere's ****, which was a comment by Duracell earlier in the thread.

Whenever you talk to people who don't go any more, the same reasons crop up over and over again.

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

This isnt moaning, its wanting the team to be successful, and some fans have lost the enthusiasm slightly as a result of seeing the side being inconsistent,

You could argue that our form this season has actually been the most consistent its been for years. In years gone by we would have winning streaks and losing streaks, now its all just about even, in our last 3 games we've had a win a loss and a draw go figure.

[sage]

I'm not arguing with you, just stating the reasons why attendances are down and the atmosphere's ****, which was a comment by Duracell earlier in the thread.

Whenever you talk to people who don't go any more, the same reasons crop up over and over again.

It could be argued that this seasons attendances reflect how we played last year. The home form and entertainment is certainly better this year, but if people have decided not to come, they won't see it.

[RamNut]

I do not post regularly and only when I feel something should be clarified.

Regulars on here will know that I have posted reliable information in the past.

I would just like to clarify that Shackell was sold as Nigel said 'to enable the club to strengthen in other areas'. In an ideal world, the club wanted to keep Shackell. But the sale enabled us to purchase a defender and a striker. There is no truth in any other rumour that has circulated relating to Jason Shackell.

The official amount received for the player was never disclosed. Let me assure you it was well in advance of the 1.2 million that has been speculated. The reason for not disclosing the amount is simple - so that other clubs do not know the resources we have at our disposal as this would enable them to play hardball when we are negotiating fees for other players.

I know for a fact that Richard Keogh was sought after from last January (after we played Coventry) onwards by the club. See Nigels comments immediately after the Forest game; 'we have a specific player in mind'. We did not publicise this interest until July. The fee paid was lower than what has been reported. The Shackell money was also partly used to purchase Sammon. The fee paid for Sammon was less that what was reported.

Knob rot

'Ambitious' (I think) spoke to shackell at some gay club in Nottingham and published the relevant info on here.

Shackell and Nigel did not get on.

And the fee we received for him was the same as what we paid.

[ramblur]

Knob rot

'Ambitious' (I think) spoke to shackell at some gay club in Nottingham and published the relevant info on here.

Shackell and Nigel did not get on.

And the fee we received for him was the same as what we paid.

Can't comment on the first bit,RamNut,as I simply don't know.

As far as the second point goes,my mind drifts back to the January preceding all the action.Gibson put it to Glick that signings in the summer might have to be self financing,and Glick seemed rather pleased with the way the question was put.Many have pieced together the various DET reported fees and come up with a sizeable net spend.It occurred to me that if there were substantial funds available,then Glick might have given a rather different answer,given that we were starting to get towards S/T renewal attraction time.

If you were to factor in the Savies fee to what was said in the op,then it appears to me to look like a neutral net spend.

[DCFC1983]

I can only report what my very very very reliable source has told me. Other posters will tell you that I have provided information in the past and I have no reason to lie.

[ramblur]

I can only report what my very very very reliable source has told me. Other posters will tell you that I have provided information in the past and I have no reason to lie.

Would you sat that the overall net spend was near neutral?

[G STAR RAM]

I can only report what my very very very reliable source has told me. Other posters will tell you that I have provided information in the past and I have no reason to lie.

Don't waste your time. I had the same information from a Burnley shareholder but when I posted that on here got shot down in flames!

Unless you can get your source to clarify it on the 10 o'clock news you won't be believed!

[DCFC1983]

I must also clarify that whereas the main reason for selling Shackell was financial, I was also informed by my source that there is an element of truth in what you say 'ambitious' has apparently mentioned on here. That is that Shackell was seen as not so much a bad influence in the dressing room, but a strong character who was and I quote 'slightly big time'.

From what I have been told he was slightly miffed that when we were selling the club to him we told him we were going to have a real push for promotion and that he would be the first of several quality signings. He signed on that basis. My source informed me that the board then decided not long after to pull the plug on any further major signings and Shackell was disappointed by this. I was also told that he was also supposedly prone to have a grumble in training and would get in the ear of his close friend Jamie Ward. Any other rumours about Shackell that have circulated are untrue.

That said, it was not that him and the manager did not get on, they had a working relationship like any other and Nigel Clough was his boss. As I said, and as the manager has also said openly, in an ideal world, they would not have sold him. I will reiterate that my source said that the fee paid for him by Burnley was in excess of the 1.2 million that has been reported.

As an aside, I have been told that John Eustace was one of those prospective signings in 2011. Apparently, he had delayed signing a contract at Watford until Aug 2011 as we had promised to sign him for months. I was informed that the manager was particularly annoyed when he had to tell Eustace that they were no longer able to offer him a deal.

[dabber]

As an aside, I have been told that John Eustace was one of those prospective signings in 2011. Apparently, he had delayed signing a contract at Watford until Aug 2011 as we had promised to sign him for months. I was informed that the manager was particularly annoyed when he had to tell Eustace that they were no longer able to offer him a deal.

Easy with hindsight but if we had signed Eustace would Hendrick have developed the way he has?