(06-09-2021, 03:56 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sorry I dont buy that Tricky. Both full back positions were high priority. If they knew they were going to sell on Gabriel they knew they needed 2 RBs regardless. Drager was mentioned months ago. If we believe the club PR spin then Drager’s stats are excellent which was why he was brought in.

So putting all of that together he should have been here back in July and had a preseason here, not signed on deadline day. Someone is telling porkies.

(06-09-2021, 05:20 PM)Paplane Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 03:56 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sorry I dont buy that Tricky. Both full back positions were high priority. If they knew they were going to sell on Gabriel they knew they needed 2 RBs regardless. Drager was mentioned months ago. If we believe the club PR spin then Drager’s stats are excellent which was why he was brought in.

So putting all of that together he should have been here back in July and had a preseason here, not signed on deadline day. Someone is telling porkies.

Ive just re-read the article by Taylor. He writes 'the data on Drager was carefully analysed and there is a belief he will prove to be an upgrade on Jordan Gabriel'. He didn't write that Drager was selected as a target RB because of his excellent stats. So Drager may not be what what the club wanted as an end goal but he was free and cheap to pay and yet still considered better than Gabriel who they could flog for £750k + sell-on clause. So us persuing Drager at the same time as pursuing Spense (or a n other) looks to me like a bit of a no-brainer pragmatic move to make on the last day of the window, and yes, driven by stats.

(06-09-2021, 05:20 PM)Paplane Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 03:56 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sorry I dont buy that Tricky. Both full back positions were high priority. If they knew they were going to sell on Gabriel they knew they needed 2 RBs regardless. Drager was mentioned months ago. If we believe the club PR spin then Drager’s stats are excellent which was why he was brought in.

So putting all of that together he should have been here back in July and had a preseason here, not signed on deadline day. Someone is telling porkies.

Ive just re-read the article by Taylor. He writes 'the data on Drager was carefully analysed and there is a belief he will prove to be an upgrade on Jordan Gabriel'. He didn't write that Drager was selected as a target RB because of his excellent stats. So Drager may not be what what the club wanted as an end goal but he was free and cheap to pay and yet still considered better than Gabriel who they could flog for £750k + sell-on clause. So us persuing Drager at the same time as pursuing Spense (or a n other) looks to me like a bit of a no-brainer pragmatic move to make on the last day of the window, and yes, driven by stats.

(06-09-2021, 05:31 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:20 PM)Paplane Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 03:56 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sorry I dont buy that Tricky. Both full back positions were high priority. If they knew they were going to sell on Gabriel they knew they needed 2 RBs regardless. Drager was mentioned months ago. If we believe the club PR spin then Drager’s stats are excellent which was why he was brought in.

So putting all of that together he should have been here back in July and had a preseason here, not signed on deadline day. Someone is telling porkies.

Ive just re-read the article by Taylor. He writes 'the data on Drager was carefully analysed and there is a belief he will prove to be an upgrade on Jordan Gabriel'. He didn't write that Drager was selected as a target RB because of his excellent stats. So Drager may not be what what the club wanted as an end goal but he was free and cheap to pay and yet still considered better than Gabriel who they could flog for £750k + sell-on clause. So us persuing Drager at the same time as pursuing Spense (or a n other) looks to me like a bit of a no-brainer pragmatic move to make on the last day of the window, and yes, driven by stats.

Away from opinions on the summer business... etc

What has caused me frustration in recent times, is that as a club we don't seem to value salaries.  I know selling a player means 'X' amount to use in FFP, whereas purchasing a player you balance the cost over the length of the contract. 

But salaries are often much more expensive than the fee themselves.

I know we'd made around 750k or so for Gabriel.  But I suspect he was earning vastly less as an academy lad than someone Olympiacos apparently paid just short of £1m for being a club competing in European competition.

Even if we're modest and say Gabriel was on 5k p/w and Drager 10k pw.  Over the 2yr contract that's an extra 520k cost.

When you see the wastage we'd had in 'bomb squads' over the past few years and the salaries that's been draining from the club (Jenkinson will have cost well in excess of £5m by the time he leaves) it's an odd practice to take.

Time will tell on Drager's contribution.  But seeing as we've now got Spence, Osei-Tutu and Back who can all play there.  Will that provide value for money? We all hope it does, but I don't think it looks all that likely.

It's frustrating business to be conducting.

(06-09-2021, 05:39 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:31 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:20 PM)Paplane Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 03:56 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sorry I dont buy that Tricky. Both full back positions were high priority. If they knew they were going to sell on Gabriel they knew they needed 2 RBs regardless. Drager was mentioned months ago. If we believe the club PR spin then Drager’s stats are excellent which was why he was brought in.

So putting all of that together he should have been here back in July and had a preseason here, not signed on deadline day. Someone is telling porkies.

Ive just re-read the article by Taylor. He writes 'the data on Drager was carefully analysed and there is a belief he will prove to be an upgrade on Jordan Gabriel'. He didn't write that Drager was selected as a target RB because of his excellent stats. So Drager may not be what what the club wanted as an end goal but he was free and cheap to pay and yet still considered better than Gabriel who they could flog for £750k + sell-on clause. So us persuing Drager at the same time as pursuing Spense (or a n other) looks to me like a bit of a no-brainer pragmatic move to make on the last day of the window, and yes, driven by stats.

Away from opinions on the summer business... etc

What has caused me frustration in recent times, is that as a club we don't seem to value salaries.  I know selling a player means 'X' amount to use in FFP, whereas purchasing a player you balance the cost over the length of the contract. 

But salaries are often much more expensive than the fee themselves.

I know we'd made around 750k or so for Gabriel.  But I suspect he was earning vastly less as an academy lad than someone Olympiacos apparently paid just short of £1m for being a club competing in European competition.

Even if we're modest and say Gabriel was on 5k p/w and Drager 10k pw.  Over the 2yr contract that's an extra 520k cost.

When you see the wastage we'd had in 'bomb squads' over the past few years and the salaries that's been draining from the club (Jenkinson will have cost well in excess of £5m by the time he leaves) it's an odd practice to take.

Time will tell on Drager's contribution.  But seeing as we've now got Spence, Osei-Tutu and Back who can all play there.  Will that provide value for money? We all hope it does, but I don't think it looks all that likely.

It's frustrating business to be conducting.

I under stand the frustration on player churn and the admitted (by the club) short-termism on player recruitment.

It's why Forest are rooted to the bottom of the Championship and, really, beep all to do with Hughton.  Sooner or later when you churn managers and players to the degree Forest have?  It collapses into the confused jumble of patchwork ideas built on a weak recruitment foundation.

It's a mess he was handed.  You play the cards you're dealt.

But, overall, this is a fledgling step in the 'right' direction by the new recruitment team and a frugal one with millions saved.

Tutu is a possible hamstring injury away from not playing.  Back is still a young product.

Our RBs are Spence and Drager with Tutu (if fit...) likely to rival Lowe for the LB spot.

We have our suspicions based upon what how the club was run in previous years.  That's our base line.  But with a new CEO and recruitment team, we have to actually give the new playing staff a chance to see if Plan B is on the right track, at least up to Christmas (to gel and get to know one another as a team) to draw any real conclusions.

SA.

(06-09-2021, 05:52 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:39 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:31 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:20 PM)Paplane Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 03:56 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: Sorry I dont buy that Tricky. Both full back positions were high priority. If they knew they were going to sell on Gabriel they knew they needed 2 RBs regardless. Drager was mentioned months ago. If we believe the club PR spin then Drager’s stats are excellent which was why he was brought in.

So putting all of that together he should have been here back in July and had a preseason here, not signed on deadline day. Someone is telling porkies.

Ive just re-read the article by Taylor. He writes 'the data on Drager was carefully analysed and there is a belief he will prove to be an upgrade on Jordan Gabriel'. He didn't write that Drager was selected as a target RB because of his excellent stats. So Drager may not be what what the club wanted as an end goal but he was free and cheap to pay and yet still considered better than Gabriel who they could flog for £750k + sell-on clause. So us persuing Drager at the same time as pursuing Spense (or a n other) looks to me like a bit of a no-brainer pragmatic move to make on the last day of the window, and yes, driven by stats.

Away from opinions on the summer business... etc

What has caused me frustration in recent times, is that as a club we don't seem to value salaries.  I know selling a player means 'X' amount to use in FFP, whereas purchasing a player you balance the cost over the length of the contract. 

But salaries are often much more expensive than the fee themselves.

I know we'd made around 750k or so for Gabriel.  But I suspect he was earning vastly less as an academy lad than someone Olympiacos apparently paid just short of £1m for being a club competing in European competition.

Even if we're modest and say Gabriel was on 5k p/w and Drager 10k pw.  Over the 2yr contract that's an extra 520k cost.

When you see the wastage we'd had in 'bomb squads' over the past few years and the salaries that's been draining from the club (Jenkinson will have cost well in excess of £5m by the time he leaves) it's an odd practice to take.

Time will tell on Drager's contribution.  But seeing as we've now got Spence, Osei-Tutu and Back who can all play there.  Will that provide value for money? We all hope it does, but I don't think it looks all that likely.

It's frustrating business to be conducting.

I under stand the frustration on player churn and the admitted (by the club) short-termism on player recruitment.

It's why Forest are rooted to the bottom of the Championship and, really, beep all to do with Hughton.  Sooner or later when you churn managers and players to the degree Forest have?  It collapses into the confused jumble of patchwork ideas built on a weak recruitment foundation.

It's a mess he was handed.  You play the cards you're dealt.

But, overall, this is a fledgling step in the 'right' direction by the new recruitment team and a frugal one with millions saved.

Tutu is a possible hamstring injury away from not playing.  Back is still a young product.

Our RBs are Spence and Drager with Tutu (if fit...) likely to rival Lowe for the LB spot.

We have our suspicions based upon what how the club was run in previous years.  That's our base line.  But with a new CEO and recruitment team, we have to actually give the new playing staff a chance to see if Plan B is on the right track, at least up to Christmas (to gel and get to know one another as a team) to draw any real conclusions.

SA.

Back is young but he absolutely looks good enough to be someone to be used occasionally.  Other clubs use lads at 18. Why should it be used as a stick to beat him with?  

Where is the notion that Osei-Tutu was signed to play left-back?  Because he played there when Bong was suspended? He is a right-footed right back and has been throughout his young career to date (occasionally RWB in Germany too).  

I know you're saying we're taking steps in the right direction, but surely if we're signing players as cover that are more expensive than the cover they are replacing, that's more of the same rather than learning and making smart business choices.

It's just hard to see an argument that makes it good business sense to sign Drager.  Like SM says, if we wanted him and identified him through data analysis, considering he wasn't given a squad number by Olympiacos, he wasn't wanted there, then we surely would have got him a while back, not on deadline day.

In a season where we're not going to be competing, it strikes me as odd to make such a financial commitment.  We have options at right-back already, that's why it's just so odd.  

I know there's comments he can play RW too.  But we also have Mighten, Johnson, Lolley and now Silva who can play RW too.  Spence too apparently.

So we're paying a salary out to a 3rd choice RB and 5th choice RW?  Not sure why we don't just use Back as 3rd choice RB and then some of the young talent we have in the advanced midfield positions should we need a 5th choice RW.  

If we're pushing for promotion and trying to tip ourselves over the edge and not be caught short, I kind of get it.

(06-09-2021, 06:03 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:52 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:39 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:31 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:20 PM)Paplane Wrote: Ive just re-read the article by Taylor. He writes 'the data on Drager was carefully analysed and there is a belief he will prove to be an upgrade on Jordan Gabriel'. He didn't write that Drager was selected as a target RB because of his excellent stats. So Drager may not be what what the club wanted as an end goal but he was free and cheap to pay and yet still considered better than Gabriel who they could flog for £750k + sell-on clause. So us persuing Drager at the same time as pursuing Spense (or a n other) looks to me like a bit of a no-brainer pragmatic move to make on the last day of the window, and yes, driven by stats.

Away from opinions on the summer business... etc

What has caused me frustration in recent times, is that as a club we don't seem to value salaries.  I know selling a player means 'X' amount to use in FFP, whereas purchasing a player you balance the cost over the length of the contract. 

But salaries are often much more expensive than the fee themselves.

I know we'd made around 750k or so for Gabriel.  But I suspect he was earning vastly less as an academy lad than someone Olympiacos apparently paid just short of £1m for being a club competing in European competition.

Even if we're modest and say Gabriel was on 5k p/w and Drager 10k pw.  Over the 2yr contract that's an extra 520k cost.

When you see the wastage we'd had in 'bomb squads' over the past few years and the salaries that's been draining from the club (Jenkinson will have cost well in excess of £5m by the time he leaves) it's an odd practice to take.

Time will tell on Drager's contribution.  But seeing as we've now got Spence, Osei-Tutu and Back who can all play there.  Will that provide value for money? We all hope it does, but I don't think it looks all that likely.

It's frustrating business to be conducting.

I under stand the frustration on player churn and the admitted (by the club) short-termism on player recruitment.

It's why Forest are rooted to the bottom of the Championship and, really, beep all to do with Hughton.  Sooner or later when you churn managers and players to the degree Forest have?  It collapses into the confused jumble of patchwork ideas built on a weak recruitment foundation.

It's a mess he was handed.  You play the cards you're dealt.

But, overall, this is a fledgling step in the 'right' direction by the new recruitment team and a frugal one with millions saved.

Tutu is a possible hamstring injury away from not playing.  Back is still a young product.

Our RBs are Spence and Drager with Tutu (if fit...) likely to rival Lowe for the LB spot.

We have our suspicions based upon what how the club was run in previous years.  That's our base line.  But with a new CEO and recruitment team, we have to actually give the new playing staff a chance to see if Plan B is on the right track, at least up to Christmas (to gel and get to know one another as a team) to draw any real conclusions.

SA.

Back is young but he absolutely looks good enough to be someone to be used occasionally.  Other clubs use lads at 18. Why should it be used as a stick to beat him with?  

Where is the notion that Osei-Tutu was signed to play left-back?  Because he played there when Bong was suspended? He is a right-footed right back and has been throughout his young career to date (occasionally RWB in Germany too).  

I know you're saying we're taking steps in the right direction, but surely if we're signing players as cover that are more expensive than the cover they are replacing, that's more of the same rather than learning and making smart business choices.

It's just hard to see an argument that makes it good business sense to sign Drager.  Like SM says, if we wanted him and identified him through data analysis, considering he wasn't given a squad number by Olympiacos, he wasn't wanted there, then we surely would have got him a while back, not on deadline day.

In a season where we're not going to be competing, it strikes me as odd to make such a financial commitment.  We have options at right-back already, that's why it's just so odd.  

I know there's comments he can play RW too.  But we also have Mighten, Johnson, Lolley and now Silva who can play RW too.  Spence too apparently.

So we're paying a salary out to a 3rd choice RB and 5th choice RW?  Not sure why we don't just use Back as 3rd choice RB and then some of the young talent we have in the advanced midfield positions should we need a 5th choice RW.  

If we're pushing for promotion and trying to tip ourselves over the edge and not be caught short, I kind of get it.

It's your opinion that the club has enough RBs.  

It's clear management and recruitment don't agree with your assessment.  (One of those is a walking hamstring.  The other is deemed raw.  But he's still in the squad.  What other clubs do and Forest do are two different things.  As we know.)

I merely gave a plausible line of their thinking.  And we'll soon find out if these players are played and perform.  Even Master Yoda can't see that far into the future.

Tutu 'can' play LB as well and utility has formed a part in recruitment's thinking in various parts of the pitch.

It was always going to be difficult to land alpha targets for a club who is no longer in the Premier, finishing poorly last season to convince other teams to part with their quality players without shedding out ridiculous sums of money.

It's a bite of reality sandwich Forest have had to finally take a bite of.  

'Frasier, You're not famous any more.'  Niles.

SA.

(06-09-2021, 06:09 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 06:03 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:52 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:39 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:31 PM)SSM Wrote: Away from opinions on the summer business... etc

What has caused me frustration in recent times, is that as a club we don't seem to value salaries.  I know selling a player means 'X' amount to use in FFP, whereas purchasing a player you balance the cost over the length of the contract. 

But salaries are often much more expensive than the fee themselves.

I know we'd made around 750k or so for Gabriel.  But I suspect he was earning vastly less as an academy lad than someone Olympiacos apparently paid just short of £1m for being a club competing in European competition.

Even if we're modest and say Gabriel was on 5k p/w and Drager 10k pw.  Over the 2yr contract that's an extra 520k cost.

When you see the wastage we'd had in 'bomb squads' over the past few years and the salaries that's been draining from the club (Jenkinson will have cost well in excess of £5m by the time he leaves) it's an odd practice to take.

Time will tell on Drager's contribution.  But seeing as we've now got Spence, Osei-Tutu and Back who can all play there.  Will that provide value for money? We all hope it does, but I don't think it looks all that likely.

It's frustrating business to be conducting.

I under stand the frustration on player churn and the admitted (by the club) short-termism on player recruitment.

It's why Forest are rooted to the bottom of the Championship and, really, beep all to do with Hughton.  Sooner or later when you churn managers and players to the degree Forest have?  It collapses into the confused jumble of patchwork ideas built on a weak recruitment foundation.

It's a mess he was handed.  You play the cards you're dealt.

But, overall, this is a fledgling step in the 'right' direction by the new recruitment team and a frugal one with millions saved.

Tutu is a possible hamstring injury away from not playing.  Back is still a young product.

Our RBs are Spence and Drager with Tutu (if fit...) likely to rival Lowe for the LB spot.

We have our suspicions based upon what how the club was run in previous years.  That's our base line.  But with a new CEO and recruitment team, we have to actually give the new playing staff a chance to see if Plan B is on the right track, at least up to Christmas (to gel and get to know one another as a team) to draw any real conclusions.

SA.

Back is young but he absolutely looks good enough to be someone to be used occasionally.  Other clubs use lads at 18. Why should it be used as a stick to beat him with?  

Where is the notion that Osei-Tutu was signed to play left-back?  Because he played there when Bong was suspended? He is a right-footed right back and has been throughout his young career to date (occasionally RWB in Germany too).  

I know you're saying we're taking steps in the right direction, but surely if we're signing players as cover that are more expensive than the cover they are replacing, that's more of the same rather than learning and making smart business choices.

It's just hard to see an argument that makes it good business sense to sign Drager.  Like SM says, if we wanted him and identified him through data analysis, considering he wasn't given a squad number by Olympiacos, he wasn't wanted there, then we surely would have got him a while back, not on deadline day.

In a season where we're not going to be competing, it strikes me as odd to make such a financial commitment.  We have options at right-back already, that's why it's just so odd.  

I know there's comments he can play RW too.  But we also have Mighten, Johnson, Lolley and now Silva who can play RW too.  Spence too apparently.

So we're paying a salary out to a 3rd choice RB and 5th choice RW?  Not sure why we don't just use Back as 3rd choice RB and then some of the young talent we have in the advanced midfield positions should we need a 5th choice RW.  

If we're pushing for promotion and trying to tip ourselves over the edge and not be caught short, I kind of get it.

It's your opinion that the club has enough RBs.  

It's clear management and recruitment don't agree with your assessment.  (One of those is a walking hamstring.  The other is deemed raw.  But he's still in the squad.  What other clubs do and Forest do are two different things.  As we know.)

I merely gave a plausible line of their thinking.  And we'll soon find out if these players are played and perform.  Even Master Yoda can't see that far into the future.

Tutu 'can' play LB as well and utility has formed a part in recruitment's thinking in various parts of the pitch.

It was always going to be difficult to land alpha targets for a club who is no longer in the Premier, finishing poorly last season to convince other teams to part with their quality players without shedding out ridiculous sums of money.

It's a bite of reality sandwich Forest have had to finally take a bite of.  

'Frasier, You're not famous any more.'  Niles.

SA.

Of course it's my opinion.

Spence, Osei-Tutu, Back, Drager and even Jenkinson if we got injuries.  That's surely more than is needed? I wont got into the recruitment around signing players with proven injury records.  That's been something we've weirdly been doing for a good number of years now.

Not relative to just Forest, but you have to wonder why clubs sign players who have proven they can't play 40+ games in a season? I think it's why the smaller, but more savvy clubs have been showing up 'bigger' clubs in recent years.  Much wiser planning and recruitment.  They don't sign back-up players, but invest more into the main core of the team, then have a group of younger, talented and cheaper lads around to supplement the squad.

You'd imagine those 5 right-backs above must be costing the club 60k+ per week.  Imagine if we instead identified a talented lad with scope to improve, who we could back, and supplement him with Fin Back.

You could play 20kpw for that, then the couple of grand max for Back as cover.  Save near 40k pw.  Over two years, that's  £4.1m in savings from salary, which you could invest in signing such talent as opposed to having to use it to sign cover because of the inadequate business you've conducted in the first place - That's obviously not a Forest-only issue.  But as I care about Forest and not the other club, it's frustrating seeing us do it.

(06-09-2021, 06:09 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 06:03 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:52 PM)SSM Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:39 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(06-09-2021, 05:31 PM)SSM Wrote: Away from opinions on the summer business... etc

What has caused me frustration in recent times, is that as a club we don't seem to value salaries.  I know selling a player means 'X' amount to use in FFP, whereas purchasing a player you balance the cost over the length of the contract. 

But salaries are often much more expensive than the fee themselves.

I know we'd made around 750k or so for Gabriel.  But I suspect he was earning vastly less as an academy lad than someone Olympiacos apparently paid just short of £1m for being a club competing in European competition.

Even if we're modest and say Gabriel was on 5k p/w and Drager 10k pw.  Over the 2yr contract that's an extra 520k cost.

When you see the wastage we'd had in 'bomb squads' over the past few years and the salaries that's been draining from the club (Jenkinson will have cost well in excess of £5m by the time he leaves) it's an odd practice to take.

Time will tell on Drager's contribution.  But seeing as we've now got Spence, Osei-Tutu and Back who can all play there.  Will that provide value for money? We all hope it does, but I don't think it looks all that likely.

It's frustrating business to be conducting.

I under stand the frustration on player churn and the admitted (by the club) short-termism on player recruitment.

It's why Forest are rooted to the bottom of the Championship and, really, beep all to do with Hughton.  Sooner or later when you churn managers and players to the degree Forest have?  It collapses into the confused jumble of patchwork ideas built on a weak recruitment foundation.

It's a mess he was handed.  You play the cards you're dealt.

But, overall, this is a fledgling step in the 'right' direction by the new recruitment team and a frugal one with millions saved.

Tutu is a possible hamstring injury away from not playing.  Back is still a young product.

Our RBs are Spence and Drager with Tutu (if fit...) likely to rival Lowe for the LB spot.

We have our suspicions based upon what how the club was run in previous years.  That's our base line.  But with a new CEO and recruitment team, we have to actually give the new playing staff a chance to see if Plan B is on the right track, at least up to Christmas (to gel and get to know one another as a team) to draw any real conclusions.

SA.

Back is young but he absolutely looks good enough to be someone to be used occasionally.  Other clubs use lads at 18. Why should it be used as a stick to beat him with?  

Where is the notion that Osei-Tutu was signed to play left-back?  Because he played there when Bong was suspended? He is a right-footed right back and has been throughout his young career to date (occasionally RWB in Germany too).  

I know you're saying we're taking steps in the right direction, but surely if we're signing players as cover that are more expensive than the cover they are replacing, that's more of the same rather than learning and making smart business choices.

It's just hard to see an argument that makes it good business sense to sign Drager.  Like SM says, if we wanted him and identified him through data analysis, considering he wasn't given a squad number by Olympiacos, he wasn't wanted there, then we surely would have got him a while back, not on deadline day.

In a season where we're not going to be competing, it strikes me as odd to make such a financial commitment.  We have options at right-back already, that's why it's just so odd.  

I know there's comments he can play RW too.  But we also have Mighten, Johnson, Lolley and now Silva who can play RW too.  Spence too apparently.

So we're paying a salary out to a 3rd choice RB and 5th choice RW?  Not sure why we don't just use Back as 3rd choice RB and then some of the young talent we have in the advanced midfield positions should we need a 5th choice RW.  

If we're pushing for promotion and trying to tip ourselves over the edge and not be caught short, I kind of get it.

It's your opinion that the club has enough RBs.  

It's clear management and recruitment don't agree with your assessment.  (One of those is a walking hamstring.  The other is deemed raw.  But he's still in the squad.  What other clubs do and Forest do are two different things.  As we know.)

I merely gave a plausible line of their thinking.  And we'll soon find out if these players are played and perform.  Even Master Yoda can't see that far into the future.

Tutu 'can' play LB as well and utility has formed a part in recruitment's thinking in various parts of the pitch.

It was always going to be difficult to land alpha targets for a club who is no longer in the Premier, finishing poorly last season to convince other teams to part with their quality players without shedding out ridiculous sums of money.

It's a bite of reality sandwich Forest have had to finally take a bite of.  

'Frasier, You're not famous any more.'  Niles.

SA.

Of course it's my opinion.

Spence, Osei-Tutu, Back, Drager and even Jenkinson if we got injuries.  That's surely more than is needed? I wont got into the recruitment around signing players with proven injury records.  That's been something we've weirdly been doing for a good number of years now.

Not relative to just Forest, but you have to wonder why clubs sign players who have proven they can't play 40+ games in a season? I think it's why the smaller, but more savvy clubs have been showing up 'bigger' clubs in recent years.  Much wiser planning and recruitment.  They don't sign back-up players, but invest more into the main core of the team, then have a group of younger, talented and cheaper lads around to supplement the squad.

You'd imagine those 5 right-backs above must be costing the club 60k+ per week.  Imagine if we instead identified a talented lad with scope to improve, who we could back, and supplement him with Fin Back.

You could play 20kpw for that, then the couple of grand max for Back as cover.  Save near 40k pw.  Over two years, that's  £4.1m in savings from salary, which you could invest in signing such talent as opposed to having to use it to sign cover because of the inadequate business you've conducted in the first place - That's obviously not a Forest-only issue.  But as I care about Forest and not the other club, it's frustrating seeing us do it.

(06-09-2021, 06:30 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: I get your frustrations SSM, I said pretty much the same this time last year about the insanity of signing so many who were only ever going to be back ups but got shouted down by the Happy clapping Announce promotion brigade.

The consolation is that in my opinion we have done so much better this time, hung on to our academy players, only signed a few who should in theory increase in value, not a huge fan of loans but at least they are only a short term hit if they dont work out. It will take a while to turn things around and old habits die hard it seems but I remain more positive overall.