davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I don't care what we've spent. As long as we're better for it. What else matters? No no no !!!! We can't improve unless we spend more than we take in, its impossible 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Sold - Shackell, Maguire. £1.35m undisclosed but from rumours Varney 300k So thats 1.65m income How much have we spent? Jacobs -£500k (I think that was the rumour) Keogh - £750k - £1.2m (based on the most we have paid for player and more than we received for Shackell from RD) Coutts - cant remember the rumour Oconnor undisclosed Quite possibly a net spend and not break even. I can think of someone on the old DET forum who would have taken you to task over the last sentence.There are 3 options and each could justify a "quite possibly" appendage. "More than we received for Shackell" is a statement to conjure with,as it could mean the transfer fee negotiated,or cash we received from the League,net of any possible owed instalment/s.Thus the Keogh price could vary according to which alternative you choose.Seeing as we were told that Shackell might be sold to strengthen the side (without weakening the defence too much),it would appear bizarre if he were sold just to get in a better replacement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Ram Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 It got to 2 pages, but slipped my ageing memory. Maybe it's because 'not zero net spend' sounds more interesting than 'transfer budget' or has the potential for arguments. HA so you remember the thread! Idea stealer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 No no no !!!! We can't improve unless we spend more than we take in, its impossible 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> Obviously where Gadsby went wrong in his bid-perhaps he should just have said we'd spend what we received.Even with his offer of £5m net,you were one (in the not too distant past) who wanted to know where the funding would come from thereafter.When I pointed out that he'd said the Plaza would provide funding,you came up with a figure that you'd recalled from his website (but couldn't verify as the site had gone).Therefore you knew full well where the funding was to come from,yet still posed the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Obviously where Gadsby went wrong in his bid-perhaps he should just have said we'd spend what we received.Even with his offer of £5m net,you were one (in the not too distant past) who wanted to know where the funding would come from thereafter.When I pointed out that he'd said the Plaza would provide funding,you came up with a figure that you'd recalled from his website (but couldn't verify as the site had gone).Therefore you knew full well where the funding was to come from,yet still posed the question. Thought you might bring that up again, and I stand by my comments made at the time they were made, was it one or two years ago (its that long I cant remember) £5m net now may get us promoted, but back then it wouldn't have because of the differences in squad strength and the amount of loans we had (which was also claimed the £5m would rid us of the need to have) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 No no no !!!! We can't improve unless we spend more than we take in, its impossible 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> So Dav, if you concur with Bunny that it doesn't matter what the spend is so long as we get better, what was the point of the thread then!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I can think of someone on the old DET forum who would have taken you to task over the last sentence.There are 3 options and each could justify a "quite possibly" appendage. "More than we received for Shackell" is a statement to conjure with,as it could mean the transfer fee negotiated,or cash we received from the League,net of any possible owed instalment/s.Thus the Keogh price could vary according to which alternative you choose.Seeing as we were told that Shackell might be sold to strengthen the side (without weakening the defence too much),it would appear bizarre if he were sold just to get in a better replacement I agree, but there was also the "paid more than we have since Barker" which allows for the fee to be £750k, the rumoured down payment for Barker. Which I think I mentioned in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 So Dav, if you concur with Bunny that it doesn't matter what the spend is so long as we get better, what was the point of the thread then!? Didnt say I agreed with Bunny, just passed a comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Thought you might bring that up again, and I stand by my comments made at the time they were made, was it one or two years ago (its that long I cant remember) £5m net now may get us promoted, but back then it wouldn't have because of the differences in squad strength and the amount of loans we had (which was also claimed the £5m would rid us of the need to have) My post wasn't really about the £5m,but about the subsequent funding.However,since you beamed in on it,have we spent £5m net since the bid?If you were querying where the additional funding was coming from (on this forum,probably less than a year ago),then why aren't you querying the same of this administration,instead of trying to squeeze out a net spend this window (and who knows where it will end come Aug 31)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I agree, but there was also the "paid more than we have since Barker" which allows for the fee to be £750k, the rumoured down payment for Barker. Which I think I mentioned in my post. Not sure it justifies the £750k to £1.2m range though,which you've used to boost your "possibility".As soon as you get anywhere near the Shackell figure,you blast out of the water any possibility of his sale strengthening in other areas,which is what we were originally told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 My post wasn't really about the £5m,but about the subsequent funding.However,since you beamed in on it,have we spent £5m net since the bid?If you were querying where the additional funding was coming from (on this forum,probably less than a year ago),then why aren't you querying the same of this administration,instead of trying to squeeze out a net spend this window (and who knows where it will end come Aug 31)? Gafsby's bid was 2010 wasn't it? That's two years ago. http://www.derbycounty-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/gadsby_takeover_website_506080/index.shtml Not within the last year. No need to query where the extra funding is coming from from this administration because they have been stating the intent to get to break even and have been pushing increasing revenues from sponsorship and commercial activities, yes this includes the plaza but not limited to it. No we haven't spent £5m net since the bid, but we have been running at losses. Had we spent £5m net and not got promoted (which I don't think we would have) would we be any better off than we are now? And Would there have been funds to cover the money provided by our current owners to cover the shirtfalls since 2010? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Not sure it justifies the £750k to £1.2m range though,which you've used to boost your "possibility".As soon as you get anywhere near the Shackell figure,you blast out of the water any possibility of his sale strengthening in other areas,which is what we were originally told. Shack 1.1 Addison 0.15 Maguire 0.25 Varney. 0.3 Total 1.8 Keogh 0.75 Jacobs 0.45 Coutts 0.4 Oconnor 0.2?(based on him being under contract and used more last season than Addison so having a higher value) Total = 1.8 So that's a break even using my lowest value for Keogh and a reasonable guess for O'connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Gafsby's bid was 2010 wasn't it? That's two years ago. [url=http://www.derbycounty-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/gadsby_takeover_website_506080/index.shtml]http://www.derbycoun...080/index.shtml Not within the last year. No need to query where the extra funding is coming from from this administration because they have been stating the intent to get to break even and have been pushing increasing revenues from sponsorship and commercial activities, yes this includes the plaza but not limited to it. No we haven't spent £5m net since the bid, but we have been running at losses. Had we spent £5m net and not got promoted (which I don't think we would have) would we be any better off than we are now? And Would there have been funds to cover the money provided by our current owners to cover the shirtfalls since 2010? I'm well aware of when the bid was made,but you've made numerous references to it in the intervening period ,and it's one of these to which I referred.Your last paragraph clearly indicates that you didn't think £5m net was sufficient to gain promotion,yet when talking about the current administration you don't appear to see it as much of a problem. Gadsby's reported £37m bid would have effectively 'bought' some of the mess created (unless you can convince me that the current owners had enhanced the value to £37m from the £16m they paid),so it's not particularly unreasonable to think his consortium may have covered ongoing losses.I also don't remember Gadsby talking of outside investment to fund the Plaza.I noticed that nobody came up with an answer to the question I posed recently about revenue streams in relation to outside investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Here's one saying Coutts was £400k http://www.football.co.uk/preston_north_end/derby_capture_coutts_rss2794360.shtml Here's one saying Prestkn had accepted £400k from Peterborough - would they have taken much less from us http://www.prestonnorthend-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/coutts_posh_deal_falls_through_748368/index.shtml Here's on saying the asking price for Coutts was around 400k http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Potential-Hull-City-catch-Paul-Coutts-Player/story-16456913-detail/story.html That's more than was given, again not by me. This one says he went for 150k though. http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/derby-county/transfer-talk/news/preston-accept-derby-bid-for-coutts_34408.html Oh and these http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Paul-Coutts-Nigel-Clough-s-football-philosophy/story-16543054-detail/story.html http://www.derby.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=287152 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Shack 1.1 Addison 0.15 Maguire 0.25 Varney. 0.3 Total 1.8 Keogh 0.75 Jacobs 0.45 Coutts 0.4 Oconnor 0.2?(based on him being under contract and used more last season than Addison so having a higher value) Total = 1.8 So that's a break even using my lowest value for Keogh and a reasonable guess for O'connor Ah,so quite possibly break even and not a net spend?I thought Addison was also under contract (and a lot younger than O'Connor)?Not sure about the "used more last season" argument either.Is Doyle worth more than Hughes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I'm not getting drawn into another Gadsby v Owners discussion, rehashing old ground. I'm sure top6 will be along shortly to tell me off for commenting on him anyway. The point of the thread is it is possible that this may be bet positive spend transfer window using rumoured fees and reasonable guesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Ah,so quite possibly break even and not a net spend?I thought Addison was also under contract (and a lot younger than O'Connor)?Not sure about the "used more last season" argument either.Is Doyle worth more than Hughes? I'd say someone who spent a season on loan in league 1 is worth less than a player who was used by his club in the championship for over half their games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Ah,so quite possibly break even and not a net spend?I thought Addison was also under contract (and a lot younger than O'Connor)?Not sure about the "used more last season" argument either.Is Doyle worth more than Hughes? I never said it was definitely a positive spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I'd say someone who spent a season on loan in league 1 is worth less than a player who was used by his club in the championship for over half their games. Hadn't realised Barnsley were a L1 outfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Hadn't realised Barnsley were a L1 outfit. okay then half a season at L1 becaue the championship club he went to first wouldn't pick him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.