Will Hughes Article

[Warwick Ram]

I think Will was hampered in his last season with us. He was initially played in a two in the centre of midfield, which didn’t suit him and finished the season with a manager, Gary, who didn’t fancy him hence not playing. Take into account his injury and he has a rotten season. My only criticism has only been he doesn’t score enough goals but without a doubt we should of kept him.

[ramblur]

4 minutes ago, curtains said:

 

Thanks 

Just for information according to the BBC Stoke paid 1.3 Million for Grant. 

 

Thanks - that agrees with my recollection. Did Grant come on a free originally? (even if he didn't, he was around in the days of amortization down to zero, so it would still probably be nearly all profit).

Had another look at this sale proceeds business, and it still looks to be £29m to me. We got nearly £9m in 16/17, and we were shown to be due £20m this year, with a relatively small amount thereafter. I checked The Baron's figures at the time ( which came from a different direction/ computation) and his sale proceeds figure seemed spot on. A bit of a puzzle (quite like those, mind, because I might get a bit bored with it all if I knew everything that was cracking off - bit like a cryptic v straight crossword)

[Ambitious]

7 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

I really don't get the argument about we should have got more money for him. It makes no sense. 

We have a player wanting to leave, and one who isn't going to get into the team. He is up for sale essentially. 

We have only one bidder, and they are prepared to pay a certain price, perhaps lower than they might be prepared to go but with no other bidders, Derby's hands are tied. We can refuse, have an unhappy player who isn't playing and costing money, or sell, get what we can in and allow him his desired move to the PL. Would you rather Derby had taken the former course of action? 

At what stage in any of this could we get a lot more money for him than we did? The market dictates the cost of everything, and the market in this sale was pretty non-existent. It doesn't matter what we think something is worth, his value is what a buyer is prepared to pay. 

  

It's not that simple, though. Hughes doesn't seem like the player to go on strike, certainly not from the outside looking in & he signed a new contract Jan 2017. We sell him June 2017. We had two more months to find a better deal - that's my bugbear. We sold him for an initial £4.5m & when you consider the market that's not even laughable, it's outrageous!

[Anon]

7 hours ago, VulcanRam said:

I really don't get the argument about we should have got more money for him. It makes no sense. 

We have a player wanting to leave, and one who isn't going to get into the team. He is up for sale essentially. 

We have only one bidder, and they are prepared to pay a certain price, perhaps lower than they might be prepared to go but with no other bidders, Derby's hands are tied. We can refuse, have an unhappy player who isn't playing and costing money, or sell, get what we can in and allow him his desired move to the PL. Would you rather Derby had taken the former course of action? 

At what stage in any of this could we get a lot more money for him than we did? The market dictates the cost of everything, and the market in this sale was pretty non-existent. It doesn't matter what we think something is worth, his value is what a buyer is prepared to pay. 

 

  

We only had one bidder because the markets were barely even open. The vast majority of transfers happen towards the end of the window because smart sellers try to elicit bidding wars between potential buyers and buyers get more desperate after missing out on other targets. At what stage in any of this could we have got a lot more money than we did? Literally one week later. The U21 Championship was still being played and Hughes put in two excellent performances in the later stages of the tournament. The idea that the sale of Hughes for such a paltry sum is an example of anything other than poor management and poor business sense is laughable.

[archied]

On 01/05/2018 at 09:14, RoyMac5 said:

Ask @McLovin he puts it better than me. 

Clubs owned by a fan and/or fans of the club. how many are successful?

Clubs owned by non fans ,,, how many are unsuccessful?

[RadioactiveWaste]

7 minutes ago, archied said:

Clubs owned by non fans ,,, how many are unsuccessful?

How many clubs are successful out of 92 + non league?

[archied]

All speculation,,, who is to say that rowett didn’t play Hughes in the end of season spell not because he wasnt his type of player or didn’t rate him but rather because he knew that Hughes would be leaving in the summer? Perhaps Hughes and derby did the honourable thing with each other in terms of derby agreeing to let him go to prem if we didn’t go up and Hughes signed a contract so we get a fee? He didn’t play vids much but it now appears that that was poss becuase he had seen enough to know vyds was going to be a regular in the team following season 

there is so much crap spouted on here at times in terms of its all so simple managing a club ie you just keep who you want and sell who you don’t like it’s a computer game ,,,,, Hughes is a good good player and exceptional at championship level if people on here are so stupid to think that a man who has played football at a high level then gone on to be a manager at a decent level and is managing a side currently in the top six in his first season having lost it’s bigger players at the start of the season is so stupid to not rate Hughes when almost every other person in the game rates him highly then perhaps they need to be looking in the mirror when apportioning stupidity 

[archied]

18 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

How many clubs are successful out of 92 + non league?

There are many and varied criteria to judge success on and we currently hit some and not others ,,

take the restrictions of ffp out of the equation and I would ask ( ramblur?) are the club in the best position debt wise v assets wise than it’s been for a very long time ? May be wrong but it seems to me Morris is investing and punting his money investing in derby rather than gambling with massive debts against the club

[sunnyhill60]

Johnson suits Rowettball             Hughes does not                Simples!

[DRBee]

55 minutes ago, archied said:

All speculation,,, who is to say that rowett didn’t play Hughes in the end of season spell not because he wasnt his type of player or didn’t rate him but rather because he knew that Hughes would be leaving in the summer? Perhaps Hughes and derby did the honourable thing with each other in terms of derby agreeing to let him go to prem if we didn’t go up and Hughes signed a contract so we get a fee? He didn’t play vids much but it now appears that that was poss becuase he had seen enough to know vyds was going to be a regular in the team following season 

there is so much crap spouted on here at times in terms of its all so simple managing a club ie you just keep who you want and sell who you don’t like it’s a computer game ,,,,, Hughes is a good good player and exceptional at championship level if people on here are so stupid to think that a man who has played football at a high level then gone on to be a manager at a decent level and is managing a side currently in the top six in his first season having lost it’s bigger players at the start of the season is so stupid to not rate Hughes when almost every other person in the game rates him highly then perhaps they need to be looking in the mirror when apportioning stupidity 

To be fair  .....There's quite a bit of crap spouted in this post. That Rowett favours Johnson and not Hughes says all we need to know.

[Ramchop]

On 01/05/2018 at 11:42, Warwick Ram said:

 Liverpool were interested back in 2014/2015 but we wanted 20 million plus for him.

The article mentions that Liverpool have never shown interest.

Wonderkid who's a Liverpool fan. It was all paper talk

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, archied said:

Clubs owned by non fans ,,, how many are unsuccessful?

So it doesn't matter which then does it - the Club just needs good owners who know what they're doing in footballing matters.

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, Ramchop said:

The article mentions that Liverpool have never shown interest.

Wonderkid who's a Liverpool fan. It was all paper talk

England U21s captain does not equal 'all paper talk'.

[Edtheram]

All i know is, is that people value Tom Cairney at 20 million, lets be honest he nothing special hes good on his day but is a very simple player. For me Hughes does what Cairney does but better and with more quality, and has a lot more skill. If Cairney is worth 20 million Hughes was worth 30 in my opinion. The only thing which let Will down was his goal scoring record, If he had scored as many as Bryson did in the play off season he would of gone for a lot more.

[archied]

1 hour ago, DRBee said:

To be fair  .....There's quite a bit of crap spouted in this post. That Rowett favours Johnson and not Hughes says all we need to know.

Or that Hughes is wanted by prem clubs and has a bright future whilst Jono isn’t and doesn’t probably says much more , but hey your right ,I’m betting rowett prefers cam to messi every time given the choice ,,, get real it’s not football manager it’s real clubs real players real budgets real career s real jobs real sackings 

[archied]

31 minutes ago, Edtheram said:

All i know is, is that people value Tom Cairney at 20 million, lets be honest he nothing special hes good on his day but is a very simple player. For me Hughes does what Cairney does but better and with more quality, and has a lot more skill. If Cairney is worth 20 million Hughes was worth 30 in my opinion. The only thing which let Will down was his goal scoring record, If he had scored as many as Bryson did in the play off season he would of gone for a lot more.

Yea but he’s playing in london 

[archied]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

England U21s captain does not equal 'all paper talk'.

Think he meant Liverpool wanting him was paper talk ? 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, archied said:

Think he meant Liverpool wanting him was paper talk ? 

Prove Liverpool weren't interested.

[cannable]

On 01/05/2018 at 15:31, Ambitious said:

It's not that simple, though. Hughes doesn't seem like the player to go on strike, certainly not from the outside looking in & he signed a new contract Jan 2017. We sell him June 2017. We had two more months to find a better deal - that's my bugbear. We sold him for an initial £4.5m & when you consider the market that's not even laughable, it's outrageous!

The recent price of football article (that @ramblur admittedly eviscerated) suggested that we needed him and Ince gone by July.

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, cannable said:

The recent price of football article (that @ramblur admittedly eviscerated) suggested that we needed him and Ince gone by July.

There was a similar suggestion about Roma and Salah on the Beeb website prior to y'days game.

Still that makes it worse - they were so poor with the financial side we most likely took hits on Hughes and Ince!