Transfer rumours

[Dex]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Why from January and ignoring the other season and a half under Warne?

All right. I'll do last season, and counter with the season before last the young lads were a year younger, and we'd just had our academy ravaged having come out of admin. If they weren't good enough for last season, then they wouldn't have been ready the season before either.

 

In the first half of the season, we had a three goal lead 6 times. Half of them had late goals (after 60th minute), and of the remaining 3, two were against decent opposition (P'Boro and Barnsley) and the other game we did bring on academy players.

12th August Burton 0-3 Derby (6' 78' 84') - Late goals.

26th August Peterborough 2-4 Derby (all 4 goals in the first half, but against some decent opposition).

31st October Derby 4-0 Northampton (All 4 goals pre 49'. I'll give you this one but we did bring on both Fornah (68') and Brown (77')).

11th November Derby 3-0 Barnsley (goals scored by 63rd minute, again against decent opposition).

5th December Derby 3-0 Fleetwood (FL Trophy game, two goals scored after 77')

9th December Leyton Orient 0-3 (last goal scored in 79')

So in the course of the season, there was really only Exeter and Port Vale where it would have been reasonable to blood a youngster. I can't speak for the decision at the time, but I stand behind my point that there really wasn't much to go for especially considering we were hunting down automatic promotion.

 

 

 

 

[Crewton]

Weren't we in the running for the Icelandic striker who ended up at Preston, or was that just conjecture?

[Srg]

18 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Weren't we in the running for the Icelandic striker who ended up at Preston, or was that just conjecture?

Midfielder.

[Eddie]

I think we need a name which encapsulates this new phenomenon on DCFCFans.

Basically, we have the equivalent of Godwin's Law (as a thread ages, the likelihood of Hitler or Nazis being mentioned increases), only in our case, in any thread irrespective of context, the mention of Warne increases.

It's why I think that contributing to this website is a waste of my time, and have done for some time. Meanwhile, I've got some wet paint to watch closely.

Edited September 6 by Eddie

[rynny]

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

In 21/22, Thompson got 1521 minutes across 23 league games under Rooney. He then got only 160 minutes under Warne across 10 games in L1 (22/23), and was effectively pushed out the door by bringing in White. His game time only increased to 708 league minutes in 23/24

I'm sure his game time last season would have been more if he wasn't injured for around 3-4 months.

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Dex said:

All right. I'll do last season, and counter with the season before last the young lads were a year younger, and we'd just had our academy ravaged having come out of admin. If they weren't good enough for last season, then they wouldn't have been ready the season before either.

 

In the first half of the season, we had a three goal lead 6 times. Half of them had late goals (after 60th minute), and of the remaining 3, two were against decent opposition (P'Boro and Barnsley) and the other game we did bring on academy players.

12th August Burton 0-3 Derby (6' 78' 84') - Late goals.

26th August Peterborough 2-4 Derby (all 4 goals in the first half, but against some decent opposition).

31st October Derby 4-0 Northampton (All 4 goals pre 49'. I'll give you this one but we did bring on both Fornah (68') and Brown (77')).

11th November Derby 3-0 Barnsley (goals scored by 63rd minute, again against decent opposition).

5th December Derby 3-0 Fleetwood (FL Trophy game, two goals scored after 77')

9th December Leyton Orient 0-3 (last goal scored in 79')

So in the course of the season, there was really only Exeter and Port Vale where it would have been reasonable to blood a youngster. I can't speak for the decision at the time, but I stand behind my point that there really wasn't much to go for especially considering we were hunting down automatic promotion.

22/23 should be included - we didn't lose all of our highly promising youngsters. In fact, in the 3 age groups under the likes of Sibley and Cashin, the only youngsters we lost during or after admin are Williams and Ebiowei. The next most promising is still with us - DRobinson. From the year below them, only Kellyman was lost. The same age group as DBrown, Hawkins, Cox, KRobinson.

Either way, 3-1 up vs MK Dons and we only used 4 subs, leaving Aghatise and Oduroh on the bench. 4-0 vs Accrington and Stearman comes on instead of Rooney. 5-0 vs Torquay with Smith and Collins coming off the bench with Aghatise unused. Only 6 subs named in a 3-0 cup game vs Barnsley

In 23/24, we beat Fleetwood 3-0 in the EFL Trophy. John-Jules and Nelson brought on with DBrown unused. 2-0 vs Lincoln in the same competition, and we only use 4 subs despite DRobinson and DBrown being on the bench. Losing 3-1 vs Crewe and we bring Bradley and Waghorn on, only use 4 subs, and leave Cox, DRobinson, DBrown and Weston on the bench.

In the league, we were 3-0 up vs Burton and bring Elder and Wilson on but leave Rooney on the bench l. 2-0 vs Carlisle and only 3 subs used but left DRobinson on the bench. 3-0 vs Barnsley and only 4 subs used hut leave DRobinson and Weston on the bench. 3-0 vs Leyton Orient and we bring John-Jules on instead of Fapetu. 3-0 vs Exeter and Thomspon stays on the bench. 3-0 vs Port Vale but Thompson stays on the bench again despite only using 4 subs. 3-0 vs Bristol and DRobinson stays on the bench.

There's enough evidence there for opportunities being there but not given.

Fornah turned 24 2 weeks after we signed him, so I don't know why you've included him as an academy player.

 

1 hour ago, rynny said:

I'm sure his game time last season would have been more if he wasn't injured for around 3-4 months.

True..he missed a third of the season. Proportionally, he would have featured for 1062 mins if not for injury.

[jono]

10 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Or you could read the whole sentence: "...start producing home grown strikers or start actually looking further afield then this tale of woe is going to be extended indefinitely"

Certainly the extra finance or the need for it could be gained by having home grown players, and I did read that .. but we are still talking about either making or spending money in the short term.
 I believe now that the club has some foundations then the academy will flourish again but that isn’t going to happen in one season, whether Warne plays youngsters or not.. I also think Brown didn’t go out on loan for a good reason. No Warne didn’t give many young players many chances last season because he had a very particular job to do. I suspect if we can get ourselves to a “safe” position in the table as this season unfolds we may well see the beginnings of a new strategy. 
It seems we are drifting back to polarised camps. I prefer to see how it unfolds rather than casting doubts on the management and owners based on one’s own fixed position. Do you think they don’t see the things we see and have a plan ? 

[richinspain]

According to some posters on here Liam Thompson shouldn't even be at the club, let alone getting more minutes. I personally rate him.

[Terry Hennessy]

I must admit I don't get this "Warne won't play the youngsters" malarkey.

I dont claim to be ITK...but logically if the Manager of the U21s (Jake Buxton) thinks one of his players is ready for the 1st team, he'll have the conversation with the 1st team coaches and he'll start training with the 1st team. Again, logically they in turn will assess the player - and if he's better than what he's got then no doubt he'll play them. If, more likely, they're not as good - they'll (probably) go out on loan in the lower leagues to gain experience of men's football... which as we know is way different to the U21s.

I dont know if I'm being too simplistic, but it seems entirely feasible to me that it's the way it works. So correct me if I'm wrong. 

Too many Armchair Managers on here seem to think they know best. If you think you're good enough why not send your cv to David Clowes telling him where he and Warne are going wrong and offer your services...

[Comrade 86]

12 hours ago, richinspain said:

According to some posters on here Liam Thompson shouldn't even be at the club, let alone getting more minutes. I personally rate him.

Decent squad option at very least and at 22, he still has time on his side. Seems to work very hard too, during games and in training, so there's no reason to believe he'll stop improving either. He could attract a half decent fee too, with another season under his belt. He's certainly does not look out of place in this division.

[Will Hughes Hair]

I’ve got to say I’ve just read and enjoyed the exchanges between @Ghost of Clough and @Dex.

To a degree I think they’re both right. Warne has prioritised results and minimised the risk associated with that by limiting youth minutes. That’s fine but it does somewhat sacrifice youth development and in particular any ‘fast track’ development.

Considering the investment in the academy it is an interesting discussion. Nobody is suggesting Warne’s hopeless or needs to go, so it’s a bit disappointing to see people suggesting it’s a stick to beat Warne. 
 

[CornwallRam]

On 06/09/2024 at 17:56, jono said:

Certainly the extra finance or the need for it could be gained by having home grown players, and I did read that .. but we are still talking about either making or spending money in the short term.
 I believe now that the club has some foundations then the academy will flourish again but that isn’t going to happen in one season, whether Warne plays youngsters or not.. I also think Brown didn’t go out on loan for a good reason. No Warne didn’t give many young players many chances last season because he had a very particular job to do. I suspect if we can get ourselves to a “safe” position in the table as this season unfolds we may well see the beginnings of a new strategy. 
It seems we are drifting back to polarised camps. I prefer to see how it unfolds rather than casting doubts on the management and owners based on one’s own fixed position. Do you think they don’t see the things we see and have a plan ? 

It is probable that developing players through the academy costs more than bringing in first team players. Of course it all depends how many the academy produces and how much the first team players we acquire cost. However, the academy costs about £5m a year to run, and I reckon produces 2 players per season. I don't think the cost of acquiring first team players is currently above £2.5m each.

Obviously it's not a straightforward calculation as the amortisation cost of academy players is much lower and their wages are generally lower - although it appears not in Sibley's case. Spending on the academy is also outside P&S, but it still is a cost to the club/owner. I suspect that some academy funded facilities benefit the senior squad, so it could help towards moving some expense outside P&S. There's also the 'jackpot' possibility that we could produce the next Jude Bellingham.

The point is though, that academy development of players is not a cheap option. 

[CBX1985]

On 09/09/2024 at 07:08, CornwallRam said:

It is probable that developing players through the academy costs more than bringing in first team players. Of course it all depends how many the academy produces and how much the first team players we acquire cost. However, the academy costs about £5m a year to run, and I reckon produces 2 players per season. I don't think the cost of acquiring first team players is currently above £2.5m each.

Obviously it's not a straightforward calculation as the amortisation cost of academy players is much lower and their wages are generally lower - although it appears not in Sibley's case. Spending on the academy is also outside P&S, but it still is a cost to the club/owner. I suspect that some academy funded facilities benefit the senior squad, so it could help towards moving some expense outside P&S. There's also the 'jackpot' possibility that we could produce the next Jude Bellingham.

The point is though, that academy development of players is not a cheap option. 

It doesn't cost that to acquire one player, but the benefit is that every few years you develop a prodigy that funds for a half decade.  Then, the rest is gravy.  Want a guarantee, however: buy a toaster.

[brady1993]

On 09/09/2024 at 16:08, CornwallRam said:

It is probable that developing players through the academy costs more than bringing in first team players. Of course it all depends how many the academy produces and how much the first team players we acquire cost. However, the academy costs about £5m a year to run, and I reckon produces 2 players per season. I don't think the cost of acquiring first team players is currently above £2.5m each.

Obviously it's not a straightforward calculation as the amortisation cost of academy players is much lower and their wages are generally lower - although it appears not in Sibley's case. Spending on the academy is also outside P&S, but it still is a cost to the club/owner. I suspect that some academy funded facilities benefit the senior squad, so it could help towards moving some expense outside P&S. There's also the 'jackpot' possibility that we could produce the next Jude Bellingham.

The point is though, that academy development of players is not a cheap option. 

I think that's not the right way to analyse it. I'll work with the numbers you have here because I've not super looked into the costs and 2 per year seems about right as a baseline aim. 

The true measure we are looking at in clinical terms is producing players per year at a combined value higher than that 5m mark. I think perhaps the best way to look at value here is 'What is the maximum we could have realistically sold the player for in the time period we could have practically kept them in normal circumstances?'. Basically the plan isn't to produce 2.5m players, it's to produce players at a much higher mark than that. I think theoretically you can see why that will be possible (which I'll come to) and anecdotally we have evidence that is the case.

If we consider the time period we started to signs of the academy flourishing before the upheaval of administration the prospects we brought through were Bird, Knight, Whittaker, Sibley, Buchanan, Thompson, Cashin and Ebosele. (Loosely I'm excluding players the likes Plange as they aren't academy products per se). It's not hard to say that had we not been hit by administration and had they been managed appropriately the value we could have got from this set is on average higher than 2.5m which puts you in effective profit over a 5 year span for the academy. You can also bring in the likes of Archie Brown and Omari Kellyman to this equation as players we could have well kept if not for administration who could have commanded strong fees.

Ultimately though it all comes down to markets and geography. When buying senior players we are actively competing against every club at a similar level and the competitive advantages we can leverage aren't great. It's more or less an even playing field that's won or lost in spending power. Because of that in spending 2.5m you are more often than at best getting 2.5m worth of value. However at an academy level you are competing more or less against teams who are geographically close to you as which academy somebody goes to is significantly dictated by that.

Have you never wondered why Derby as a club is disproportionately big compared to Derby as a city? It's at least in part because we can pull people from a much larger area than average because we aren't encroached by other clubs.

Look at where Derby is on a map; it's 12 miles before you hit another club in the football league, within a 25 mile radius there is only Forest who are a similar size and at a 50 mile radius you've got Sheff United, Sheff Wednesday, Villa, Birmingham, Wolves, Leicester and Stoke. So 1 competitor at a near-ish distance and only 7 at a medium distance, which isn't to mention there is no other competitor aside from Nottingham directly east of us. That's a significantly less competitive market for talent acquisition and one where we can more easily create an edge by being known as good academy and a club that has a direct through line to first team football. Essentially 5m spent at this level goes far far further. Critically though that investment can only be realised if you fully buy into it as a club.

If I'm brutally honest, I think it's likely the academy is the only way we can reliably carve out a path of becoming a club that can sustain being in the premiership. I'm not talking fluking a promotion and staying there for a couple seasons, I'm talking getting there and sticking there. The only other material path is through being bankrolled by a billionaire with which you are always at the mercy of their whims and for whatever reason there is reasonable evidence to point to that we don't seem a good investment prospect and never have.

[jono]

On 08/09/2024 at 19:48, Will Hughes Hair said:

I’ve got to say I’ve just read and enjoyed the exchanges between @Ghost of Clough and @Dex.

To a degree I think they’re both right. Warne has prioritised results and minimised the risk associated with that by limiting youth minutes. That’s fine but it does somewhat sacrifice youth development and in particular any ‘fast track’ development.

Considering the investment in the academy it is an interesting discussion. Nobody is suggesting Warne’s hopeless or needs to go, so it’s a bit disappointing to see people suggesting it’s a stick to beat Warne. 
 

Should X academy player be put in the squad ?

I reckon if X is a genius in the making, there is no shadow of a doubt that Warne would have him in the squad

it gets tricky though when X is clearly a prospect but is he battering the door down with repeated good performances in the U21’s .. He just might make it 

So when you are in your first season in a new league or in a lower league with a desperate need to get promoted it has to be about balancing risk. I think this is what Warne has been faced with.

For me, I’d always have an automatic place on the bench for youth so that they can be given a run out if circumstances allow. 9 subs now so no forced compromise and the option available. I’d also think it would be beneficial in terms of simple motivation. 
 

Honest question, apart from Brown, which academy players are worthy of the place on the bench for Saturdays game ? 

[Ghost of Clough]

7 hours ago, brady1993 said:

I think that's not the right way to analyse it. I'll work with the numbers you have here because I've not super looked into the costs and 2 per year seems about right as a baseline aim. 

The true measure we are looking at in clinical terms is producing players per year at a combined value higher than that 5m mark. I think perhaps the best way to look at value here is 'What is the maximum we could have realistically sold the player for in the time period we could have practically kept them in normal circumstances?'. Basically the plan isn't to produce 2.5m players, it's to produce players at a much higher mark than that. I think theoretically you can see why that will be possible (which I'll come to) and anecdotally we have evidence that is the case.

If we consider the time period we started to signs of the academy flourishing before the upheaval of administration the prospects we brought through were Bird, Knight, Whittaker, Sibley, Buchanan, Thompson, Cashin and Ebosele. (Loosely I'm excluding players the likes Plange as they aren't academy products per se). It's not hard to say that had we not been hit by administration and had they been managed appropriately the value we could have got from this set is on average higher than 2.5m which puts you in effective profit over a 5 year span for the academy. You can also bring in the likes of Archie Brown and Omari Kellyman to this equation as players we could have well kept if not for administration who could have commanded strong fees.

Ultimately though it all comes down to markets and geography. When buying senior players we are actively competing against every club at a similar level and the competitive advantages we can leverage aren't great. It's more or less an even playing field that's won or lost in spending power. Because of that in spending 2.5m you are more often than at best getting 2.5m worth of value. However at an academy level you are competing more or less against teams who are geographically close to you as which academy somebody goes to is significantly dictated by that.

Have you never wondered why Derby as a club is disproportionately big compared to Derby as a city? It's at least in part because we can pull people from a much larger area than average because we aren't encroached by other clubs.

Look at where Derby is on a map; it's 12 miles before you hit another club in the football league, within a 25 mile radius there is only Forest who are a similar size and at a 50 mile radius you've got Sheff United, Sheff Wednesday, Villa, Birmingham, Wolves, Leicester and Stoke. So 1 competitor at a near-ish distance and only 7 at a medium distance, which isn't to mention there is no other competitor aside from Nottingham directly east of us. That's a significantly less competitive market for talent acquisition and one where we can more easily create an edge by being known as good academy and a club that has a direct through line to first team football. Essentially 5m spent at this level goes far far further. Critically though that investment can only be realised if you fully buy into it as a club.

If I'm brutally honest, I think it's likely the academy is the only way we can reliably carve out a path of becoming a club that can sustain being in the premiership. I'm not talking fluking a promotion and staying there for a couple seasons, I'm talking getting there and sticking there. The only other material path is through being bankrolled by a billionaire with which you are always at the mercy of their whims and for whatever reason there is reasonable evidence to point to that we don't seem a good investment prospect and never have.

Transfermarkt gives an interesting trend in player values. If we include players to have left before reaching our first team (Delap, Gordon), and take their current values, then I think we gain a sense of what is possible. The following list is based on what scholar intakes they would have been part of:

2017: JBrown, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Whittaker = £22.2m
2018: Cashin, Ebosele, ABrown, Sibley, LThompson, Stretton, Plange = £15.5m
2019: Bardell, Delap = £8.1m
2020: Williams, Draper = £0.5m
2021: DRobinson, Ebiowei, KGordon, Weston, Draper = £2.9m
2022*: Grant, Kellyman = £1.5m

That list also shows how a couple of poor intakes coincided with a drop in U21 results (which coincidentally coincided with recovering from admin).
* DBrown, Cox, KRobinson, etc don't currently have a Transfermarkt value

 

2 hours ago, jono said:

Should X academy player be put in the squad ?

I reckon if X is a genius in the making, there is no shadow of a doubt that Warne would have him in the squad

it gets tricky though when X is clearly a prospect but is he battering the door down with repeated good performances in the U21’s .. He just might make it 

So when you are in your first season in a new league or in a lower league with a desperate need to get promoted it has to be about balancing risk. I think this is what Warne has been faced with.

For me, I’d always have an automatic place on the bench for youth so that they can be given a run out if circumstances allow. 9 subs now so no forced compromise and the option available. I’d also think it would be beneficial in terms of simple motivation. 
 

Honest question, apart from Brown, which academy players are worthy of the place on the bench for Saturdays game ? 

But we aren't talking about putting these youngster in the first team squad. It's about giving them some first team minutes as part of their development programme - just like Chirewa and Ozoh have had at Wolves and Palace respectively. We even had the likes of Fapetu and Weston making an impression when they did have a rare first team appearance, only to be pushed back to the U21s for the following game and rarely making the first team squad again. This is when you want to keep them in the squad so they can ride that good form - they either claim a first team place, or they drop back down when their form drops off.

Edited Wednesday at 08:40 by Ghost of Clough

[Magicman]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Transfermarkt gives an interesting trend in player values. If we include players to have left before reaching our first team (Delap, Gordon), and take their current values, then I think we gain a sense of what is possible. The following list is based on what scholar intakes they would have been part of:

2017: JBrown, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Whittaker = £22.2m
2018: Cashin, Ebosele, ABrown, Sibley, LThompson, Stretton, Plange = £15.5m
2019: Bardell, Delap = £8.1m
2020: Williams, Draper = £0.5m
2021: DRobinson, Ebiowei, KGordon, Weston, Draper = £2.9m
2022*: Grant, Kellyman = £1.5m

That list also shows how a couple of poor intakes coincided with a drop in U21 results (which coincidentally coincided with recovering from admin).
* DBrown, Cox, KRobinson, etc don't currently have a Transfermarkt value

 

But we aren't talking about putting these youngster in the first team squad. It's about giving them some first team minutes as part of their development programme - just like Chirewa and Ozoh have had at Wolves and Palace respectively. We even had the likes of Fapetu and Weston making an impression when they did have a rare first team appearance, only to be pushed back to the U21s for the following game and rarely making the first team squad again. This is when you want to keep them in the squad so they can ride that good form - they either claim a first team place, or they drop back down when their form drops off.

Whose Draper ? 

[BobdeBilder]

21 minutes ago, Magicman said:

Whose Draper ? 

Derek Draper. Signed from Swansea 1966 died last month. 😐

[jono]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Transfermarkt gives an interesting trend in player values. If we include players to have left before reaching our first team (Delap, Gordon), and take their current values, then I think we gain a sense of what is possible. The following list is based on what scholar intakes they would have been part of:

2017: JBrown, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Whittaker = £22.2m
2018: Cashin, Ebosele, ABrown, Sibley, LThompson, Stretton, Plange = £15.5m
2019: Bardell, Delap = £8.1m
2020: Williams, Draper = £0.5m
2021: DRobinson, Ebiowei, KGordon, Weston, Draper = £2.9m
2022*: Grant, Kellyman = £1.5m

That list also shows how a couple of poor intakes coincided with a drop in U21 results (which coincidentally coincided with recovering from admin).
* DBrown, Cox, KRobinson, etc don't currently have a Transfermarkt value

 

But we aren't talking about putting these youngster in the first team squad. It's about giving them some first team minutes as part of their development programme - just like Chirewa and Ozoh have had at Wolves and Palace respectively. We even had the likes of Fapetu and Weston making an impression when they did have a rare first team appearance, only to be pushed back to the U21s for the following game and rarely making the first team squad again. This is when you want to keep them in the squad so they can ride that good form - they either claim a first team place, or they drop back down when their form drops off.

That was my point. Get them on the bench so they can have some first team minutes 

[Comrade 86]

4 hours ago, jono said:

Should X academy player be put in the squad ?

I reckon if X is a genius in the making, there is no shadow of a doubt that Warne would have him in the squad

it gets tricky though when X is clearly a prospect but is he battering the door down with repeated good performances in the U21’s .. He just might make it 

So when you are in your first season in a new league or in a lower league with a desperate need to get promoted it has to be about balancing risk. I think this is what Warne has been faced with.

For me, I’d always have an automatic place on the bench for youth so that they can be given a run out if circumstances allow. 9 subs now so no forced compromise and the option available. I’d also think it would be beneficial in terms of simple motivation. 
 

Honest question, apart from Brown, which academy players are worthy of the place on the bench for Saturdays game ? 

Dajaune we already know a bit about and frankly, I'd have had him out on loan based on what I've seen. He's going to be a very good player, but he's still raw and I'd rather he be minded, than thrown into the lion's den. I think Warne has actually made a brave call in retaining him and one not in keeping at all with some of the criticisms being levelled on this thread. 

I see Fapetu and Weston also mentioned, but one is now without a club, which is hardly a ringing endorsement and the other is on loan at National League Boston. I think the suggestion that they should have been on the fringes this year lacks any real objective basis and assumes a greater understanding of their abilities that that of the Academy management team itself. That said, I do believe we have an exceptional young crop en route and that in another year or two, we may see several more homegrown players in the men's team, but the notion we should have several already doesn't seem to be shared by those who actually work with these lads every day and I'd take their opinions over ours until I have a conclusive reason not to.

This year, the brief seems quite obvious; survive and /or consolidate. Achieve this and we can then look to build on integrating any really promising academy graduates in our second season back in what is a tough league. That's my take on the matter, though one not widely held it appears.