SuperDerbySuperRams Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 When we signed Johnson, the club were pretty clear in stating that he was a record buy, and likewise with Ince a month prior. Yet with the Vydra announcement, I have been reading around on our official site and there has been no mention of such a tag (correct me if I'm wrong), despite local media, BBC, John Percy ect stating it was in fact a record signing. What could the reasoning for this be? The way the deal is structured means it isn't a record deal (ie Cash up front?), or that the club don't want to heap a price tag on a new signing who Derby really need to hit the ground running (one that possibly hindered Johnson and to a lesser extent Ince)? Usually clubs can't wait to state their record buys, look at Burnley with Jeff, so it does seem odd for us to be potential trying to cover it up. Maybe we are learning from a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Maybe, or maybe we just haven't agreed to pay what has been suggested, you are right that he has to hit the road running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie20 Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Maybe the £6m touted as the fee for Johnson included add-ons which haven't (as yet) materialised while the Vydra transfer exceeds the base fee for Johnson so is in fact the club record in terms of guaranteed payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I don't think we ever stated that Jeff was a record sake either did we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdave85 Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 29 minutes ago, cannable said: I don't think we ever stated that Jeff was a record sake either did we? No I think it was Jeff who let slip the price in his Burnley introduction interview? From my memory at the time it was all announced it was just the media that inferred it was our record sale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I would say it's more the fact we're not trying to put pressure on him, which Imo is the correct thing to do, but these things are so openly known in the media there's little to no point in trying to hide it in our official statements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seths-cap Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 If he ends up the player I think he'll be, 6-8m will be a steal. Still trying to get over the fact we've sold Jeff for ten and a half. If the clubs not made a thing out of purposely, then I think they've made the right decision. We're at the start of a transitional phase, no point adding more pressure. Smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenBr Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Wiki has Vydra listed as our record signing, but has Seth Johnson as our record sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 2 hours ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said: When we signed Johnson, the club were pretty clear in stating that he was a record buy, and likewise with Ince a month prior. Yet with the Vydra announcement, I have been reading around on our official site and there has been no mention of such a tag (correct me if I'm wrong), despite local media, BBC, John Percy ect stating it was in fact a record signing. What could the reasoning for this be? The way the deal is structured means it isn't a record deal (ie Cash up front?), or that the club don't want to heap a price tag on a new signing who Derby really need to hit the ground running (one that possibly hindered Johnson and to a lesser extent Ince)? Usually clubs can't wait to state their record buys, look at Burnley with Jeff, so it does seem odd for us to be potential trying to cover it up. Maybe we are learning from a year ago. I read a number of reports stating he was our record signing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 3 hours ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said: When we signed Johnson, the club were pretty clear in stating that he was a record buy, and likewise with Ince a month prior. Yet with the Vydra announcement, I have been reading around on our official site and there has been no mention of such a tag (correct me if I'm wrong), despite local media, BBC, John Percy ect stating it was in fact a record signing. What could the reasoning for this be? The way the deal is structured means it isn't a record deal (ie Cash up front?), or that the club don't want to heap a price tag on a new signing who Derby really need to hit the ground running (one that possibly hindered Johnson and to a lesser extent Ince)? Usually clubs can't wait to state their record buys, look at Burnley with Jeff, so it does seem odd for us to be potential trying to cover it up. Maybe we are learning from a year ago. Actually, I just looked up the press releases and articles written (clubs twitter and the main site) of the Johnson signing and there's no mention of him being a record signing. Might've been confirmed in a press conference if anyone asked? But I can't find anything from the club saying Johnson was our record signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purpleram Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I guess after the 'success' of our last two record signings, they may be reluctant to jinx the new one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loweman2 Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Well this might explain some of the erratic performances http://www.tellymix.co.uk/reality-tv/the-x-factor/65973-x-factor-2011-nu-vibe-split-as-bradley-johnson-signs-solo-record-deal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philmycock Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 And to think Villa signed Bent for £18m rising to £24m and not even that long ago!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.