Bradley Johnson

[ramAnag]

I see from the DT that BJ seems to be suggesting he would welcome a move back to Norwich. Not one of our worst but probably one of our more disappointing signings imo, never really fulfilled his potential. Ill advised comment with two years of his contract still to run, or just poor journalism? Thoughts and valuation?

[AdiSalisbury]

There's an article on the OS where he says he is looking to prove himself under the new boss. Certainly not the sharpest tool in the box!

I really don't know what to think of him, he looks a real good finisher, but seems to play too deep all the time, where he is pants. Could be a good player in the right system, or could be a flop based on most of last season. Tough one but a decent offer and I expect he'll be off to Norwich Rovers.

[roger_ramjet]

see my post on Christie thread whereunder he could be surplus to requirements, but if we stick to a more traditional 442/433 line up then I think we need to keep him but, as mentioned above, in a more progressive role

[AdiSalisbury]

I forgot to mention my valuation: £500,000.

If we didn't pay so much for him I think that would reflect his service so far.

[Rams4Justice]

If he's looking to go back to Norwich I let him and we get someone in far better in for his position because for the money that we payed for him, he really hasn't shown his full potential that he had shown previously in the promotion campaign with Norwich, and that was his best form that he will struggle to reproduce again.

[StensonRam]

If he's looking to go back to Norwich I let him and we get someone in far better in for his position because for the money that we payed for him, he really hasn't shown his full potential that he had shown previously in the promotion campaign with Norwich, and that was his best form that he will struggle to reproduce again.

If you could turn back the clock we probably wouldn't of bought him but what's done is done, to get someone better for the money suggests you think we'll get back the £5m we shelled out, do you think Norwich will pay that...........i don't, if he is to go then he's going to be one of many players we're going to have to take a hit on only to be offset by selling Hughes who cost us nothing and ince who we could possibly double our money on but then that's two decent players sold just to break even

[Andy_Faber]

If you could turn back the clock we probably wouldn't of bought him but what's done is done, to get someone better for the money suggests you think we'll get back the £5m we shelled out, do you think Norwich will pay that...........i don't, if he is to go then he's going to be one of many players we're going to have to take a hit on only to be offset by selling Hughes who cost us nothing and ince who we could possibly double our money on but then that's two decent players sold just to break even

....and the answer to that is offload Johnson, keep Hughes and Ince and we have two potentially great players who our new manager just needs to manage into greatness. The alternative is high-risk - we might end up podding out millions for another Bradley Johnson!

Offload him to Forest to help with their relegation charge

[ramAnag]

If you could turn back the clock we probably wouldn't of bought him but what's done is done, to get someone better for the money suggests you think we'll get back the £5m we shelled out, do you think Norwich will pay that...........i don't, if he is to go then he's going to be one of many players we're going to have to take a hit on only to be offset by selling Hughes who cost us nothing and ince who we could possibly double our money on but then that's two decent players sold just to break even

Reckon we'd make money on Christie, if he goes but I do like KCG's idea of playing him further forward. We'd save a shed load on Bent's wages and make £3-4m on Ince if he goes. Butterfield would, imo, be the one we'd take the biggest hit on and we can only guess what the Martin situation is...big profit or £40k per week in wages? BJ is difficult...when he's good he's very, very good etc...when he's bad he's useless.

[roger_ramjet]

look on the bright side - selling expensive players at a loss is also bad for the FFP position as it crystallises the high cost of purchase into the current financial year

eg buy a player for £ 6m on a 4 year contract, FFP hit is 1.5m per year

sell him for 500k after 2 years, the hit in the third year is £ 2.5m

So if we sell at a loss, that restricts how much we can spend, FFP wise, in replacing them as the sale in effect increases our FFP hit in the year.

Its the inverse of the Hendrick effect when we created a lot of FFP capacity in the year we sold him at a substantial profit since the income is recognised in year one but the expenses of reinvestment (Yydra et al) are written off over 4 years (or whatever the contract length is)

There is the 3 year smoothing effect but generally selling at a loss is bad for FFP

R4J - I dont expect for one minute that you will understand this, nor will I have the patience to explain it over and over again: so I will ignore your reponse, if any.

[StensonRam]

look on the bright side - selling expensive players at a loss is also bad for the FFP position as it crystallises the high cost of purchase into the current financial year

eg buy a player for £ 6m on a 4 year contract, FFP hit is 1.5m per year

sell him for 500k after 2 years, the hit in the third year is £ 2.5m

So if we sell at a loss, that restricts how much we can spend, FFP wise, in replacing them as the sale in effect increases our FFP hit in the year.

Its the inverse of the Hendrick effect when we created a lot of FFP capacity in the year we sold him at a substantial profit since the income is recognised in year one but the expenses of reinvestment (Yydra et al) are written off over 4 years (or whatever the contract length is)

There is the 3 year smoothing effect but generally selling at a loss is bad for FFP

R4J - I dont expect for one minute that you will understand this, nor will I have the patience to explain it over and over again: so I will ignore your reponse, if any.

That's a good point Roger, I wonder where we are with FFP generally as we stand