Conor Sammon

[eddie]

I'd take £3m for Ward any day!! His hamstrings are his Achilles heel, so to speak

 

Ward at Bohemians was

a. utter garbage

b. completely disinterested.

[AccountantRam]

......and given the huge effect this must have on the annual accounts, are we really losing money each year or are the losses these slightly fictitious losses?

 

Last post, because even I'm getting bored with this, so to summarise ;

 

It's not payers that are valued, but their registration - if you pay a fee to buy a "player" then that fee is apportioned over the length of their contract.

 

When they sign a new contract there is no fee involved - so their wages are simply a trading expense.

 

Assets can be revalued - for example Pride Park was a few years ago. But conversley, if an asset falls in value ( or is "impaired ) then the full cost must be immediately written off which could be a very large amount to take in one go.

 

Players are not valued in the books because it is subjective, and a true measure cannot be accurately measured and is constantly changing. Consider all the (very) different opinions on the forum about players values - for example, what is John Brayford worth now ?

 

The losses in the accounts are not ficticious - but you have to understand that profit/loss is very different to cash - and the correct treatment is to match the cost of an asset over the length of time that you use it. Therefore, expenditure from a previous year can still be seen as a cost in the current year.

 

Hope that all makes sense - beginning to wish I hadn't commented on the now ?

[Nijul_cluff]

He scored!

[RamNut]

Last post, because even I'm getting bored with this, so to summarise ;

 

It's not payers that are valued, but their registration - if you pay a fee to buy a "player" then that fee is apportioned over the length of their contract.

 

When they sign a new contract there is no fee involved - so their wages are simply a trading expense.

 

Assets can be revalued - for example Pride Park was a few years ago. But conversley, if an asset falls in value ( or is "impaired ) then the full cost must be immediately written off which could be a very large amount to take in one go.

 

Players are not valued in the books because it is subjective, and a true measure cannot be accurately measured and is constantly changing. Consider all the (very) different opinions on the forum about players values - for example, what is John Brayford worth now ?

 

The losses in the accounts are not ficticious - but you have to understand that profit/loss is very different to cash - and the correct treatment is to match the cost of an asset over the length of time that you use it. Therefore, expenditure from a previous year can still be seen as a cost in the current year.

 

Hope that all makes sense - beginning to wish I hadn't commented on the now ?

Simple question......do the annual losses include these registration costs / devaluations.

If so, are we really losing money or not?

[Martyn]

Simple question......do the annual losses include these registration costs / devaluations.

 

Yes.

 

 

If so, are we really losing money or not?

 

Yes, but nothing like as much as was reported/some people think.  Ramblur went over it at the time but it didn't' seem to "stick".

[Bris Vegas]

Sammon was vital last season no matter what people say. I'm not saying he is bad or good simply we needed him lay season.

This season I can't see it being long before in a 433

Russell Martin Ward

Will become our front line.

In a 442 it might be different because Sammon does more running.

 

Sammon was vital last season.. But vital to only a midtable side.. And even then, I can think of so many times where he had a major effect on the game but in a bad way..

 

If we want to improve, he can't start games.. Simple really, he's just not good enough of a striker to lead the line for a side wanting promotion..

 

He's like the Stephen Pearson of the attackers.. Immense engine, huge heart and willingness but a woeful dribbler and an even worse shooter..

[abertawe_ram]

Sammon was vital last season.. But vital to only a midtable side.. And even then, I can think of so many times where he had a major effect on the game but in a bad way..

 

If we want to improve, he can't start games.. Simple really, he's just not good enough of a striker to lead the line for a side wanting promotion..

 

He's like the Stephen Pearson of the attackers.. Immense engine, huge heart and willingness but a woeful dribbler and an even worse shooter..

Your last sentence is pretty apt in my opinion. However I just wonder if we did play the 4-3-3 that has been suggested by many posters on here with Sammon, Russell and Ward as a front 3 would that take the pressure off him "leading the line"?

The three have good workrates and could rotate and shift positions at will so Sammon wouldn't be the one solely as the central striker responsible for goal getting and hold up play.

A lot of people have drawn up a potential frontline of Russell - Sammon - Ward but I think Sammon - Russell - Ward would be more effective as Russell appears to be a much more natural finisher. It seems to me Sammon does a lot of his most effective work chasing down the channels and hassling defenders as he did for Davies's goal against Bohemians. If he were to operate more out wide setting up  Russell, Ward and maybe an on-rushing Bryson I think he could do a good job for us.

Aaaaanywho... I'm quite pissed I'll stop rambling at you now. Good night!

[RodleyRam]

Your last sentence is pretty apt in my opinion. However I just wonder if we did play the 4-3-3 that has been suggested by many posters on here with Sammon, Russell and Ward as a front 3 would that take the pressure off him "leading the line"?

The three have good workrates and could rotate and shift positions at will so Sammon wouldn't be the one solely as the central striker responsible for goal getting and hold up play.

A lot of people have drawn up a potential frontline of Russell - Sammon - Ward but I think Sammon - Russell - Ward would be more effective as Russell appears to be a much more natural finisher. It seems to me Sammon does a lot of his most effective work chasing down the channels and hassling defenders as he did for Davies's goal against Bohemians. If he were to operate more out wide setting up  Russell, Ward and maybe an on-rushing Bryson I think he could do a good job for us.

Aaaaanywho... I'm quite pissed I'll stop rambling at you now. Good night!

 

I agree with this, he'll do well for us next season if we get people around him to benefit from his hard work. I don't agree with Bris that a lot of 'bad' came from him last season, I don't think he was any more guilty of missing chances than anyone else to be honest and he looked out of sorts when he was isolated up front on his own but who wouldn't?

 

Get people around him and he'll create and score more goals for us next season.

[bcnram]

Your last sentence is pretty apt in my opinion. However I just wonder if we did play the 4-3-3 that has been suggested by many posters on here with Sammon, Russell and Ward as a front 3 would that take the pressure off him "leading the line"?

The three have good workrates and could rotate and shift positions at will so Sammon wouldn't be the one solely as the central striker responsible for goal getting and hold up play.

A lot of people have drawn up a potential frontline of Russell - Sammon - Ward but I think Sammon - Russell - Ward would be more effective as Russell appears to be a much more natural finisher. It seems to me Sammon does a lot of his most effective work chasing down the channels and hassling defenders as he did for Davies's goal against Bohemians. If he were to operate more out wide setting up  Russell, Ward and maybe an on-rushing Bryson I think he could do a good job for us.

Aaaaanywho... I'm quite pissed I'll stop rambling at you now. Good night!

By playing him out wide you would really cut down on his effectiveness. One of his attributes is pulling defenders away from the central areas creating space for others. They are hardly going to be inclined to run out to him on the right wing to oblige our other attacking players.

[randombc]

If Shabash is correct in saying that

 

---Russell------Martin------Ward

 

becomes out top 3 next season what happens in terms of suspensions/ injures.

Ward isn't that reliable when he's fit and will probably play at most 35 games in a season.

Russell is coming down from Scotland and may not be used to the Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday routine and may tire.

 

Sammon is a better player then Ball and I think for the meantime Bennett as well (although I think that will change in the next 2 years or so).

 

The point being we need strength in depth in case any of the front 3 become injured/ suspended and we don't have to move the team around to accompany for injuries, which we were doing for much of last season. With Ward, Russell, Martin and Sammon we have 4 decent strikers who are all capable of 10+ goals next season.

[Uptherams]

We have far too many strikers. 

[CornwallRam]

If Shabash is correct in saying that

 

---Russell------Martin------Ward

 

becomes out top 3 next season what happens in terms of suspensions/ injures.

Ward isn't that reliable when he's fit and will probably play at most 35 games in a season.

Russell is coming down from Scotland and may not be used to the Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday routine and may tire.

 

Sammon is a better player then Ball and I think for the meantime Bennett as well (although I think that will change in the next 2 years or so).

 

The point being we need strength in depth in case any of the front 3 become injured/ suspended and we don't have to move the team around to accompany for injuries, which we were doing for much of last season. With Ward, Russell, Martin and Sammon we have 4 decent strikers who are all capable of 10+ goals next season.

I notice that Sammon is in the 'weaker' team tonight. I've said all summer that I reckon he will be back up for Chris Martin next (or is it this yet?) season.

[Stedcfc]

I notice that Sammon is in the 'weaker' team tonight. I've said all summer that I reckon he will be back up for Chris Martin next (or is it this yet?) season.

Lee Grant is also in that team! So its not neccesarily the weaker one. Hendricks in it too.

[DcfcNews12]

I notice that Sammon is in the 'weaker' team tonight. I've said all summer that I reckon he will be back up for Chris Martin next (or is it this yet?) season.

 

 

I notice that Sammon is in the 'weaker' team tonight. I've said all summer that I reckon he will be back up for Chris Martin next (or is it this yet?) season.

 

Its a weaker team. That just means there's more first team regulars in Fridays.Im interested in how Hoganson performs has a really good left foot to put crosses in.

[CornwallRam]

Lee Grant is also in that team! So its not neccesarily the weaker one. Hendricks in it too.

Deeney is number 2 and he's injured, so Grant is getting some extra time

[Gary Teale]

I don't know why poeple are taking any notice of the team selections at the moment. They just mix them up.

[Philmycock]

We have far too many strikers.

Sack the board

[Ambitious]

If anyone watched the video Clough said that he wants to see Russell and Martin play together in pre-season, I wouldn't read too much into it.

 

I would expect Russell, Sammon and Ward to start and Martin to be on the bench come the 4th. 

[Animal is a Ram]

Judging by the comments Clough made before the Vale friendly about the first 60mins being the second string - would suggest Sammon to be the third striker option. (Of course Grant/Hendrick reducing the theory's credibility).

 

It's just going to be a matter of greater rotation I spose. Clough will look to rotate Sammon/Martin/ Russell more than he could last season?

[VulcanRam]

Sammon and Russell are by far Derby's best combo up front. Martin's skillful but seems to like playing deep and Ward is injured half the time. When's he's fit he's the only player we have who can effectively play left wing. No argument for me.