RotherhamRam Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I am seeing on numerous forums the trust clough issue re money and transfers. Firstly they set him a wage cap and provisos re wages in club, which Glick admits he has met. The question re trust in transfer market; Clough identified both Barker and Charlie Adams as his targets two summers ago. He was told to choose between them. At the time we still had a number of midfielders on the books but the centre half position was dire with claud davis. He therefore chose Barker and rightly so as his performances last year kept us stable at the back. He is coming back into form. Now if the board had stumped up and paid for his other target we would have Charlie Adams now as well and where would we be. Last summer Hooper did not come as the board had set the wage cap and Hoopers wages would not fit in. Fielding was allowed to return as the board would not pay for two first team keepers. Sold Hulse Commons and Moxey yet when Clough wanted the money for Sammon the money was not there. The sale of Moxey was required to find the cash. At present the board are keen for loan players as it is short term investment not medium or long term. The problem is finding the good ones on loan and then it is when they do well they go else where. 5 transfer windows have now passed with key players identified and not purchased. Brayford and Bailey were brought for development but due to lack of investment on key targets raises questions on whether the funds are there as stated by the board. The other question is in summer Ben Davis was identified but due to the board haggling over price missed out on the summer transfer window. Ben Davis is more than proving his worth and in his second game gets MOM. Now imagine if the board had stumped up money as promise in the summer would Hulse Commons have gone. Imagine at the beginning of the season when the form was good but missing the element Ben Davis brings with set pieces effort and determination. Put Ben Davis in the run with Commons and Hulse. Those close results at the beginning of the season may have swung our way and we would have been better in the league. Moxey would not have had to play up front as cywpka could have played there. The question is not do the board trust Clough; but does the board have funds to back Clough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think most of that is based on guess work and wrong at that. We had a bid accepted for Sammon around 600k.. however Wigan decided to strike also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think most of that is based on guess work and wrong at that. We had a bid accepted for Sammon around 600k.. however Wigan decided to strike also. The bid came in after we had sold Moxey by which time Wigan had already jumped in, hence the Clough was concerned they were about to be out bid. There was a verbal offer two days before the window closed. If they had the money they would have and could have bid then, which would have taken Wigan out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think most of that is based on guess work and wrong at that. We had a bid accepted for Sammon around 600k.. however Wigan decided to strike also. After listening to Clough link on Mrs Ram thread IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUSTING CLOUGH. THEY WILL NOT INVEST. We are suffering from the boards mistakes and the easy sepnding of Jewell and Davis who brought shockers in. Clough calls for investment but at present no investment coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The bid came in after we had sold Moxey by which time Wigan had already jumped in, hence the Clough was concerned they were about to be out bid. There was a verbal offer two days before the window closed. If they had the money they would have and could have bid then, which would have taken Wigan out of the equation. You seem to assume that if we had made a firm bid sooner then Sammon would have come to us. That cannot be assumed. If we had made a firm bid instead of the verbal offer that was reportedly made 2 days before the window closed then Kilmarnock may possibly have accepted it, they may also have stalled our approach. Killie did say in print they wanted to see what other interest there was and were in no hurry to sell. But let's assume that Kille would have accepted our firm offer if we'd made it 2 days earlier. It would then have been up to Sammon to agree terms. His agent would likely have advised his client not to rush as there were likely to be other bids coming as the days drew nearer to the closing of the window. That would have given Wigan or A.N. Other club opportunity to talk with Sammon and clinch the deal. So we'd still likely be without the player. The closer you get to the end of the window, the more the power moves to the player. There are many variables involved in clinching the signing of a new player. The days when a player hearing that Derby County are wanting to sign him would make him jump at the chance are long gone. If we'd offered £1.5 million to Kille and £30k a week to the player then they'd have jumped at it, I'm sure, but nobody in their right mind is going to do that. That would just be reckless. GSE have seen how players have been paid silly money to get them to the club and have seen that their performances have not justified what they've been paid, so they've had to waste even more money paying them off just to get them out of the club. Why should we expect GSE to carry on doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footymadme Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 pleeeeeease, can we have more sensible posts like that please.... oh what a breath of fresh air...nearly blew me hat off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Clough identified both Barker and Charlie Adams as his targets two summers ago. He was told to choose between them. I have never read anything connecting us with Charlie Adam. Have you made this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 with a little bit of googling http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/ram-raid-launched-to-nick-charlie-adam-1.971327 CHARLIE ADAM'S proposed £500,000 move to Blackpool could be hijacked by a late bid from Derby County. The 23-year-old made a major impact during a loan spell with the Seasiders in the second half of last season. He assured his popularity with Blackpool fans by scoring a derby winner against Preston. However, Derby County boss Nigel Clough is believed to have registered an interest in Adam's services, and Blackpool gaffer Ian Hollway is scared he could lose out on the dead-ball expert. Hollway said: "Charlie needs to know how much the town loved him. But I have a horrible feeling that someone else may nip in. "So far Charlie has ignored our calls. He's blamed it on his agent. It seems he is stalling. "Whether he is waiting for another club to come in for him I'm not sure." Adam made just 11 appearances for Rangers last term with the final one in a 1-0 Old Firm derby defeat in December. The left-sided midfielder made his Gers debut as a teenager in May, 2004, before successful loan spells at Ross County and St Mirren, where he won a First Division title medal. Adam played 89 games for Rangers, netting 18 goals. He will be the first player to be sold by Rangers this summer as manager Walter Smith looks to trim his squad and recoup some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonwright Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shows the value of investing in the right players, I guess. Adam = potential 2,000pc return in two years. Don't see many banks offering that at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 with a little bit of googling http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/ram-raid-launched-to-nick-charlie-adam-1.971327 ok....but I've never heard Nigel mention him....and are our transfer targets [sIZE=2]are usually flagged up[/sIZE] [sIZE=4]for all and sundry [/sIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 ok....but I've never heard Nigel mention him....and are our transfer targets [sIZE=2]are usually flagged up[/sIZE] [sIZE=4]for all and sundry [/sIZE] Maybe there are some that aren't and kept quite quiet. You never know. We were linked with a striker from Aberdeen last week that no-one had heard mentioned. I am sure there will be enquiries made about players other than those that are publicised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I have never read anything connecting us with Charlie Adam. Have you made this up? Has your head been buried in the sand?! We were very heavily linked with Charlie Adam. So much so, that when he was all set to sign for Blackpool, we then decleard our interest and the player went AWOL for a while. Holloway was understandably worried that he might be coming to us. Had we stumped up 500k, Adam would have been part of our midfield. We shouldn't necessarily blame the board as maybe it was Nigel that decided not to take the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Has your head been buried in the sand?! We were very heavily linked with Charlie Adam. So much so, that when he was all set to sign for Blackpool, we then decleard our interest and the player went AWOL for a while. Holloway was understandably worried that he might be coming to us. Had we stumped up 500k, Adam would have been part of our midfield. We shouldn't necessarily blame the board as maybe it was Nigel that decided not to take the player. sorry...don't believe a word of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 sorry...don't believe a word of it Google it sunshine. You might learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Google it sunshine. You might learn something. there is absolutely nothing to substantiate this...and it wasnt covered anywhere else or vaildated with quotes.....i remember the delay described below when Adam went back to Rangers to speak to Walter Smith to hear first hand whether he did or did not have a future at Rangers. When Smith told hin "no"...he signed for Blackpool. http://www.blackpool-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/adams_and_barker_deals_hang_in_the_balance_452898/index.shtml sunshine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Google it sunshine. You might learn something. i googled "it sunshine" but nothing came up to do with Derby. I'll get me coat now... it's nearly 5 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 A quick search of this site threw up this thread http://www.dcfcfans.uk/showthread.php?t=1415&highlight=Charlie+Adam Our interest was reported by the Blackpool Evening Gazette as well - local paper reporting it may be reliable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 its the same source (?) everytime,.......half a dozen words. up to other posters to prove the allegation that the board told nigel to chose between barker and adam. I still think its all b-llocks. ...or that we ever were in for adam thats b-llocks too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 ok....but I've never heard Nigel mention him....and are our transfer targets [sIZE=2]are usually flagged up[/sIZE] [sIZE=4]for all and sundry [/sIZE] You moan when he does not mention is targets and when he does mention his targets alerting other clubs of our interests. This was at the beginning of his tenure when he was trying to shuffle the pack. If you read the post by Davenport it does say Clough has registered an interest which means in plain English he wanted him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You moan when he does not mention is targets and when he does mention his targets alerting other clubs of our interests. This was at the beginning of his tenure when he was trying to shuffle the pack. If you read the post by Davenport it does say Clough has registered an interest which means in plain English he wanted him ...and for those who suggest he can't identify players,just imagine what Adam would have done for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.