AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Because he wasn't replaced. Keogh, right centre back, replaced Barker. O'Brien, O'Connor and Buxton have been left to replace Shackelll. We'd have made the play offs last season if Shackell had stayed. Penny pinching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Nigel Clough is the manager, he's not one of these head coaches with players put on him to deal with, it's Nigel's job to replace players. He told us himself that it was his decision to sell Shackell not the owners. Yes it could be BS to keep the financial situation under wraps but we've also heard him have a little moan in the past about money. I choose to believe him until I hear something from the club. Nigel has had money to spend, we had Sammon, Ward, Theo, Tyson, Bennett, Ball and just 3 fit centre backs, one being a kid that couldn't get a game at Carlisle and what does he do? Bring in Martin and Russell. 4 of those strikers are Nigel's buys, you can't say they were the hand he was dealt with and having to offload them. And Ward is a striker if that's going to be pulled up, we have a lad called Jacobs who plays on the left of midfield, that is his position and can't get a game. Another Nigel purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 If Nigel doesn't think he can do the job under these extreme financial constraints then he needs to walk and let someone come in that can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Nigel's overall transfer dealings have been positive in my opinion. But the centre back issue has been a problem since Barker got injured. I'm sure Clough wouldn't have wanted to sell Shackell to get Keogh when we clearly needed both. Where I do blame Clough is he thinks Buxton is better than he actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I don't think Clough should walk even if he's not happy with the finances. A lot of people work under financial constraints, should they all walk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Nigel's overall transfer dealings have been positive in my opinion. But the centre back issue has been a problem since Barker got injured. I'm sure Clough wouldn't have wanted to sell Shackell to get Keogh when we clearly needed both. Where I do blame Clough is he thinks Buxton is better than he actually is. Maybe he didn't want to sell Shackell, maybe he did we can only sit here and guess, Shackell is gone and Nigel still hasn't solved the CB issue whilst spending money elsewhere on the team. For me this was a priority, number 1. If given a choice between Russell and a CB I would have took a CB everytime and used Theo for another season, wouldn't have been the end of the world and we know Theo can score goals. For me Russell is the better player and will show in time but you have to sort your priorities out, buying a CB was like paying the electricity bill, buying Russell was going for a beer instead.I don't think Clough should walk even if he's not happy with the finances. A lot of people work under financial constraints, should they all walk? It they don't feel they can take the club further yes, otherwise they are no different to a player happy to not be in the squad at Man City and collect his money. Nigel took us to 10th last season, if he believes he can take us on further then great, if not thanks and good luck for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Nigel's overall transfer dealings have been positive in my opinion. But the centre back issue has been a problem since Barker got injured. I'm sure Clough wouldn't have wanted to sell Shackell to get Keogh when we clearly needed both. Where I do blame Clough is he thinks Buxton is better than he actually is. If you think the transfer dealings have been positive I assume you want to see the board/owners given their share of praise for this then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfb Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I doubt we will sign anyone either, NC has said as much, and despite the writting on the wall, we all know how stubborn that man can be........ That said, im sure every manager wants to better his squad, so there must be an element of him working within the financial constraints set by his employers... But then there is the money fom Brayford which we were told was there should he need it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Why should the owners / board take any credit for the transfer dealings? They set the budget, Clough chooses the players. Budget is too small for a realistic promotion push against some teams budgets in this league. Yet they choose to say we're pushing for the top 6. No evidence of that for me In Russell, Martin, Forsyth, Eustace, Grant, Smith (loan). Out Brayford, Fielding, Robinson, Roberts, Doyle (loan), Naylor (loan), Ball (loan), Atkins (loan), Morch (loan) Not a set of transfer dealings to propel a 10th place team into the top 6! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Sorry what is the budget exactly and how does it compare to other teams? I assume you have evidence on this one. What about the fact that we have budgeted to re-invest the Brayford money but Clough thinks we don't need to spend it...I guess that is the owners/boards fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I do blame Clough for thinking he doesn't need to replace Buxton. But do you really think he doesn't want more defensive cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgford Ram Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I have seen people hint at reasons that Shackell left, and he does seem to move clubs a lot. Why did he leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The official reason was that we needed the money. That was what the club told Shackell when he was interviewed on joining Burnley! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I do blame Clough for thinking he doesn't need to replace Buxton. But do you really think he doesn't want more defensive cover? Well that is what he has been quoted as saying so why would I think anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The official reason was that we needed the money. That was what the club told Shackell when he was interviewed on joining Burnley! I have never ever heard anyone from Derby say that so it can hardly be called the 'official reason'. If we needed the money why did we go and buy Keogh out of the proceeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I am also bemused by the rationale behind the sale of Shackell, we sold him for the money but then in close proximity shelled out a similar fee on another CB. Not a valid reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I've said it a few times over the last 12 months, we would thrive off someone in the mould of Darren Moore at the heart of the defence to lead us, attack the ball and just absolutely kill the opposition's striker. I suspect any defender that deliberately killed the opposition's striker would probably get sent off so would be of limited value...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 If we wanted Keogh but didn't have the money then we needed to sell someone to get the money. Seems plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 If we wanted Keogh but didn't have the money then we needed to sell someone to get the money. Seems plausible. Who would you rather have, Keogh or Shackell? I know you will say both but let's say both isn't an option, who would you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMuffin Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Clough though Keogh was an upgrade on Shackell. Silly man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.