neilowens Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 i think he's already drunk it that explains alot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 when you lok at it in context we have spent a BTF on 2 YLFC, sold our LGS for 0.5BTF (according to rumours). It could be good business because our FLGS is OIUN, and KC our former IPM is our NTS (5th in the NPC) and our OaOLS (recommended by our BFHWC) has recently earned a RtoIF. We also spent unkown amounts of BTF's on a ExRMM/S. We got 2YL on FT's and 2ELCCF - to replace OFLGS and SWNP(who is now SFF in the EPL) It makes perfect sense to me - I sometimes get fed up with the use of nemonics for stuff - it all gets very confusing sometimes - so I thought I would use a fe of me own and see if anyone could work them out. spent a Barker Type Fee on 2 Young Lads From Crewe, sold our Leading Goal Scorer for 0.5Barker Type Fees (according to rumours). It could be good business because our Former Leading Goal Scorer is Out Injured Until November, and Kris Commons our former Injury Prone iMdfielder is our New Top Scorer (5th in the N Power Championship) and our Old and On Loan Striker (recommended by our Blond Floppy Haired Welsh C***) has recently earned a Recall to International Football. We also spent unkown amounts of BTF's on a ExReal Madrid Midfielder/Striker. We got 2 Young Lads on Free Transfers and 2 Emergency Loan Cover Center Forwards - to replace Our Former Leading Goal Scorer and Striker We Would Not Play (who is now Scoring For Fun in the English Premier League) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Is this how are board are negotiating with other clubs? No wonder we have trouble signing people. Am I the only one who's not bothered if they cost nearly £1m or not. Just that we sign people. We signed Bailey and Brayford for less than that (I believe both together came close to £1m or 'a Barker'). If we sign 4 more of them I'd be much happier than one 'Barker' signing. It's not about the cost of one players but the level of investment throughout the team. P.S. I'm not trying to ban anyone from saying 'Barker Type Fee' (BTF) just that it seems everyone is hung up on that 1 thing rather than, as I say, the investment in the team in total. I agree. I don't care how much a player costs. All that matters is THE player. If we spent £1m on Brayford alone would he be any better than he is now? A lot of people seem to grumble about how much money we spent (or didn't as the case may be) in the summer, but on the whole i thought we had a pretty good summer and only made one real error. Just because The Puppet said we're willing to spend Barker type fees it doesn't mean that we SHOULD spend that money when there are players Nigel wants for less. I reckon if he'd of bought 11 players on the cheap and they proved to be the quality of Cywka, Bailey and Brayford (ie. an improvement on Teale, Connolly etc) then some people would still be demanding a Barker type fee on 1 (ONE) player. The fact we did or did not spend the fee isn't the problem, it's what we do or don't spend it on. I think refusing to pay £2.5m on Hooper is fine. On what he's acheived so far i think most people would agree that's too much. Yet that signing would of convinced people that the board are ambitious??? However just because that seems acceptable it doesn't seem right that we wouldn't pay out for Mackie and that we just stood there while Billy Sharp was transfered. Then off pops Hulse to cap it all off. I'm not bothered if we never spend £1m on a player again. So long as when our manager identifies 3 or 4 targets, we make serious efforts to get them. To do that i think the board need to realise that you might have to pay slightly over the value sometimes. The one question i'd like answered would be did Nigel have the sufficient support to get his targets. Or does he have to sit and watch targets move to other clubs? Nigel seems to be working with one hand tied behind his back and it's only his sharp eye that has brought in gems like Brayford, Bailey and Cywka on a token budget that has saved the board from even more fan hostility. I just want them to untie his hands. If they did that then maybe Moxey wouldn't of had to play upfront. As for it being a footballing decision to sell Hulse..... i'm sure it was Tom, but did he only do it to try and expand his room to move? Or did he honestly sell our 2 season top scorer to improve his team? Wakey, wakey Mr Glick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I agree. I don't care how much a player costs. All that matters is THE player. If we spent £1m on Brayford alone would he be any better than he is now? A lot of people seem to grumble about how much money we spent (or didn't as the case may be) in the summer, but on the whole i thought we had a pretty good summer and only made one real error. Just because The Puppet said we're willing to spend Barker type fees it doesn't mean that we SHOULD spend that money when there are players Nigel wants for less. I reckon if he'd of bought 11 players on the cheap and they proved to be the quality of Cywka, Bailey and Brayford (ie. an improvement on Teale, Connolly etc) then some people would still be demanding a Barker type fee on 1 (ONE) player. The fact we did or did not spend the fee isn't the problem, it's what we do or don't spend it on. I think refusing to pay £2.5m on Hooper is fine. On what he's acheived so far i think most people would agree that's too much. Yet that signing would of convinced people that the board are ambitious??? Agreed However just because that seems acceptable it doesn't seem right that we wouldn't pay out for Mackie and that we just stood there while Billy Sharp was transfered. Then off pops Hulse to cap it all off. Rumours are that Nigel was worried about injuries for Sharp - dont know why - or maybe he wasnt worth what Doncaster were after. On Mackie - how many of us were that bothered that we didnt try and sign him this summer - or should I say how many suddenly became bothered after he scored 8 in quick succession for QPR this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Agreed Rumours are that Nigel was worried about injuries for Sharp - dont know why - or maybe he wasnt worth what Doncaster were after. On Mackie - how many of us were that bothered that we didnt try and sign him this summer - or should I say how many suddenly became bothered after he scored 8 in quick succession for QPR this year? Ah, that explains Sharp. On Mackie, i agree as fans we weren't too bothered in general when we missed out on him until now. But i thought Nigel was always very keen to bring him in? I don't remember whether he declared that Mackie was no longer of interest or whether he just strengthened elsewhere and Mackie was just sort of forgotten by fans and media alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 A pointless exercise im afraid.Any questions of a controversial nature will be ignored or batted away. The timing is good,on the back of three decent performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOrdinary Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I agree. I don't care how much a player costs. All that matters is THE player. If we spent £1m on Brayford alone would he be any better than he is now? A lot of people seem to grumble about how much money we spent (or didn't as the case may be) in the summer, but on the whole i thought we had a pretty good summer and only made one real error. Just because The Puppet said we're willing to spend Barker type fees it doesn't mean that we SHOULD spend that money when there are players Nigel wants for less. I reckon if he'd of bought 11 players on the cheap and they proved to be the quality of Cywka, Bailey and Brayford (ie. an improvement on Teale, Connolly etc) then some people would still be demanding a Barker type fee on 1 (ONE) player. The fact we did or did not spend the fee isn't the problem, it's what we do or don't spend it on. I think refusing to pay £2.5m on Hooper is fine. On what he's acheived so far i think most people would agree that's too much. Yet that signing would of convinced people that the board are ambitious??? However just because that seems acceptable it doesn't seem right that we wouldn't pay out for Mackie and that we just stood there while Billy Sharp was transfered. Then off pops Hulse to cap it all off. I'm not bothered if we never spend £1m on a player again. So long as when our manager identifies 3 or 4 targets, we make serious efforts to get them. To do that i think the board need to realise that you might have to pay slightly over the value sometimes. The one question i'd like answered would be did Nigel have the sufficient support to get his targets. Or does he have to sit and watch targets move to other clubs? Nigel seems to be working with one hand tied behind his back and it's only his sharp eye that has brought in gems like Brayford, Bailey and Cywka on a token budget that has saved the board from even more fan hostility. I just want them to untie his hands. If they did that then maybe Moxey wouldn't of had to play upfront. As for it being a footballing decision to sell Hulse..... i'm sure it was Tom, but did he only do it to try and expand his room to move? Or did he honestly sell our 2 season top scorer to improve his team? Wakey, wakey Mr Glick! great post! someone else who sees it like me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalama Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I think from here-on-in I'm going to refer to any decent signing as a 'cask marque' signing, thus rendering the fee immaterial. Then I'm going to go down the Brunswick and drink 6 pints of Timothy Taylor's landlord to celebrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOrdinary Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 any excuse for a piss up... grreat idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESR Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Mr Glick, are you more interested in signing players for a 'Barker type fee' or are you trying to conjure up enough support to get your own phrase into a dictionary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Dave Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Is this how are board are negotiating with other clubs? No wonder we have trouble signing people. Am I the only one who's not bothered if they cost nearly £1m or not. Just that we sign people. We signed Bailey and Brayford for less than that (I believe both together came close to £1m or 'a Barker'). If we sign 4 more of them I'd be much happier than one 'Barker' signing. It's not about the cost of one players but the level of investment throughout the team. P.S. I'm not trying to ban anyone from saying 'Barker Type Fee' (BTF) just that it seems everyone is hung up on that 1 thing rather than, as I say, the investment in the team in total. I am going Barking mad!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derby_Dave Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Agreed Rumours are that Nigel was worried about injuries for Sharp - dont know why - or maybe he wasnt worth what Doncaster were after. On Mackie - how many of us were that bothered that we didnt try and sign him this summer - or should I say how many suddenly became bothered after he scored 8 in quick succession for QPR this year? It is a similar thing over Varney too I honestly do not know one fan (personally) that wanted him any where near our team. Yet a couple of goals for Blackpool and he is the best player we have sold since Colin Todd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrOrdinary Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 ive been saying it for the past year that varney is amazing, i mean not out in public, im not stupid he got played in the wrong position, or when he wasnt fit, and so every one hated him, poor fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramalama Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 He'll still be a Derby player at the end of the season, maybe he'll come back with a new confidence. Then again if he continues to do well we'll probably just sell him to Blackpool at a knockdown price just to get him off the wage bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramesses Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 ive been saying it for the past year that varney is amazing, i mean not out in public, im not stupid he got played in the wrong position, or when he wasnt fit, and so every one hated him, poor fella His contract gives him one BTF per year. Poor fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.