Would you want us to do a Spurs?

[DCFC_17]

money would go straight into andy's pocket

[eddie]

money would go straight into andy's pocket

 

No evidence for this (brother).

 

GSE have financed Derby since they have been here, and so far, they have not taken a penny out of the club (actually that should read 'the investors' - GSE are but a management consultancy).

 

The only argument that anyone could possibly have is that they haven't grubstaked Derby ENOUGH, i.e. they were content to go for the 'slow but sure' approach. However, the removal of Clough signals a change of emphasis or urgency - and the appointment of a coaching 'big hitter' is a huge change in direction too.

 

Basically GSE have re-assessed the situation, realised that they won't get their money back one way, so they are now looking at another way. If the asset-stripping approach was to have been taken, Hughes would have been a memory already.

[smiffy]

The basic question is:

Is our team better with Hughes or 4-5 players with the money Hughes brings in?

Now it's all massively hypothetical as we don't know who we would bring in etc for that money. But say we 'did a spurs' and purchased some real quality (relatively speaking) for that money. Would you prefer Elvis or The Beatles?

Just wonder why four or five, why not two or three players of a higher standard

[WilkoRam]

Just wonder why four or five, why not two or three players of a higher standard

Honestly? This is a joke due to the whole "20-1" previous talk, right? 4-5 was just a number as an example. Substitute it with whatever number you want. Put 10 if you want, put 2. It doesn't matter. The question is 1 Will Hughes or the money spent wisely on other players, which benefits us more? If you think 2 or 3 players would be better than the hugely different numbers I used, then just say that. Is that what you're saying? Are you saying "yes I would prefer 2 or 3 high quality players instead"?

[smiffy]

Honestly? This is a joke due to the whole "20-1" previous talk, right? 4-5 was just a number as an example. Substitute it with whatever number you want. Put 10 if you want, put 2. It doesn't matter. The question is 1 Will Hughes or the money spent wisely on other players, which benefits us more? If you think 2 or 3 players would be better than the hugely different numbers I used, then just say that. Is that what you're saying? Are you saying "yes I would prefer 2 or 3 high quality players instead"?

Keep your hair on, you quoted the numbers, so presumably you meant 4/5.

In my opinion if it was 4/5 the players would not benefit The Rams, we have enough players of that standard, I base this on the assumption that only half the Hughes fee would be given to McClaren, so counting wages we would probably be looking in the 500k bracket, not good enough.

[Bris Vegas]

The basic question is:

Is our team better with Hughes or 4-5 players with the money Hughes brings in?

Now it's all massively hypothetical as we don't know who we would bring in etc for that money. But say we 'did a spurs' and purchased some real quality (relatively speaking) for that money. Would you prefer Elvis or The Beatles?

 

Is this a genuine question?

 

You can only be a one man team if your best player is that good that he can literally do the job of 5 others.. We're talking Messi and more standard here..

 

It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest we should build a team around Hughes.. He's a solid player but he's not worldclass, and even a fee of $6mill put back into the first team would improve us.

 

Hughes doesn't have the goal threat or the authority to even warrant a conversation of this magnitude.. He's not Bale, who accounted for over 50% of Spurs' goals last year.. He's a technically very good CM who can retain possession and create.. Howver, he's the sort of player that will make zilch contribution to a game in which we're being dominated.. At least with someone like Bale or Zaha you can play rubbish for 85minutes and then they'll do something special to win a game.. Hughes doesn't have that ability..

[WilkoRam]

Keep your hair on, you quoted the numbers, so presumably you meant 4/5.

In my opinion if it was 4/5 the players would not benefit The Rams, we have enough players of that standard, I base this on the assumption that only half the Hughes fee would be given to McClaren, so counting wages we would probably be looking in the 500k bracket, not good enough.

Ah now that's the answer. Could have just said that the first time.

Why do you assume only half the cash would be invested back into the team?

Also, I have no hair

[smiffy]

Ah now that's the answer. Could have just said that the first time.

Why do you assume only half the cash would be invested back into the team?

Also, I have no hair

Was not sure about the hair, can not see the top of your head on your picture :wacko:

 

I think I may be a tad optimistic in the amount if anything,

[WilkoRam]

Is this a genuine question?

You can only be a one man team if your best player is that good that he can literally do the job of 5 others.. We're talking Messi and more standard here..

It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest we should build a team around Hughes.. He's a solid player but he's not worldclass, and even a fee of $6mill put back into the first team would improve us.

Hughes doesn't have the goal threat or the authority to even warrant a conversation of this magnitude.. He's not Bale, who accounted for over 50% of Spurs' goals last year.. He's a technically very good CM who can retain possession and create.. Howver, he's the sort of player that will make zilch contribution to a game in which we're being dominated.. At least with someone like Bale or Zaha you can play rubbish for 85minutes and then they'll do something special to win a game.. Hughes doesn't have that ability..

Yeah genuine question. I think due to the mixed response you could have picked up it was genuine or do you ask in a rhetorical way in order to put down the idea?

I agree. We're not a one man team and Hughes isn't that type of player. I do like him and I hate to lose our good young talent, I still pine for a fit Barnes, an Addison who fulfilled his potential, etc. The team comes first though and in the summer if we can get anywhere near £10m for him I say take it for both us and him. It's selfish to hold him back.

[WilkoRam]

Was not sure about the hair, can not see the top of your head on your picture :wacko:

I think I may be a tad optimistic in the amount if anything,

That pics from my portfolio, imagine a big kid & play flat top fro.

I'm not sure about the money aspect. I think if Hughes was to go and at least half of it invested back then the natives will get restless. To sell a youth product and then have very little of the money go back into the team would create unrest. At the moment they can peddle the "Nigel had money but didn't spend it" line

[RamNut]

I don't mean lose at home 3-0 to local rivals. I mean would you want us to cash in on Hughes for say £10m and buy 6 or so players for the money?

No

[Ambitious]

I'd be open to selling Hughes for considerable money, and therefore investment.

 

He is a good player, one of the best in the division even. 

 

but, as Bris said - you could easily replace his impact in the team in terms of statistics. 

[smiffy]

That pics from my portfolio, imagine a big kid & play flat top fro.

I'm not sure about the money aspect. I think if Hughes was to go and at least half of it invested back then the natives will get restless. To sell a youth product and then have very little of the money go back into the team would create unrest. At the moment they can peddle the "Nigel had money but didn't spend it" line

 I would not call 4ml little money its a lot in this league for all non parachute come Arabic owned teams.

 

GSE  may give it all but I will not hold my breath.

 

Lets see what McC does in the loan market it could make a big difference in the Hughes saga.

 

Bye the bye Hughes may not want to go yet himself.

[Bris Vegas]

Yeah genuine question. I think due to the mixed response you could have picked up it was genuine or do you ask in a rhetorical way in order to put down the idea?

I agree. We're not a one man team and Hughes isn't that type of player. I do like him and I hate to lose our good young talent, I still pine for a fit Barnes, an Addison who fulfilled his potential, etc. The team comes first though and in the summer if we can get anywhere near £10m for him I say take it for both us and him. It's selfish to hold him back.

 

I don't really know where I was going with my little rant there buddy..

 

I just don't think Hughes is ever the type of player to be associated with a one man team.. Hemight be the best player, but a one man team is something else and we'd be foolish to try and build around him..

 

Sell sell sell

 

For this division you could easily replace Hughes with a less technical but more impact type midfielder.. Hughes is a better ballplaying midfielder than someone like Lansbury for instance but there is no arguing who has the better goal threat..

 

Huddlestone was another in this category.. Brilliant ballplaying player for this level but he could have easily been replaced by a less technical but more robust CB/CM who could have done a similar job.

[RamNut]

Lansbury Lol