Hartley Hare Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The first thing Nigel/Glick will say on february 2 is "we still have time until the end of March to get a right loan deal." "We're very busy in the loan market and looking for the right option for the club." bla bla bla And if it's loans that they're looking at (as has already been said by both Clough and Glick), then why would they be wrong to say that? They do have until the end of March to get loans in. Often the loans don't become available until after the transfer window has closed. Clubs might be wanting to sell, no-one buys so they let the players out on loan. Yes, we'd all rather see the right permanent signings arriving at the club, but I'd also rather see the right loan signings than the wrong permanent signings of the like that we've seen over the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayram Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 And if it's loans that they're looking at (as has already been said by both Clough and Glick), then why would they be wrong to say that? They do have until the end of March to get loans in. Often the loans don't become available until after the transfer window has closed. Clubs might be wanting to sell, no-one buys so they let the players out on loan. Yes, we'd all rather see the right permanent signings arriving at the club, but I'd also rather see the right loan signings than the wrong permanent signings of the like that we've seen over the last few years. They would be wrong because this club cannot progress on any level if it continues to replace the players we have sold with loanees who have no loyalty and bring no permanence to the squad. When used sparingly as a short term measure they are useful, but the way we employ them - to fill gaps in the squad season after season - offer's no continuity in developing a team that can develop and progress together in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 They would be wrong because this club cannot progress on any level if it continues to replace the players we have sold with loanees who have no loyalty and bring no permanence to the squad. When used sparingly as a short term measure they are useful, but the way we employ them - to fill gaps in the squad season after season - offer's no continuity in developing a team that can develop and progress together in the future. In the previous 2 seasons I would agree, but this season we haven't really gone down that road. I am for a player that will improve our team, whether it be permanat or on loan. Sometimes you can get a great youngster on loan, like Scott Sinclair at Swansea. And it isn't always a youngster that can improve the team, stoor and tonge were very good for us and they showed commitment and desire, the main 2 things that people say loan signings don't offer, same as kuqi this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 They would be wrong because this club cannot progress on any level if it continues to replace the players we have sold with loanees who have no loyalty and bring no permanence to the squad. When used sparingly as a short term measure they are useful, but the way we employ them - to fill gaps in the squad season after season - offer's no continuity in developing a team that can develop and progress together in the future. Jayram, you miss the point of what I said. Glick and Clough would be right to say that because it ties in with everything they've previously said about this transfer window. They're concentrating on bringing loans in because they think they'd be best value at the moment, but if the right permanent signing became available then they'd consider it. So why criticise them for saying that and being consistent? We're going to get stiffed by Celtic over Commons, he's worth more than 300k as a player but it's the only deal in town so we either take that or get nothing at the end of the season. Other clubs have players in a similar situation, but perhaps we're content to sign them for nowt at the end of the season and use loans to cover the squad in the meantime? I have no idea, but it's a possibility and makes good financial sense considering that the squad we have should not take us anywhere near relegation. Perish the thought that the people in charge of the club have some long term vision and are prepared to stick to it rather than be swayed by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Now, whether you agree with the vision and the course of action that they've laid out is another matter, and of course there are differing views and rightly so. Criticise the vision by all means, but don't criticise them for having a plan and sticking to it. Perhaps some re-communication or update on the long-term plan would be useful tho'; we're over half way through the original 5 year plan and no sight of it coming to fruition, so it'd be good to get some explanation for that and also what the next steps are and how those steps are intended to support the long-term plan. Loans can be useful, long term loans can be useful and don't have to hold the team back, they've got to be the right loans tho' both in terms of the players' ability and character. To say that "loans are bad, permanent signings are good" as a sweeping statement would be very naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty1 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 In the previous 2 seasons I would agree, but this season we haven't really gone down that road. I am for a player that will improve our team, whether it be permanat or on loan. Sometimes you can get a great youngster on loan, like Scott Sinclair at Swansea. And it isn't always a youngster that can improve the team, stoor and tonge were very good for us and they showed commitment and desire, the main 2 things that people say loan signings don't offer, same as kuqi this season. Swansea signed Sinclair for 800K in the summer. I think it's fair to say that over the past two or three seasons we have more or less based our transfer policy around loan signings - this is not the way to move a football club forward in the long term. I don't mind the occassional loan in the right area if needed, but we have had so many pointless/unfathomable loans that has become too much of a scattergun approach to be productive (Sunu, Vidal, Noble & Bryan Hughes being examples in the last year or so) I agree that Kuqi did a good job for us earlier this season and to a certain degree so did Moore when he came in, but quick fixes for a couple of months aren't the answer any only lead to inconsistency within the squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 and makes good financial sense considering that the squad we have should not take us anywhere near relegation. QUOTE] If we get the 5:01pm on Monday evening and still only have Porter as a striking option I think you'll find that statement coming back to bite you on the 'arris... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 If we get the 5:01pm on Monday evening and still only have Porter as a striking option I think you'll find that statement coming back to bite you on the 'arris... Not gonna happen - we already have Porter and Steve Davies as striker options, plus Cywka and Bueno who could also play there if necessary. And that's without dragging Moxey back into the mix. :eek: I consider my 'arris to be quite safe, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Not gonna happen - we already have Porter and Steve Davies as striker options, plus Cywka and Bueno who could also play there if necessary. And that's without dragging Moxey back into the mix. :eek: I consider my 'arris to be quite safe, thank you. Yes because Steve Davies is as reliable as a wood burning stove... Cywka is out of form, same with Bueno. And none of them solve the issue of providing pace to our attack. I admire your enthusiasm, I really do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Yes because Steve Davies is as reliable as a wood burning stove... Cywka is out of form, same with Bueno. And none of them solve the issue of providing pace to our attack. I admire your enthusiasm, I really do... Thanks Vernak, I guess someone around here has to be.... You stated that Porter was our only striker option, I simply made the case that that statement wasn't true. The relative merits of the other striking options is open for debate, of course, but they are options. If we have to lose Commons to get a pacey striker in, is it worth it to you? Presumably you want to have both Commons and the pacey striker, but in the real world things don't always work out that way. Clough has said for months that he wants to bring some pace into the attack, I trust that he'll do that but the end of the transfer window is not the end of the matter. I'd prefer to see someone brought in on loan with a view to a perm signing in the summer, rather than just a loan with no commitment. That way the loanee has incentive to play well to secure his new contract. And if he's gash then we send him back, no worries. You don't know how reliable Davies is because he's had lots of injuries. Similar to Commons, in fact - he's only strung the appearances together this season, prior to that he was another sick note. If the physio's have managed to get Commons fit and keep him there, why can't they also do the same for Davies? Let the guy have a go at least before you write him off. Clough's bringing him back slowly which is probably the sensible thing to do, I'm sure Davies is really wanting to play as he's out of contract in the summer so he's got all the incentive he should need to work hard and deliver. Cywka was out of form, Clough had been saying for weeks that he wanted to give him a break. Finally he did. Commons is also out of form and yet he's still supposed to be the only answer to our problems? And everyone is in sackcloth and ashes because he's leaving when anyone with half a brain cell knew weeks ago that he was going to be off. Were people really so unprepared for his leaving? P.S. I thought the window shut at midnight, not 5pm....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Thanks Vernak, I guess someone around here has to be.... You stated that Porter was our only striker option, I simply made the case that that statement wasn't true. The relative merits of the other striking options is open for debate, of course, but they are options. If we have to lose Commons to get a pacey striker in, is it worth it to you? Presumably you want to have both Commons and the pacey striker, but in the real world things don't always work out that way. Clough has said for months that he wants to bring some pace into the attack, I trust that he'll do that but the end of the transfer window is not the end of the matter. I'd prefer to see someone brought in on loan with a view to a perm signing in the summer, rather than just a loan with no commitment. That way the loanee has incentive to play well to secure his new contract. And if he's gash then we send him back, no worries. You don't know how reliable Davies is because he's had lots of injuries. Similar to Commons, in fact - he's only strung the appearances together this season, prior to that he was another sick note. If the physio's have managed to get Commons fit and keep him there, why can't they also do the same for Davies? Let the guy have a go at least before you write him off. Clough's bringing him back slowly which is probably the sensible thing to do, I'm sure Davies is really wanting to play as he's out of contract in the summer so he's got all the incentive he should need to work hard and deliver. Cywka was out of form, Clough had been saying for weeks that he wanted to give him a break. Finally he did. Commons is also out of form and yet he's still supposed to be the only answer to our problems? And everyone is in sackcloth and ashes because he's leaving when anyone with half a brain cell knew weeks ago that he was going to be off. Were people really so unprepared for his leaving? P.S. I thought the window shut at midnight, not 5pm....? Of course i'd want both Commons and a pacy striker, we could have Torres up front and he'd struggle if he doesn't get decent service. Commons' & Davies injury problems are chalk and cheese. If you look back at his career stats you'll see, bar last season he's played 30+ games for each club he's signed for, hardly the crock most people label him as... I'd resigned myself to him going weeks ago but I was hoping the board would do the same and get him out the door sooner so we had time to find a replacement. I also thought they wouldn't settle for such dirisory sum. Even in the circumstances £300k is lauaghable... Oh no, hang on, I've just noticed. The £300k we're getting for him is the same we paid Notts County for Davis, therefore we cover the cost of our one perm signing of the window and the board look like they've invested when in fact they haven't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 That money is immediately available to Nigel, so they have invested. Not sure he can use the £300,000 on one player, probably put it towards someone, but we have invested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/sport/Commons-join-Celtic-Rams-accept-offer/article-3151858-detail/article.html Glick says that the money "is available immediately to the manager or whenever he should choose to invest it". Not "was available but we've already spent it so we've got to accept this figure from Celtic". Clough may sign someone, he may not, but at least we know that £300k minimum is available should he choose to do so. As the fee for Ben Davies was of course "undisclosed" then the supposed £300k fee for him is unconfirmed and therefore any linking of the outlay for Davies to the fee received for Commons is speculative at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/sport/Commons-join-Celtic-Rams-accept-offer/article-3151858-detail/article.html Glick says that the money "is available immediately to the manager or whenever he should choose to invest it". Not "was available but we've already spent it so we've got to accept this figure from Celtic". Clough may sign someone, he may not, but at least we know that £300k minimum is available should he choose to do so. As the fee for Ben Davies was of course "undisclosed" then the supposed £300k fee for him is unconfirmed and therefore any linking of the outlay for Davies to the fee received for Commons is speculative at best. Seems awfully convenient don't you thnk... You've also got to take into account the (rumoured) £750k we got for Hulse, was that spent in securing Bueno for the season or is that available to Nigel as well??? If not, where has that gone??? We're the same in so far we want to see our beloved Rams doing well but we differ because some of us know that while the manager's hands are tied by a bunch of tight-fisted f**kwits it's never going to happen whereas other's are happy sticking their head in the sand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 We're the same in so far we want to see our beloved Rams doing well but we differ because some of us know that while the manager's hands are tied by a bunch of tight-fisted f**kwits it's never going to happen whereas other's are happy sticking their head in the sand... Correction, you have your opinion, others may not share it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Correction, you have your opinion, others may not share it. Yes I'm sure i'm the only one who has that opinion lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 You seem to exclude the notion that Clough may be equally complicit in our failure to sign the kinds of players for the kind of sums we all like to see spent...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 You seem to exclude the notion that Clough may be equally complicit in our failure to sign the kinds of players for the kind of sums we all like to see spent...? We all know Nigel isn't perfect. Sometimes I think he lacks his Father's ambition with signings and his scouting network is pretty limited. I do however think he's still the right man for the job because he's Derby through and through and from what you see in interviews and read from him in the papers he's desperate for us to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Yes I'm sure i'm the only one who has that opinion lol And i'm also sure that i'm not the only one with my opinion too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 And i'm also sure that i'm not the only one with my opinion too you have your opinion, others may not share it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 you have your opinion, others may not share it Was just pointing out that it's not only me with my view and lots of people with yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.