El DerbyCo

[Millenniumram]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Anything at this point is speculation, so here's my speculation: The money is "his" in terms of control/responsibility but not entirly "his" in terms of who's funding it is (allowing 2 slightly different takes on the situation). The extent to which it is really his to control we'll probably find out when things start to go wrong!

Yeah, that’s the way I’m viewing it at the moment as well. He’s probably the one “in charge” as chairman, in terms of making decisions, but he may well not be the main shareholder. The money seems more likely to me to come from elsewhere, and whoever the investors are must trust Alonso to run the football club and get them a return on their money.

[Gaspode]

It's just possible that the investors don't want their names made public until it is all done and dusted....if the rich people want it to be confidential they have every right to their privacy - it realy doesn't matter how nosey Derby fans are or how entitled they feel about being privy to the info...

Pretty sure that Alonso would have to tell the EFL who is providing the money, but no reason at all for that to be public knowledge until it's been rubber stamped......

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

41 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

A lot of people are putting a lot of effort into investigating this chap; his backers; his motivations; his politics etc. I'm feeling remarkably calm about the whole thing.

I think it's because the dream has died with Mel selling the club. The dream being having a DCFC fan owner who loved the club and was wealthy enough to gamble (and succeed) in progressing into an established Premiership side.

I'm not going to go into a blame game about Mel and how things have been done but he's risked a large portion of his wealth (and health) with running this club and now we are understandably being sold to business people purely out to make a profit at some unspecified point in the future - with no emotional connection to the club we love.

I suppose I'm resigned to being nothing more than a paying customer of the club, rather than a fellow fan with a connection to the owners.

Assuming this take over goes ahead, I'm not excited one bit. Just sad that it has come to this.

I'd prefer DCFC to be run as a business. Businesses are successful when they are ran with the head and not the heart. 

If we have a profictable business, it means most parts are efficiently ran and you'd say we are on track to better times. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

32 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

It's just possible that the investors don't want their names made public until it is all done and dusted....if the rich people want it to be confidential they have every right to their privacy - it realy doesn't matter how nosey Derby fans are or how entitled they feel about being privy to the info...

Pretty sure that Alonso would have to tell the EFL who is providing the money, but no reason at all for that to be public knowledge until it's been rubber stamped......

I agree, with the money laundering regulations the source of the funds to buy the club would be one of the first questions to be addressed. 
 

if there is consortium and I would imagine there is, then that fact would need to be disclosed. 
 

I suppose it’s a fact that the EFL and Mel’s legal team need to know and we don’t, it will probably be revealed at a later date!

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 minute ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I agree, with the money laundering regulations the source of the funds to buy the club would be one of the first questions to be addressed. 
 

if there is consortium and I would imagine there is, then that fact would need to be disclosed. 
 

I suppose it’s a fact that the EFL and Mel’s legal team need to know and we don’t, it will probably be revealed at a later date!

The money laundering bit must have been forgotten when one of our close neighbours was taken over 

[CornwallRam]

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Firstly, let's start off by looking at the minutes of academy graduate involvement in the league since Mel's takeover in 2014 (excluding Hughes and Hendrick):

14/15 - Hanson (160), KThomas (65), Bennett (36)
15/16 - Hanson (892)
16/17 - Lowe (716), Hanson (251), Bennett (23)
17/18 - Hanson (50), Bennett (41), Thomas (6)
18/19 - Bogle (3485), Bennett (1108), Lowe (270), Bird (110), JML (7)
19/20 - Bogle (2902), Lowe (2281), Bird (1910), Knight (1808), Sibley (739), Buchanan (276), Whittaker (269), Bennett (178), JBrown (6), Trialist (6)
20/21 - Knight (3302), Buchanan (2421), Bird (1838), Sibley (953), Whittaker (207), McDonald (199), Watson (133), Trialist (57), Stretton (29), Cresswell (8), Ebosele (6), Gordon (1), JML (1)

Up until 2018, academy graduates were limited to cup games or being their in case of emergency. Lowe was the only one to get a run of games and impressed in them, only to get dropped back to to 4th choice when, Forsyth, Olsson, Warnock or whoever else was flavour of the week at LB. Lowe looked ready for that step up but his progress was blocked because of the sheer number of high earning players in front of him - this is what Mel wanted to prevent in the future as it stalled Lowe's progress for 2/3 years.

In the 18/19 season, Frank wanted to loan Bogle out for experience. Because we chose not to give him the odd appearance in the league previously no-one wanted him. However, it's hard to argue against Bogle and Bennett deserving their game-time under Frank.

Due to heavily focusing on the first team, we could no longer afford to keep such a large squad under P&S, hence a cut back in 19/20. Let's not forget we were under and embargo? Bogle deservedly retained his place as 1st choice RB.
Lowe started the season as 2nd choice LB due to Fozzy's long term injury, and only came into the side following Bogle's injury. By the end of the season, many felt he was our best LB.
Bird came in to the side half way through the season due to an injury crisis at CM (Bielik, Huddlesteone, Shinnie, Evans all out?). He was some people's player of the season despite only playing in half the games.
Sibley was head and shoulders above U23 and looked ready for Championship football, as shown by his 5 goals in 11 games at the end of the season. You could also argue Knight came into the side too soon, but again, he proved he was ready with consistent performances and a respectable 6 goals in 31 games.
Buchanan again only came in due to an injury crisis.
Others invovled due to not being able to add any more depth without failing P&S

On to this season, as you know we are still feeling the repercussions of our heavy spending early on in Mel's reign. Under another embargo, if i recall correctly?
Bird, Knight and Sibley rightfully deserved to be included in the squad base on their performances in 19/20.
Buchanan started off as Fozzy's backup due to selling Lowe and loaning out Malone to stay within financial restrictions.
Are we really arguing over 200 minutes of football given to the odd remaining player?

 

£5m seems reasonable to Norwich, Reading, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Stoke and even Sunderland

You've pretty much reinforced my points.

The more minutes the youngsters play, the worse our league position gets.

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of spending too many season in this division. That is, I believe, a direct result of Mel's focus on the academy - managers have been given restrictive instructions. Promotion is the only path to sustainability, and an overly expensive academy makes that less likely.  

Lowe was not good enough to be first choice left back - he was developing, but his first team appearances were the result of Mel's policy, not the merits of his performances. Just before he left us he had developed to be a decent back up, but then was sold at exactly the point where he could have been a help to the first team. Bogle had a superb first season and a patchy second, but as is inevitable, he had to go to provide cash flow. These sales are bound to happen and ensure that the first team never sees any actual benefit from the academy. By the time the players are good enough, they have to be sold. The process of making them good enough weakens the first team.

I would argue that Bennett was not worth any game time. He was a squad place blocker preventing a more able striker from coming in. Had (eg) Lee Gregory started at Wembley, we might have seen a different game. It is those fine margins which make the overly large academy a strategic error for a club needing promotion.

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

 

if there is consortium and I would imagine there is, then that fact would need to be disclosed. 

But it was not disclosed that Sheikhy was fronting for an Emirati squillionaire. until we were told that by an itk UAE journalist. And apparently the reason that deal fell apart was simply that Mr Big changed his mind. 
 

the fascinating thing is: if MM had required the Sheikh - before EFl approval - to sign definitive docs and place a substantial deposit, Mr UAE Big would now be in the driving seat  
 

at the second attempt, MM knows how to sell a club 
 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

33 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

You've pretty much reinforced my points.

The more minutes the youngsters play, the worse our league position gets.

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of spending too many season in this division. That is, I believe, a direct result of Mel's focus on the academy - managers have been given restrictive instructions. Promotion is the only path to sustainability, and an overly expensive academy makes that less likely.  

Lowe was not good enough to be first choice left back - he was developing, but his first team appearances were the result of Mel's policy, not the merits of his performances. Just before he left us he had developed to be a decent back up, but then was sold at exactly the point where he could have been a help to the first team. Bogle had a superb first season and a patchy second, but as is inevitable, he had to go to provide cash flow. These sales are bound to happen and ensure that the first team never sees any actual benefit from the academy. By the time the players are good enough, they have to be sold. The process of making them good enough weakens the first team.

I would argue that Bennett was not worth any game time. He was a squad place blocker preventing a more able striker from coming in. Had (eg) Lee Gregory started at Wembley, we might have seen a different game. It is those fine margins which make the overly large academy a strategic error for a club needing promotion.

The problem with your argument is that it's the youngster who tend to put in the better performances. The problem lies with not having good enough players elsewhere in the team. Wisdom is a poor defender, Marshall is past his best, so too is Forsyth, Shinnie isn't good enough when a teammate is on the ball, Waghorn's erratic, and Kazim is nothing more than a lower end Championship forward.
We've gone from having Keogh to Wisdom at CB; Ince and Russell on the wing to Lawrence and Wilson to Jozwiak and A.N.Other. Martin/Bent/Vydra/Nugent at CF to Kazim and Gregory.

In 19/20, our most used 11 was: Hamer, Bogle, Davies, Clarke, Lowe, Bird, Holmes, Knight, Waghorn, Lawrence, Martin
In 20/21, at the moment it's: Marshall, Byrne, Wisdom, Clarke, Buchanan, Bird, Shinnie, Knight, Waghorn, Jozwiak, Kazim
4 of those players are the same in both seasons, so I find it hard to point the finger at them for our poor results this year. If you insist on blaming Mel's policy, then why didn't we do worse last year with Bogle and Lowe at FB, whereas we've replaced one of those with an experienced head? Let's take the easy option and blame having "too many" academy graduates in the team instead though.

The forum was pretty much split on who our best LB was between Forsyth and Lowe. He played as much as he did because he was a good LB, not because Mel insisted.

Bennett played upfront in the final because Waghorn, Marriott and Nugent were all injured. His impact on the wing was fantastic that season, with 1 goal contribution every 157 minutes - one of the highest in the league. No club in this league can afford to have 4 high earners fighting for 1 position as you suggested... 

[Rammy03]

20 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The problem with your argument is that it's the youngster who tend to put in the better performances. The problem lies with not having good enough players elsewhere in the team. Wisdom is a poor defender, Marshall is past his best, so too is Forsyth, Shinnie isn't good enough when a teammate is on the ball, Waghorn's erratic, and Kazim is nothing more than a lower end Championship forward.
We've gone from having Keogh to Wisdom at CB; Ince and Russell on the wing to Lawrence and Wilson to Jozwiak and A.N.Other. Martin/Bent/Vydra/Nugent at CF to Kazim and Gregory.

In 19/20, our most used 11 was: Hamer, Bogle, Davies, Clarke, Lowe, Bird, Holmes, Knight, Waghorn, Lawrence, Martin
In 20/21, at the moment it's: Marshall, Byrne, Wisdom, Clarke, Buchanan, Bird, Shinnie, Knight, Waghorn, Jozwiak, Kazim
4 of those players are the same in both seasons, so I find it hard to point the finger at them for our poor results this year. If you insist on blaming Mel's policy, then why didn't we do worse last year with Bogle and Lowe at FB, whereas we've replaced one of those with an experienced head? Let's take the easy option and blame having "too many" academy graduates in the team instead though.

The forum was pretty much split on who our best LB was between Forsyth and Lowe. He played as much as he did because he was a good LB, not because Mel insisted.

Bennett played upfront in the final because Waghorn, Marriott and Nugent were all injured. His impact on the wing was fantastic that season, with 1 goal contribution every 157 minutes - one of the highest in the league. No club in this league can afford to have 4 high earners fighting for 1 position as you suggested... 

Mel's policy of having so many academy players in the team just said to me that he isn't going to be spending any more money. We have let too many experienced players leave and have replaced them with academy players who aren't good enough. Look at the bench at the weekend, it's bereft of any quality. 

[Ghost of Clough]

7 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Mel's policy of having so many academy players in the team just said to me that he isn't going to be spending any more money.

Following that statement, we spent £8m on Bielik, £4m on Jozwiak, recruited Rooney on a record Champiomship wage, plus flip flopping in and out of a transfer embargo.

7 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

We have let too many experienced players leave and have replaced them with academy players who aren't good enough.

1 regular, 2 rotation, 1 backup, and the rest are emergency cover. Those are the roles given to our current academy graduates.

7 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Look at the bench at the weekend, it's bereft of any quality. 

Yeah... Bielik, Davies, Clarke, Byrne, Waghorn, Gregory, Edmundson, Ibe all unavailable.

[Reggie Greenwood]

14 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Mel's policy of having so many academy players in the team just said to me that he isn't going to be spending any more money. We have let too many experienced players leave and have replaced them with academy players who aren't good enough. Look at the bench at the weekend, it's bereft of any quality. 

Nothing to do with 5 first team players out injured plus Edmondson then ? 

[nottingram]

1 hour ago, CornwallRam said:

You've pretty much reinforced my points.

The more minutes the youngsters play, the worse our league position gets.

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of spending too many season in this division. That is, I believe, a direct result of Mel's focus on the academy - managers have been given restrictive instructions. Promotion is the only path to sustainability, and an overly expensive academy makes that less likely.  

Lowe was not good enough to be first choice left back - he was developing, but his first team appearances were the result of Mel's policy, not the merits of his performances. Just before he left us he had developed to be a decent back up, but then was sold at exactly the point where he could have been a help to the first team. Bogle had a superb first season and a patchy second, but as is inevitable, he had to go to provide cash flow. These sales are bound to happen and ensure that the first team never sees any actual benefit from the academy. By the time the players are good enough, they have to be sold. The process of making them good enough weakens the first team.

I would argue that Bennett was not worth any game time. He was a squad place blocker preventing a more able striker from coming in. Had (eg) Lee Gregory started at Wembley, we might have seen a different game. It is those fine margins which make the overly large academy a strategic error for a club needing promotion.

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of an utterly ridiculous recruitment policy of signing “experienced” (read: crap) Championship players for large transfer fees and on large wages, who all in theory were too good for the division and would guarantee us promotion - policy you seem to be advocating? An overly expensive academy has zero impact on this for as long as the owner is willing to fund it on a cash basis. I can’t see any indication this is not the case anymore?

I think you are right in saying Lowe wasn’t good enough to be first choice but equally I don’t think he was given much opportunity to be. In fact, Lampard was allowed to sign Malone (expensive up front, massive wages, long contract) and loan out Lowe. He was then allowed to sign Cole and keep Lowe out on loan - Cole was hugely uninspiring and very poor at Wembley. Lowe didn’t have to be sold but he had been usurped by the next one from the academy, Buchanan. Bogle was sold for P&S reasons, in my opinion. £Xm of pure profit to offset the losses generated by the transfer policy you advocate - a direct benefit of the academy is that players sold from it count as pure profit with negligible amortisation costs going into P&S calculations. As an aside, Bogle was much much better from Wisdom from the get go.

Bennett was a very decent and cheap back up that season. Won us some very important games with his input (Hull away, Reading away, WBA home) were all winning goals he contributed to. Compare that to David Nugent for example and the return on investment doesn’t even compare. Any experienced Championship player worth their salt are not going to be happy as backup to Marriott, Waghorn, Nugent et al. He was a perfectly serviceable player produced at negligible P&S cost. You simply cannot carry expensive back ups to back ups at this level. The decision to start him at Wembley was also not due to not having a big enough squad - Waghorn and Marriott were on the bench! He was selected on merit, rightly or wrongly.

[Rammy03]

9 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

Nothing to do with 5 first team players out injured plus Edmondson then ? 

Even if they were fit and available, the squad still isn't good enough. Not enough depth at all. 

A lot of the senior players flatter to deceive, we have overspent on average players.

Mel insists on having academy players in there, regardless of whether they're good enough or not.

We've pissed money up the wall in the past and now we're paying for it, Mel isn't putting in that level of investment anymore. Our recruitment is consistently average.

It's not just about the academy but that is a factor along with the others I've mentioned above, as to why we are where we are.

[Abu Dhabi Ram]

 

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

You've pretty much reinforced my points.

The more minutes the youngsters play, the worse our league position gets.

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of spending too many season in this division. That is, I believe, a direct result of Mel's focus on the academy - managers have been given restrictive instructions. Promotion is the only path to sustainability, and an overly expensive academy makes that less likely.  

Lowe was not good enough to be first choice left back - he was developing, but his first team appearances were the result of Mel's policy, not the merits of his performances. Just before he left us he had developed to be a decent back up, but then was sold at exactly the point where he could have been a help to the first team. Bogle had a superb first season and a patchy second, but as is inevitable, he had to go to provide cash flow. These sales are bound to happen and ensure that the first team never sees any actual benefit from the academy. By the time the players are good enough, they have to be sold. The process of making them good enough weakens the first team.

I would argue that Bennett was not worth any game time. He was a squad place blocker preventing a more able striker from coming in. Had (eg) Lee Gregory started at Wembley, we might have seen a different game. It is those fine margins which make the overly large academy a strategic error for a club needing promotion.

What utter rubbish. Our Academy is our only bright light. 

You do remember we blew crazy money for a championship club on signing average, or below par players? Bennett being a squad blocker is a joke statement. We signed Nick Blackman to play upfront, we signed Anya, spent 4million on Butterfield, 6 million on Johnson, Plus many more, oh and they didn’t even leave for a profit. I think you would also find that with the except of Vydra, the only players sold for a good profit come from the academy. 
 

We would be screwed without our academy. We should look very closely at our recruitment strategy though. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Abu Dhabi Ram

[Van der MoodHoover]

18 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Even if they were fit and available, the squad still isn't good enough. Not enough depth at all. 

A lot of the senior players flatter to deceive, we have overspent on average players.

Mel insists on having academy players in there, regardless of whether they're good enough or not.

We've pissed money up the wall in the past and now we're paying for it, Mel isn't putting in that level of investment anymore. Our recruitment is consistently average.

It's not just about the academy but that is a factor along with the others I've mentioned above, as to why we are where we are.

You answer your own point. The squad isn't good enough not because of the academy, but through recruitment and inconsistency /poor management. 

Our recruitment has been generally crap and inconsistent as it has followed whatever fad the manager of the day is following. 

Our academy has delivered players developed in a consistent style who then get handed over to the coaching committee of the day. 

[BondJovi]

We as a fan base seem to be incredibly quick to write young players off and chase this mystique of experience.

There is so much I dislike about football currently. The money is stupid, the diving and theatrics are embarrassing. The use of VAR is a joke. It is a hollow soulless sport currently. What still seems real and something I can support is our own young players representing us.

 

[BramcoteRam84]

A big contributor to our struggles this season has been the reliance on youth and the insufficient experience to supplement them. Bird and Sibley have struggled, Knight has had a really poor second half of the season and Buchanan has struggled recently. Inconsistency due to being young players. But they are all huge talents and IMO will all play in the premier league in their careers. I agree with Rooney that Buchanan could even go to the very top. If we can get through and survive and keep these players, this season could well be the making of them.

[Angry Ram]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

You've pretty much reinforced my points.

The more minutes the youngsters play, the worse our league position gets.

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of spending too many season in this division. That is, I believe, a direct result of Mel's focus on the academy - managers have been given restrictive instructions. Promotion is the only path to sustainability, and an overly expensive academy makes that less likely.  

Lowe was not good enough to be first choice left back - he was developing, but his first team appearances were the result of Mel's policy, not the merits of his performances. Just before he left us he had developed to be a decent back up, but then was sold at exactly the point where he could have been a help to the first team. Bogle had a superb first season and a patchy second, but as is inevitable, he had to go to provide cash flow. These sales are bound to happen and ensure that the first team never sees any actual benefit from the academy. By the time the players are good enough, they have to be sold. The process of making them good enough weakens the first team.

I would argue that Bennett was not worth any game time. He was a squad place blocker preventing a more able striker from coming in. Had (eg) Lee Gregory started at Wembley, we might have seen a different game. It is those fine margins which make the overly large academy a strategic error for a club needing promotion.

Great post and a view I have had for a long time. The academy is about developing for others and playing them does make us weaker without a doubt.. One or two maybe but not a sustainable model.. 

[Angry Ram]

40 minutes ago, BondJovi said:

We as a fan base seem to be incredibly quick to write young players off and chase this mystique of experience.

There is so much I dislike about football currently. The money is stupid, the diving and theatrics are embarrassing. The use of VAR is a joke. It is a hollow soulless sport currently. What still seems real and something I can support is our own young players representing us.

 

I get the sentiment but unfortunately the reality is you need experience in this league.. The championship is just a drain on money for all clubs.. The secret is to get out quickly..
 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Angry Ram

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Abu Dhabi Ram said:

 

What utter rubbish. Our Academy is our only bright light. 

You do remember we blew crazy money for a championship club on signing average, or below par players? Bennett being a squad blocker is a joke statement. We signed Nick Blackman to play upfront, we signed Anya, spent 4million on Butterfield, 6 million on Johnson, Plus many more, oh and they didn’t even leave for a profit. I think you would also find that with the except of Vydra, the only players sold for a good profit come from the academy. 
 

We would be screwed without our academy. We should look very closely at our recruitment strategy though. 

Recruitment has been very poor. However, that indicates that the recruitment team has performed badly, rather than the strategy of relying on the academy being effective. Just look at Brentford, a club not much bigger than Burton, but with a squad we can only dream about. And as bad as our recruitment has been, with the players you mention, we were never in relegation trouble.