Official: Tom Ince joins Huddersfield Town

[richinspain]

45 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Maybe the prices we expect to get are unrealistic in comparison to the market,which is the true indicator of value? At the end of the day,the (perhaps) unpalatable truth is that 19 other Prem clubs either didn't want Will,or didn't want him at the price Watford paid.I don't buy into the suggestion that delaying might have brought others into the bidding. The media were all over the interest early doors,so every other club would have known the kind of price to outbid,yet it appears none came in.The same thing could be said about Tom,assuming no other interest materialises.

As to the perceived undue haste,then perhaps the negotiators thought Watford were unlikely to budge further,and we didn't want a player who might be unhappy around the group,when the manager will be trying to build up team spirit during pre season.Also it may allow us to move for other players,without risking losing out to others.

Whilst I was suggesting that we might not need sales to get the underlying expenditure (v income) in line before any incomings,I couldn't suggest with much conviction that we wouldn't need to sell before any more incomings. Early doors,Gary said that we'd have to work within FFP and would have to sell.However,I distinctly remember him saying that he might be able to bring a couple in irrespective,and so it turned out. Now if we were in financial trouble before any transactions,would Gary have been allowed to add to the 'mess' before any sales,which couldn't be guaranteed? 

Will said that the negotiations had dragged on. We don't know exactly when they began. It only seemed quick from when we got to know about them.

[eddie]

2 minutes ago, richinspain said:

Don't bet on it 

Just don't sign anyone called Booth in that case.

[LazloW]

Another player I'd be sorry to see go (less so than Will, but that is for largely sentimental reasons as much as football).  Sad as it may be, we are a Championship team with some decent talent and PL clubs (even crap ones) will always come sniffing for our better players.  I don't buy the argument that we are selling too cheap.  Clubs aren't fighting amongst themselves for these players and somno chance of a bidding war.  Those that argue we should just tell Watford or Huddersfield to sod off then (assuming our made-up and optimistic valuation of players tallies with the club's) probably aren't being realistic.  We are still talking relatively decent money here, and a substantial return on investments.  If GR thinks we won't be unduly harmed by the sale of Will, Ince or whoever else then it seems a bit daft to hold on to players (whose head's will now have been turned) when they probably want to be elsewhere.  At the end of the day, whether GR is right or wrong on this can only be judged once we start playing... although I am far from convinced keeping either Will or Tom would be the key to promotion.

FWIW I'm not sure we'll miss Tom that much and he isn't irreplaceable.  He has his moments and he can excite, but he also frustrates me at times and can go missing (although I don't agree with those who say he is lazy... he does track back).  £10m seems a good price to me.

If nothing else, freshening the squad up a bit and changing things around should make for an interesting start to the season.... 

[Bessie1]

Compared to last season, we've sold 2 good players and gained 5 good players (Davies, Wisdom, Thorne, Forsyth, Martin).  And we've gained c. £10 million in the process.  I'm pretty optimistic.  

[mwram1973]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

It isn't an issue in currently as we are inside it. If we want to spend money then we are likely to be outside it, hence the sales 

It is exactly what GR said months ago. We can make 1 or 2 signing then we will look at moving players on. Hughes & Ince moving will now give him some money to bring in his own type of player.

[B4ev6is]

I am really mad about will huges as worth 20m and watford know it robbing gits and with tom ince i am not fuss if he goes. 8.5m up front rising to 11m. If true not bad in the end for tom ince. I am hoping we get another 15 percent sell on clause.

[Rample]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

Early doors,Gary said that we'd have to work within FFP and would have to sell.However,I distinctly remember him saying that he mht be able to bring a couple in irrespective,and so it turned out. Now if we were in financial trouble before any transactions,would Gary have been allowed to add to the 'mess' before any sales,which couldn't be guaranteed? 

We'll likely never know the true state of ffp. Assuming a July 1st start to this season though it is a fact that Hughes was sold, Camara released (Not sure how that factors in) and only Davies incoming was completed. 

I'm assuming Davies deal would have been okay anyway, possibly Wisdom or at least another cheap deal. However maybe Hughes sale was to offset Wisdom presuming he'd have signed by now.

Maybe Wisdom and Ince deals have been held up to fall into this year. The thing is the board are businessmen and will need to navigate these things. They know the ins and outs better than us and we just need to trust there is method in the madness.

 

[Jourdan]

6 hours ago, FrostedRam said:

Difference is maguire has played in the premier league, whereas the players we have sold haven't. Therefore can be considered a gamble hence a lower price. Inces  15 games over two spells in the premier league suggests he hasn't proven he can cut it yet either 

 

For me, I don't think very limited experience of Premier League football should be that significant to a player's value.

I don't dispute that Maguire is a good talent and he may very well have impressed for Hull last season. I didn't make a habit of watching them in truth. But this was a team that was ultimately relegated, so it's very subjective as to what Maguire has proven at that level.

Claude Davis had a 'good year' at Premier League level once. Not for us, obviously.

I agree that if you have proven yourself at the top level year on year, too right you can command such prices.

But for me it just doesn't add up that players like Ince and Hughes have such modest market values in comparison to players of a similar standard.

[Jourdan]

3 hours ago, rynny said:

I think it may be an over correction to lasts years late transfer deals. 

I don't doubt that, Rynny.

Something had to give. What we were doing was not sustainable.

It is not disappointing that we have sold these players. Players come and go.

I just think Rowett has a difficult task on his hands trying to replace them.

It doesn't feel like we are in a position of strength.

[nogbad van 50]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Of course players want to player at the highest level that's natural.  But if the club they don't have a contract with doesn't sell them, then they have to be professional and give 100% for the team.  If they don't then they do have a character problem...and that's what you were suggesting it seems to me. 

Just to clarify something for you once and for all ! The initial comment I made was as follows :"Or,could the "crucial point " be that Rowett wasn't seeing a 100% commitment from either player? He needs a fully motivated squad to achieve anything "

You seemed to interpret that in a negative manner as meaning they would give less than everything in games if they'd stayed ! And then you proceeded to say it was quite "a slur"! The point I was making that Rowett had sensed they weren't 100% committed to staying at Derby and felt it was time to move on.Hope that clears that up.

 

As for your comment that I was suggesting they "have a character problem"-I wasn't!!!!,that's just you putting another negative slant on it.I have no problem with their professionalism and wish them both well in their future careers.

Now please go and enjoy your Saturday!?

[eddie]

I've seen it all before, so I just take these exits with a pinch of salt. I'm not very excited about the upcoming season, but it is only the start of July. It's the first time since the Amigos were here that I haven't got a season ticket, but that's primarily because I turn 65 half way through the season and it will be cheaper to buy tickets on a match-by-match basis - and we want to try a few different areas of the ground before we decide where we want to sit in perpetuity.

The only thing I'm really looking forward to at the moment is seeing Chris Martin in a Derby shirt again - now watch some bugger spoil that.

[Jourdan]

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

A stronger hand? We've had plenty of those in past seasons, spend as you like!

As for settling, well if these players were as wanted (and so therefore valuable) as you like to suggest we'd have had a bidding war wouldn't we? Both want Prem football and both are going to get it now.

No, of course, I am not advocating that Rowett should spend whatever he likes.

But if the plan is to sell to reinvest, I would think giving Rowett as much flexibility as possible would be helpful.

The potential sales of Ince, Hughes and Keogh aren't going to make his job any easier after all.

It doesn't matter if you have one interested party or 10. It shouldn't deter you from pushing for the best price you can possibly get.

I am not saying that Ince and Hughes should be coveted by everyone and I am not saying we should turn down £20 million bids or that such bids would have been forthcoming.

We have to look after our interests and I don't think we have done that. It is just my perception that these deals don't appear mutually beneficial - they only look good for the buying clubs, in my eyes.

[RoyMac5]

12 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

The potential sales of Ince, Hughes and Keogh aren't going to make his job any easier after all.

I disagree, they are making his job easier. They move on players that might not be 100% committed to another Championship fight. They provide money to get in new players and they get big wages off the bill. They also let other players see that they can go if they want, or if GR deems you not what he wants, so if they want to stay and play they better get their heads down and work.

[RamNut]

There is a case for not replacing the players who are sold.

the squad is too big. We have paid out millions for players already, some of whom seem happy to sit on the bench. Academy players need more opportunity to play. Senior players are returning.

We don't know what system we are buying for yet.

Less is more. 

[ramblur]

50 minutes ago, Rample said:

We'll likely never know the true state of ffp. Assuming a July 1st start to this season though it is a fact that Hughes was sold, Camara released (Not sure how that factors in) and only Davies incoming was completed. 

I'm assuming Davies deal would have been okay anyway, possibly Wisdom or at least another cheap deal. However maybe Hughes sale was to offset Wisdom presuming he'd have signed by now.

Maybe Wisdom and Ince deals have been held up to fall into this year. The thing is the board are businessmen and will need to navigate these things. They know the ins and outs better than us and we just need to trust there is method in the madness.

 

I think the rolling £39m aggregate over 3 years probably means it wouldn't matter too much which year transactions fell into and that sales/purchases before June 30 wouldn't have any great relevance to FFP. The only fact we do know is that we were £4m below the threshold in 15/16, which has positive implications for the following 2 years (forming one 3 year cycle).

However,if we breach £13m this year,then we'd definitely have to avoid so doing in the following 2 years,or face an embargo.The noises about reducing the squad size significantly (some of it could be done next year) certainly means that costs would inevitably reduce via wage and amortisation savings,though the latter wouldn't be as significant as was the case pre 15/16.

I think some of the profits on outgoings may have to go on absorbing possible book losses on other outgoings,but if we take the hit this year,the benefit will be really felt in 18/19 onwards.

[Highgate]

53 minutes ago, rcarso1 said:

Just to clarify something for you once and for all ! The initial comment I made was as follows :"Or,could the "crucial point " be that Rowett wasn't seeing a 100% commitment from either player? He needs a fully motivated squad to achieve anything "

The only commitment that matters is on the pitch. I would trust both Ince and Hughes to be professional even if they had to stay for another year. Maybe Rowett wouldn't....who knows. Far more likely, in my opinion, that they simply don't fit into his game-plan.

[ramblur]

11 hours ago, eddie said:

It's the guinness.

I was going to give you a ticking off for being a bit late reporting back for pre season,however I've evaluated your current performance levels and compared to those before the break, and find little discernible difference.So welcome back,even though you made me fancy a slurp when I had none in the house

[eddie]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

I was going to give you a ticking off for being a bit late reporting back for pre season,however I've evaluated your current performance levels and compared to those before the break, and find little discernible difference.So welcome back,even though you made me fancy a slurp when I had none in the house

It was the international break. I've been posting on the Belgian Beer Board on Facebook.

[ramblur]

2 minutes ago, eddie said:

It was the international break. I've been posting on the Belgian Beer Board on Facebook.

Bet it wasn't an international break from drinking the stuff though

[Rab a dab doo]

You had better believe it one slip and your shown no mercy.