Blessing in disguise?

[swaledale]

Indeed, over the last 6 or 7 seasons we've paid millions out to buy players who leave 3 or 4 years later at the end of their contracts for nothing.

When will the club learn to enter into talks with players 1, prefereably 2, seasons prior to their contract expiring. Players you see as being ones you want to keep long term get a new deal. Those you don't see staying beyond their current contract or earlier, you sell in order to avoid having them saunter off on a free. Those you see growing and being ready for "the next level", one maybe 2 years down the road, give them a long contract with a buyout clause wherein other clubs can have them and DCFC can't stop the move, if they pay x amount for the player. That gives both sides some security.

MA I can't off hand think of a player we have wanted to keep who moved on a free after we paid big bucks for him, but no doubt you will come up with an example. I can however think of a disturbingly high number of players who we paid big bucks in transfer fees for and presumably equally high wages, who we were desperate to get rid of a season or two seasons later before their contract finished!

I haven't done an accurate calculation but would estimate conservatively that the club has pissed over £50 million on transfer fees over the past 5 or so seasons before this one and have recouped less than £10 million in player sales.

Maybe Lampard's approach of using good loan players to add to some decent permanent signings wasn't such a bad idea?

The money Mel has wasted on transfer fees and wages must be over £150 million at least since he took ownership - and he has only himself to blame, he was the one promising promotion and trying to hire big name managers.

So yes a more low key build slowly approach may well be preferable, in fact its the only option at the moment, a team that want to do their best because they are grateful for the chance to play football, either because they are starting their careers or wringing one last season out at the end and have the character to fight.

[ramAnag]

Maybe Lampard's approach of using good loan players to add to some decent permanent signings wasn't such a bad idea?

The money Mel has wasted on transfer fees and wages must be over £150 million at least since he took ownership - and he has only himself to blame, he was the one promising promotion and trying to hire big name managers.

So yes a more low key build slowly approach may well be preferable, in fact its the only option at the moment, a team that want to do their best because they are grateful for the chance to play football, either because they are starting their careers or wringing one last season out at the end and have the character to fight.

I suppose, like most ideas, it’s good if it works...and tbf it came close. Unfortunately when it doesn’t and the ‘stars’ of your side, along with the manager, then disappear you’re worse of than you were originally. His permanent signings were nothing to write home about.

Bit harsh on MM...presumably he took advice so I’ll forgive him for trying and ‘putting his money where his mouth is’...unless his endeavours are proved to have included wrongdoing that has really dropped us in the ****.

Completely agree. ‘Hungry’ players and youngsters with something to prove along with some older experience could be good to get behind.

[swaledale]

I suppose, like most ideas, it’s good if it works...and tbf it came close. Unfortunately when it doesn’t and the ‘stars’ of your side, along with the manager, then disappear you’re worse of than you were originally. His permanent signings were nothing to write home about.

Bit harsh on MM...presumably he took advice so I’ll forgive him for trying and ‘putting his money where his mouth is’...unless his endeavours are proved to have included wrongdoing that has really dropped us in the ****.

Completely agree. ‘Hungry’ players and youngsters with something to prove along with some older experience could be good to get behind.

Your being generous to Mel, though as you say IF it had paid off and we had got promoted then maybe it would all be different.

However, he could ahve recognised he understood **** all about running a football club and engaged people who did and have a strategy for it. Whats happened just smacks of some local guy with a bit of money flashing the cash in order to try to be the fans favourite, its backfired big time.

[MadAmster]

MA I can't off hand think of a player we have wanted to keep who moved on a free after we paid big bucks for him, but no doubt you will come up with an example. I can however think of a disturbingly high number of players who we paid big bucks in transfer fees for and presumably equally high wages, who we were desperate to get rid of a season or two seasons later before their contract finished!

I haven't done an accurate calculation but would estimate conservatively that the club has pissed over £50 million on transfer fees over the past 5 or so seasons before this one and have recouped less than £10 million in player sales.

Maybe Lampard's approach of using good loan players to add to some decent permanent signings wasn't such a bad idea?

The money Mel has wasted on transfer fees and wages must be over £150 million at least since he took ownership - and he has only himself to blame, he was the one promising promotion and trying to hire big name managers.

So yes a more low key build slowly approach may well be preferable, in fact its the only option at the moment, a team that want to do their best because they are grateful for the chance to play football, either because they are starting their careers or wringing one last season out at the end and have the character to fight.

You've actually extended the scope of the discussion. I merely wrote of how many "big" signings left for nowt at the end of their contract but didn't comment on whether we might have wanted to keep them or not. My point being that we could have got something back (probably not as much as we'd paid) for them one or two years earlier if we'd put them on the transfer list or at least made other clubs aware that they are available. As happens in the Netherlands. That might possibly be down to clubs having to supply the Dutch FA with a believable budget each season in order to get a licence to play. If they are in debt they have to supply details of how they can and will eradicate that debt within, I believe, the next 5 years. A budget that looks like a story from Jackanory sees the club not get a licence and they are out of the League. Lesser transgressions can lead to other sanctions. This season they were unhappy with the budget from ADO den Haag. They received a 3 point deduction. They have appealed the decision.

Players like Jozefzoon. Surely we could have sold him for something after year 1 or got more than just the one loan fee and reduction in wages we had to pay.

Most of those who went on a free were players we would have wanted to get rid of earlier and get something for. We didn't. If we reviewed the squad and contracts each season and extended those we want and tried to lose those we don't, we might be better off.

[swaledale]

You've actually extended the scope of the discussion. I merely wrote of how many "big" signings left for nowt at the end of their contract but didn't comment on whether we might have wanted to keep them or not. My point being that we could have got something back (probably not as much as we'd paid) for them one or two years earlier if we'd put them on the transfer list or at least made other clubs aware that they are available. As happens in the Netherlands. That might possibly be down to clubs having to supply the Dutch FA with a believable budget each season in order to get a licence to play. If they are in debt they have to supply details of how they can and will eradicate that debt within, I believe, the next 5 years. A budget that looks like a story from Jackanory sees the club not get a licence and they are out of the League. Lesser transgressions can lead to other sanctions. This season they were unhappy with the budget from ADO den Haag. They received a 3 point deduction. They have appealed the decision.

Players like Jozefzoon. Surely we could have sold him for something after year 1 or got more than just the one loan fee and reduction in wages we had to pay.

Most of those who went on a free were players we would have wanted to get rid of earlier and get something for. We didn't. If we reviewed the squad and contracts each season and extended those we want and tried to lose those we don't, we might be better off.

Which ones? Martin turned down a new deal and left on a free, but then the previous season he wasn't rated and was loaned out, Waghorn left this summer, but down to our financial position can't recall many other big price signings we let go on a free - we let some go cut price presumably to get them off the books?

[MadAmster]

Which ones? Martin turned down a new deal and left on a free, but then the previous season he wasn't rated and was loaned out, Waghorn left this summer, but down to our financial position can't recall many other big price signings we let go on a free - we let some go cut price presumably to get them off the books?

Martin's a poor example as he left for the same price we paid for him, nowt. Waghorn leaving is, as you say, probably down to us no longer being able to pay him what he wants.

I can't find it at the moment but I saw a list online a few months back of players we'd bought for a few million and who left us for nowt over recent seasons. There was 40 odd million in incoming transfers of players, all of whom left on a free.

My point, which you seem to be missing, is that, if we looked annually at the players we have, how they are doing, how they fit in with the style, value for money.......... and decided who was likely to still be wanted 3 years down the road and give them an extension on their contracts and try to unload the ones we don't want. That way players don't get to the situation where they have just one season left on their contracts and decide that they're happy to stay for that last season and then get to leave on a free and thereby negotiate higher signing on bonus for themselves. My suggestion was to stop allowing contracts to run down by doing something about it.

Question. Is my idea of annually running the rule over the squad and offering players we are likey to want to keep an extension and unloading those we are less enamoured with a good idea? It's one used at many Dutch clubs.

[swaledale]

Martin's a poor example as he left for the same price we paid for him, nowt. Waghorn leaving is, as you say, probably down to us no longer being able to pay him what he wants.

I can't find it at the moment but I saw a list online a few months back of players we'd bought for a few million and who left us for nowt over recent seasons. There was 40 odd million in incoming transfers of players, all of whom left on a free.

My point, which you seem to be missing, is that, if we looked annually at the players we have, how they are doing, how they fit in with the style, value for money.......... and decided who was likely to still be wanted 3 years down the road and give them an extension on their contracts and try to unload the ones we don't want. That way players don't get to the situation where they have just one season left on their contracts and decide that they're happy to stay for that last season and then get to leave on a free and thereby negotiate higher signing on bonus for themselves. My suggestion was to stop allowing contracts to run down by doing something about it.

Question. Is my idea of annually running the rule over the squad and offering players we are likely to want to keep an extension and unloading those we are less enamoured with a good idea? It's one used at many Dutch clubs.

I would say that is what generally happens at clubs, but can be complicated if a team is having a poor season, as we were and a player wont sign an extension whilst relegation is a possibility. Or if a team is in with a chance of promotion and the club would not want to extend a players contract if that were the case, as they dont rate hm for the prem and need to offload players to bring others in.

Then of course there is the added complication of swapping managers every season, its highly likely that a new manager won't fancy some or indeed many of the players that had contracts extended under the previous manager!

Add in FFP, can't increase wages on an extended contract until another player leaves at the end of a season and its not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

I mean have Derby actually had a plan thats lasted for more than 6 months in the past 3 years?

[Ramshank72]

I would say that is what generally happens at clubs, but can be complicated if a team is having a poor season, as we were and a player wont sign an extension whilst relegation is a possibility. Or if a team is in with a chance of promotion and the club would not want to extend a players contract if that were the case, as they dont rate hm for the prem and need to offload players to bring others in.

Then of course there is the added complication of swapping managers every season, its highly likely that a new manager won't fancy some or indeed many of the players that had contracts extended under the previous manager!

Add in FFP, can't increase wages on an extended contract until another player leaves at the end of a season and its not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

I mean have Derby actually had a plan thats lasted for more than 6 months in the past 3 years?

Spot on, but I think Mel has had many long term plans, but got bored after 6 months and changed his mind!

[ramAnag]

Spot on, but I think Mel has had many long term plans, but got bored after 6 months and changed his mind!

Welcome Ramshank.

As you’ve described yourself as having been ‘lurking’ for a while you’ll know that I’ve been a long term supporter of Mel Morris.
That support will end if it emerges that he’s been ‘overseeing’ financial wrongdoing that sees DCFC heavily penalised...but as regards managers and long term plans I’m not sure he can be blamed for becoming ‘bored’.

We’ll never know the whole truth but of the (nine?) managers we’ve had during Morris’ tenure I can think of only Rowett who Mel may have become bored with.

Of the others...McClaren made himself unemployable at Derby. Clement and Pearson appear to be very flawed human beings (as their subsequent records elsewhere would suggest), there was nothing Morris could have done to keep Lampard, and Cocu was sabotaged from the off by the consequences of ‘Joinersgate’ and perhaps his failure to understand the requirements of the Championship.