Dimmu Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 4 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: Get rid of our most successful striker in almost 30 years to sign an ageing goalie with dandruff issues, that would be the most Derby County thing ever! I take that as yes. Under certain conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellafella Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, Dimmu said: I take that as yes. Under certain conditions. Makes me want to salivate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 17 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: Exactly...one is a great goal scorer who has brought nothing to the club but success, hard work and goals and has more goals in his future...the other is a total **** *** that has brought nothing To the club except shame, embarrassment and absolutely nothing on the pitch and will being absolutely nothing ever on the pitch.....let’s reward one of them with another years contract....hmmmmm which do i pick.?? I know you like to do this thing where you (deliberately?) miss the point, but one is a 23 year old who got a new contract as he would retain some value that way, and one is on their 30s, one of the highest earners in the squad, has issues with illness and is up for a new contract while we are in a global pandemic and we have no idea when the club will be able to play football again. The club has zero revenue streams currently, absolutely none. To give out a contract in these times would be utterly preposterous when we have no idea when we will be playing football again. If the decisions were being made with on pitch conditions in mind of course he’d be getting a new contract for goodness sake! Maybe we’ll be able to play football and go to games in a couple of months and he’ll get one then - until then the club are rightfully cutting their cloth in any which way they can. I mean, this is all blatantly obvious and I’m annoyed I have spent 5 minutes of a lovely Bank Holiday Saturday explaining this to someone but here we are anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jourdan Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 Would this surprise anyone if it was true? The club operates in such a counter-intuitive way. I can understand that the club is in a difficult financial position but that has been true for a number of years, let’s be frank. Yet it seems like we pick and choose when to trot out the poverty card. Where were the cost cutting measures when we rolled out the red carpet for Rooney, for example? Where were the cost cutting measures when we spent millions on Bielik? So we’ll find a way to bring in Rooney, Bielik and make other indulgent additions, but when the moment comes to tie down arguably our best and most influential player, we are apparently playing it safe? If true, that’s such a Derby move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 12 minutes ago, Jourdan said: Yet it seems like we pick and choose when to trot out the poverty card. Where were the cost cutting measures when we rolled out the red carpet for Rooney, for example? Where were the cost cutting measures when we spent millions on Bielik? This is bang on, and it happened last season as well. All the reports suggested that Rowett was going to have to cut costs massively, yet Lampard arrives and we splash money on Waghorn, Marriott, Zoon, etc, not to mention the loan fees we probably paid. One word that would certainly describe MM's time here is 'inconsistent'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 1 hour ago, nottingram said: I know you like to do this thing where you (deliberately?) miss the point, but one is a 23 year old who got a new contract as he would retain some value that way, and one is on their 30s, one of the highest earners in the squad, has issues with illness and is up for a new contract while we are in a global pandemic and we have no idea when the club will be able to play football again. The club has zero revenue streams currently, absolutely none. To give out a contract in these times would be utterly preposterous when we have no idea when we will be playing football again. If the decisions were being made with on pitch conditions in mind of course he’d be getting a new contract for goodness sake! Maybe we’ll be able to play football and go to games in a couple of months and he’ll get one then - until then the club are rightfully cutting their cloth in any which way they can. I mean, this is all blatantly obvious and I’m annoyed I have spent 5 minutes of a lovely Bank Holiday Saturday explaining this to someone but here we are anyway. You missed the most important bit of that rant “in my opinion” and in my opinion, we sack Bennett immediately for gross misconduct (we should have sacked him, Lawrence and Keogh after the drunken joy ride Incident) and whatever money we are totally wasting on a terrible, terrible player can be immediately given to the best player we have had for the last god knows how many years...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean (hick) Saunders Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 1 hour ago, MuespachRam said: You missed the most important bit of that rant “in my opinion” and in my opinion, we sack Bennett immediately for gross misconduct (we should have sacked him, Lawrence and Keogh after the drunken joy ride Incident) and whatever money we are totally wasting on a terrible, terrible player can be immediately given to the best player we have had for the last god knows how many years...... He’s (Bennett) not a terrible terrible player, just too fragile. If it weren’t for the injuries and the “off the field” issues I don’t think many of the sane supporters would have any issue at all with a new contract under normal (none corona) circumstances. For what it’s worth I agree with you and get rid. But it’s the injuries which is the footballing reason for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 2 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said: He’s (Bennett) not a terrible terrible player, just too fragile. If it weren’t for the injuries and the “off the field” issues I don’t think many of the sane supporters would have any issue at all with a new contract under normal (none corona) circumstances. For what it’s worth I agree with you and get rid. But it’s the injuries which is the footballing reason for me. He is a terrible player...just take a look at his goal scoring record....that’s all you need to do. It’s terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 8 hours ago, MuespachRam said: You missed the most important bit of that rant “in my opinion” and in my opinion, we sack Bennett immediately for gross misconduct (we should have sacked him, Lawrence and Keogh after the drunken joy ride Incident) and whatever money we are totally wasting on a terrible, terrible player can be immediately given to the best player we have had for the last god knows how many years...... Sorry yes, I should have qualified that what I was posting was my opinion, as if it would be anyone else’s ? If we were to sack Bennett (we won’t, and we shouldn’t (that bit is my opinion)) then I would rather the wages be used to top up the salaries of the staff we can’t afford to pay at the moment, or maybe even to pay the contracted players in full. Giving out new contracts at this time would be, in my opinion, highly dubious. Of course I should point out this is all just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean (hick) Saunders Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 20 hours ago, MuespachRam said: He is a terrible player...just take a look at his goal scoring record....that’s all you need to do. It’s terrible. I guess he could be terrible as long as there are other adjectives to define players worse than terrible as there have been many worse players I have seen in 30 years watching than Mason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said: I guess he could be terrible as long as there are other adjectives to define players worse than terrible as there have been many worse players I have seen in 30 years watching than Mason. There are worse players, but I’m struggling to think of more than a dozen worse than him.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: There are worse players, but I’m struggling to think of more than a dozen worse than him.. I’ll give a few from this century. Theo Robinson, Connor Sammon, Jon Macken, Leon Best, Luke Varney, Conor Doyle, James Vaughan, Dexter Blackstock, Nick Chadwick, Stern John, Dean Holdsworth, Mikkel Beck, Nathan Tyson. Do I need to name more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 20 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: I’ll give a few from this century. Theo Robinson, Connor Sammon, Jon Macken, Leon Best, Luke Varney, Conor Doyle, James Vaughan, Dexter Blackstock, Nick Chadwick, Stern John, Dean Holdsworth, Mikkel Beck, Nathan Tyson. Do I need to name more? Worse than Bennett? Behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 Just now, RoyMac5 said: Worse than Bennett? Behave. Every single one of them was worse in a Derby shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 On 08/05/2020 at 15:49, ossieram said: Non of the above and I won't put it on here until it has been comfirmed. In that case, putting 2+2 together, what you’re intimating could be linked to a certain thing I heard about him a few months ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: Every single one of them was worse in a Derby shirt. Theo Robinson at Derby - 80 Games - 20 Goals Connor Sammon at Derby - 84 - 10 Goals Mason Bennett at Derby - 65 Games - 4 Goals Just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve How Hard? Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, ramsbottom said: In that case, putting 2+2 together, what you’re intimating could be linked to a certain thing I heard about him a few months ago... Which is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 21 minutes ago, ramsbottom said: Theo Robinson at Derby - 80 Games - 20 Goals Connor Sammon at Derby - 84 - 10 Goals Mason Bennett at Derby - 65 Games - 4 Goals Just sayin... Try converting the stats to minutes. Id guess at least 30% of Bennett’s “games” were 2-10 minute cameos at end of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: Try converting the stats to minutes. Id guess at least 30% of Bennett’s “games” were 2-10 minute cameos at end of games. Maybe, but surely that only points to the fact he isn’t good enough to be a regular starter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 32 minutes ago, Steve How Hard? said: Which is? Wouldn’t be pertinent to say until it’s been officially reported. Let’s just say I was surprised & saddened by it when I heard it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.