King Kevin Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Look guys it's dead simple all he has to do is pick the right manager , try not to be best mates with the players and let the said aforementioned manager get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike93rh Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: Sadly, that's what happens when its left to 2 minutes before the window shutting. Given the choice between an unhappy player and manager or some millions in the bank and a happier player and manager, I know which I'd choose.. But the point is that it's been allowed to even get to that stage where it's two minutes prior in the first place! A properly run club would have a clear list of absolute must haves/have nots in these sorts of situations, and the option to recall has to be included when gifting away your top scorer from the past few seasons to a promotion rival. Last minute or not, that oversight is indefensible in my eyes, you just wouldn't see it at a well run club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I've never known the pub section of the forum so quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, TroyDyer said: That's actually a really good point. I remember being on the coach to Wembley and a journalist (forget who) tweeted saying this was a game between everything that is wrong with modern football, and everything that is right with the beautiful game. How far we have fallen. We are now one of the more hated sides. I remember that night after the Champions League Final had finished a journo tweeting; "Money 2-0 Football". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, mike93rh said: Having no recall option on the loan and giving away all the power to Fulham was a horrendous decision, I'm sorry. The loan move was right at the time, i agree with that, but my word did we sign up to a horrific deal. <speculation> Martin was told that he had no future at Derby and didn't figure in Pearson's plans. Therefore, the move was good for both clubs and the player. Why it wasn't a permanent signing is anyone's guess - perhaps Fulham insisted on a 'try before we buy' scenario with a final fee agreed if everything went well. Pearson leaving and McClaren returning would have changed everything in Martin's eyes, hence the shenanigans. </speculation> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, King Kevin said: I've never known the pub section of the forum so quiet. I must be the only one drinking beer, hating Brexit and plotting the overthrow of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, mike93rh said: But the point is that it's been allowed to even get to that stage where it's two minutes prior in the first place! A properly run club would have a clear list of absolute must haves/have nots in these sorts of situations, and the option to recall has to be included when gifting away your top scorer from the past few seasons to a promotion rival. Last minute or not, that oversight is indefensible in my eyes, you just wouldn't see it at a well run club. If the no recall was the condition, then that was that. There were no better offers on the table, obviously - surely it would have been worse to see him go to Fulham permanently for £5-6m? Can't just take the first offer that comes along - could have been someone like Villa offering us £2m. Football transfers aren't as easy as you're making them out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike93rh Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just now, eddie said: <speculation> Martin was told that he had no future at Derby and didn't figure in Pearson's plans. Therefore, the move was good for both clubs and the player. Why it wasn't a permanent signing is anyone's guess - perhaps Fulham insisted on a 'try before we buy' scenario with a final fee agreed if everything went well. Pearson leaving and McClaren returning would have changed everything in Martin's eyes, hence the shenanigans. </speculation> But why, as the chief negotiation on Derby's behalf do you ever accept a deal with no recall option? It's insurance, it was absolutely senseless not to give ourselves that option. I'm not complaining that we loaned him out in the first place, i agree totally it was the right deal at the time. But it's just incompetence to sign away the right to a recall, we completely shot ourselves in the foot and the buck stops with the bloke that brokered the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, eddie said: <speculation> Martin was told that he had no future at Derby and didn't figure in Pearson's plans. Therefore, the move was good for both clubs and the player. Why it wasn't a permanent signing is anyone's guess - perhaps Fulham insisted on a 'try before we buy' scenario with a final fee agreed if everything went well. Pearson leaving and McClaren returning would have changed everything in Martin's eyes, hence the shenanigans. </speculation> I tried explaining it, doesn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just now, mike93rh said: But why, as the chief negotiation on Derby's behalf do you ever accept a deal with no recall option? It's insurance, it was absolutely senseless not to give ourselves that option. I'm not complaining that we loaned him out in the first place, i agree totally it was the right deal at the time. But it's just incompetence to sign away the right to a recall, we completely shot ourselves in the foot and the buck stops with the bloke that brokered the deal. Agreed. Can't stand Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, cannable said: I remember that night after the Champions League Final had finished a journo tweeting; "Money 2-0 Football". Probably the same bloke. One trick pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike93rh Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Animal is a Ram said: If the no recall was the condition, then that was that. There were no better offers on the table, obviously - surely it would have been worse to see him go to Fulham permanently for £5-6m? Can't just take the first offer that comes along - could have been someone like Villa offering us £2m. Football transfers aren't as easy as you're making them out to be. It's not a false dichotomy, it's not "he goes on loan with no recall or we sell him for £6million"... I'm not saying they're easy at all, I'm saying the buck stops with our negotiator allowing a loan move with no option for a recall. I'm a broken record now, i know, but like I've said you just wouldn't see a good owner allowing that to ever happen in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 minute ago, mike93rh said: It's not a false dichotomy, it's not "he goes on loan with no recall or we sell him for £6million"... I'm not saying they're easy at all, I'm saying the buck stops with our negotiator allowing a loan move with no option for a recall. I'm a broken record now, i know, but like I've said you just wouldn't see a good owner allowing that to ever happen in the first place. Point missed. It wasn't a dichotomy, it was a theoretical counter offer - the dichotomy is, get an unhappy player out, or have an unhappy player AND manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike93rh Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: Point missed. It wasn't a dichotomy, it was a theoretical counter offer - the dichotomy is, get an unhappy player out, or have an unhappy player AND manager. So you think we didn't hold all the power in the negotiations? We had the player that other clubs wanted. A good owner wouldn't have allowed him to leave without the insurance of a recall option, that's the point I'm making that you're not actually willing to engage me on. The negotiation process was completely buggered from our side of things. I'm not debating whether he should've left or not, but on the disastrous terms he left on and how that decision was ever allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, mike93rh said: So you think we didn't hold all the power in the negotiations? We had the player that other clubs wanted. A good owner wouldn't have allowed him to leave without the insurance of a recall option, that's the point I'm making that you're not actually willing to engage me on. The negotiation process was completely buggered from our side of things. I'm not debating whether he should've left or not, but on the disastrous terms he left on and how that decision was ever allowed to happen. Of course we don't hold all the power - you can't know that unless you know the details of every single offer out there. Fulham, and any other club interested for that matter, will have more than likely known, or at least suspected that we were desperate to get rid, and/or Martin was desperate to get out. That weakens our position considerably for a start. Negotiations work both ways. Else its dictating. It might not have been a 'good deal' but, for all we know, it was the best deal at the time. That's what a good owner does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archram Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 38 minutes ago, eddie said: I must be the only one drinking beer, hating Brexit and plotting the overthrow of Trump. Apart from the beer, I'm with you all the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 38 minutes ago, eddie said: I must be the only one drinking beer, hating Brexit and plotting the overthrow of Trump. But not in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike93rh Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said: Of course we don't hold all the power - you can't know that unless you know the details of every single offer out there. Fulham, and any other club interested for that matter, will have more than likely known, or at least suspected that we were desperate to get rid, and/or Martin was desperate to get out. That weakens our position considerably for a start. Negotiations work both ways. Else its dictating. It might not have been a 'good deal' but, for all we know, it was the best deal at the time. That's what a good owner does. Okay fair, not all the power. We'll definitely have to agree to disagree here, i just don't feel that for a player of his importance we should ever have relinquished that amount of power. A recall option on him should've been a deal breaker, in my opinion. And we'll never have the power of hindsight to know what might've happened if he'd stayed, albeit against his will. Anyway, i should probably do some work now. My arse has fallen out for far too long now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PodgeyRam Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I miss the days when we were a well run club, who didn't overspend on players and made progress every season. We played a nice brand of football, with a good, young group of players. Opposition fans and clubs would say "they're a good team who are going places". We were respected for not spending more than we could afford and for having a long term plan. My question is when did this change? Did it change when Sam Rush was appointed and the Americans began to lose interest? Did it change when Clough was sacked? Did it change when McClaren sanctioned the signings of Bent and Ince on big wages? Was it when Morris bought the club and sacked McClaren? I can guess when and as time goes on I begin to wonder whether Clough was right to lay the blame at the door of Sam Rush. Mr Rush, who has a lot of links to Wasserman. Wasserman who's players we employ. A lot of our players have Wasserman as their agents. Big question for me is: Who has a more negative affect on this club? Mel Morris, the well-meaning fan? Or Sam Rush, the man who is advising him time and time again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRam Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 FWIW I've supported all the sackings, I can see how Mel thinks and feels, I'd be the same, but it's not conducive to a settled club. He has such a big responsibility, I'm just working out what to have for tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.