Article of the day mate, pondered that all day, fair dues for posting Sheepy, you said it all
Cracking post, re Davies....when it comes out which i think it will eventually you will fully understand and respect his decision.
To me, the Davies issue is finally making sense! Yes we have supported him through all of his injury problems but that is what football clubs do when players are under contract.
But I think the main reason for him turning down a new contract is not for family reasons, it is in fact he knew what was coming, saw that we need the cash and have no ambitions of getting out of this league and wanted out!
Can you blame him, not one bit. I'd do the same.
I have always supporting Clough and even believe the bull crap Glick spins us, that’s because I support this club and will always support this club. I don't come on these boards much because there is too much negativity. But the sale of our best player and captain, natural leader as sent me over the edge, if we sold him to a premiership side I could of accepted that, but Burnley, come on for christ sake. I can't see any positives at the moment.
talk about an over-reaction!
Whilst the signal is bad, I agree, Shackell will not go down in history as one of Derby's top 100 players.
I remained tight-lipped, as I notice several other regular posters have over this sale. Do you really think it's to do with GSE wanting to raise money? If you do, you're even more gullible and susceptible to conspiracy than I thought (not just you Sheepy). Do you really think that if this was to do with money, enquiries and bids for Hendrick, Brayford and Theo would've been rejected?
It's easy for people to look for the easiest scape-goat and Derby fans are experts in it!
Mostyn - I cant believe I'm saying this about you but thank goodness for an intelligent and level headed reaction from someone!
Who has remained tight lipped Mostyn, from what I have gagued, majority of regular posters have aired their feeling's.
Is nothing to do with making money for GSE Mostyn. Its to with GSE not spending any and showing no ambition whatsoever.
How can you defend them when there tenure at our club is probably the worst of any owner in our history.
"Do you really think it's to do with GSE wanting to raise money?"
Yes, absolutely I do.
There is no footballing sense in selling one of your better players and, whilst you correctly state he'll not make a Top 100 DCFC Players, that's an indictment on the state of the squad at present rather than on Shackell. There's a parable in the Book Of Nonsensical Nonsense for the Mentally Impaired about some mush who was poor giving his few pennies and it being 'worth' more than the larger donation from a millionaire, or something.. this is like that. He isn't a world-class player, but he's a Championship class player and we have too few of them as it is. He's also led the side in the (continuing) absence of Barker, so let's not pretend his departure will be inconsequential in the coming season.
So what IS the reason Clough and Glick have not-so-discretely touted Shackell around all close season, inviting bids and encouraging those bidders..? If it's not for money, then why? Don't be confused; if he's been sold to raise money to bring in the players we need elsewhere, then that's still for money.
Did his face not fit? Was he becoming too influential in the changing room? Did he look at Clough's missus? Spill his pint? Have he and Steve Davies been ragdolling each other around and he can't stay here now Stevie's going because 'there's too many memories'?
What gives?!!
Mostyn it has everything to do with money, if not then why has Shackell been sold?
The reason Shackell was sold IMO was because Clough thinks he can get a similiar standard of player on less wages
On behalf of all Barnsley fans may I sincerely say....
Nigel is stupid to think he can get like for like for less money! Its stupid tbh, we needed a new centre half anyway so letting shackell go no means we require 2 which i doubt will happen!
'sack em all, sack em all... '
I have to agree Mostyn, the level of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the sale of a very good championship level defender has been rather incredible. However, this situation is rather puzzling. The club has always handled these kind of deals rather carefully in the past, insisting that Hulse would be replaced, stressing that Commons and Green had been offered generous contracts. Now I'm not saying I believed them for a moment, but this sale is rather brazen and unless we have a very good replacement lined up (not holding my breath on that one) I can't see how this sale makes financial sense. They must have known the fans would be furious about this.
Tom Glick's statement:
"Working within our budget, our focus remains on building a stronger squad for the coming season and I want all Rams fans to know that we are working hard to invest in new players across the pitch. By selling Jason, it allows us to reinvest at centre-back and other positions. Nigel has already identified the kind of young, hungry player, like Michael Jacobs, that we wish to bring to Pride Park and we hope to have further positive news soon."
Nah, it's not about money at all, eh? Nothing to do with GSE failing to give the manager enough to fill the gaping holes in the squad, and the manager then selling off the kind of player we should be looking to build around so he can bring in more unproven dross.
Do we know who made these 'rejected bids' for Theo, Brayford and Hendrick, or for how much? Or is all that unfounded speculation to muddy the waters?
Let's stick to facts: Shackell has been sold for a derisory amount, for less than it will cost to replace him, despite being under contract, with the intention of "strengthening the squad".
Lolz. You couldn't make it up.
666 - "Let's stick to facts" - it would be nice if you would for a change!
(1) We dont know how much he was sold for so to call it derisory is (a) not based on any known fact and (b) even if it were based on fact, its your opinion only that it was derisory. I personally think £1.1m (if that's what we got!) is quite good for a slightly above average Championship player
(2) "for less than it will cost to replace him" ? Eh? We only paid £750k for him, he got no better as the season went on so why cant we replace him like for like for £750k again? Again, your statement is not fact, its assumption/opinion on your part.
"Do you really think it's to do with GSE wanting to raise money?"
The Derby Evening Telegraph requested an interview with Glick yesterday and late last night he responded with a short statement in relation to Shackell's transfer.
Glick said; working within our budget, our focus remains on building a stronger squad for the coming season and I want all Rams fans to know we are working hard to investin new players across the pitch.
By selling Jason, it allows us to re-invest at centre back and other positions.
Nigel (Clough) has already identified the kind of young, hungry player, like Michael Jacobs that we wish to bring to Pride Park and we hope to have further positive news soon.
Whatever happened to Glick saying we wanted to keep Jason Shackell but now points the blame at Nigel Clough...who is telling the truth??????
Oh... last week you stated you'd want £1.75m for him minimum, but now £1.1m (which is the reported figure in all accounts of his transfer, so the nearest thing to a fact as we'll get) is not derisory..?
It should also be remembered that last season we were looking to strengthen the centreback pairing; now we're looking to replace it entirely, for £1.1m.
You can try to spin it however you like, but you're not convincing anyone
Sorry 666 just put my version on on then saw yours already there....sorry.
HAHAHHAHAHA Do you actually belive selling our captain and our best defender for 1.1million is good business!
Even Wes Morgan in the last 6 months of his contract went for 1million!
Ain't not a thang, TSAR!
Great minds, and all that
So Peeder tell me are we in credit with the sale of Mcguire and Shackell or what...
Or do we have to wait for Bryson to be sold to see whats what?
Player are mainly about the contract and less about ambition to play at the highest level, unfortunately. Shackell has signed a 4-year deal at Burnley so will most likely spend the rest of his career in the Championship, unless something unexpected happens at Turf Moor.
I am sure we can attract players, but only IF we pay the required transfer fee and the required wage. Can and will we do that? Doubtful. So again we are looking at players for whom Derby is a step up, both in level and in wages, and the risk entailed with that. Shackell was pretty much nailed-on certainty of a top Champioship player when we signed him, and now we are not shopping at that level any more, spreading the Shackell money around for 2 or 3 potential bargains.
Burnley have the ability to spend, having sold Rodriguez for 7 million, which is why they can out-bid Cardiff for Shackell. Have we got a 7 million pound player to trade in for 2 or 3 quality players? It isn't impossible that Bennett could attract that sort of fee if he progresses next season, but none of us would be confident that Clough would be allowed to use that cash even if it happened.
Sign in if you want to comment
Bad signals !!
Page 1 of 4
posted on 5/7/12
Article of the day mate, pondered that all day, fair dues for posting Sheepy, you said it all
posted on 5/7/12
Cracking post, re Davies....when it comes out which i think it will eventually you will fully understand and respect his decision.
posted on 5/7/12
To me, the Davies issue is finally making sense! Yes we have supported him through all of his injury problems but that is what football clubs do when players are under contract.
But I think the main reason for him turning down a new contract is not for family reasons, it is in fact he knew what was coming, saw that we need the cash and have no ambitions of getting out of this league and wanted out!
Can you blame him, not one bit. I'd do the same.
posted on 6/7/12
I have always supporting Clough and even believe the bull crap Glick spins us, that’s because I support this club and will always support this club. I don't come on these boards much because there is too much negativity. But the sale of our best player and captain, natural leader as sent me over the edge, if we sold him to a premiership side I could of accepted that, but Burnley, come on for christ sake. I can't see any positives at the moment.
posted on 6/7/12
talk about an over-reaction!
Whilst the signal is bad, I agree, Shackell will not go down in history as one of Derby's top 100 players.
I remained tight-lipped, as I notice several other regular posters have over this sale. Do you really think it's to do with GSE wanting to raise money? If you do, you're even more gullible and susceptible to conspiracy than I thought (not just you Sheepy). Do you really think that if this was to do with money, enquiries and bids for Hendrick, Brayford and Theo would've been rejected?
It's easy for people to look for the easiest scape-goat and Derby fans are experts in it!
posted on 6/7/12
Thats 1 from mostyn then
posted on 6/7/12
Mostyn - I cant believe I'm saying this about you but thank goodness for an intelligent and level headed reaction from someone!
posted on 6/7/12
Who has remained tight lipped Mostyn, from what I have gagued, majority of regular posters have aired their feeling's.
posted on 6/7/12
Is nothing to do with making money for GSE Mostyn. Its to with GSE not spending any and showing no ambition whatsoever.
How can you defend them when there tenure at our club is probably the worst of any owner in our history.
posted on 6/7/12
"Do you really think it's to do with GSE wanting to raise money?"
Yes, absolutely I do.
There is no footballing sense in selling one of your better players and, whilst you correctly state he'll not make a Top 100 DCFC Players, that's an indictment on the state of the squad at present rather than on Shackell. There's a parable in the Book Of Nonsensical Nonsense for the Mentally Impaired about some mush who was poor giving his few pennies and it being 'worth' more than the larger donation from a millionaire, or something.. this is like that. He isn't a world-class player, but he's a Championship class player and we have too few of them as it is. He's also led the side in the (continuing) absence of Barker, so let's not pretend his departure will be inconsequential in the coming season.
So what IS the reason Clough and Glick have not-so-discretely touted Shackell around all close season, inviting bids and encouraging those bidders..? If it's not for money, then why? Don't be confused; if he's been sold to raise money to bring in the players we need elsewhere, then that's still for money.
Did his face not fit? Was he becoming too influential in the changing room? Did he look at Clough's missus? Spill his pint? Have he and Steve Davies been ragdolling each other around and he can't stay here now Stevie's going because 'there's too many memories'?
What gives?!!
posted on 6/7/12
Mostyn it has everything to do with money, if not then why has Shackell been sold?
The reason Shackell was sold IMO was because Clough thinks he can get a similiar standard of player on less wages
posted on 6/7/12
On behalf of all Barnsley fans may I sincerely say....
posted on 6/7/12
Nigel is stupid to think he can get like for like for less money! Its stupid tbh, we needed a new centre half anyway so letting shackell go no means we require 2 which i doubt will happen!
'sack em all, sack em all... '
posted on 6/7/12
I have to agree Mostyn, the level of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the sale of a very good championship level defender has been rather incredible. However, this situation is rather puzzling. The club has always handled these kind of deals rather carefully in the past, insisting that Hulse would be replaced, stressing that Commons and Green had been offered generous contracts. Now I'm not saying I believed them for a moment, but this sale is rather brazen and unless we have a very good replacement lined up (not holding my breath on that one) I can't see how this sale makes financial sense. They must have known the fans would be furious about this.
posted on 6/7/12
Tom Glick's statement:
"Working within our budget, our focus remains on building a stronger squad for the coming season and I want all Rams fans to know that we are working hard to invest in new players across the pitch. By selling Jason, it allows us to reinvest at centre-back and other positions. Nigel has already identified the kind of young, hungry player, like Michael Jacobs, that we wish to bring to Pride Park and we hope to have further positive news soon."
Nah, it's not about money at all, eh? Nothing to do with GSE failing to give the manager enough to fill the gaping holes in the squad, and the manager then selling off the kind of player we should be looking to build around so he can bring in more unproven dross.
Do we know who made these 'rejected bids' for Theo, Brayford and Hendrick, or for how much? Or is all that unfounded speculation to muddy the waters?
Let's stick to facts: Shackell has been sold for a derisory amount, for less than it will cost to replace him, despite being under contract, with the intention of "strengthening the squad".
Lolz. You couldn't make it up.
posted on 6/7/12
666 - "Let's stick to facts" - it would be nice if you would for a change!
(1) We dont know how much he was sold for so to call it derisory is (a) not based on any known fact and (b) even if it were based on fact, its your opinion only that it was derisory. I personally think £1.1m (if that's what we got!) is quite good for a slightly above average Championship player
(2) "for less than it will cost to replace him" ? Eh? We only paid £750k for him, he got no better as the season went on so why cant we replace him like for like for £750k again? Again, your statement is not fact, its assumption/opinion on your part.
posted on 6/7/12
"Do you really think it's to do with GSE wanting to raise money?"
posted on 6/7/12
The Derby Evening Telegraph requested an interview with Glick yesterday and late last night he responded with a short statement in relation to Shackell's transfer.
Glick said; working within our budget, our focus remains on building a stronger squad for the coming season and I want all Rams fans to know we are working hard to investin new players across the pitch.
By selling Jason, it allows us to re-invest at centre back and other positions.
Nigel (Clough) has already identified the kind of young, hungry player, like Michael Jacobs that we wish to bring to Pride Park and we hope to have further positive news soon.
Whatever happened to Glick saying we wanted to keep Jason Shackell but now points the blame at Nigel Clough...who is telling the truth??????
posted on 6/7/12
Oh... last week you stated you'd want £1.75m for him minimum, but now £1.1m (which is the reported figure in all accounts of his transfer, so the nearest thing to a fact as we'll get) is not derisory..?
It should also be remembered that last season we were looking to strengthen the centreback pairing; now we're looking to replace it entirely, for £1.1m.
You can try to spin it however you like, but you're not convincing anyone
posted on 6/7/12
Sorry 666 just put my version on on then saw yours already there....sorry.
posted on 6/7/12
HAHAHHAHAHA Do you actually belive selling our captain and our best defender for 1.1million is good business!
Even Wes Morgan in the last 6 months of his contract went for 1million!
posted on 6/7/12
Ain't not a thang, TSAR!
Great minds, and all that
posted on 6/7/12
They seldom differ
posted on 6/7/12
So Peeder tell me are we in credit with the sale of Mcguire and Shackell or what...
Or do we have to wait for Bryson to be sold to see whats what?
posted on 6/7/12
Player are mainly about the contract and less about ambition to play at the highest level, unfortunately. Shackell has signed a 4-year deal at Burnley so will most likely spend the rest of his career in the Championship, unless something unexpected happens at Turf Moor.
I am sure we can attract players, but only IF we pay the required transfer fee and the required wage. Can and will we do that? Doubtful. So again we are looking at players for whom Derby is a step up, both in level and in wages, and the risk entailed with that. Shackell was pretty much nailed-on certainty of a top Champioship player when we signed him, and now we are not shopping at that level any more, spreading the Shackell money around for 2 or 3 potential bargains.
Burnley have the ability to spend, having sold Rodriguez for 7 million, which is why they can out-bid Cardiff for Shackell. Have we got a 7 million pound player to trade in for 2 or 3 quality players? It isn't impossible that Bennett could attract that sort of fee if he progresses next season, but none of us would be confident that Clough would be allowed to use that cash even if it happened.
Page 1 of 4