number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 I presume Nigel looked at the injury Hulse had, and considering the fact that he's still injured, sold him so that he got as much money as possible. Not good that we haven't replaced him, but they've said that they've been unable to get the men they wanted. So the only thing we can do is get adequate loans in who will put their all in, and keep trying to get either a good loan signing in or we manage to get one of our targets (which seems unlikely in January, I expect to see movement in the summer for a top striker) Thats a very roundabout way of saying that the current board are incompetent at hitting their targets. How many chances will you give these planks? Yet another two key transfer windows? Nigel is doing a good job in choosing cheep loans that work well. But he really should not have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 and heres me thinking we loaned Kuqi and Bueno after Hulse went Replacing permanent with (all be it good) loans that you have no intention of signing full time is not my idea of long term thinking. 5 year plan my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Thats a very roundabout way of saying that the current board are incompetent at hitting their targets. How many chances will you give these planks? Yet another two key transfer windows? Nigel is doing a good job in choosing cheep loans that work well. But he really should not have to. We went for Hooper, we couldn't match the bid. We went for Vaughun, we put in a superior bid, but he went to Crystal Palace. That doesn't tell me they're incompetent, that tells me that on the first deal we couldn't compete and the second it was out of our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 We went for Hooper, we couldn't match the bid. We went for Vaughun, we put in a superior bid, but he went to Crystal Palace. That doesn't tell me they're incompetent, that tells me that on the first deal we couldn't compete and the second it was out of our hands. So in the first they refused to meet market value, and in the second a player was so happy here in his previous stint that he refused to return.... Thats if you believe our 'bid' was superior. Yes, no problems there... :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 So in the first they refused to meet market value, and in the second a player was so happy here in his previous stint that he refused to return.... Thats if you believe our 'bid' was superior. Yes, no problems there... :confused: Market Value? No, the bidding went far OVER the market value, and Celtics wage packet was something we couldn't compete with. Hooper is not worth over £2m, so we backed off. And our bid was superior, unless you're calling Glick a flat out liar. Also, David Moyes and George Burley have a good relationship, so it looks like a favour by David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorecambeRam Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Are we not doing ok with the loanees we`ve brought in ?There wasn`t much time after Hulse was sold to fine someone else without it been a kneejerk buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Market Value? No, the bidding went far OVER the market value, and Celtics wage packet was something we couldn't compete with. Hooper is not worth over £2m, so we backed off. And our bid was superior, unless you're calling Glick a flat out liar. Also, David Moyes and George Burley have a good relationship, so it looks like a favour by David. Market Value is dictated by the buyers. Our board are too cheap to buy a quality player for the required fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Are we not doing ok with the loanees we`ve brought in ?There wasn`t much time after Hulse was sold to fine someone else without it been a kneejerk buy. But is was known all summer that he was going. Any plonker on the street could have told you. They has all summer to line someone up. But if the loans are doing fine, no need to buy anyone again, ever, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorecambeRam Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 But he was still on the books and not gone,i guess only time will tell either in the next window or the summer window if Mr.Glick and co will get their wallet out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number10 Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 But he was still on the books and not gone,i guess only time will tell either in the next window or the summer window if Mr.Glick and co will get their wallet out. They have shown they were not willing to pay the going rate, so my educated guess using the established facts is that the the next transfer windows will be exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Market Value is dictated by the buyers. Our board are too cheap to buy a quality player for the required fee. Market Value is already a rough price which people accept. For instance, we know now that we'll probably get around £500k for Luke Varney. Gary Hooper had a year left on his contract. He was not worth £2.4m. (I think it was £2.4m, it was definately £2m+) Also, our wage structure has already been set. We cannot pay £15,000+ to any player. The new top wage is £8k a year. If the deal is not right, you don't do it. That is business sense, the same applies in anything money related. You could see the perfect sandwich in a shop, but if it costs £10 you don't buy it, you get a cheaper sandwich that you'll enjoy nearly as much. A silly metaphor, but my point is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorecambeRam Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Personally i`m not a fan of the January transfer window so if they don`t buy a decent striker in the summer i`d be worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Market Value is already a rough price which people accept. For instance, we know now that we'll probably get around £500k for Luke Varney. Gary Hooper had a year left on his contract. He was not worth £2.4m. (I think it was £2.4m, it was definately £2m+) Also, our wage structure has already been set. We cannot pay £15,000+ to any player. The new top wage is £8k a year. If the deal is not right, you don't do it. That is business sense, the same applies in anything money related. You could see the perfect sandwich in a shop, but if it costs £10 you don't buy it, you get a cheaper sandwich that you'll enjoy nearly as much. A silly metaphor, but my point is there. Where've you got this £8k a week ceiling from,Alex,as I've seen you mention this before?Hope it's not a guess,or you'll be savaged by Davenport-he's the only one allowed to guess wages (as I seem to remember him doing on the old forum). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Where've you got this £8k a week ceiling from,Alex,as I've seen you mention this before?Hope it's not a guess,or you'll be savaged by Davenport-he's the only one allowed to guess wages (as I seem to remember him doing on the old forum). Someone I know at the club (one of those unlikely links that people say they have, but there it is) and it was seconded on the old forum by someone I have no link with so I leaned towards it being pretty nailed on. And alas, I may have to fight davenportram then, as i've no evidence other than what i've heard/read personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Where've you got this £8k a week ceiling from,Alex,as I've seen you mention this before?Hope it's not a guess,or you'll be savaged by Davenport-he's the only one allowed to guess wages (as I seem to remember him doing on the old forum). dont bring me in on this argument - and I have not said people arent allowed to guess wages just they need to say its a guess and not present it as certainty, or almost certainty. I have heard Alex say this before and it has been backed up so I know its not a guess. I didnt guess wages on other forums, commented on other peoples guesses and why I may disagree with them. I did comment using rumoured wages - which are not my guess just rumours. Thought better of you than having an unecessary and obvious snide dig at another poster, just because he happens to disagree with you on occasion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Cloughs policy is earn the contract you want. If Comons is influential in all games he plays and stays fit then he will have earnt that contract in my opinion. Stop guessing what other senior pors are on or what Clough is intending to do regarding wage structure. The only statment regarding Commons wages made by the club was that we couldnt afford to renew both his and Hulse's current delas - well Hulse has left the club. Just a reminder of what you said.If Alex's information is correct,then it makes my own suggestion (and nothing said with certainty) even more viable. As far as snide remarks go,then if you resort to lecturing other posters you can expect some stick back when your hypocrisy is exposed.On the old forum you guessed a string of players' wages in an attempt to show the overall bill had reduced from £10.7m to £9m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Owh, this is getting just like I remember the old DET. I'm looking from behind the settee.:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Just a reminder of what you said.If Alex's information is correct,then it makes my own suggestion (and nothing said with certainty) even more viable. As far as snide remarks go,then if you resort to lecturing other posters you can expect some stick back when your hypocrisy is exposed.On the old forum you guessed a string of players' wages in an attempt to show the overall bill had reduced from £10.7m to £9m,so please don't talk to me about respect. Thought i'd just chip in here with a few things I heard on player wages. This is from the same person, however they've not been backed up by anything solid. Commons: £10k. Bywater £9k. Savage: (We know already is £12k, my guy was £2k too high though) Hulse and Varneky: £16k and £18k, hence why they're leaving/have left. He told me those were the players that were higher than the cap, he could of course be wrong, and he wasn't sure on a few players, but he's fairly reliable. Not sure those facts are interesting at all, thought i'd throw them out there considering the wages mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Owh, this is getting just like I remember the old DET. I'm looking from behind the settee.:eek: This is nothing in comparison with some threads on there, it keeps life interesting atleast And get from behind the sofa you big wuss, you're a man ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Looking for the remote, anyway, I'm not going join Derby for only £8k a week anorl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.