Ambitious Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Henderson £20m. Yeah, yeah. He was established in a Premiership side. But he's also crap and Hughes is good. £20m Can you imagine Clough and co if a 20million pound bid came in for Hughes? I don't know how many ho bitches there are in Derby but they'd all be perched on Cloughs face by the end of that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Can you imagine Clough and co if a 20million pound bid came in for Hughes? I don't know how many ho bitches there are in Derby but they'd all be perched on Cloughs face by the end of that day. Until we lost in a close 1-0 away game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 As long as we can get enough £5 notes to paper over the earth I don't care. You can't replace a Will Hughes with a Will Hughes, that's the paradox. You don't get a Will Hughes. Will Hughes moves to a different club and we don't have him anymore. You replace a Will Hughes with a James Bailey and you've got a James Bailey. Will Hughes is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randombc Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Be interesting to see if we were to sell him for a big figure i.e £5 million+, where the money would go. Also to be interesting to see how much Clough rates him at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 As long as we can get enough £5 notes to paper over the earth I don't care. You can't replace a Will Hughes with a Will Hughes, that's the paradox. You don't get a Will Hughes. Will Hughes moves to a different club and we don't have him anymore. You replace a Will Hughes with a James Bailey and you've got a James Bailey. Will Hughes is gone. Someone has been paying attention in class... The £5 note is 135mm by 70mm meaning they have an area of 0.00945m² each. Now, we could discuss how we're going to paper the Earth in these notes so we get the 100% coverage, but bugger it, the difference in the answer will be effectively nothing. Instead we'll just figure out the number we'd need to have enough to cover the same surface area as the Earth. The surface area of the Earth (oceans included) is 510,072,000km², as such we would get 53,975,873,015,873,000 £5 notes or: [size=18]£269,879,365,079,365,000[/size] ...or two hundred and sixty nine quadrillion eight hundred and seventy nine trillion three hundred and sixty five billion seventy nine million three hundred and sixty five thousand pounds. ...that's over 4000 times the World's combined GDP. Another way of thinking about it is its more than the combined wealth of 7,072,148 Bill Gates. So basically, think about a city the size of Hong Kong with each person being as rich as Bill Gates, even then they couldn't pay that fee if they spent every last bit of money they all had. Personally I'd be delighted with that kind of fee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Someone has been paying attention in class... The £5 note is 135mm by 70mm meaning they have an area of 0.00945m² each. Now, we could discuss how we're going to paper the Earth in these notes so we get the 100% coverage, but bugger it, the difference in the answer will be effectively nothing. Instead we'll just figure out the number we'd need to have enough to cover the same surface area as the Earth. The surface area of the Earth (oceans included) is 510,072,000km², as such we would get 53,975,873,015,873,000 £5 notes or: [size=1]£269,879,365,079,365,000[/size] ...or two hundred and sixty nine quadrillion eight hundred and seventy nine trillion three hundred and sixty five billion seventy nine million three hundred and sixty five thousand pounds. ...that's over 4000 times the World's combined GDP. Another way of thinking about it is its more than the combined wealth of 7,072,148 Bill Gates. So basically, think about a city the size of Hong Kong with each person being as rich as Bill Gates, even then they couldn't pay that fee if they spent every last bit of money they all had. Personally I'd be delighted with that kind of fee... I'd accept that fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Someone has been paying attention in class... The £5 note is 135mm by 70mm meaning they have an area of 0.00945m² each. Now, we could discuss how we're going to paper the Earth in these notes so we get the 100% coverage, but bugger it, the difference in the answer will be effectively nothing. Instead we'll just figure out the number we'd need to have enough to cover the same surface area as the Earth. The surface area of the Earth (oceans included) is 510,072,000km², as such we would get 53,975,873,015,873,000 £5 notes or: £269,879,365,079,365,000 ...or two hundred and sixty nine quadrillion eight hundred and seventy nine trillion three hundred and sixty five billion seventy nine million three hundred and sixty five thousand pounds. ...that's over 4000 times the World's combined GDP. Another way of thinking about it is its more than the combined wealth of 7,072,148 Bill Gates. So basically, think about a city the size of Hong Kong with each person being as rich as Bill Gates, even then they couldn't pay that fee if they spent every last bit of money they all had. Personally I'd be delighted with that kind of fee... ...................and he's worth every penny............ 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':ph34r:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 As if you have mad math skills and don't live on mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randombc Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Someone has been paying attention in class... The £5 note is 135mm by 70mm meaning they have an area of 0.00945m² each. Now, we could discuss how we're going to paper the Earth in these notes so we get the 100% coverage, but bugger it, the difference in the answer will be effectively nothing. Instead we'll just figure out the number we'd need to have enough to cover the same surface area as the Earth. The surface area of the Earth (oceans included) is 510,072,000km², as such we would get 53,975,873,015,873,000 £5 notes or: [size=18]£269,879,365,079,365,000[/size] ...or two hundred and sixty nine quadrillion eight hundred and seventy nine trillion three hundred and sixty five billion seventy nine million three hundred and sixty five thousand pounds. ...that's over 4000 times the World's combined GDP. Another way of thinking about it is its more than the combined wealth of 7,072,148 Bill Gates. So basically, think about a city the size of Hong Kong with each person being as rich as Bill Gates, even then they couldn't pay that fee if they spent every last bit of money they all had. Personally I'd be delighted with that kind of fee... Have you ever kissed a girl? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Someone has been paying attention in class... The £5 note is 135mm by 70mm meaning they have an area of 0.00945m² each. Now, we could discuss how we're going to paper the Earth in these notes so we get the 100% coverage, but bugger it, the difference in the answer will be effectively nothing. Instead we'll just figure out the number we'd need to have enough to cover the same surface area as the Earth. The surface area of the Earth (oceans included) is 510,072,000km², as such we would get 53,975,873,015,873,000 £5 notes or: £269,879,365,079,365,000 ...or two hundred and sixty nine quadrillion eight hundred and seventy nine trillion three hundred and sixty five billion seventy nine million three hundred and sixty five thousand pounds. ...that's over 4000 times the World's combined GDP. Another way of thinking about it is its more than the combined wealth of 7,072,148 Bill Gates. So basically, think about a city the size of Hong Kong with each person being as rich as Bill Gates, even then they couldn't pay that fee if they spent every last bit of money they all had. Personally I'd be delighted with that kind of fee... http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/52/07399143d0c8f2300eb8daac0576d9aa/l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 For that sort of wonga you could buy 11 jake buxtons - not to be sniffed at! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramLAD Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 If Carroll (the big lump) is worth 35mil, Hughes has at least got to be worth 40mil.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 If Carroll (the big lump) is worth 35mil, Hughes has at least got to be worth 40mil.. If Caroll is worth 35, then I am worth 20 million...but as we know, he isn't and sadly, neither am i... Shame that dog leash is not still in management we could have sold him Hughes for 25 million easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Walcott and the Ox were impact players, went past defenders and scored goals (or at least got into scoring positions regularly), thats why they went for such huge fees. Hughes is a bit different. He's neat and intelligent in possession and links up well. Looks to have a real future in the game but as a team player not as a brilliant individual.. Talk of more than 3 or 4 million is a bit silly tbh. I can't see United, City, Arsenal or anyone else offering anything like that - certainly not up front. Anyway, hope they all feck off for 3 years and let him learn his trade here at Derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randombc Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Walcott and the Ox were impact players, went past defenders and scored goals (or at least got into scoring positions regularly), thats why they went for such huge fees. Hughes is a bit different. He's neat and intelligent in possession and links up well. Looks to have a real future in the game but as a team player not as a brilliant individual.. Talk of more than 3 or 4 million is a bit silly tbh. I can't see United, City, Arsenal or anyone else offering anything like that - certainly not up front. Anyway, hope they all feck off for 3 years and let him learn his trade here at Derby. Is agree, Ox had a ratio of 1 in 4, Walcott 1 in 7, and you are always going to pay more for a winger/attacker than a midfielder, although I do disagree you can he more than £3/4 million for him. IMO he's as good as a prospect Henderson, but hasn't plate in the premiership, so I would value him at a solid £8 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 No Uttox. £20m. What's that Mr Wenger? £8m? £25m £8.5m? £30m See where this is going Arsene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Is agree, Ox had a ratio of 1 in 4, Walcott 1 in 7, and you are always going to pay more for a winger/attacker than a midfielder, although I do disagree you can he more than £3/4 million for him. IMO he's as good as a prospect Henderson, but hasn't plate in the premiership, so I would value him at a solid £8 million. I really don't believe we will be offered more than £2m cash plus add ons atm. Maybe next summer if he starts to really blossom as a top player and take control of games. What I think he's worth is immaterial really, i'm saying what I believe the top clubs would offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subman Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Someone has been paying attention in class... The £5 note is 135mm by 70mm meaning they have an area of 0.00945m&sup2; each. Now, we could discuss how we're going to paper the Earth in these notes so we get the 100% coverage, but bugger it, the difference in the answer will be effectively nothing. Instead we'll just figure out the number we'd need to have enough to cover the same surface area as the Earth. The surface area of the Earth (oceans included) is 510,072,000km&sup2;, as such we would get 53,975,873,015,873,000 £5 notes or: [size=18]£269,879,365,079,365,000[/size] ...or two hundred and sixty nine quadrillion eight hundred and seventy nine trillion three hundred and sixty five billion seventy nine million three hundred and sixty five thousand pounds. ...that's over 4000 times the World's combined GDP. Another way of thinking about it is its more than the combined wealth of 7,072,148 Bill Gates. So basically, think about a city the size of Hong Kong with each person being as rich as Bill Gates, even then they couldn't pay that fee if they spent every last bit of money they all had. Personally I'd be delighted with that kind of fee... Ah yes but have you considered the world isn't flat? I think you would have to multiply your result by atleast two if not three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Ah yes but have you considered the world isn't flat? I think you would have to multiply your result by atleast two if not three. Actually, considering the size of the cards to each the Earth is roughly flat. The fact the Earth is a sphere would have a difference, but less of one than the oblate nature of the planet or the fact that the surface isn't uniform. However, despite your apparent claim, the surface area is the correct one for the Earth and the above should be a very good approximation. Any differences caused by what was noted above would be minimal and lead to very little difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFCfranco Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 What Albert said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.