Gone Elsewhere Martin Waghorn

[Bladeinleeds]

If derby can afford to pay £30k + per week and not even play the guy then fair play - we aren’t in the same league.

Never thought he was worth it at Those levels

 

[Stretch]

He probably would have done well here but he's made his bed and it's his and Derby's problem now. I am sure his bank account will soften the blow of any disappointment on the field, for a short while anyway.

As for Fatso Frank, as already said, just another big name who could not be bothered to cut his teeth properly and would not have a clue what to do without a ton of cash behind him. Laziness in the transfer market is the default approach, just wait to see who other clubs have spent time, effort and money scouting then gazump them by offering the player and agent money they couldn't possibly turn down.

The 20th October could be a lot of fun if we turn them over at Pride Park.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Got told the other day by someone with decent links the deal was agreed with Ipswich and Waghorn but a last minute attempt by Derby offering almost double our wage offer, can't blame the lad for taking it and to be honest our offer would have made him a top earner here and was 3 times what he was on at Ipswich. the Boro link wasn't mentioned but im sure they were thinking the same.

Derby didn't even bother offering a few quid more it was almost double. seems odd but when I think about it that could be them compensating for the lack of opportunity. to some the chance to play regular and under Wilder could be worth taking a small hit in pay but you can't ignore the chance to increase your wages by that much

In the latest pre match interview you could hear the disappointment in Wilders voice when whoever it was from RS asked him specifically about Johnson. can see why he finds it annoying people publicly name his targets he's said it himself, we do the homework find players who would improve us and not break the budget and then other clubs get wind and think he must be decent if United want him and then offer more than we can/willing to pay.

We literally are the chief scouts for our rivals

There might be some truth in that but don’t forget the agents’ roles in all this. It’s to their benefit (not always the player imo) to maximise their deal so as soon as they know there’s interest they start touting the player round to try to boost their payday. Absolute fucking leeches in my view and symptomatic of what is wrong with modern football.

 

[blademark]

I'm ok with Agents in principle, they are standard practise within the wider entertainment industry , but I don't get for the life of me why all agents fees aren't paid solely by the player ?

 

[tomtheblade]

Not getting a game for Derby. Maybe we can arrange a loan deal?

 

[Booker4]

Marriot's hardly had a look in either and I think he has a lot to offer. Cameron Jerome doesn't even feature on the bench currently!

 

[Weasel]

Christ knows what Derby's wage bill is this season. It was already really high, so it must be astronomical now. Almost a 'glory or disaster' feel about this season for Derby and fat Frank. Will be piss funny if they flunk their lines and miss out again.

Re the wages. It would make sense as I was told by someone that we had tried to push the boat out and were looking at around the 20k a week figure, but that Derby then offered him over £30k a week (or possibly mid thirties). That said, I will stress that I don't know this to be fact and this could be well wide of the mark.

 

[FriethBlade]

Wonder how derby saying within the FFP rules ? Does the managers salary count as well in FFP as fat Frank is probably on more than all out backroom staff put together!

 

[Silent Blade]

Does the managers salary count as well in FFP as fat Frank is probably on more than all out backroom staff put together!

No. Same for ground improvements.

 

[Bladezz]

I don't think Derby's the right team for Waghorn. Think Frank is just signing players cus they're available and he's got money to spend

Wilder signs his players who will fit into his system and philosophy but I don't think Frank has a clue who he wants frankly, hence why he's got so many attackers yet playing 1 player up front on his own

But when Frank gets sacked at Derby he will set the team back a few years. Just like Harry did. He only cared about spending as much as possible so that he wins games so he looks good. No consideration for the team especially if it goes wrong eg Portsmouth / QPR.

CW left Northampton with a promotion winning side, good assets and good squad and financially in a better situation than he found it.

 

[Lil red rooster]

Be interesting to know just how much Derby have spent since their last season in the prem.
It must be an eyewatering amount and its got em precisely nowhere.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

so...........after 114 pages - did we dodge a bullet with this signing?

For me, I'm glad we missed out.

UTB

 

[blademark]

so...........after 114 pages - did we dodge a bullet with this signing?

For me, I'm glad we missed out.

UTB

Easy to think bullet dodged if he's not playing, but you never know he might have been sensational for us. What I'm sure of is he was overpriced and gets wages beyond his ability.

 

[YES Blade]

But when Frank gets sacked at Derby he will set the team back a few years. Just like Harry did. He only cared about spending as much as possible so that he wins games so he looks good. No consideration for the team especially if it goes wrong eg Portsmouth / QPR.

CW left Northampton with a promotion winning side, good assets and good squad and financially in a better situation than he found it.

I’m sorry, but that’s bollocks!

Harry Redknapp, Frank Lampard, Chris Wilder or any other manager are paid to manage the team and win football matches. It isn’t a duel role as First Team Manager and Financial Director.

It’s up to the owner and board of directors to set the playing staff budget not the manager, it’s his job to simply work within that budget.

What happened at Pompey and numerous other clubs is solely the responsibility of the Owner/Director who authorises the transfers and contracts.

 

[derfblade.3]

I’m sorry, but that’s bollocks!

Harry Redknapp, Frank Lampard, Chris Wilder or any other manager are paid to manage the team and win football matches. It isn’t a duel role as First Team Manager and Financial Director.

It’s up to the owner and board of directors to set the playing staff budget not the manager, it’s his job to simply work within that budget.

What happened at Pompey and numerous other clubs is solely the responsibility of the Owner/Director who authorises the transfers and contracts.

You could also see how a club approaching a manager would sometimes bow to his demands of having x amounts to spend to accept the job. How many times has a manager taken over a club and suddenly they spend spend spend. Some of the so called best managers call the shots and usually leave a club in ruins. Yes, the director's authorise the budget but fall into the "get the best manager" trap whatever the cost.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

I’m sorry, but that’s bollocks!

Harry Redknapp, Frank Lampard, Chris Wilder or any other manager are paid to manage the team and win football matches. It isn’t a duel role as First Team Manager and Financial Director.

It’s up to the owner and board of directors to set the playing staff budget not the manager, it’s his job to simply work within that budget.

What happened at Pompey and numerous other clubs is solely the responsibility of the Owner/Director who authorises the transfers and contracts.

This is bullshit I’m afraid...

Wilder knows he’s a custodian of the club - he also makes sure we don’t over spend / her fleeced by agents. He’s mentioned we won’t risk the future of the club

Redknapp and his ‘dodgy dealings’ with agents is as much is fault as owners stupid enough to trust him.

See qpr, Pompey and Birmingham. I’d be fuming If we ever appointed him.

 

[YES Blade]

This is bullshit I’m afraid...

Wilder knows he’s a custodian of the club - he also makes sure we don’t over spend / her fleeced by agents. He’s mentioned we won’t risk the future of the club

Redknapp and his ‘dodgy dealings’ with agents is as much is fault as owners stupid enough to trust him.

See qpr, Pompey and Birmingham. I’d be fuming If we ever appointed him.

So why do with bother to employ a COO, CFO and Head of Finance when Wilder has such a good grip of the club’s finances? Looks a waste of money to me?

 

[blademark]

So why do with bother to employ a COO, CFO and Head of Finance when Wilder has such a good grip of the club’s finances? Looks a waste of money to me?

Is that a serious question ?

 

[YES Blade]

Is that a serious question ?

No, it’s sarcasm, Wilder doesn’t deal with the finances, no manager does! That’s my point! We have a financial team to do that, Wilder just works to the playing budget he is set.

 

[Sean Thornton]

No, it’s sarcasm, Wilder doesn’t deal with the finances, no manager does! That’s my point!

They have substantial input or otherwise Clough wouldn't have overspent massively and no one else at the club would have given useless twat Hammond that extra year other than that fucking idiot Adkins.

 

[YES Blade]

They have substantial input or otherwise Clough wouldn't have overspent massively and no one else at the club would have given useless twat Hammond that extra year other than that fucking idiot Adkins.

That’s just working to the budget, if those players hadn’t have been within the budget the board/owners wouldn’t have allowed it.

The fact that they turned out to be poor signings is irrelevant.

 

[Sean Thornton]

That’s just working to the budget, if those players hadn’t have been within the budget the board/owners wouldn’t have allowed it.

The fact that they turned out to be poor signings is irrelevant.

When Clough was here the budget was surpassed. There were repercussions.

Okay, Adkins worked to the budget. And gave an extra year to a player that was one of the worst we've seen. I'd suggest that he was able to make that decision by himself, meaning he had some autonomy. But you're saying the signing of a dud is the responsibility of the bloke who signed it off rather than the man who went to them and said, I want this player, he'll cost x? The McCabe haters will love that load of nonsense.

As for poor signings being irrelevant.....

 

[YES Blade]

When Clough was here the budget was surpassed. There were repercussions.

Okay, Adkins worked to the budget. And gave an extra year to a player that was one of the worst we've seen. I'd suggest that he was able to make that decision by himself, meaning he had some autonomy. But you're saying the signing of a dud is the responsibility of the bloke who signed it off rather than the man who went to them and said, I want this player, he'll cost x? The McCabe haters will love that load of nonsense.

As for poor signings being irrelevant.....

Irrelevant to my point, the first team manager is responsible for winning football matches and signing good players is part of that.

The budget is managed by the owners and directors, if Clough exceeded the budget it will have been signed off by someone with authority to do so at the club. Clough didn’t go rouge and spend money he wasn’t allowed to.

Back to my original point, Redknapp wasn’t to blame for Portsmouth’s financial problems, that was solely down to Sacha Gaydamak who allowed Redknapp to sign players the club couldn’t afford long term. Redknapp did his part and won the cup, he didn’t put a gun to the owners head to spend money they didn’t have.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Irrelevant to my point, the first team manager is responsible for winning football matches and signing good players is part of that.

The budget is managed by the owners and directors, if Clough exceeded the budget it will have been signed off by someone with authority to do so at the club. Clough didn’t go rouge and spend money he wasn’t allowed to.

Back to my original point, Redknapp wasn’t to blame for Portsmouth’s financial problems, that was solely down to Sacha Gaydamak who allowed Redknapp to sign players the club couldn’t afford long term. Redknapp did his part and won the cup, he didn’t put a gun to the owners head to spend money they didn’t have.

You really believe that don't you? Redknapp takes no responsibility for the financial mess he's left clubs in by spending millions on poor signings? Tell that to supporters of the club's he's shafted. That the signings being poor is irrelevant. Jesus.

 

[YES Blade]

You really believe that don't you? Redknapp takes no responsibility for the financial mess he's left clubs in by spending millions on poor signings? Tell that to supporters of the club's he's shafted. That the signings being poor is irrelevant. Jesus.

You’re obviously missing my point, signing poor players is bad football management, spending money you don’t have is bad financial management by the owner.

If Redknapp signed a load of poor players within a sustainable budget they might have got relegated, but they wouldn’t have got into the financial mess did. It’s up to the owners to manage the finances to make sure the club don’t get into a mess.

 

[Harrisblade]

You’re obviously missing my point, signing poor players is bad football management, spending money you don’t have is bad financial management by the owner.

If Redknapp signed a load of poor players within a sustainable budget they might have got relegated, but they wouldn’t have got into the financial mess did. It’s up to the owners to manage the finances to make sure the club don’t get into a mess.

But Redknapp (the man who knows about football and footballers) probably convinced Gaydamak (the man who knows about the finances) that the players he wants to sign will definitely bring success to the club and thus repay the investment many times over!
'Speculate to accumulate' is obviously the way to go.

No sensible person could argue against that

 

[Champagneblade]

It's not unreasonable to expect a manager to show some financial acumen. Maybe the MD should know better but so should the manager. You can't just keep asking for players and expect not to run into trouble. Sometimes it's up to the manager to manage what get has better and stop trying to recruit your way out and stop asking, and not just the MD to be the bad guy to say no.

Look at Man U. Mourinho doing all the moaning about not recruiting enough. Spent 89m on Pogba, 50m on Fred on top of what he already had. Apparently Woodward vetoed swapping Martial for Alderweireld. Why wouldn't he? Swap a soon to be 30 year old with no resale value for a 22 year old with a great deal. Why should Woodward be the bad guy? Why doesn't Mourinho do more to get the squad in check?

The manager knows the size of the club and what it can sustain. Bringing players in on huge wages is bound to cripple many a club, especially if you're not doing your bit to get them out too. A lot of Redknapp's victims has seen him recruit en masse as if there wasn't a player there already worth using.

"I won't pull the owners pants down" Wilder often says, showing he at least has that understanding.

To suggest Redknapp was blameless and had no concept of balancing the books is bizarre given his level of experience.

Then again, maybe he just left that to Rosie.

 

[YES Blade]

But Redknapp (the man who knows about football and footballers) probably convinced Gaydamak (the man who knows about the finances) that the players he wants to sign will definitely bring success to the club and thus repay the investment many times over!
'Speculate to accumulate' is obviously the way to go.

No sensible person could argue against that

Pompey were successful under Redknapp, FA Cup and highest finish since the 50s.

 

[YES Blade]

It's not unreasonable to expect a manager to show some financial acumen. Maybe the MD should know better but so should the manager. You can't just keep asking for players and expect not to run into trouble. Sometimes it's up to the manager to manage what get has better and stop trying to recruit your way out and stop asking, and not just the MD to be the bad guy to say no.

Look at Man U. Mourinho doing all the moaning about not recruiting enough. Spent 89m on Pogba, 50m on Fred on top of what he already had. Apparently Woodward vetoed swapping Martial for Alderweireld. Why wouldn't he? Swap a soon to be 30 year old with no resale value for a 22 year old with a great deal. Why should Woodward be the bad guy? Why doesn't Mourinho do more to get the squad in check?

The manager knows the size of the club and what it can sustain. Bringing players in on huge wages is bound to cripple many a club, especially if you're not doing your bit to get them out too. A lot of Redknapp's victims has seen him recruit en masse as if there wasn't a player there already worth using.

"I won't pull the owners pants down" Wilder often says, showing he at least has that understanding.

To suggest Redknapp was blameless and had no concept of balancing the books is bizarre given his level of experience.

Then again, maybe he just left that to Rosie.

There is no doubt the manager needs a bit of financial awareness e.g. not getting ripped off as in the case of the Martial/Alderweireld deal. But again that’s football management and knowing the market.

We all know the size of clubs, but the lines have now been blurred with foreign ownership. Look at Bournemouth and the money they have spent since their takeover, should Eddie Howe be asking to see the owners bank accounts to make sure Bournemouth aren’t going to go bust?

Sacha Gaydamak could have been the next Abramovich for all we knew and was going to bankroll Pompey to the Champions League. The man at the top is ultimately to blame.

It’s like your wife asking for a brand new Merc you know you can’t afford, if you buy the thing it’s your own fault when you’re struggling to pay the mortgage and eating nothing but beans on toast. You should have said no we can’t afford it!

 

[Pinchy]

It's not unreasonable to expect a manager to show some financial acumen. Maybe the MD should know better but so should the manager. You can't just keep asking for players and expect not to run into trouble. Sometimes it's up to the manager to manage what get has better and stop trying to recruit your way out and stop asking, and not just the MD to be the bad guy to say no.

Look at Man U. Mourinho doing all the moaning about not recruiting enough. Spent 89m on Pogba, 50m on Fred on top of what he already had. Apparently Woodward vetoed swapping Martial for Alderweireld. Why wouldn't he? Swap a soon to be 30 year old with no resale value for a 22 year old with a great deal. Why should Woodward be the bad guy? Why doesn't Mourinho do more to get the squad in check?

The manager knows the size of the club and what it can sustain. Bringing players in on huge wages is bound to cripple many a club, especially if you're not doing your bit to get them out too. A lot of Redknapp's victims has seen him recruit en masse as if there wasn't a player there already worth using.

"I won't pull the owners pants down" Wilder often says, showing he at least has that understanding.

To suggest Redknapp was blameless and had no concept of balancing the books is bizarre given his level of experience.

Then again, maybe he just left that to Rosie.

Redknapp is bent. Sue me Harry, please.