davenportram Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Don't be miserable. Give me a link from DET or DCFC site... or quote from Clough/Glick that stating we did bid for Waghorn... or go away. Like this in May http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Waghorn-waiting-game-Rams/story-11555130-detail/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diag Ram Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I previously thought that Clough was in the wrong and it was his poor tactics that were affecting results, but following the empty promises made by the board in the last 3 months or so, I've changed my mind! Didn't Glick come out and say that the money will be available? Did he hope that people would have erased it from their minds? Typical trash from him anyway considering the loan market instead of transfers. Think we desparately need a big striker to keep this run going, if we could score a few more goals we'd be a real force in this division, the defence and keeper are some of the best in the league! Unfortunately though Glick can't see through the bank notes to see that a small short term investment in a striker would give us a real chance to rake it in in the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Suit Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 You're missing the point completely. What about "key signings" Glick was talking about? it's the fact Glick has been talking about signing these players for months and they haven't materialised. If there was no intention to sign them then don't lie to the fans. spin! spin! spin! spin! Not imressed with these 10(!!!!!!!) signings though. What about some quality not quantity? Fielding, Ward and Robinson deals done and dusted back in January. Maguire and Legzdins are benchwarmers. Tyson is poor player and sicknote. Riggott will never play again. Shackell is a great signing no doubts. Bryson isn't a world beater tbh. Is he better than Green? Kilbane... oh dear. Almost agree with everything apart from: Bryson , on his first 5 games he is miles better than Green Riggott - I hope he plays again or its awfull judgement by the club to offer him a contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagerbob Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Glick and his americans are leading the charge to have the football league self sufficient. He is certainly putting more time and effort into this than he is persuaded our investors to throw more money so we can keep up with leicester/brighton/hull/ipswichs spending. So why is everyone so suprised? In his defence, we dont want to go the same was as half of La liga, where they are all close to going out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Glick and his americans are leading the charge to have the football league self sufficient. He is certainly putting more time and effort into this than he is persuaded our investors to throw more money so we can keep up with leicester/brighton/hull/ipswichs spending. So why is everyone so suprised? In his defence, we dont want to go the same was as half of La liga, where they are all close to going out of business. You have absolutely no evidence to back that assertion whatsoever, unless you have access to Glick's phone, mail and email. Going back to Glick's words over the summer - I agree, it's deeply dissapointing. But he and Clough mentioned the importance of unloading players and I think they greatly underestimated how unnattractive players like Bywater and Leacock are to other clubs. In short, if we sold them, we'd probably have our striker by now and we probably wouldn't have so much to complain about. When we talk about "investment", it's pretty clear that transfer fees are not the problem, it's wages. We bid £750k for Sammon last January and I think that proved that. It's pretty clear that the club is intent on sorting its finances out and to do that you have to have a water-tight wage structure which you can not break. That unfortunately means there's a very fine line when you can and can't sign players. Waghorn's wages were clearly affordable, and we seemed quite willing to spend a couple of million on him. If Billy Sharp was available for £3m we'd probably pay for it, so long as he played for £500 a week. Glick hasn't lied to us, necessarily. But my advice to him in future is not to make big promises to fans based on massive assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You have absolutely no evidence to back that assertion whatsoever, unless you have access to Glick's phone, mail and email. Going back to Glick's words over the summer - I agree, it's deeply dissapointing. But he and Clough mentioned the importance of unloading players and I think they greatly underestimated how unnattractive players like Bywater and Leacock are to other clubs. In short, if we sold them, we'd probably have our striker by now and we probably wouldn't have so much to complain about. When we talk about "investment", it's pretty clear that transfer fees are not the problem, it's wages. We bid £750k for Sammon last January and I think that proved that. It's pretty clear that the club is intent on sorting its finances out and to do that you have to have a water-tight wage structure which you can not break. That unfortunately means there's a very fine line when you can and can't sign players. Waghorn's wages were clearly affordable, and we seemed quite willing to spend a couple of million on him. If Billy Sharp was available for £3m we'd probably pay for it, so long as he played for £500 a week. Glick hasn't lied to us, necessarily. But my advice to him in future is not to make big promises to fans based on massive assumptions. Well why has he brought in Kilbane and Riggott, who are ex prem players and you can guarantee will be on high wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsRam Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Well why has he brought in Kilbane and Riggott, who are ex prem players and you can guarantee will be on high wages. I don't think you can guarantee either of them will be on high wages. Riggott wasn't exactly spoiled for choice was he? Just because they have played in PL doesn't mean they still command PL wages. There's no way our board would have sanctioned either of them on high wages imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Well why has he brought in Kilbane and Riggott, who are ex prem players and you can guarantee will be on high wages. Rigott's been signed on a pay-as-you-pay basis and do you really think Kilbane is still on that much? He's probably haved to have halved his wage demands in recent seasons, otherwise he would never have signed for Huddersfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Rigott's been signed on a pay-as-you-pay basis and do you really think Kilbane is still on that much? He's probably haved to have halved his wage demands in recent seasons, otherwise he would never have signed for Huddersfield. He was on loan to Huddersfield from Hull, where he couldn't get a game he did apparently half his wages from the Premier League contract he was on at Hull but you can safely say that unless Hull are paying a proportion of this wages he is going to be on at least £7-8000 a week. Would you say that is a good use of our limited resources I would say not. With Riggott I thought he had signed a one year contract if he was on a pay as you play with his record it is unlikely he would earn much at all. The way these things work although he would get nowhere near what he used to get as an ex PL player his salary is likely to be significant to Derby County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Brilliant thread, Riggott and Kilbane on high wages.. One is on pay as you play deal, the other one we will probably be going halves on with Hull like they did when he was at Huddersfield. and all our signings are crap, explains why we have started the season so badly then. I am not fussed based on the fact that upfront we have Steve Davies gradually getting back to full fitness and is able to score goals, and while he may not be experienced Hendrick is more than good enough to play at this level. I am happy with the current squad, could do with perhaps two or three, but glad we didn't fall outside the FFP rules just for a gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 He was on loan to Huddersfield from Hull, where he couldn't get a game he did apparently half his wages from the Premier League contract he was on at Hull but you can safely say that unless Hull are paying a proportion of this wages he is going to be on at least £7-8000 a week. Would you say that is a good use of our limited resources I would say not. With Riggott I thought he had signed a one year contract if he was on a pay as you play with his record it is unlikely he would earn much at all. The way these things work although he would get nowhere near what he used to get as an ex PL player his salary is likely to be significant to Derby County. Well I'd be surprised if Kilbane was earning £7-8k, and if he was, I'd again be surprised if we were willing to pay for all of it. And Rigott is absolutely on a pay-as-you-play contract. Hate to use this source, but when I searched for it, the Mirror was the first thing that came up and the DET said the same thing: Chris Riggott has completed his return to Derby, signing a one-year contract at the club where he began his career over a decade ago. The 30-year-old has been training with the Rams over the summer as he works his way back to full fitness following back surgery at the beginning of the year. Riggott came through the youth system at County and made 100 appearances for the club before moving to Middlesbrough in 2003. He has been plagued by injuries in the past few years and, therefore, his deal is based on appearances. You say he won't be earning much that way - but that's the whole point! Besides, if you were out of the game for two years, I think you'd take the first offer that came to you. Especially if it was from the team you support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Brilliant thread, Riggott and Kilbane on high wages.. One is on pay as you play deal, the other one we will probably be going halves on with Hull like they did when he was at Huddersfield. and all our signings are crap, explains why we have started the season so badly then. I am not fussed based on the fact that upfront we have Steve Davies gradually getting back to full fitness and is able to score goals, and while he may not be experienced Hendrick is more than good enough to play at this level. I am happy with the current squad, could do with perhaps two or three, but glad we didn't fall outside the FFP rules just for a gamble. I don't believe we are going halves with Hull, I know Huddersfield did but they are in a league below, if we are not he will be a significant cost. An appearance based contract is not the same as pay as you play, he will have a basic wage topped up with extras if he does get fit and play some games. There will be a cost how much we can only speculate on but as we already have 2 crock centre-halfs on the books, I would consider it unwise. Agree with you on Hendrick and Davies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I don't believe we are going halves with Hull, I know Huddersfield did but they are in a league below, if we are not he will be a significant cost. An appearance based contract is not the same as pay as you play, he will have a basic wage topped up with extras if he does get fit and play some games. There will be a cost how much we can only speculate on but as we already have 2 crock centre-halfs on the books, I would consider it unwise. Agree with you on Hendrick and Davies. Yeah, but Riggot is on 100k a week aint he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Yeah, but Riggot is on 100k a week aint he If he is on 1k a week basic is that a wise use of limited resources when we are already contracted to pay 2 centre-halfs who have barely played for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I can assure you Riggott is getting paid, he just gets more when he plays a games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dambuster Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Glad we didn't get involved in the last day madness, only the very rich or the very desperate seemed to be taking part. IMO a loan player i.e not a youngster, one who is available to buy is a much better way of checking out fitness, commitment and suitability for our team plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I can assure you Riggott is getting paid, he just gets more when he plays a gamesI was going to say, why give him a year long contract if he is not getting a weekly wage?. If its pay if you play then make him self employed and just pay him per game, simple kkkkkkkk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I can assure you Riggott is getting paid, he just gets more when he plays a games I concur, I saw him in Morrisons Belper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 You have absolutely no evidence to back that assertion whatsoever, unless you have access to Glick's phone, mail and email. Going back to Glick's words over the summer - I agree, it's deeply dissapointing. But he and Clough mentioned the importance of unloading players and I think they greatly underestimated how unnattractive players like Bywater and Leacock are to other clubs. In short, if we sold them, we'd probably have our striker by now and we probably wouldn't have so much to complain about. When we talk about "investment", it's pretty clear that transfer fees are not the problem, it's wages. We bid £750k for Sammon last January and I think that proved that. It's pretty clear that the club is intent on sorting its finances out and to do that you have to have a water-tight wage structure which you can not break. That unfortunately means there's a very fine line when you can and can't sign players. Waghorn's wages were clearly affordable, and we seemed quite willing to spend a couple of million on him. If Billy Sharp was available for £3m we'd probably pay for it, so long as he played for £500 a week. Glick hasn't lied to us, necessarily. But my advice to him in future is not to make big promises to fans based on massive assumptions. I cant remember Glick refering to offloading players when he was trying to get us to renew our season ticket, it was more about players that would enable us to compete in this league through investment, something he has not delivered on. I dont buy into this wages lark, we just havent got the money to pay for a transfer, if wages was such a big problem, then pay a high signing on fee, or better still get in a DOF to help, wonder why its also so quiet in that area as well ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I cant remember Glick refering to offloading players when he was trying to get us to renew our season ticket, it was more about players that would enable us to compete in this league through investment, something he has not delivered on. I dont buy into this wages lark, we just havent got the money to pay for a transfer, if wages was such a big problem, then pay a high signing on fee, or better still get in a DOF to help, wonder why its also so quiet in that area as well ?? Around the time of the season ticket renewals, i think it was Clough who stated that incomings did not depend on outgoings and they would get all their targets even if players weren't shifted first. I'd be really pissed off if i was Clough. Some people will blame him for extending Bywater, Leacocks and Pearsons contracts....but did he have a choice? If they play as we know they can, to replace them would have cost a million or 2. Something we didn't have....and still don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.