p.shilton Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Also, i dont think we should keep buying players, i think, with this side, we only need 3 more players to challenge for the play-offs so i dont want to disrupt the team with more signings 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> I agree that we are not far away but if we could just finance the purchase of 3 quality players we would be well on the way- a CF, CM and LB and we would be in business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcFc Dyycheee Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I agree that we are not far away but if we could just finance the purchase of 3 quality players we would be well on the way- a CF, CM and LB and we would be in business Agreed there pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Not an avid poster, due to the fear/annoyance of being rubbished by people who know nothing about me or my far reaching football gossip tentacles!! I do however have fairly concrete sources, (current players) one at Derby and another at Shacks' former club. Football is very small community...... I will not answer any "source?? or source type questions as I have revealed enough.. But a couple of weeks back I donned the long Mac and disguise, and had a footy chat with one of my sources. Even then before this £1m offer had materialised he told me the board at Derby were offering Shackell around to offload him from the wage bill. And now a public bid has been made.... Auction commence. Why the need to get him off the wage bill though? He was only bought last season - when we were already living under our own self inflicted austerity measures. I can understand why the club would want sell him to generate cash for Nigel or even to begin to repay the investors, but not to get rid of him to save wages. For what it's worth (which is very little) I believe that the club are actively trying to provoke an auction for Mr Shackel. No 'hands off' statement, just a series of 'available at the right price' hints. I think that we've seen the last of Shackel in a Derby shirt. Hopefully Nigel and Tom can cut some deals that improve the squad overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 They've been absolutely consistent about the 'every player has a price' thing though. Right from day 1 that has always been the message. It's not like they are suddenly saying it to provoke interest in Shackell. Every single player at every single club, bar maybe a handful ar Real and Barca, is for sale at the right price. Any club saying that a player is not for sale is lying. And given this messageboards liking for caling Glick and co out for 'spin' and 'lies', I find it odd that they are criticised for being truthful about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randombc Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Every player has there price, and the board obviously think that Shackells is higher than £1.2 million which is fair. Clough and the board will have a figure in mind, and if that figure is reached they will have to sell him because the loss of losing Shackell will be outweighed by the positives of possibly bring in 2 or 3 more players that would improve the squad. It's only logical, that if we sell him £1.5 million, and bring in:- £800,000 - New Centre back to replace him £400,000 - New left back £300,000 - Michael Jacobs We've gained the addition of two more players from the sale of one, which would provide us cover at left back and a new right winger which we have been craving. All we'd need to do then is shift the dead wood (crofts, addison, doyle etc) of the world, and bring in a new centre forward. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Every player has there price, and the board obviously think that Shackells is higher than £1.2 million which is fair. Clough and the board will have a figure in mind, and if that figure is reached they will have to sell him because the loss of losing Shackell will be outweighed by the positives of possibly bring in 2 or 3 more players that would improve the squad. It's only logical, that if we sell him £1.5 million, and bring in:- £800,000 - New Centre back to replace him £400,000 - New left back £300,000 - Michael Jacobs We've gained the addition of two more players from the sale of one, which would provide us cover at left back and a new right winger which we have been craving. All we'd need to do then is shift the dead wood (crofts, addison, doyle etc) of the world, and bring in a new centre forward. Simples. Exactly my thinking me owd mucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I've had a brainfartwave. I'm not trying to force shack out of the door by they way. If it is Burnley who are bidding, maybe we are trying to push up the price so we've got enough to pay Charlie Austins salary. He's scored goals but hasn't been a regular starter. I'd back him for 20 goals if he played week in week out. I'm sure i read somewhere he would consider a move to play regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I've had a brainfartwave. I'm not trying to force shack out of the door by they way. If it is Burnley who are bidding, maybe we are trying to push up the price so we've got enough to pay Charlie Austins salary. He's scored goals but hasn't been a regular starter. I'd back him for 20 goals if he played week in week out. I'm sure i read somewhere he would consider a move to play regularly. I'd swap Shackell for Austin, but, as I think you alluded to, Austin is likely to be on a big salary as they signed him in the Prem. If we could get Austin then hopefully get a bit for Addison and Maguire to buy a replcacement for Shackell. Defenders are cheaper than strikers, so swapping Shacks for a proper striker would probably be a good move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I'd swap Shackell for Austin, but, as I think you alluded to, Austin is likely to be on a big salary as they signed him in the Prem. If we could get Austin then hopefully get a bit for Addison and Maguire to buy a replcacement for Shackell. Defenders are cheaper than strikers, so swapping Shacks for a proper striker would probably be a good move. Dont think they did, doubt he's on huge wages, came from Swindon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Dont think they did, doubt he's on huge wages, came from Swindon. No you are correct - my bad Makes the whole thing a bit more plausible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I wouldn't sell him for anything less than 1.5m, you won't get a proven c/b for less than 1m, even if you do then you will find that there are other clubs in for him, and what message does it send out to potential targets if a club like burnley is buying your best players. Bringing in 3 players will mean 3 additional salaries, 3 signing on fees and 3 transfer fees, 1.5m isn't going to get 3 quality players in, at best 3 players who may or may not make the grade, so I can't see the benefit of letting one of your best players go to replace them with substandard ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 So he must be worth at least 3? How come we picked him up for less than a mil then? Also, he is now older and there is even less money about. Which foot he uses is irrelevant as his distribution is appalling whichever he uses. Because Barnsley finances are worse than ours. Robins left because there was no money for transfers and knew he could not strengthen. Jewell said that 13 clubs facing administration and would not be surprised if one of those was not them. May be the answer. Shackell wanted to move to a club who he believed had a better chance of stopping in championship and may be more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoneedshuls Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Ah isn't it nice not to be talking about loans but permanents. Shacks will stay - keep the faith ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Ram Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Jason must be having trouble deciding wether to go nowhere with Burnley or go nowhere with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Glick on radio today said that Shackell is a player we want to keep and build around. Also saud that he didn't want to speculate on if the club that offered the money would come in again as he didn't want to talk about him leaving because he is an important in OUR squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoneedshuls Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Glick on radio today said that Shackell is a player we want to keep and build around. Also saud that he didn't want to speculate on if the club that offered the money would come in again as he didn't want to talk about him leaving because he is an important in OUR squad. Thread closed then? Lol. ( in glick we trust! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I'm sure Barnsley wanted to keep him too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 he will be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 he will be gone. Ever the optimist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Ever the optimist. money talks,and when it does,Derby listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.