smiffy Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 We will have 350k very soon ,when Glick f/o, that could pay a player 6.5 k a week. Surely that is enough to pay Shackell, so keep him, he will cost us nothing, plus save us the transfer fee of his replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 We will have 350k very soon ,when Glick f/o, that could pay a player 6.5 k a week. Surely that is enough to pay Shackell, so keep him, he will cost us nothing, plus save us the transfer fee of his replacement. We already owe the board 250k (ish) on transfers made already, Shackell if sold will be for around 1.25k which leaves us with a million. Baring in mind we owe the board 7.7million from last season, I would think our replacement would be somewhere in the region of 600-750k! with a little going back to the board, for the time being! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Think this is the main point Nigel made.[size=3] [size=4]"I think we'll reach a point where we'll have to say if we can't get a good enough replacement in, then we can't do it" [/size][/size][size=3] [size=4]Suppose that's fair enough?[/size][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 We've already rejected £1.2m do doubt hell go for 1.25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Nigel does not want to sell him I can assure you. It is 100% down to money and the fact we have none. No he doesn't. At £1m. But maybe he does at £2m? £3m (say)? He will want to sell if he is offered enough that he thinks he can replace him and imporve the side (you know, make us better than we are now *with* Shackell). It's not rocket science. All it is is exactly what NC has been saying all along. Why people are getting worked up is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It will be a bad, bad day if/when we sell Shackell, almost a known quantity and we know how he will perform. It seems like a big gamble to me, because with Barker out and so many young centre halves, if we don't bring anyone in as good, with the same sort of experience then we will obviously feel the brunt of it within the results over the season. Not irreplaceable and i'm sure there are better centre halves out there but he is very consistent and a known quality! That I can agree with. With Barker out it is a big gamble. The big question is at what price is Nigel willing to take that gamble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 We already owe the board 250k (ish) on transfers made already, Shackell if sold will be for around 1.25k which leaves us with a million. Baring in mind we owe the board 7.7million from last season, I would think our replacement would be somewhere in the region of 600-750k! with a little going back to the board, for the time being! 1. I guess you mean the "owners" rather than "board". 2. Why do you think that will be paid back immediately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm a bit bemused on how you come to that conclusion. I have no doubt that if Shackell is sold it will have been down to Clough and only Clough. The board give him his budget, and he decides who to keep, who to get rid of, who to buy. This is what everyone at the club appears to say. This is how it appears from what we see happen. I've never even heard "internet rumours" of the club forcing Clough into particular decisions. I'm sure NC would not take that and would be off immediately. So... Why do you think the opposite? The fact that the boards plan to be self-sustaining simply doesn't work unless we buy low & sell high. They'll be quite happy to cash in on any assests we produce and tread water in the vain hope that we get 4-5 academy products blossoming at the same time to take us to the promised land. As for Nigel standing for it, he's stood for every lousy card he's been dealt with by the board so far. If you think for one second the board's philosophy doesn't impact who he's able to buy & sell you're living in the clouds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The fact that the boards plan to be self-sustaining simply doesn't work unless we buy low & sell high. They'll be quite happy to cash in on any assests we produce and tread water in the vain hope that we get 4-5 academy products blossoming at the same time to take us to the promised land. I agree with you up to the "tread water" part. If you "buy low & sell high" doesn't that mean you have cash to improve where we are? Seems sensible to me. As for Nigel standing for it, he's stood for every lousy card he's been dealt with by the board so far. Which lousy cards? "We're losing money hand-over-fist. You need to come in, get rid of the expensive crap and get in better cheaper players"? Wasn't that how he came to us? It seems fair to me and fair to him. He thinks he can work with that and I think he has been doing well. If you think for one second the board's philosophy doesn't impact who he's able to buy & sell you're living in the clouds... You mean the owner's philosophy? Yes, them not injecting cash means you have to work in this way. Was this even a topic in the thread? I stated the board wouldn't force NC to sell a player, it would be his choice. Are you arguing with that or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 In simple terms most of us don't like selling one of our better players BUT we have to trust Nigel on this one. We have no idea whatsoever what figure the club values Shackell at. Remember as good as Shacks is in the air he can't pass for toffee. If we can get a better centre back AND free up money to add to the other potential sales for a new striker then I can see where Nigel is coming from. As I say either we trust him or we don't I suppose. The club and Nigel have said ."We don't have to sell". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 1. I guess you mean the "owners" rather than "board". 2. Why do you think that will be paid back immediately? Not immediately, obviously but they'll want some returns or at least something to cushion the blow of another loss this year. They're in this to make profits, and unfortunately for us their way of making profits isn't the big gamble of promotion but more of a case of having a squad on low wages at a young age that they can sell on later for profits, and then repeat. Much like Crewe Alex, add to that and our fairly large fan base and name, they will get some other financial support. I believe they want us to be ran correctly, making profits to say they did the impossible in the modern game which would look incredible on a sports management companies CV, promotion is one thing, manging that from their point of view is even better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Not immediately, obviously but they'll want some returns or at least something to cushion the blow of another loss this year. Saying "selling at £1.25m would leave £1m" made it sounds like you thought exactly that. The money would be "taken" rather than used on replacements (which according to NC would be the whole point in selling him). They're in this to make profits, and unfortunately for us their way of making profits isn't the big gamble of promotion but more of a case of having a squad on low wages at a young age that they can sell on later for profits, and then repeat. Much like Crewe Alex, add to that and our fairly large fan base and name, they will get some other financial support. I believe they want us to be ran correctly, making profits to say they did the impossible in the modern game which would look incredible on a sports management companies CV, promotion is one thing, manging that from their point of view is even better! On that I just disagree. Purely because there is literally no possible way they could even get their money back before they've died by doing that. I believe the only way they will make any money is getting back to the Prem and at some point selling. What they're doing with the cost-cutting is trying to limit their exposure before that happens and to maximise how much profit they have at the end. Barring (genuine) arab investors that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Saying "selling at £1.25m would leave £1m" made it sounds like you thought exactly that. The money would be "taken" rather than used on replacements (which according to NC would be the whole point in selling him). On that I just disagree. Purely because there is literally no possible way they could even get their money back before they die in that way. I believe the only way they will make any money is getting back to the Prem and at some point selling. What they're doing with the cost-cutting is trying to limit their exposure before that happens and to maximise how much profit they have at the end. Barring (genuine) arab investors that is... Under the current regime we're more likely to be relegated than promoted, last season was a very good season for us and truth be told, I think we'll find it hard to improve on that, and in all honesty don't think we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I think some of you are missing the point on the loans from the owners... they essentially put money into running costs, interest free with the idea being that they'll make the money back when they sell the club... Which I'm fine with cos the only way they're ever gonna make their money back is if we're a Prem team... And the more money they put in, the more solid a Prem team we're gonna need to be to sell for enough to make their money back! (eg Everton worth more than say QPR) As much as I want to see the Shack stay, if we can get enough for him to buy 3 players which OVERALL improve the squad then surely we have to do it? May not get another CB quite as good as the Shack but if we can improve everywhere else on top then have to consider it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 There's a danger of this turning into an intelligent debate. So to drag it back to rumour and counter rumour, I was out having a beer with a good mate of mine the other night, he has very good connections at Leicester and said they were in with a £1.5 million bid. Would this be enough for people on here to let him go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Maybe Shackell of sick of moving about and needs to settle at a club. As for the hounding out don't you find it strange how 2 weeks ago everyday N.C in the telegraph talking about selling relentlessly. Last week Glick saying he's going nowhere now NC wants to sell again. This is not normal!! I'm guessing that you've not been a Rams fan for too long. This is the club which allowed the greatest manager of all time to go to our biggest rivals This is the club which got banned from Europe for financial irregularites This is the club that had its star striker deported for having a false passport This is the club that signed Nathan Tyson Mixed messages coming from Tom and Nige is barely worth raising an eyebrow for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 He also said we had asked about Jeffrey Schlupp (young, very fast striker) on a season long loan, Leciester offered him up to us but we backtracked and turned it down. I saw in yesterday's papers a couple of championship teams are in for him on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archram Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 What must Shackell be thinking about this farce? No wonder players have no loyalty and why should they when clubs and managers like ours treat them like this. Promising signing this week followed by the N.C hounding of our best defender out!! It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Nigel is talking to Shacks about it all and he's completely in the picture?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I stated the board wouldn't force NC to sell a player, it would be his choice. Are you arguing with that or not? Who's arguing??? I was merely offering my opinion, you're merely offering (with a little more gusto...) yours. I know I'm not a football league manager but it just smacks me as a little silly to be selling you're 2nd best centre half when your best centre half will be strapped to a number of automated machines for the entire season at the end of which there's no guarantee he'll be as good as he was before. If it's because the money can be used to bring in a better replacement and other required recruits doesn't that come back round to a lack of investment from the board/owners due to their business plan? The million or so profit we'll make from selling him is f**k all for these guys... They may not actually say "we want the money for him" but because they won't pony up a reletively small transfer pot, he's forced in to these gambles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 There's a danger of this turning into an intelligent debate. So to drag it back to rumour and counter rumour, I was out having a beer with a good mate of mine the other night, he has very good connections at Leicester and said they were in with a £1.5 million bid. Would this be enough for people on here to let him go? One of the figures getting close to the magic number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.