Sammon is awfully good

[Guest]

what have Kilmarnock got to do with what we paid? We bought him from Wigan

They got a percentage of the fee, google it, not to hard to find the references

[davenportram]

Oh yyeah - but a percentage of what we paid Wigan so not really anything to do with how much we paid it was paid to them by wigan

[Guest]

Oh yyeah - but a percentage of what we paid Wigan so not really anything to do with how much we paid it was paid to them by wigan

So you think Wigan would pay 100k for a player without selling him for a profit?

That would be a strange deal

[davenportram]

So you think Wigan would pay 100k for a player without selling him for a profit?

That would be a strange deal

bit the sell on fee is a percentage of profit so no matter how much they sell him for over what they paid they would make a profit.

if they paid £100k as you say, then sell for 200k the sell on would be a percentage of the 100k profit.

[davenportram]

Having just found the article you mean they are to pay Killie 100k as the sell on fee, after paying £450k

well if we paid £600k they still made a profit of £50k

[Guest]

Having just found the article you mean they are to pay Killie 100k as the sell on fee, after paying £450k

well if we paid £600k they still made a profit of £50k

But where do you get this 600k figure from?

Every report I've seen, which includes the article you mention, to sky, to derbyshire papers mention a 1.2m deal, so where does your 600k come from?

[davenportram]

You claimed that because of the payment to Kilmarnock we must have paid more than 600k (otherwise how would Wigan have made a profit)

just pointing out that Wigan would have made a profit if we paid only 600k - so your proof that we paid more is no such thing.

[Guest]

You claimed that because of the payment to Kilmarnock we must have paid more than 600k (otherwise how would Wigan have made a profit)

just pointing out that Wigan would have made a profit if we paid only 600k - so your proof that we paid more is no such thing.

Apart from all the reports that say we did, which is what I said, the figure of 450k comes from a report that says we paid 1.2m, elsewhere it says 600k, whichever way you look at it, there is no reference whatsoever to back up your 600k figure, of what we paid, whereas there are countless figures saying 1.2m.

Very much like the shackell figure that people chose not to believe.

[ChaddesdenRam]

I can guarantee the fee we received for Shackell was more that 1.1 million. I cannot say my source and I do not expect anyone to believe me but honestly I can tell you it was more than that. 

[davenportram]

Apart from all the reports that say we did, which is what I said, the figure of 450k comes from a report that says we paid 1.2m, elsewhere it says 600k, whichever way you look at it, there is no reference whatsoever to back up your 600k figure, of what we paid, whereas there are countless figures saying 1.2m.

Very much like the shackell figure that people chose not to believe.

check the thread - i didn't say it was 600k merely asked if we paid more hoping someone could come up with conclusive proof that we did.

noone has because the reports of £1.2m are based on heresay and speculation

[Guest]

check the thread - i didn't say it was 600k merely asked if we paid more hoping someone could come up with conclusive proof that we did.

noone has because the reports of £1.2m are based on heresay and speculation

Likewise if you check the thread, I said based on reports it indicates that we have paid more than 600k, I can't see any heresay or speculation that says we paid any less than this, let alone conclusive proof.

[ramblur]

Likewise if you check the thread, I said based on reports it indicates that we have paid more than 600k, I can't see any heresay or speculation that says we paid any less than this, let alone conclusive proof.

I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point you're trying to make is that if the newspaper were correct in their report of a six figure sell on,then the fee we paid would likely have been well in excess of £450k,otherwise the %age sell on figure might look ridiculously high?

 

The only point I would make is that the paper doesn't identify sources for the info,nor does it give direct (or any)quotes.It may,for instance,have managed to get hold of an accurate %age figure,and then used an assumed £1.2m fee to come up with a six figure sell on (rather than the club having told them they were expecting a six figure sum).Of course,you may have been looking at a different article to me ('Daily Record'). 

[Guest]

I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point you're trying to make is that if the newspaper were correct in their report of a six figure sell on,then the fee we paid would likely have been well in excess of £450k,otherwise the %age sell on figure might look ridiculously high?

The only point I would make is that the paper doesn't identify sources for the info,nor does it give direct (or any)quotes.It may,for instance,have managed to get hold of an accurate %age figure,and then used an assumed £1.2m fee to come up with a six figure sell on (rather than the club having told them they were expecting a six figure sum).Of course,you may have been looking at a different article to me ('Daily Record').

Indeed it was a combination of both the paper, and the Kilmarnock chairman quoting the add on fee and another player to Everton as the reasons why they wouldn't go out of business after rangers were removed from the league. I'm paraphrasing a bit there before anyone, pulls me up for getting quote wrong.

I would have guessed therefore the amount was not far wrong with a 6 figure fee. No evidence though as you correctly point out.

[ramblur]

Indeed it was a combination of both the paper, and the Kilmarnock chairman quoting the add on fee and another player to Everton as the reasons why they wouldn't go out of business after rangers were removed from the league. I'm paraphrasing a bit there before anyone, pulls me up for getting quote wrong.

I would have guessed therefore the amount was not far wrong with a 6 figure fee. No evidence though as you correctly point out.

Do you have a link for the chairman's quote?

[Guest]

Do you have a link for the chairman's quote?

It's under a link about Armageddon, there is another article that goes into more detail but I couldn't find that on phone, sorry.

This is some of what he said, as I said only my assumptions :-)

“We’ve compensated for the loss of Rangers by selling a teenager, Matthew Kennedy, to Everton and getting a sell-on fee when Connor Sammon went from Wigan to Derby County."

[cheron85]

Another call-up for the Fish then...

 

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ups-reward-criticism-striker-Sammon-harsh/story-18390913-detail/story.html#axzz2NJnNAfEd

 

Also interesting little comparison with some other million pound plus strikers:

 

Vardy - 5 goals

Doyle - 7 goals

Sordell - 6 goals

Cox - 5 goals

 

NOT saying that there aren't cheaper players out there scoring more... Just saying that £1.2 mill isn't the money you pay for a goalscorer nowadays, it's a pretty cheap forward... £2 mill for Cox and £3 mill for Sordell by the way... And neither set of fans are giving them as much stick as we seem to give Sammon...

[Ambitious]

Cox and Sordell are two players that I would of been sickened if we paid what the other clubs did.

 

I remember watching Sordell for England and Watford, my initial thoughts were he is another Theo Robinson - he has little technical ability and this season has struggled to touch the onion bag.

 

Cox is a player I watched for West Brom, and he was a little or nothing - bit of a no mark. Watched him 6 times for Forest this season, he has had 4 really poor games... 1 okay game, and 1 good game. He loves losing the ball, it's what he is best at! 

 

Sammon is exactly what he is, probably the most prominent striker in the league - he is strong, quick, powerful.. as a trouble maker he is the leagues best, but his technical ability is hit and miss (he has some really good moments, along with his really bad moments), composure... lacking, intelligence... lacking(his biggest problem) he'll always throw his body around the pitch, and make himself known, and I am okay with that... it's strikers that go hiding, barely touch the ball and live offside that really piss me off.

 

Congratulations to Sammon anyway, he deserves a place.

 

Robbie Keane is an accomplished player, experienced head.

Jon Walters is a prominent player for Stoke, for both good and bad reasons.

Shane Long is a talented footballer, an established premier league footballer.
Conor Sammon would be my 4th choice.

Kevin Doyle put in one of the worst performances I have seen this season against us - Wolves fans can't stand the sight of him.

Simon Cox, if your game plan is to lose the ball, have a striker go missing and shoot constantly from 30 yards... he is YOUR man! 

[cheron85]

Robbie Keane is an accomplished player, experienced head.

 

Anyone else thinking Sammon might be able to persuade Keane to finish his career in Derby?

 

I mean, who would want to live in Beverly Hills when you can live in Chaddesden?

[Albert]

"sRR3t70" alt="sRR3t70">