MackworthRamIsGod Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 4 minutes ago, ramsbottom said: The worst thing we did was panic buy Butterfield & Johnson to cover Hughes & Bryson's injuries. If Evans was actually as good as he was made out to be we would've gotten in a couple of capable loan signings we could've sent home at the end of the season. Instead we went mental and spunked a combined £40k a week in wages & £10m on fees on two players, that have only been (in Johnson's case) semi successful... In hindsite, it's crippled us Absolutely right, although I think the wages combined are probably more closer to 60k a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamBamFan Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 13 minutes ago, ramsbottom said: The worst thing we did was panic buy Butterfield & Johnson to cover Hughes & Bryson's injuries. If Evans was actually as good as he was made out to be we would've gotten in a couple of capable loan signings we could've sent home at the end of the season. Instead we went mental and spunked a combined £40k a week in wages & £10m on fees on two players, that have only been (in Johnson's case) semi successful... In hindsite, it's crippled us In fairness we signed them both on deadline day. Any good players that the big clubs were willing to loan out would have already gone. That's not me defending the signings, or rather the amount spent on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 31 minutes ago, ramsbottom said: The worst thing we did was panic buy Butterfield & Johnson to cover Hughes & Bryson's injuries. If Evans was actually as good as he was made out to be we would've gotten in a couple of capable loan signings we could've sent home at the end of the season. Instead we went mental and spunked a combined £40k a week in wages & £10m on fees on two players, that have only been (in Johnson's case) semi successful... In hindsite, it's crippled us Very correct about covering with loan signings but I actually believe it is between £50-60,000 per week it has cost us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: Absolutely right, although I think the wages combined are probably more closer to 60k a week. 1 hour ago, RamBamFan said: In fairness we signed them both on deadline day. Any good players that the big clubs were willing to loan out would have already gone. That's not me defending the signings, or rather the amount spent on them. 1 hour ago, Sparkle said: Very correct about covering with loan signings but I actually believe it is between £50-60,000 per week it has cost us. They were both injured the first game of the season which gave us 3 weeks to source replacements. Again, this shows how poor our scouting/recruitment dept were. I was being conservative with the wages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 2 hours ago, ramsbottom said: The worst thing we did was panic buy Butterfield & Johnson to cover Hughes & Bryson's injuries. If Evans was actually as good as he was made out to be we would've gotten in a couple of capable loan signings we could've sent home at the end of the season. Instead we went mental and spunked a combined £40k a week in wages & £10m on fees on two players, that have only been (in Johnson's case) semi successful... In hindsite, it's crippled us Hendrick and Dawkins with Hanson as cover. Get a loan in if we're struggling. £12,000,000 saved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, ramsbottom said: They were both injured the first game of the season which gave us 3 weeks to source replacements. Again, this shows how poor our scouting/recruitment dept were. I was being conservative with the wages... The BJ signing is the least professional I've ever heard of. He was touted to us less than 24 hours before the deadline and we said "yes, here's £7,000,000." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamBamFan Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Alex Neil (Norwich manager when they sold BJ) admitted that we offered "stupid money" for Johnson. He even admitted that he was nothing more than a backup player at the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 55 minutes ago, cannable said: Hendrick and Dawkins with Hanson as cover. Get a loan in if we're struggling. £12,000,000 saved! I think signing Butterfield (or least bringing in one technically good footballer) made sense given how long the layoffs were for Hughes and Bryson, that we would need some time to Hughes back and that we arguably lacked cover for Hughes anyway. The Johnson signing however I think signifies everything we've been doing wrong in the transfer market these past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 54 minutes ago, RamBamFan said: Alex Neil (Norwich manager when they sold BJ) admitted that we offered "stupid money" for Johnson. He even admitted that he was nothing more than a backup player at the time! What I will never get is he was essentially sold for not being technically good enough, so how the hell was he supposed to fit into a side that was becoming all about dominating control over the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninos Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 2 hours ago, brady1993 said: I think signing Butterfield (or least bringing in one technically good footballer) made sense given how long the layoffs were for Hughes and Bryson, that we would need some time to Hughes back and that we arguably lacked cover for Hughes anyway. The Johnson signing however I think signifies everything we've been doing wrong in the transfer market these past few years. Both were not sensible but I think you have them back to front in terms of who was the worse pick up, Brady, Johnson made more sense as he got Norwich promoted but we massively overpaid both on fee and wages. Butterfield was just a bad all around buy as we just honed in on his goals from midfield but he's far from inspiring and the dry patch ahead was inevitable. We could have loaned some creativity or moved Ince over. Calero could have also stepped in or Elsnik later on. Now we are stuck with a most mediocre little to negative impact player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Hobhead Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 I am more and more convinced that many on here watch a different game. I have also learned that those people must have access to the accounts at Pride Park. I can't wait for the season to start and the fickle opinions to change. Up the Rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnstile Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Its not just Butterfield and Johnson.Anya and Vydra were just as poor buys. Almost £30 million wasted! Forgot Blackman another £3 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 On 2017-6-25 at 15:11, JG400 said: I am a bit disappointed to be honest with the clear out so far , I hoped perhaps 5 or 6 more would have gone by now , don't really care who (first team squad members of course ) I just wanted to see a real clear out to start a fresh, it feels like by the time of the Kaiserslautern game we may see the same old faces taking to the pitch I'm not too surprised. We have players on high wages who haven't been performing. Why would other clubs want to take such players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 We had to give Camara away, what hope of selling any of the 'unwanteds'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 19 hours ago, Ninos said: Both were not sensible but I think you have them back to front in terms of who was the worse pick up, Brady, Johnson made more sense as he got Norwich promoted but we massively overpaid both on fee and wages. Butterfield was just a bad all around buy as we just honed in on his goals from midfield but he's far from inspiring and the dry patch ahead was inevitable. We could have loaned some creativity or moved Ince over. Calero could have also stepped in or Elsnik later on. Now we are stuck with a most mediocre little to negative impact player Disagree entirely and I'll try to explain why. First I'll try to outline why Johnson was a bad, poorly thought out signing. As a team we were transitioning from McClaren's playing philosophy of "control the ball but attack with freedom and force the issue with opponents" to Clement's "Dominate possesion and wait for opportunities to exploit". Both cases required players from 1 to 11 to be technically good and to be able to look after the ball, with ball retention being of critical importance to Clement's play style. These qualities were even more important in the midfield three because in such a system everything go through them and its the corner stone of the entire playing ethos. Therefore any midfielder we bought first and foremost needed to be good at keeping the team in possession. This is why it was baffling we bought Johnson. Johnson's worst trait as a midfielder is his technical ability and more specifically his ability to retain possession, this is exemplified by the fact his passing accuracy consistently hovers around 70% which is down right poor for a midfielder. And it isn't as if he makes up for it with creativity at with low numbers for assists and key passes The very reason he was a backup player for Norwich when we bought him was because he was poor technically. He was a big factor in why Clement came unstuck because sides worked out all they had to do was force the ball onto the left hand side of the pitch and the whole thing just breaks down. We signed Johnson purely off the back of his goals scored. We didn't account for that most of that season he played on the left of a 4, with Norwich focusing most of their build play down the right with Johnson attacking the back post. And we certainly didn't think through how he was going to fit into the side. The reason why I say he is exemplary of our poor transfer policy is because like many others he was signed for a big fee without a thought towards how he actually complimented the current team. (I'll write about Butterfield a bit later) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyPowell Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, brady1993 said: Disagree entirely and I'll try to explain why. First I'll try to outline why Johnson was a bad, poorly thought out signing. As a team we were transitioning from McClaren's playing philosophy of "control the ball but attack with freedom and force the issue with opponents" to Clement's "Dominate possesion and wait for opportunities to exploit". Both cases required players from 1 to 11 to be technically good and to be able to look after the ball, with ball retention being of critical importance to Clement's play style. These qualities were even more important in the midfield three because in such a system everything go through them and its the corner stone of the entire playing ethos. Therefore any midfielder we bought first and foremost needed to be good at keeping the team in possession. This is why it was baffling we bought Johnson. Johnson's worst trait as a midfielder is his technical ability and more specifically his ability to retain possession, this is exemplified by the fact his passing accuracy consistently hovers around 70% which is down right poor for a midfielder. And it isn't as if he makes up for it with creativity at with low numbers for assists and key passes The very reason he was a backup player for Norwich when we bought him was because he was poor technically. He was a big factor in why Clement came unstuck because sides worked out all they had to do was force the ball onto the left hand side of the pitch and the whole thing just breaks down. We signed Johnson purely off the back of his goals scored. We didn't account for that most of that season he played on the left of a 4, with Norwich focusing most of their build play down the right with Johnson attacking the back post. And we certainly didn't think through how he was going to fit into the side. The reason why I say he is exemplary of our poor transfer policy is because like many others he was signed for a big fee without a thought towards how he actually complimented the current team. (I'll write about Butterfield a bit later) You maybe right but football is all about opinions One thing you are wrong about the price tag any player carries is NOT his fautl critisism or praise for a player should be limited to what they do on the field.I personally think the with all the changes of manager has not helped the players one bit The time to judge will be 10/15 games into the new season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.