Asanovic Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Im just replying to your post where you said "Given that we have only really gone for players from the lower leagues recently, I'm not sure why there's more scepticism." I just pointed out this is not entirely true. Also as I said, and in previous season we had money available for "barker" type signings, this season we have to sell our "barker" type signings to fund new players arriving. So given our net spend this year will either be level or negative, against previous years where we have 750k and 1M pounds players arriving, is this not a big shift, or am I missing something ? Im just replying to your post where you said "Given that we have only really gone for players from the lower leagues recently, I'm not sure why there's more scepticism." I just pointed out this is not entirely true. Also as I said, and in previous season we had money available for "barker" type signings, this season we have to sell our "barker" type signings to fund new players arriving. So given our net spend this year will either be level or negative, against previous years where we have 750k and 1M pounds players arriving, is this not a big shift, or am I missing something ? We've had to offload our better to players to recruit new ones for as long as Clough has been in charge. That's nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 We've had to offload our better to players to recruit new ones for as long as Clough has been in charge. That's nothing new. When ? players surplus to requirements maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshowbob Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 We've had to offload our better to players to recruit new ones for as long as Clough has been in charge. That's nothing new. Doesnt really fit into the building for the future picture though does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 When ? players surplus to requirements maybe. Like Hulse and Commons you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Doesnt really fit into the building for the future picture though does it? No, but Will Hughes, Mats Morch, Tom Naylor, John Brayford, Jeff Hendrick, Callum Ball, Mark O'Brien, Frank Fielding - they fit in to building for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Like Hulse and Commons you mean? Really ?? Commons left because he wouldnt sign a new contract. And On Hulse Glick told BBC Radio Derby: "It was not an offer we needed to accept. "We presented the offer to the manager and staff and they made the judgement from a footballing standpoint that this is an offer that was right to accept. But the things that Nigel Clough and his team would be thinking about would be the player's age, he has nine months to go on his contract, he has been available one game out of five so far this season and he missed 16 games last season." Unless your saying Glick was not telling us the truth ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Really ?? Commons left because he wouldnt sign a new contract. And On Hulse Glick told BBC Radio Derby: "It was not an offer we needed to accept. "We presented the offer to the manager and staff and they made the judgement from a footballing standpoint that this is an offer that was right to accept. But the things that Nigel Clough and his team would be thinking about would be the player's age, he has nine months to go on his contract, he has been available one game out of five so far this season and he missed 16 games last season." Unless your saying Glick was not telling us the truth ? He was one of our top earners. I would argue that has alot more to do with it. Imagine him being at the club now on his wages, he'd be the top earner by an absolute mile. Everything Glick said was true, but I doubt they were the key drivers, just some of contributing factors to the sale. Infact when he was sold, lots of people thought it was down to money. Commons? Yep, he didn't accept a new contract. Not surplus to requirements though, was he? I suspect he would've been moved on too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 He was one of our top earners. I would argue that has alot more to do with it. Imagine him being at the club now on his wages, he'd be the top earner by an absolute mile. Everything Glick said was true, but I doubt they were the key drivers, just some of contributing factors to the sale. Infact when he was sold, lots of people thought it was down to money. Commons? Yep, he didn't accept a new contract. Not surplus to requirements though, was he? I suspect he would've been moved on too. So what your saying is that in Cloughs reign, he has had to move 2 players out that were first teamers, and one of them we were offering a new contract too, but he wouldnt sign, but we probably would have sold after he signed it, yet nothing that came out of the club at the time backs this up in that we were moving them on to generate funds ? Glick has always refered to wages as being a reason to move the high earners out, Shackell was brought in under the new wage structure, he has been sold to generate funds for bringing players in, both Glick and NC have stated this. Last season Glick said funds were available for a "barker" type signing, this year they are not, is this not a change in the way the club has stated its intentions ? Either way you must know something I dont, so I'll take your word for it :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 So what your saying is that in Cloughs reign, he has had to move 2 players out that were first teamers, and one of them we were offering a new contract too, but he wouldnt sign, but we probably would have sold after he signed it, yet nothing that came out of the club at the time backs this up in that we were moving them on to generate funds ? Glick has always refered to wages as being a reason to move the high earners out, Shackell was brought in under the new wage structure, he has been sold to generate funds for bringing players in, both Glick and NC have stated this. Last season Glick said funds were available for a "barker" type signing, this year they are not, is this not a change in the way the club has stated its intentions ? Either way you must know something I dont, so I'll take your word for it :-) In time, I think they would have looked to have got a big fee for Commons, because at the time clubs would have paid it - he was playing well, and signing up to a new deal would have been beneficial for all. I'm not going to fret too much that we haven't been promised a 'Barker type signing' - why would he say that again after the amount of flak he took for it last time? I would guess the club have learned not to say too much and just get on with it. We've had to sell one player to bring x amount in - I guess every couple of seasons we'll need to offload players who can command a fee in order to make betterment of the team. I doubt I know any more than you - just an opinion 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'm not going to fret too much that we haven't been promised a 'Barker type signing' - why would he say that again after the amount of flak he took for it last time? Agreed. Especially after the player they did bring in was as "Barker-like" as it's possible to get without signing his twin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 but they did say that jasion shackall was not for sale and next thing we know that he has been sold, and the yanks are to ******* tight to give nigal decent amount of money to strenght the squad. this team need at least 10m spending on it, and over the years they would have not even spent 2m tight gits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 but they did say that jasion shackall was not for sale and next thing we know that he has been sold, and the yanks are to ******* tight to give nigal decent amount of money to strenght the squad. this team need at least 10m spending on it, and over the years they would have not even spent 2m tight gits. Please tell me that's a joke, 10m could buy you another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 it is not a joke nrothing what they orginal promised when they took over, they said they would give nigal 50m to spend, well that money has not been seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 it is not a joke nrothing what they orginal promised when they took over, they said they would give nigal 50m to spend, well that money has not been seen. Don't always believe what people tell you B4.. Newsflash: People lie.. Especially when it involves money, sex and Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Moving on because of wages = moving on to make room in the budget for new players. We have been moving players on to buy new ones since Nigel took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 it is not a joke nrothing what they orginal promised when they took over, they said they would give nigal 50m to spend, well that money has not been seen. Lol, and then you woke up right? 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuitYourJibbaJivin Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Agreed. Especially after the player they did bring in was as "Barker-like" as it's possible to get without signing his twin! What gets me that if we sign Keogh for £850,000 surely thats a "Barker type" Fee or does it have to be another £100,000k before it gets to the same level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 it is not a joke nrothing what they orginal promised when they took over, they said they would give nigal 50m to spend, well that money has not been seen. Nigel wasn't told he had 50mil to spend. He was brought in knowing he would have 50p to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StockholmRam Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 B4 Nigel Clough has NEVER been told he has 50 million pounds to spend on players mate!!! Whilst I sit and wait anxiously for better days at DCFC I am still happy enough our club does not throw millions around on average dross the likes of which our club has seen far too many. I prefer we pay reasonable sums and wages for players who show promise and can come through and improve leaps and bounds. Our academy is the envy of most clubs in UK outside of the premier league big 4 or 5. There is alot to be positive about. Patience is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 What gets me that if we sign Keogh for £850,000 surely thats a "Barker type" Fee or does it have to be another £100,000k before it gets to the same level? No it won't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.