DCFCfranco Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I'm not that fussed with attendances. Just what's happening on the grass that I'm focused on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 We used the money from Steve Davies on Sammon.. we didn't have that money then. I'm pretty sure Nigel Clough would have wanted Sharp, Le fondre etc, but he couldn't get them because of the money. Now if he wants a player, he has to lose a player he doesn't want to. e.g - Shackell. Do you think Shackell was sold for financial reasons? oh dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 People pay a lot of money to watch football. It isn't a working class sport anymore. Why would people spend money they don't really have, to watch a side like derby? I don't blame people for not going. But the problem is, less gates, less revenue, less improvement. Although, I'm hoping hitting GSE financially will force them to except enough is enough, and hire a real manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcFc Dyycheee Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Do you think Shackell was sold for financial reasons? oh dear! Why, was that thing true about Savies etc? Thought it was complete bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Billy Sharp was offered to Derby for less than we paid for Sammon, as were Jamie Mackie, Adam Le Fondre, Charlie Austin and Rickie Lambert (prior to the moves they made). All were deemed as not worth the asking price by Clough, who also at that point wouldn't match Wigan's bid for Sammon, only to pay more 18 months later. The reason I know this, there was a fans forum last April where groups of fans were allowed to attend and ask questions, and the answers I got were "the manager didn't think the deal represented value for the club"!! I'm pretty sure, with the all of the players you just mentioned, the salaries (or salaries desired in Le Fondre's case) would be the stumbling block, not the asking price. If it was a straight shoot out, Sharp or Sammon, same wages, there would be one winner. And it wouldn't be Sammon. We couldn't afford some of the wages that PL loanees (to Championship clubs) get. Even if there's no fee attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestLondonRam Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Do you think Shackell was sold for financial reasons? oh dear! Are you for real I didn't realise your Aunty was Married to Nigel clough and you were so involved in the day to day running of Derby... Come Off it. And even if it was the truth and there was under lying issues what do you think the real clough would of done with a player with a bigger Ego than himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Why are people criticising those who are not renewing their season tickets? Unlike some fans they are thinking long term and are voting with their feet. A lot of these fans have had season tickets for 5, 10, 15, 20 years in a row. They are still Derby fans and will continue to support the club. If a significant drop in season ticket sales doesn't force the board to re-evaluate their approach then nothing will. This isn't the PL. A clubs NEEDS revenue from ticket sales. How many people even wear Derby shirts to the home matches anymore? Find a supplier who you can negotiate a reasonable selling price for the shirts and sell them for £20-£25. They only cost £3-£4 to make. Selling 1000 for £40-£45 is nothing in comparison to selling 10,000 for £20-£25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I'm pretty sure, with the all of the players you just mentioned, the salaries (or salaries desired in Le Fondre's case) would be the stumbling block, not the asking price. If it was a straight shoot out, Sharp or Sammon, same wages, there would be one winner. And it wouldn't be Sammon. We couldn't afford some of the wages that PL loanees (to Championship clubs) get. Even if there's no fee attached. Would the wages have been much different? Sammon came from a PL team and Sharp from a lower ranked Championship side. Rickie Lambert from Bristol Rovers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Are you for real I didn't realise your Aunty was Married to Nigel clough and you were so involved in the day to day running of Derby... Come Off it. And even if it was the truth and there was under lying issues what do you think the real clough would of done with a player with a bigger Ego than himself? now you've confused me. Are you saying Shackell was sold because of his ego? I say Shackell was sold for reasons that were not financial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hindge Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I'm pretty sure, with the all of the players you just mentioned, the salaries (or salaries desired in Le Fondre's case) would be the stumbling block, not the asking price. If it was a straight shoot out, Sharp or Sammon, same wages, there would be one winner. And it wouldn't be Sammon. We couldn't afford some of the wages that PL loanees (to Championship clubs) get. Even if there's no fee attached. Stop looking at the bigger picture.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Would the wages have been much different? Sammon came from a PL team and Sharp from a lower ranked Championship side. Rickie Lambert from Bristol Rovers etc. Based on salaries nearly always being the stumbling block, and the fact we have actually spent a fair bit of money on fees, it would make sense that salaries got in the way. Maybe it's not what they were on, but what the competition was willing to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestLondonRam Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 now you've confused me. Are you saying Shackell was sold because of his ego? I say Shackell was sold for reasons that were not financial. As I said you are stating there was a reason and as you are so involved with the club you will no the real reason so tell us all!!! It may of been a range of reasons, Finacial, Savies situation or Egotistic reasons but we don't know for sure and if you know why then tell us all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I'm pretty sure, with the all of the players you just mentioned, the salaries (or salaries desired in Le Fondre's case) would be the stumbling block, not the asking price. If it was a straight shoot out, Sharp or Sammon, same wages, there would be one winner. And it wouldn't be Sammon. We couldn't afford some of the wages that PL loanees (to Championship clubs) get. Even if there's no fee attached. No chance, there's no way you can convince me that Derby wouldn't pay Le Fondre more than he was on at Rotherham, or even his pre-promotion wage at Reading! Similar, Sharp was at Sheffield United, and outcase (a la Jamie Ward), and laterly at Doncaster! Bearing in mind we poached players like Tyson, Green etc and topped their previous wages, I cannot see this. More likely that Sammon coming down from the Premier League will cost more in wages. Surely?? haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 No chance, there's no way you can convince me that Derby wouldn't pay Le Fondre more than he was on at Rotherham, or even his pre-promotion wage at Reading! Similar, Sharp was at Sheffield United, and outcase (a la Jamie Ward), and laterly at Doncaster! Bearing in mind we poached players like Tyson, Green etc and topped their previous wages, I cannot see this. More likely that Sammon coming down from the Premier League will cost more in wages. Surely?? haha It's not just down to what Le Fondre was on at Rotherham. I'm on £50pw. Your firm can go to £100pw, but the firm down the road offer me £125. I take that. So we could probably afford his wages at Rotherham, but not the wages others come in at. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm basing that on the fact that we've spent money on players transfer fees, but rarely splash out on big wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Everyone is saying if we don't improve the gates will be go down...... And? What impact would that have We aren't gonna get relegated, we aren't gonna get investment needed to ensure playoffs (quality cb, st and lb). Let's say in 5 years time we are still in the championship and gates are 12,000 a week. So what? I can't see what difference that will make, maybe an even lower wage bill because revenue will be less but the owners seem to be writing off any losses anyway. "12,000 a week.So what?" Are you serious? For a start,the owners don't write off losses,they fund them.Do you seriously think they would fund ever increasing losses for a further 5 years?If you took the other route and slashed the wage bill,do you think we'd avoid relegation? Try working out what a drop to 12,000 would actually mean in monetary terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 "12,000 a week.So what?" Are you serious? For a start,the owners don't write off losses,they fund them.Do you seriously think they would fund ever increasing losses for a further 5 years?If you took the other route and slashed the wage bill,do you think we'd avoid relegation? Try working out what a drop to 12,000 would actually mean in monetary terms. I completely understand the consequences that average attendance would have. My question is if they arent gonna sell the club or put the money required into the club to get out of the division. Why would anything change if the attendances fell. Yes the owners would be 'funding' even bigger losses but they dont seem proactive toward lowering the current losses so why would a bigger loss make any difference? Fair enough your point about if that led to a massive cut in the wage bill and as a result we got relegated then something would have to happen. Relegation, yes something would give. But I am saying that if we are still in this league in 5 years time with the same manager and the same board with an attendance of (ok i will be more realistic my previous post was dramatic) 15,000 a week (similar to Hull City, Birmingham and Blackburn) will anything be different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I completely understand the consequences that average attendance would have. My question is if they arent gonna sell the club or put the money required into the club to get out of the division. Why would anything change if the attendances fell. Yes the owners would be 'funding' even bigger losses but they dont seem proactive toward lowering the current losses so why would a bigger loss make any difference? Fair enough your point about if that led to a massive cut in the wage bill and as a result we got relegated then something would have to happen. Relegation, yes something would give. But I am saying that if we are still in this league in 5 years time with the same manager and the same board with an attendance of (ok i will be more realistic my previous post was dramatic) 15,000 a week (similar to Hull City, Birmingham and Blackburn) will anything be different? The 3 you mention are all in receipt of parachute payments.I suspect you'll find that this year's loss will have reduced and that they have been proactive in attempting to cut the deficit (ask the seniors,disabled and East Stand inhabitants).The average yearly input from the owners has been roughly £7m.Do you seriously believe they would be willing to continue this (or more) for another 5 years? There comes a time in any business where enough is enough.I don't somehow see this as a £7m per year hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 The 3 you mention are all in receipt of parachute payments.I suspect you'll find that this year's loss will have reduced and that they have been proactive in attempting to cut the deficit (ask the seniors,disabled and East Stand inhabitants).The average yearly input from the owners has been roughly £7m.Do you seriously believe they would be willing to continue this (or more) for another 5 years? There comes a time in any business where enough is enough.I don't somehow see this as a £7m per year hobby. I agree ramblur why would you sit there losing 7 million a year and do nothing about it. Yes they are trying and succeeding in fairness at creating quality youth talent but their net spend in the transfer market was 1 or 2 million, I wouldn't say that is being proactive towards trying to reduce the 7 million a year losses. The board must know the only way they are ever gonna reduce the losses is through premier league revenue, so surely they should just give Nigel 3 million to spend (even thats not much compared to the likes of leicester and cardiff) as well as any money from player sales this season. Buy a proper goalscorer, a left back and if Barker isnt up to it get a CB. That would signal ambition to the fans, attendances shouldn't fall as much, maybe rise even and also give a really good chance of a top 6 finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I agree ramblur why would you sit there losing 7 million a year and do nothing about it. Yes they are trying and succeeding in fairness at creating quality youth talent but their net spend in the transfer market was 1 or 2 million, I wouldn't say that is being proactive towards trying to reduce the 7 million a year losses. The board must know the only way they are ever gonna reduce the losses is through premier league revenue, so surely they should just give Nigel 3 million to spend (even thats not much compared to the likes of leicester and cardiff) as well as any money from player sales this season. Buy a proper goalscorer, a left back and if Barker isnt up to it get a CB. That would signal ambition to the fans, attendances shouldn't fall as much, maybe rise even and also give a really good chance of a top 6 finish. Well I have made the point before that I thought we were undercooked on quality before entering this stage of relative austerity,my point being that a decent signing (whether he turns out to be good or rubbish) usually has the effect of increasing S/T sales.If he turns out to be good,then the number of walk ins increases and the player has (possibly enhanced) resale value.If the team plays a lot better,the valuation of other players tends to go up,and there's always the chance of promotion.If he turns out to be a dud however,that's a bit different.But that's the nature of football,it's a risk business. I think a good indication of current mentality came in an interview given by Glick some time ago.I think he was asked about the possibility of a £2m signing and reasoned that you would have to add x thousand (can't remember the figure) onto the gate to cover it and that this was unrealistic.However,this calculation pays no heed to the other possible spin offs I mentioned,and gives no residual resale value for the player concerned.Of course the RD interviewer didn't see fit to challenge him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I think Glick said that a drop of 5000 season tickets represents £1m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.