[Archived] Matt Derbyshire

[T4E]

We were led to believe by Sam that the issue was wage bill space. We alleviated that space by letting Vogel go - and whilst I agree he wouldn't have walked away for nothing, if we are to believe things are as tight as they say then he wouldn't have taken a huge amount with him.

As I said, I suspect the loan fee we got for Derbs was the motivating factor, not the wage savings.

[LeChuck]

Just a thought Dean - who do you think earned more, Derbyshire or Vogel? Could we not have come to terms with Vogel earlier in order to create the space for Diouf without sacrificing Derbyshire?

If you'd finished your post after the first sentence you'd probably have been closer to the truth.

I'm not sure about Vogel, I'd say he was earning more than Derbs but we don't really know anything about how he left and he keen he was to do so. If it was as simple as just getting him to walk away from his contract for nothing then that could have been one solution. I've got a feeling we've had to pay him to leave though, I can't see why he'd walk away from the rest of his contract for nothing if he had nothing else lined up.

Even if he did go for nothing, we wouldn't have been getting the loan fee though, which (as you've said) probably was the most important factor in Derbyshire going out.

[Guest Wen Y Hu]

Oh that is interesting, I do like a good stat, cheers. I'm surprised there is this huge thing made about 40 points then.

LeChuck, T4E, and all...

Just to follow up on T4E's good work, I prepared a summary of the notional rather than mathematical nature of the 40-point mark after a quick study of the statistics section on the Barclays Premier League Official Website (http://www.premierleague.com/page/Statistics/).

I've put it over in the Relegation Watch thread to keep discussion from moving away from Matty.

Cheers,

Weny

PS Sorry for the editing - still getting used to the board!

[JAL]

Its a disgrace if we let Matty go without a long run alongside Big Sam's 2 metre Centre Forward next season.

And then Gally will go despite never being tried in midfield.....and then who starred last night for Rochdale (Answer: our next Goalkeeper:Frank Fielding who is on loan again)

There are easier ways of reducing the wages bill.

Its no disgrace letting Matty go, hes had long enough to prove himself.

Super sub is his best position, Matty doesnt want to be a super sub, so he hasnt proved himself to be anything otherwise, you'll just have to drop that local feeling which is understandable and see the bigger picture.

Hes been spending most of the time in Greece as a substitute for Olympiacos so nothing has changed there either which seems to suggest hes always going to be a sub yet Matty understandably wants to be starting every week.

At the end of the day Matty wants to leave aswell so dont take it all one way, maybe now is an ideal opportunity to move away experience something dfferent, gain that experience and come back a better player for it.

[T4E]

I'm not sure about Vogel, I'd say he was earning more than Derbs but we don't really know anything about how he left and he keen he was to do so. If it was as simple as just getting him to walk away from his contract for nothing then that could have been one solution. I've got a feeling we've had to pay him to leave though, I can't see why he'd walk away from the rest of his contract for nothing if he had nothing else lined up.

To look at this from a slightly different angle, imo one of the following two scenarios must be in line with reality -

1. We got rid of Vogel without having to pay him off. If this is the case, we should have done it earlier and used to freed up wages to keep Derbyshire.

or

2. We paid Vogel off, which suggests there were some funds available to have enabled us to have signed Diouf without the need to get Derbyshire off the wage bill.

Bear in mind Vogel now cannot sign for another club until the Summer, whereas if he'd been released during the transfer window he'd still have options. Therefore you'd have thought he would have been open to the discussion occuring in January, seeing as it was coming anyway.

I don't buy the wage bill excuse for letting Derbs go, at all. We should have done everything we could to keep him around, going down to 3 senior strikers was a big risk and one that hasn't paid off.

[SAS]

I'm not sure about Vogel, I'd say he was earning more than Derbs but we don't really know anything about how he left and he keen he was to do so. If it was as simple as just getting him to walk away from his contract for nothing then that could have been one solution. I've got a feeling we've had to pay him to leave though, I can't see why he'd walk away from the rest of his contract for nothing if he had nothing else lined up.

Even if he did go for nothing, we wouldn't have been getting the loan fee though, which (as you've said) probably was the most important factor in Derbyshire going out.

And on a similar note how much money have we lost on ticket sales these last 3 games, and how much have we spent trying to make the atmosphere better with the flags, inflatables, clappers etc.

I dont really buy the wage structure argument, We knew we were in big trouble, and you can forfeit £20k a week or whatever to continue with the £30m tv money the following year.

[Majiball]

And on a similar note how much money have we lost on ticket sales these last 3 games, and how much have we spent trying to make the atmosphere better with the flags, inflatables, clappers etc.

I dont really buy the wage structure argument, We knew we were in big trouble, and you can forfeit £20k a week or whatever to continue with the £30m tv money the following year.

But the atmosphere has been much better, even singing in the JW upper . Seeing the ground full and loud N proud has been great, it must have boosted the players.

We run such a tight budget that all it would do is take away from the next seasons funds, it would be the start of us getting into further debt. What do we spend each summer 5M we can't afford to reduce it further, we can't compete as it is let alone after wasting 20K a week (six months at 20K a week = 520K)on a player we never needed.

We are 6 points clear with a superior goal difference on Hull so are effectively safe, we just need Hull to drop one point and its over.

So the plan proposed by the club has worked we're safe and at the end of the day empty seats are lost money we can never re-coup, getting a few quid instead of nothing is fine by me. Who knows we may even get one or two fans after they've watched us play and win two out of the three so far.

[LeChuck]

Let's assume Derbs is on about £12,000, a pretty conservative estimate for a Premier League striker. Let's also assume the rumoured £750,000 is correct as it is about the going rate. That's £1 million earned/saved for letting him go out on loan.

Given our extremely tight finances, it seems highly probably that £1 million could be the difference between a deal happening or not.

At the time it made sense to get rid of our 4th choice striker for a right winger, virtually no-one complained then. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that people think it perhaps wasn't a good idea - but even so, I doubt he would be ahead of either Samba or McCarthy, and we do need Diouf on the right in the absence of anyone else competent out there.

[MarkBRFC]

Bear in mind Vogel now cannot sign for another club until the Summer, whereas if he'd been released during the transfer window he'd still have options. Therefore you'd have thought he would have been open to the discussion occuring in January, seeing as it was coming anyway.

Im not quite sure on this, but i thought that you could sign someone on a free transfer at any time during the season no matter when they were released?

[T4E]

No, I believe you have to be a free agent when the window closes to be able to sign for someone outside of the window.

Can anyone else answer comprehensively?

[Jan]

To look at this from a slightly different angle, imo one of the following two scenarios must be in line with reality -

1. We got rid of Vogel without having to pay him off. If this is the case, we should have done it earlier and used to freed up wages to keep Derbyshire.

or

2. We paid Vogel off, which suggests there were some funds available to have enabled us to have signed Diouf without the need to get Derbyshire off the wage bill.

Bear in mind Vogel now cannot sign for another club until the Summer, whereas if he'd been released during the transfer window he'd still have options. Therefore you'd have thought he would have been open to the discussion occuring in January, seeing as it was coming anyway.

I don't buy the wage bill excuse for letting Derbs go, at all. We should have done everything we could to keep him around, going down to 3 senior strikers was a big risk and one that hasn't paid off.

The amount they used to pay Vogel off was probably the amount they would have needed to pay his wages. To put it simply, it was already earmarked for that purpose. Therefore your argument about Diouf and Derbyshire doesn't hold water. So neither scenario is accurate.

[stuwilky]

No, I believe you have to be a free agent when the window closes to be able to sign for someone outside of the window.

I am of the opinion this is the case.

[philipl]

I see the Prem are to bring in a home grown quota from 2010/11.

On that basis we would be mad to do anything other than loan Matty next season so he can be our's when the quota comes in.

[modes98]

What will be the qualification for 'home grown'?

Do they have to come through the clubs youth system or to have simply come through a youth system in England?

We aren't doing to badly at the moment. Off the top of my head Robbo, Warnock, Dunn and Derbyshire.

[philipl]

They haven't specified the exact numbers yet and whether this applies to ttal squad, match day eleven plus subs or starting eleven but it seems it will be two quotas that will both have to be met:

One for players who spent three years up to the age of 21 at the club they are at (which qualifies Derbs - signed as a 17 year old didn't he?, Gally and so on)

One for players who spent three years up to the age of 21 at any club in the country the league is situated in- how Cardiff and Swansea would be treated if they came up is a moot point.

Potentially this is going to turn nasty- if you are a little club with a poor record of bringing players through, you are going to make those that fulfill your quota all but unsellable.

[modes98]

So foreign players could qualify under the first quota, which will suit arsenal down to the ground. Equally we have a habit of picking up young players, it makes keeping hold of that Holliett bloke more important as a talent for a couple of years.

[philipl]

Moot point whether Hoillet qualifies as being "at" Rovers seeing as he is not allowed in the country!

[Hughesy]

Its a crap rule which will only further benefit the bigger clubs.

Arsenal, Liverpool, City, Everton & United all have plenty of kids who have come up from their academy (whether or not they have been bought in).

The likes of Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan will once again be worst off!!

[The Prof.]

To look at this from a slightly different angle, imo one of the following two scenarios must be in line with reality -

1. We got rid of Vogel without having to pay him off. If this is the case, we should have done it earlier and used to freed up wages to keep Derbyshire.

or

2. We paid Vogel off, which suggests there were some funds available to have enabled us to have signed Diouf without the need to get Derbyshire off the wage bill.

Bear in mind Vogel now cannot sign for another club until the Summer, whereas if he'd been released during the transfer window he'd still have options. Therefore you'd have thought he would have been open to the discussion occuring in January, seeing as it was coming anyway.

I don't buy the wage bill excuse for letting Derbs go, at all. We should have done everything we could to keep him around, going down to 3 senior strikers was a big risk and one that hasn't paid off.

Can he not sign for anyone anytime as a free agent?

[T4E]

The amount they used to pay Vogel off was probably the amount they would have needed to pay his wages. To put it simply, it was already earmarked for that purpose. Therefore your argument about Diouf and Derbyshire doesn't hold water. So neither scenario is accurate.

So you think we paid up the remainder of Vogel's contract IN FULL and still let him go? Why would we do that? That is of no benefit to us whatsoever. For it to make any sense we'd have had to made some sort of saving on what keeping him would have cost.

[Majiball]

No, I believe you have to be a free agent when the window closes to be able to sign for someone outside of the window.

Can anyone else answer comprehensively?

We have several transfer windows.

transfers as we both know them, summer and winter. On the same days that those windows start the loan window also starts, this window covers free transfers so as long as this window is open a free can sign and play. I'm not 100% on the dates it closes (loans), premiership teams can only loan players during the normal windows the other leagues get longer. but a free player has from July till mid november to find a club and then he can play if its mid-november through till start of Jan he must wait till the next window opens.

If a player was to sign on a free and the loan window has passed he would be inelligible to play till the next window starts.

Hope that helps?

T4E is right no club would pay him up in full, its pointless you may as well keep him. they'll have sorted out a reduced amount and paid him that. I seriously doubt Vogels strapped for cash given his track record.

[LeChuck]

I think that's overly complicating the rule somewhat.

A player can't swap teams when the transfer window is closed, regardless of how the contract with his current club ends. If they were a free agent at the point of the window closing then they're free to sign for a team after that because they're not registered to a team.

Vogel could sign for someone now but wouldn't be able to play for them until July 1st when the next window opens. We signed Vogel in March last year but he'd been a free agent prior to the window closing so he was allowed to play for us.

It would be far, far too easy to circumvent the transfer window rules if people like Vogel could play for new clubs now.

[Majiball]

I see the Prem are to bring in a home grown quota from 2010/11.

On that basis we would be mad to do anything other than loan Matty next season so he can be our's when the quota comes in.

I've been saying that for a while now, its been coming.

They haven't specified the exact numbers yet and whether this applies to ttal squad, match day eleven plus subs or starting eleven but it seems it will be two quotas that will both have to be met:

One for players who spent three years up to the age of 21 at the club they are at (which qualifies Derbs - signed as a 17 year old didn't he?, Gally and so on)

One for players who spent three years up to the age of 21 at any club in the country the league is situated in- how Cardiff and Swansea would be treated if they came up is a moot point.

Potentially this is going to turn nasty- if you are a little club with a poor record of bringing players through, you are going to make those that fulfill your quota all but unsellable.

They can't apply it to games, it will only be squads.

Even more reason to sort out the youth set-up.

If you look at our squad:

Cat1 Derb's, Olsson (should qualify soon), Judge????, treacy

Cat2 Warnock, Robinson, Andrews, Roberts

So we could fill our quota even now, but the quality of that quota is very low for the premiership, let alone europe.

[T4E]

A player can't swap teams when the transfer window is closed, regardless of how the contract with his current club ends. If they were a free agent at the point of the window closing then they're free to sign for a team after that because they're not registered to a team.

This is as I understand it. Vogel couldn't play for another team now until next season.

[LeChuck]

This is as I understand it. Vogel couldn't play for another team now until next season.

Found something a bit more concrete: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6971785.stm

"Players who are out of contract and do not have a club, can be signed outside of the transfer window if they are unattached free agents when the window closes."

I think that clears it up.