Summer Rebuild

[blueroyals]

Ha if we're signing players because of FM, let's get Jack Watmough, my head of youth recruitment bought him pretty cheaply and now he's a very solid Premier League defender.

Can confirm

[Dr_Hfuhruhurr]

Can the thread be retitled Summer Demolition?

I'd prefer "Much Needed Reality Check"

The sooner we off load these over rated and highly over paid players, the sooner this club can get back on an even keel.

Even at his best, Federici wasn't fit to lace Hahnemann's boots while the number of centre halves we've had who were better than Pearce reaches well into double figures. Most of those players could only have dreamt of earning the kind of wages Pearce would have declined before looking elsewhere.

If waving goodbye to two "Nothing Specials" in Pearce and Federici saves us 40k-45k a week, that's a great start to the summer in my book.

It really doesnt matter how Federici stacks up against Hannahman - its what he leaves behind that matters - because that is who we have left to play. Remember when Shaka left? (and, also remember we got a really good fee for him). We took ages to replace him and got relegated that season having played a sh1tload of keepers. And all the time, whilst we were shouting at Mick and Jim to buy a keeper, they couldnt because they had other spaces to fill. Thats the problem with clear outs - you either fill in the gaps or you pay the price. My real fear is that we have shown nothing in the recent past to suggest that we are going to bring anybody decent and reliable in. There may be reasons for this (and there are), but when times are tough, you choose the devil you know. We're on the brink of losing our POTS and our Team Captain within a few weeks of each other. THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD. NEWS.

I probably dont need to remind you that the season after we got relegated to pay for the stadium that we pretty much replaced the entire team overnight because it wasnt worth keeping. Now, I KNOW you were there, and I KNOW you know how bad it was - anti-football if you like - we just have to get out of this funk of thinking we must save every penny that is available to us. I agree we have financial problems, but our solutions are so utterly staid.

Gosh, selling McCarthy was a bad, bad, move.

[Nameless]

To be fair Feds won POTS on a post Wembley sympathy vote and Pearce was only the part time stand in captain along with Gunter.
I do agree that you cannot always take the financially prudent route but Feds was never going to sign a new deal, we could have doubled his salary and he would have gone.
We gave Pearce a very good pay rise last time he was out of contract and I suspect he'd reached his ceiling with us. Again, if Derby are giving him a wage increase then it would have made no sense for us to offer him a rise as well.
The key is how we use the money we are freeing up. Clarke needs to make his decisions quickly as you are spot on that he can't mess around until Christmas like Bredon and Atkins did not knowing/ playing his best side.

[Ian Royal]

To be fair Feds won POTS on a post Wembley sympathy vote and Pearce was only the part time stand in captain along with Gunter.
I do agree that you cannot always take the financially prudent route but Feds was never going to sign a new deal, we could have doubled his salary and he would have gone.
We gave Pearce a very good pay rise last time he was out of contract and I suspect he'd reached his ceiling with us. Again, if Derby are giving him a wage increase then it would have made no sense for us to offer him a rise as well.
The key is how we use the money we are freeing up. Clarke needs to make his decisions quickly as you are spot on that he can't mess around until Christmas like Bredon and Atkins did not knowing/ playing his best side.

Feds was always going to win PotS and genuinely had been good all season. There were very few contenders.

[Nameless]

Feds was always going to win PotS and genuinely had been good all season. There were very few contenders.

No, Mackie would have won it but for a post Wembley surge in votes for Fed.
I'd agree that Feds was pretty much our most consistent performer but you can't argue with the facts.....


....or can you ?

[Dr_Hfuhruhurr]

To be fair Feds won POTS on a post Wembley sympathy vote and Pearce was only the part time stand in captain along with Gunter.
.

Dont agree with either of these statements. Feds simply didnt have much competition - but he is a decent keeper. He's not great, by any stretch of the imagination but he's proven himself more than once at this level. Gunter was Adkins' captain and a rubbish one at that.

i appreciate what you're saying in that neither Feds nor Pearce are shining examples of POTS or Captain, and I would have a certain level of agreement with that, but the point Im trying to make is that if you take them out, you leave a hole - and we already have holes to fill. We just havent shown enough recently behind the scenes to suggest we know how to fill them.

[Dr_Hfuhruhurr]

Feds was always going to win PotS and genuinely had been good all season. There were very few contenders.

No, Mackie would have won it but for a post Wembley surge in votes for Fed.
I'd agree that Feds was pretty much our most consistent performer but you can't argue with the facts.....


....or can you ?

Ive always liked Mackie, but I was quite alone in that feeling for the first 25 games (ish) of the season.
You could say that failing to sign him permanently is, well, another failing.

[Ian Royal]

Feds was always going to win PotS and genuinely had been good all season. There were very few contenders.

No, Mackie would have won it but for a post Wembley surge in votes for Fed.
I'd agree that Feds was pretty much our most consistent performer but you can't argue with the facts.....


....or can you ?

What facts You making a baseless assertion about votes?

Hell, I don't like him and I was still going to end up voting for him anyway. The mood on here was clearly that it was Federici easily.

[Nameless]

Surely it's you making baseless assertions. You have no facts to back up your personal view.
I know, as a result of a conversation with someone at the club who was involved in the POTS process that Mackie was ahead in the votes but after the Wembley game Feds picked up enough to win the award.
It probably meant it went to the right person, but unfortunately for you there is a difference between a 'fact' and the opinion of Mr Ian Royal. That may be a tough one for you to deal with....

[Ian Royal]

Surely it's you making baseless assertions. You have no facts to back up your personal view.
I know, as a result of a conversation with someone at the club who was involved in the POTS process that Mackie was ahead in the votes but after the Wembley game Feds picked up enough to win the award.
It probably meant it went to the right person, but unfortunately for you there is a difference between a 'fact' and the opinion of Mr Ian Royal. That may be a tough one for you to deal with....

I thought you might say that. You're the one offering an assertion about something where the available facts are that Federici won. Even if, and I don't really believe you, there was a surge in votes after the semi, that doesn't not mean causation. I would expect more votes to be cast towards the end of the competition voting period anyway, so it would be natural for many people who were going to vote Federici to simply do so later, coinciding with being after the semi.

I'm simply saying you have no evidence for that and on the basis of a lack of evidence we should go with the status quo, which is that Federici won because he'd done enough to gain people's votes throughout the season. I've then backed that up by saying he was getting my vote, even though I don't like like him much, regardless of what happened. And that he was clear favourite on both the polls on here (including the circa halfway one around February).

So no, I'm not making a baseless assertion, I'm rejecting yours.

[MM]

If it's true (as being reported), that Steve Clarke won't even be meeting the board to find out the budget until next week, that's the latest evidence of what a shambles we have become over the last few years.

One month on, has that really not been done? Of course, it can be different depending on the contract offers made (and subsequently rejected), but you wouldn't need a second meeting for that. You would know what it would be depending on the changing scenarios.

Whilst I agree entirely that Federici and Pearce were good (but not irreplaceable) Championship players, and any new deal should be on reduced terms, all evidence suggests that we are currently weaker than the piss-poor team that was on show last season.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if replacements for that pair are on a par in quality, and on lower wages (when taking in to account signing-on fees and other expenses that are tied to new signings). However, if we had made those reduced-terms offers some months ago, we could have been in a better position.

It's only a matter of opinion, but I don't agree that McShane is better than Pearce, and I wouldn't have said Foderingham was a better player than Federici either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our departing pair were great, but I want at least parity with what we have lost to give me any confidence going forward.

I'd like Jem to stay, and hope he will. We're saddled with Ferdinand (even my mum wouldn't have sanctioned that deal - and yet our new owners did), for at least one year more than anybody with an ounce of sense would have suggested was wise. It's a relief we have been able to get Guthrie, Knight, Yakubu, Travner and the others off the books, although again you have to question why half of them ever arrived anyway.

Nothing the new owners have done so far appears to be very professional, and this budget situation seems to confirm it. Add to that a new manager that actually managed to make the team perform worse than Adkins (I don't rate either of them so have no favourites here) barring a couple of FA Cup games, and it's not looking particularly rosy.

It's not trimming the budget that's wrong, it's the small details around our whole operation that make me question why people feel next year would be likely to reveal much improvement. Let's hope the club will pretty soon do something to start convincing the fans they can make this work.

[sandman]

Surely it's you making baseless assertions. You have no facts to back up your personal view.
I know, as a result of a conversation with someone at the club who was involved in the POTS process that Mackie was ahead in the votes but after the Wembley game Feds picked up enough to win the award.
It probably meant it went to the right person, but unfortunately for you there is a difference between a 'fact' and the opinion of Mr Ian Royal. That may be a tough one for you to deal with....

I thought you might say that. You're the one offering an assertion about something where the available facts are that Federici won. Even if, and I don't really believe you, there was a surge in votes after the semi, that doesn't not mean causation. I would expect more votes to be cast towards the end of the competition voting period anyway, so it would be natural for many people who were going to vote Federici to simply do so later, coinciding with being after the semi.

I'm simply saying you have no evidence for that and on the basis of a lack of evidence we should go with the status quo, which is that Federici won because he'd done enough to gain people's votes throughout the season. I've then backed that up by saying he was getting my vote, even though I don't like like him much, regardless of what happened. And that he was clear favourite on both the polls on here (including the circa halfway one around February).

So no, I'm not making a baseless assertion, I'm rejecting yours.

But Nameless spoke to Faceless. You know Faceless, he's the bloke at the club that people speak to when they "know" something "for a fact".

[tidus_mi2]

If it's true (as being reported), that Steve Clarke won't even be meeting the board to find out the budget until next week, that's the latest evidence of what a shambles we have become over the last few years.

One month on, has that really not been done? Of course, it can be different depending on the contract offers made (and subsequently rejected), but you wouldn't need a second meeting for that. You would know what it would be depending on the changing scenarios.

Whilst I agree entirely that Federici and Pearce were good (but not irreplaceable) Championship players, and any new deal should be on reduced terms, all evidence suggests that we are currently weaker than the piss-poor team that was on show last season.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if replacements for that pair are on a par in quality, and on lower wages (when taking in to account signing-on fees and other expenses that are tied to new signings). However, if we had made those reduced-terms offers some months ago, we could have been in a better position.

It's only a matter of opinion, but I don't agree that McShane is better than Pearce, and I wouldn't have said Foderingham was a better player than Federici either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our departing pair were great, but I want at least parity with what we have lost to give me any confidence going forward.

I'd like Jem to stay, and hope he will. We're saddled with Ferdinand (even my mum wouldn't have sanctioned that deal - and yet our new owners did), for at least one year more than anybody with an ounce of sense would have suggested was wise. It's a relief we have been able to get Guthrie, Knight, Yakubu, Travner and the others off the books, although again you have to question why half of them ever arrived anyway.

Nothing the new owners have done so far appears to be very professional, and this budget situation seems to confirm it. Add to that a new manager that actually managed to make the team perform worse than Adkins (I don't rate either of them so have no favourites here) barring a couple of FA Cup games, and it's not looking particularly rosy.

It's not trimming the budget that's wrong, it's the small details around our whole operation that make me question why people feel next year would be likely to reveal much improvement. Let's hope the club will pretty soon do something to start convincing the fans they can make this work.

They're discussing the budget just before the window opens, fold the club.

[Hoop Blah]

Ive always liked Mackie, but I was quite alone in that feeling for the first 25 games (ish) of the season.
You could say that failing to sign him permanently is, well, another failing.

Has Mackie now gone elsewhere then? I must've missed that then.

[Hoop Blah]

If it's true (as being reported), that Steve Clarke won't even be meeting the board to find out the budget until next week, that's the latest evidence of what a shambles we have become over the last few years.

They're discussing the budget just before the window opens, fold the club.

There's a lot of leg work and deals to be done before the window opens so, if its true, not having concrete plans in place with the manager about what budget he has to play with is worrying.

The piece on GetReading doesn't have any quotes though, and Clarke is obviously working on targets and making offers to existing players so I don't put a lot of credence on the report myself. I'm sure Clarke might be meeting the owners and budgets will likely be a topic of conversation but I'd be amazed if Clarke doesn't have a good enough idea of what he can do in the meantime.

[Lacoste]

If it's true (as being reported), that Steve Clarke won't even be meeting the board to find out the budget until next week, that's the latest evidence of what a shambles we have become over the last few years.

One month on, has that really not been done? Of course, it can be different depending on the contract offers made (and subsequently rejected), but you wouldn't need a second meeting for that. You would know what it would be depending on the changing scenarios.

Whilst I agree entirely that Federici and Pearce were good (but not irreplaceable) Championship players, and any new deal should be on reduced terms, all evidence suggests that we are currently weaker than the piss-poor team that was on show last season.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if replacements for that pair are on a par in quality, and on lower wages (when taking in to account signing-on fees and other expenses that are tied to new signings). However, if we had made those reduced-terms offers some months ago, we could have been in a better position.

It's only a matter of opinion, but I don't agree that McShane is better than Pearce, and I wouldn't have said Foderingham was a better player than Federici either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying our departing pair were great, but I want at least parity with what we have lost to give me any confidence going forward.

I'd like Jem to stay, and hope he will. We're saddled with Ferdinand (even my mum wouldn't have sanctioned that deal - and yet our new owners did), for at least one year more than anybody with an ounce of sense would have suggested was wise. It's a relief we have been able to get Guthrie, Knight, Yakubu, Travner and the others off the books, although again you have to question why half of them ever arrived anyway.

Nothing the new owners have done so far appears to be very professional, and this budget situation seems to confirm it. Add to that a new manager that actually managed to make the team perform worse than Adkins (I don't rate either of them so have no favourites here) barring a couple of FA Cup games, and it's not looking particularly rosy.

It's not trimming the budget that's wrong, it's the small details around our whole operation that make me question why people feel next year would be likely to reveal much improvement. Let's hope the club will pretty soon do something to start convincing the fans they can make this work.

They're discussing the budget just before the window opens, fold the club.

Yeah that's clever, 5 weeks after the season ends for us, at a time when we should be knowing what budget we have so that we can identify players to sign we decide to discuss the budget

What has been the point of the last 5 weeks if we don't know what players we can afford to approach?

They say teams that go up through the play-offs are at a disadvantage because by the time they know what league they'll be in, the clubs automatically promoted have already done a lot of their business.

Just saying.

[tidus_mi2]

I didn't realise scouting stopped when we had no budget agreed.

[Hoop Blah]

I didn't realise scouting stopped when we had no budget agreed.

It helps to be able to scout players that are realistic targets though and the bigger issue is being able to make approaches and offers in line with our budget to attract the best talent we can as opposed to just scouting.

[Lacoste]

I didn't realise scouting stopped when we had no budget agreed.

How can a manager plan for a season and start identifying players if he doesn't know how much money he has? Managers don't hibernate until July the 1st like a squirrel then wake up and start buying. They plan, talk to agents, clubs and players. Deals only become official in July.

[tidus_mi2]

I didn't realise scouting stopped when we had no budget agreed.

How can a manager plan for a season and start identifying players if he doesn't know how much money he has? Managers don't hibernate until July the 1st like a squirrel then wake up and start buying. They plan, talk to agents, clubs and players. Deals only become official in July.

Which is exactly what I've been bloody saying, they scout the players, they can estimate how much a player is worth and have that all on record, if it turns out later that the budget won't allow for a player then they can't go for him.

You lot are all making it out like discussing the budget now is the end of the world and poor planning by the club when it really isn't, but if you want to think the World is ending, I won't stop you.