But that's not quite right is it? If you have a car worth £1k and someone offers you £2k, are you going to take it if you are left with no car? Probably not, if you need the car. What about if you can replace the car with another car but markedly worse? Probably not. What if you don't need the money and the car might be integral for your job? Surely you would have to think long and hard about whether to sell the car? Besides, the price paid for Johnson is about £5.75m, with the full price coming in add-ons mostly only if Derby get promoted. Most of that will be paid in installments staggered over months, if not a year or two. This is not a case of us getting an insanely good offer Johnson - if it had been, say, £9-10m I would have accepted your point. But £5.75m is probably the low end of what he's worth, not your stellar double price for the car example. And anyway, valuation for players is a bit like houses - what could you get for the same price? Find me a midfielder as good as Johnson we could buy for £5.75m. There isn't one. We've replaced him with a player who isn't as flexible in where he can play, isn't fully our player, isn't at his peak. And no-one seems willing to deal with the point that at 5pm on the evening of the transfer window, Johnson's position in the pecking order of midfielders was no different to where he was the moment Brady and Mulumbu were signed, several weeks earlier. I don't buy the idea that Derby waited that late to make a bid - if they'd wanted him and he'd been available at the time Mulumbu and Brady arrived, they would have bought him then, integrated into their squad. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this: The fact is, this was a very last minute decision. It can't have been about solely about pecking order as Johnson had a reasonably good chance of playing regularly, as shown by the fact he played every game so far (and before anyone mentions he was going to be behind Jarvis, let's face it, he was bought as a replacement and wouldn't be here if it wasn't for selling Johnson, so you can't argue he'd be above him). It can't have been about this being an exceptional bargain for the club, because it wasn't and we don't need the money. So what was it? No-one on here seems to know. It certainly wasn't the reasons that are being given, demonstrably. Now it might be that there was a very good reason with nothing untoward at all, but it simply hasn't been explained. I honestly don't understand how people can look at this deal and say "from what we know, it all makes perfect sense". Because it quite simply doesn't.
And anybody who says 'that makes perfect sense', imho, is being incredibly naive or simplistic. And in addition, we've named a squad of 24, instead of the 25 allowed (when would NCFC ever knowingly under-cook things!) suggesting to me that the Johnson deal was last minute / panic / something 'mucky' they don't want out in the open. Explain to me if not, how the least well bankrolled team in the division has failed to take up it's full quota of registered players? Norwich City Sebastian Bassong, Elliott Bennett, Ryan Bennett, Robbie Brady, Graham Dorrans, Lewis Grabban, Wes Hoolahan, Gary Hooper, Jonny Howson, Matt Jarvis, Jake Kean, Kyle Lafferty, Russell Martin, Dieudonne Mbokani, Youssouf Mulumbu, Gary O'Neil, Vadis Ofoe Odjidja, Martin Olsson, Cameron Jerome, Declan Rudd, John Ruddy, Alex Tettey, Steven Whittaker, Andre Wisdom.
Rob - I'm not going to fall into the trap of having a long insignificant debate with you, particular as you don't even appear to be able to read my post correctly. I really don't want to get into a detailed discussion around player values with, as I don't want to reopen the transfer market debat. We could discuss the car analogy forever and I except there are other variables, but are you really suggesting we don't have another car. The point was that I can foresee circumstances arising where a player is sold at short notice without there being something sinister going on. That doesn't mean there isn't something more sinister going on, just that circumstance could arise that a player was sold that wasn't planned. You talk about buying a replacement for Johnson for the same price, but that's the point we don't need to, we have an abundance of midfielders. What we need(ed) is a CB to replace Martin in our starting 11 and another quality striker. Johnson's position in the pecking order was about to change (even if we didn't sign Jarvis) with Olsson coming back from injury and Brady becoming available to play in midfield. The chances were that Johnson might not even made the bench. Not that I think the decision was solely about pecking order, but it must be a factor. Decisions are rarely made on one factor, but when one factor changes significantly (i.e. a strong bid) this can tip the balance. Anyway I've started doing what I said I wouldn't, so i'll stop
The main reason is that Tony Andreu is on loan until January and thus is not included in this squad. I presume we can't now sign a free-agent CB and add him to the squad.
Can nobody else remember Johnson thanking the Club for ' allowing him to leave ' or is it that some people can't face the obvious!! AN realised Johnson was slipping down the pecking order and so did Johnson so when, at the last minute, Derby came in for him at £6.5m the decision was obvious if Johnson wanted to go. Alternatively they could have refused, faced a season with Johnson on the bench at best and also have him sulking in the naughty corner with Grabban. It could be that City did try and use the money to make an increased bid for a CB - we don't know - but if Clubs refuse to release players, as with Naismith and Walters, players refuse to come to us, as with Murray, or bigger Clubs come in, as with the Celtic CB, there is nothing you can do. At least we will have another £6m in the transfer kitty in Jan when hopefully we can get arrangements done early rather than later
I.e. you realise that you don't have a response? OK. Quite the charmer. Rob's the big bad evil long boring arguer, therefore I win. I read your post perfectly well, and understood it. Sorry I disagreed with you, I can't help it. Tbf though, cheap gibes aside, you are spot on with this: "The point was that I can foresee circumstances arising where a player is sold at short notice without there being something sinister going on." I completely agree with you. That's exactly what I was saying: "Now it might be that there was a very good reason with nothing untoward at all, but it simply hasn't been explained." But what I was saying is that we don't know the circumstances and anyone attempting to explain them logically with what we know is, to be frank, kidding themselves. Now that's fine if you prefer to take the view that Neil prima facie makes the right decisions and knows what's best (and I actually think that's often a reasonable approach to take), but I, for one, liked Johnson and was excited about him playing this season so I just would like to understand it (and call me nosey if you want) if the reason is perfectly legitimate.
We're repeating ourselves, but: (a) Johnson wasn't "slipping down the pecking order". His place in the pecking order at 5pm on deadline day was exactly the same as it was when Mulumbu and Brady were signed. When he was used in the club's marketing material. When he was brought off the bench first. Nothing changed in that last week of the transfer window that we know about. (b) Derby are paying around £5.75m. Not £6.5m. It will only get over that if they get promoted. This was not some wonderful bargain way over his value.
I know that we can sign a free agent, Bath, but if we did could he take the 25th place until January or is the 25 man squad now 'fixed and unchangeable'?
I'd forgotten Johnson thanking the Club for 'allowing him to leave', 1950, and it does make a difference to me.
Makes all the difference in the world, I´d say, but there will always be some who will keep on banging the ´conspiracy´ drum - more likely than not, we will never know, and actually that is how it should be, for as much as we might think so, fans haven´t got a right to know everything.
A season (or perhaps two) back, West Ham re-signed Carlton Cole long after the deadline, so presumably it's ok. As to who is a free agent centre back right now...Yobo? Titus Bramble? The only sensible option I can come up with is Ondřej Mazuch, a 26 year old CB released by Dnipro this summer, having previously played at Anderlecht and Fiorentina, and moved for £2-3m fees.
Ron Vlaar is a free agent but he has injury problems and probably expects a massive salary amongst other things.
Isn't Ron Vlaar still without a contract? Nuno André Coelho (used to play for Braga)? EDIT: ninja'd by RM2 above RE Ron Vlaar EDIT EDIT: Max Haas is supposedly on a free! I thought he was supposed to be good!?
Sorry Rob but you are arguing about minor technicalities. From his position at the end of last season he slipped down the order when Dorrans signed again and further down when Mulumbu and Brady came in. Even when Mulumbu was injured and Brady was forced to play left back he didn't make the team so he must have realised his chances were going to be limited when Mulumbu and Brady were ready for contention for a midfield place which is obviously why he was happy to leave. £5m, £6m, £7m - whatever the price - is probably a lot more than they would have got in January after he had spent 4 months on the bench or even worse. Incidentally, marketing material is thought out and agreed weeks in advance - long before the composition of the squad was sorted out. Johnson wanted to go, AN was happy to let him go which makes it a sensible decision all round. I'm afraid your heart is ruling your head in this instance.
Mazuch had occurred to me earlier, DH, being younger than the others at 27, I think. Could come on a one year contract with Andreu continuing his loan after January or perhaps Lafferty going out on loan? If it works out then it could be extended, if not, we move on in the summer.
I thought I was pretty clear that I don't accept he would be playing regularly, and of course Jarvis is competition, as is Brady and Mulumbu. They don't have to be like-for-like to be increasing competition. The whole post was basically "new options arriving = dropping down the pecking order to the point that £6m is worth cashing in on". Common sense really IMO. Sorry if it was genuinely unclear but your insatiable appetite for finding a way of challenging everything endlessly has left me a bit wary of entering into these debates with you so I'll say no more.
