The Usual Weasel Words From Glick

[WilkoRam]

The issue is, as always with football, we are fans of the club. The club generally means more to us than it does to anyone at the club (chairman, manager, players, etc). So we feel it more, and it affects us a lot when things aren't right. Yet we don't know what's going on inside the club. We want to point the finger of blame and we want to vent our anger at someone but who? Without inside knowledge we don't know so invariably the people who get the brunt are the people in the limelight, the ones who are in front of the camera's and microphones. They're all we see as fans so that's where we direct the abuse. That's why Glick gets the brunt of it, he's in the limelight and there's no sentimental attachment to the club as far as he's concerned.

The good that comes from it, hopefully, is that the anger is seen and acted upon and wherever the problem is within the club it is looked at and rectified.

[vonwright]

There are some that say "Glick Spin" for everything that comes out of his mouth and I think that's harsh, he's not spinning everything he's more than likely telling the truth. It's the actual events themselves that leaves most fans annoyed. For one reason or another the transfer policy isn't working, and who within DCFC is to blame I don't know as I'm not part of the ongoings. It could be a lack of investment and proper negotiating from a board level as demonstrated by constant lower bids for targets and the targets being from lower leagues. But it could equally be a lack of other options as given by the manager and staff, every team misses out on targets but when we do it seems that's it and there's no other option. In the afternoon on deadline day we were told by Nigel there would be no more business to be done. We weren't ringing around our other back-up targets trying to get a deal done, we had missed out on Sammon and that was that.

Something needs to change and the club need to identify where it needs to change.

Every club owner/board is going to 'spin', in the sense of stressing the postives and seeking to give a good overall impression. So I don't consider the act of 'spinning' itself to be a terrible crime.

The problem is the gap between what we need (and what we thought we were getting) on the one hand, and what we ACTUALLY HAVE on the other.

This isn't just about this January window - it's about the last couple of years. We've been very efficient at shipping players out and practically halving the wage bill. We seen preciously little proven quality coming the other way.

This in itself makes it more difficult to sign players, of course - why go to Derby if another, more ambitious club comes in?

But even if you take Glick at his word, it seems we repeatedly fail to identify sufficient targets and then repeatedly fail to bid enough to secure the few players we do go after. This can't always be due to bad luck. Someone provided a list of the transfers by all Championship clubs this January - virtually all saw significant incoming activity. Except us.

So at worst, the club is making false promises about investment. At best they are utterly incompetent at spending money. I personally find the former more plausible than the latter - but either way, it ain't good.

[Hartley Hare]

Every club owner/board is going to 'spin', in the sense of stressing the postives and seeking to give a good overall impression. So I don't consider the act of 'spinning' itself to be a terrible crime.

The problem is the gap between what we need (and what we thought we were getting) on the one hand, and what we ACTUALLY HAVE on the other.

This isn't just about this January window - it's about the last couple of years. We've been very efficient at shipping players out and practically halving the wage bill. We seen preciously little proven quality coming the other way.

This in itself makes it more difficult to sign players, of course - why go to Derby if another, more ambitious club comes in?

But even if you take Glick at his word, it seems we repeatedly fail to identify sufficient targets and then repeatedly fail to bid enough to secure the few players we do go after. This can't always be due to bad luck. Someone provided a list of the transfers by all Championship clubs this January - virtually all saw significant incoming activity. Except us.

So at worst, the club is making false promises about investment. At best they are utterly incompetent at spending money. I personally find the former more plausible than the latter - but either way, it ain't good.

So if we consistently fail to identify transfer targets, why is that Glick's fault? Surely the blame lies with Clough and his scouting team? But everything always comes down to Glick.

[Alph]

I don't like the board. But i for one wont be joining any protest because i don't want them gone until we know who else will come in. But Glick does keep repeating the same lines.

Around about ST renewal time we'll have some targets set. Some are of the region of Derby's record signing. Some are of the lower divisions which has supplied players like Brayford, Bailey and Davies. Some are experienced pros who we feel will add to the youth we already have. Naturally we're looking to build in the striker department because that's where we felt we were under strength.

Then in reality, the experienced players are underwhelming. Hulse remains unreplaced. Because we have a fit Porter, Doyle and Cywka is a striker. We'll only add to that if we feel the value is right. We weren't able to match the fees for some of the more household names we were looking to bring in. We have limited cover in LB and RB. But Nigel has managed to bring in some players like Bailey and Brayford that we're very excited about.

We'll continue though to look to bring in the experience we need when the emergency loan window opens. We also keep looking for the right deal on a striker and have spoken to one or two PL clubs. Everything is in place for players to come in.

And BOOM! he's given your ears an orgasm but we go into next season with no leaders, an unproven strike force, lack of experience and a weak bench. Possibly still no cover for either or both full-back positions.

I'm not saying they don't work hard on deals. I'm not saying that they don't provide enough money. But something they do doesn't work. We knew the problems that faced us this season. Then we sold Hulse and added another problem. Then Commons jumped ship and added another. Then we made a 'profit' on Moxey and further weakened our squad.

We're a bit like a ship full of leaks. We're so slow to plug the holes that more holes are appearing everywhere.

[JohnClement]

This is the correct order in which to do things:

(1) Sign player

(2) reveal this to the media

NOT

(1) Reveal target to media

(2) fail to get target.

[Jayram]

And it's the usual words from you. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but I don't respect the way you go about it, every morning, new post same dig, just carry on your first post.

I merely react to what comes out of the club. The statement from Glick was posted this morning and so I posted on here, as someone else would no doubt have done.

You don't like the fact that I don't like/trust the board and post comments to that effect. I'm sorry but I will post what I want in order to make my point, just like you are entitled to do.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it - simples.

[vonwright]

So if we consistently fail to identify transfer targets, why is that Glick's fault? Surely the blame lies with Clough and his scouting team? But everything always comes down to Glick.

I didn't specify it was Glick's fault. It's possible, I suppose, that Glick told Clough he had x million available if he needed it for the right players - and that Clough turned round and said: "I only want Sammon, I only want to pay a maximum of £450k, and if that doesn't come off I'm happy to lose Commons and Moxey."

In which case, you could argue the manager isn't doing his job. And who would be responsible for that?

[Hartley Hare]

I didn't specify it was Glick's fault. It's possible, I suppose, that Glick told Clough he had x million available if he needed it for the right players - and that Clough turned round and said: "I only want Sammon, I only want to pay a maximum of £450k, and if that doesn't come off I'm happy to lose Commons and Moxey."

In which case, you could argue the manager isn't doing his job. And who would be responsible for that?

Sorry vonwright, I wasn't trying to imply that it was your view that everything was Glick's fault. But some people do take that view, and it was that attitude in others that I was challenging.

[vonwright]

Sorry vonwright, I wasn't trying to imply that it was your view that everything was Glick's fault. But some people do take that view, and it was that attitude in others that I was challenging.

No worries. I understand.

[WilkoRam]

At least I think the majority are in agreement that something isn't right and that we're not the most unfortunate club in transfer history (yes that was exaggerating I know). We just can't be sure where the root of the problem is unless we know more from the club, which we're not going to. It's great being a fan sometimes isn't it!

[CraigZ]

Sorry vonwright, I wasn't trying to imply that it was your view that everything was Glick's fault. But some people do take that view, and it was that attitude in others that I was challenging.

But as your post to this effect tagged mine, presumably you WERE implying that this is the view I hold?

I'm actually full of professional admiration for the job Glick's doing. No investment year in, year out but still the people come, clinging to the 'nearly this, nearly that' words like we're just the unluckiest club in the land.

As a fan, however, I think this regime is damaging to my club. It's ineffectual in all but cutting costs. And that last part isn't even opinion - it's fact.

[Hartley Hare]

But as your post to this effect tagged mine, presumably you WERE implying that this is the view I hold?

I'm actually full of professional admiration for the job Glick's doing. No investment year in, year out but still the people come, clinging to the 'nearly this, nearly that' words like we're just the unluckiest club in the land.

As a fan, however, I think this regime is damaging to my club. It's ineffectual in all but cutting costs. And that last part isn't even opinion - it's fact.

Unless you are vonwright AND CraigZ then no, my post to that effect didn't tag yours, it tagged vonwrights. Read back through the thread.

Also, that "last part" of yours isn't fact, it's still just opinion. You have no more of an idea what's going on inside the club than anyone else (unless you are also Tom Glick or Andy Appleby, as well as vonwright :confused:), so you can't say that the regime is only effective in cutting costs. It's just your opinion based on whatever factual information you have and your own perception based on whatever rumour and speculation you've heard. Just like the rest of us. You say that you "think" the regime is damaging to the club, then state that it's a "fact" that the regime is ineffective in all but cutting costs. Well, surely if it's a fact that the regime is ineffective in all but cutting costs then you would know beyond any doubt, not just think, that the regime is damaging to the club?

[CraigZ]

Unless you are vonwright AND CraigZ then no, my post to that effect didn't tag yours, it tagged vonwrights. Read back through the thread.

Also, that "last part" of yours isn't fact, it's still just opinion. You have no more of an idea what's going on inside the club than anyone else (unless you are also Tom Glick or Andy Appleby, as well as vonwright :confused:), so you can't say that the regime is only effective in cutting costs. It's just your opinion based on whatever factual information you have and your own perception based on whatever rumour and speculation you've heard. Just like the rest of us. You say that you "think" the regime is damaging to the club, then state that it's a "fact" that the regime is ineffective in all but cutting costs. Well, surely if it's a fact that the regime is ineffective in all but cutting costs then you would know beyond any doubt, not just think, that the regime is damaging to the club?

I don't want to get into petty pie slinging here but this is your first post (tagging mine) regarding everything being Glick's fault:

But they do back Clough's judgement in terms of incoming player selection. And Clough backs Glick's judgement in the value of incoming players. They work together. But for some reason it's always all Glick's fault....

Now to explain the second part. So far, our owners have cuts costs and reduced the debt by slashing the wage bill and offloading players. The result is that we're roughly on course to finish where we have for the past three seasons again. That's fact. Gates are also diminishing. That's fact.

It's been a long-standing debate as to whether a healthier bank balance alone equals 'progress'. For you, Hartley, it probably does. Therefore, to you, the current regime is not damaging, which I accept. For me a healthier bank balance alone doesn't equal progress so, therefore, I think the regime is damaging - but I certainly can't claim that last bit as fact.

[Gary Teale]

If the board really did trust Cloughs judgement they would have given him more money to actually buy players and not just use loans. Who have we actually signed as in are derby county players in the last 2 windows? Davies, roberts, bailey and brayford there may be another but I wouldn't say that's really backing the manager. They keep saying there is more value in loans but can someone tell me how that is building a team

[CraigZ]

If the board really did trust Cloughs judgement they would have given him more money to actually buy players and not just use loans. Who have we actually signed as in are derby county players in the last 2 windows? Davies, roberts, bailey and brayford there may be another but I wouldn't say that's really backing the manager. They keep saying there is more value in loans but can someone tell me how that is building a team

You're absolutely right - it isn't building a team. The 'value' is apparently in getting players who can do a job without having to pay for them. It can't even be argued that the 'value' is in getting to take a good, long look at a player before buying - because players have come in on loan and done well without us making the deal permanent.

[Scorchedturf]

Even if we did sign a striker for 2 million would he be any good? We are in an era when Andy Carroll is worth 35 million! Throwing money at it isn't the answer, we need to build something organically, I think a lot of NC's ideas are good but increasingly I doubt he is the right person to implement them. I don't think the American investors are ever going to get rich out of owning the club, so I'm not as angry with them as a United fan might be with the Glazers. I honestly think that in 2 years the whole landscape of football will have changed, the clubs can't keep on bucking the market, then maybe we will see clubs from towns winning things as well as clubs from cities.

[Hartley Hare]

I don't want to get into petty pie slinging here but this is your first post (tagging mine) regarding everything being Glick's fault:

But they do back Clough's judgement in terms of incoming player selection. And Clough backs Glick's judgement in the value of incoming players. They work together. But for some reason it's always all Glick's fault....

Now to explain the second part. So far, our owners have cuts costs and reduced the debt by slashing the wage bill and offloading players. The result is that we're roughly on course to finish where we have for the past three seasons again. That's fact. Gates are also diminishing. That's fact.

It's been a long-standing debate as to whether a healthier bank balance alone equals 'progress'. For you, Hartley, it probably does. Therefore, to you, the current regime is not damaging, which I accept. For me a healthier bank balance alone doesn't equal progress so, therefore, I think the regime is damaging - but I certainly can't claim that last bit as fact.

No petty pie slinging CraigZ, just trying to clarify. The last post I made about everything being Glick's fault was in reply to vonwright's post. You then commented on it.

A healthier bank balance equals progress, yes, but only on the financial front. Agreed? You take 1 thing (the only thing about the club that is public knowledge, the lowering of costs) and judge it to be a negative, because the rest of the picture is filled with gaps. You don't have the knowledge of what's going on in the club so you paint your own picture. For you, it's a dark and bleak one. For me, it's a work in progress and isn't complete. We won't know how effective this regime has been until it's reign is over. Lionel Pickering's regime was fantastically effective, good players, great football, new stadium, etc. But it all turned sour before it ended, so as a whole his regime could be judged to have been damaging to the club - a case of short term gain for long term pain. That too is a matter of opinion, but at least it can be based on a completed period in the club's history. We cannot judge GSE until their work here is over - only then will we be able to see the full effect, positive or negative, of their work. Some people just want to write them off now because they don't like where they perceive the club to be at. I won't subscribe to that.

[CraigZ]

No petty pie slinging CraigZ, just trying to clarify. The last post I made about everything being Glick's fault was in reply to vonwright's post. You then commented on it.

A healthier bank balance equals progress, yes, but only on the financial front. Agreed? You take 1 thing (the only thing about the club that is public knowledge, the lowering of costs) and judge it to be a negative, because the rest of the picture is filled with gaps. You don't have the knowledge of what's going on in the club so you paint your own picture. For you, it's a dark and bleak one. For me, it's a work in progress and isn't complete. We won't know how effective this regime has been until it's reign is over. Lionel Pickering's regime was fantastically effective, good players, great football, new stadium, etc. But it all turned sour before it ended, so as a whole his regime could be judged to have been damaging to the club - a case of short term gain for long term pain. That too is a matter of opinion, but at least it can be based on a completed period in the club's history. We cannot judge GSE until their work here is over - only then will we be able to see the full effect, positive or negative, of their work. Some people just want to write them off now because they don't like where they perceive the club to be at. I won't subscribe to that.

Okay, first off, the confusion over the Glick blame saga came because I tagged a post from you to vonwright relating to it. However, you DID tag me in the original post. Hopefully that's that cleared up.

I agree that the lowering of costs equals progress - but only if the playing side is improving too. Otherwise what's the ultimate aim? And herein lies my problem. I believe that our owners' ultimate aim is to make the club as profitable as possible. This can be achieved wholly separately from success on the pitch. Until I see conviction that their aim is to create a team that can challenge for promotion rather than just a cheap one that can tread water, I'll retain that view - and neither they nor you should be surprised at that.

[PeteDerby]

because i don't get sucked in by the "oh, they are American, they must be lying" rubbish that so many do.

If nigel trusts them, then that is good enough for me.

If you're going to steam into people, givin' it the big 'un and telling them to get a grip, you'd probably better arm yourself with a bit more evidence than "Nigel trusts them".

1/. because you don't know whether he does, or whether he's just being professional and not slagging off his employers.

2/. Because even he's said publicly that the situation financially is even tighter than he was led to believe - which might just hint at something, don't you think?

Finally, I've got absolutely nothing against American people and base my GSE criticism on the empirical evidence on their investment performance to date. Google the word if you're struggling to keep up.

There is absolutely nothing more likely to divide supporters than suggesting that anyone who doesn't swallow everything GSE says is stupid, or that anyone who says Clough can't be judged yet until he's had a decent budget to work with, can't themselves imagine that he might also make mistakes.

If you want a debate then fine, but suggest you put the six-guns away first.

[PeteDerby]

If you read Glick's comments today, he says that we bid for Sammon and the bid was accepted, but Wigan gazump'ed us. From that point it was up to the player who to choose and, for some reason I really can't fathom, he chose to move to a Premiership club - fair play to him. Glick also admits in hindsight that they played it wrong by waiting too long before bidding for Sammon, taking 1 last look at the player before deciding he was the man to go for - which I think is understandable given that he's only been scoring regularly this season. So there has been effort made to spend money on players during the January window, not all of that effort has been fruitful but more importantly that effort has not been reckless. We all want to see 7-figure signings, but I for one don't want to see 7-figure sums paid for 5- or 6-figure value players.

Accepted from Wigan belatedly after we'd p1ssed about with daft offers and dithered around for weeks (Glicks own admission) rather than getting a deal done.

But let's not split hairs, I see where you're coming from on the Sammon deal. But it was all too little too late. The need for a replacement for Hulse has been obvious since August. Why, if there's money to spend as they claim, is the club trying to beg loans or leaving until the last day to do one deal?

Very unprofessional. And please don't tell me Porter and Davies might have got fit - 20,000 people knew that wasn't going to happen, without having to bother speaking to the fitness coach or physio.