Sell Johnson or Danilo?

[Tricky]

I would sell neither, but if I had to sell one, it would be Danilo.  He's unproven.  Johnson is a guaranteed goal scorer for whoever he plays with.  He'd probably score more with a different club that would play him more, put him into a wider position on the pitch, and get the ball to him more often, so he might be worth more to another club than to us.

While I understand that even the money of billionaires is not unlimited, as a fan (and not a shareholder) I really only care about the quality of the team on the field.  Selling either one of these players is a significant loss of on-field talent.

So are you saying then that irrespective of any penalties we may possibly face as a result of failing FFP rules, you would sooner hold on to a player, even though his sale would/could be the difference between having a points deduction of say 9 points, which would almost certainly relegate us back to the Championship or we are put under a transfer embargo, where we cant go out and buy additional players to strengthen the squad to being able to compete in the PL minus that player? Sadly, whilst our owner may be a billionaire, Forest are not a big club. Our ground only holds 29,000 currently which restricts the amount of income it generates. Unfortunately, we have to sell on our greatest assets in order to compete in the league without falling foul of FFP. Selling on Johnson for £40+M would see the club generate £40+M profit. Selling Danilo for say £30M would see us make a profit of around £11M (after our initial purchase and less 20% add ons to Palmeiras). 

Johnson is indeed a proven goal scorer, I can't deny that. He is fast on the counter and his pace does worry defences. But he is a luxury player. If he loses the ball he very rarely chases back to win the ball back. He stands moaning at the officials more often than not. He is not strong on the ball at pace either and gets out muscled too many times. He isn't that strong with his head either. 

But it is unfair to compare him to Danilo using the goals scored argument. Danilo is a box to box midfielder with an amazing vision. His remit is to move the ball forwards through the midfield either by passing the ball or running with it. What I have seen of Danilo so far, he is good at what he does. Give him more time in the PL and I can see him representing Brazil and being touted by the top European sides in a couple of years if he continues to develop the way he has been doing so far.  Johnson has been with the first team for two seasons now. Danilo for half of one. 

I do agree that losing either one of these players would be a significant loss to the side, but we have already seen, at the end of last season and in the latter stages of the match at Arsenal, that we can play well and attack teams better when Johnson isn't in the side. His sale, should it happen, would IMO be felt much less than selling Danilo.

[Tricky]

Does anybody think Neco could be the answer to the right wing IF we sell Johnson?

I know he is a wing back rather than an out and out winger and he may not be as quick as Johnson, but he does have pace and his attacking contributions seem stronger than his defensive ones

I'd be interested in seeing what others think to this.

[Redreg]

Does anybody think Neco could be the answer to the right wing IF we sell Johnson?

I know he is a wing back rather than an out and out winger and he may not be as quick as Johnson, but he does have pace and his attacking contributions seem stronger than his defensive ones

I'd be interested in seeing what others think to this.

No think this is why the link came this morning about Lling fro Juve probably why we are lookinat Harwood bellis again but guess city would have a buy back included

[Redreg]

I would sell neither, but if I had to sell one, it would be Danilo.  He's unproven.  Johnson is a guaranteed goal scorer for whoever he plays with.  He'd probably score more with a different club that would play him more, put him into a wider position on the pitch, and get the ball to him more often, so he might be worth more to another club than to us.

While I understand that even the money of billionaires is not unlimited, as a fan (and not a shareholder) I really only care about the quality of the team on the field.  Selling either one of these players is a significant loss of on-field talent.

Have to disagree im afraid, If we could get Matseen and 50M from Chelsea for Johnson it would be Brilliant , allows us FFP wiggle room in this year accounts , we can split fees for signings over 5 years liked chelsea have done
For players linked :-
Harwood bellis 15M  =3M a year
Mavropanos 20M = 4 M
Florintino/Fofana 30M 5 year =6M
Lling 18M = 3.5M 
Spence 15M = 3M
Marcos Leandro 25M = 5M
I love him but Squad could so much stronger by selling Brennan .
Could also move out loads of the deadwood for fees  knowing replacements are in place .

That would be some recruitment drive

We signed 30 players last season would allow boly serge kouyate dennis frueler etc to leave too hopefully frueler part of the Lling deal

[JoeWorrallsBrain]

I would sell neither, but if I had to sell one, it would be Danilo.  He's unproven.  Johnson is a guaranteed goal scorer for whoever he plays with.  He'd probably score more with a different club that would play him more, put him into a wider position on the pitch, and get the ball to him more often, so he might be worth more to another club than to us.

While I understand that even the money of billionaires is not unlimited, as a fan (and not a shareholder) I really only care about the quality of the team on the field.  Selling either one of these players is a significant loss of on-field talent.

So are you saying then that irrespective of any penalties we may possibly face as a result of failing FFP rules, you would sooner hold on to a player, even though his sale would/could be the difference between having a points deduction of say 9 points, which would almost certainly relegate us back to the Championship or we are put under a transfer embargo, where we cant go out and buy additional players to strengthen the squad to being able to compete in the PL minus that player? Sadly, whilst our owner may be a billionaire, Forest are not a big club. Our ground only holds 29,000 currently which restricts the amount of income it generates. Unfortunately, we have to sell on our greatest assets in order to compete in the league without falling foul of FFP. Selling on Johnson for £40+M would see the club generate £40+M profit. Selling Danilo for say £30M would see us make a profit of around £11M (after our initial purchase and less 20% add ons to Palmeiras). 

Johnson is indeed a proven goal scorer, I can't deny that. He is fast on the counter and his pace does worry defences. But he is a luxury player. If he loses the ball he very rarely chases back to win the ball back. He stands moaning at the officials more often than not. He is not strong on the ball at pace either and gets out muscled too many times. He isn't that strong with his head either. 

But it is unfair to compare him to Danilo using the goals scored argument. Danilo is a box to box midfielder with an amazing vision. His remit is to move the ball forwards through the midfield either by passing the ball or running with it. What I have seen of Danilo so far, he is good at what he does. Give him more time in the PL and I can see him representing Brazil and being touted by the top European sides in a couple of years if he continues to develop the way he has been doing so far.  Johnson has been with the first team for two seasons now. Danilo for half of one. 

I do agree that losing either one of these players would be a significant loss to the side, but we have already seen, at the end of last season and in the latter stages of the match at Arsenal, that we can play well and attack teams better when Johnson isn't in the side. His sale, should it happen, would IMO be felt much less than selling Danilo.

1.  No I'm not saying we should load up on salaries to the point of being penalized points.  Is anyone even suggesting we need to sell one of these two players to avoid that?   I don't think so.

2.  The gate is a very small percentage of team revenue (just as it is in the NFL).  If we stay in the Premiership, the team gets its share of Premiership TV and marketing revenue.  That's what matters to the team's finances (that, and corporate sponsorships and merchandise) A small stadium is not an impediment to having a competitive football team.  Leicester's stadium is about the same size as ours, and they recently won the League.  I do agree that there's greater profit in selling Johnson, but of course there's a reason for that.

3.  When I say Danilo is unproven, I do mean in the playing role that you describe.  I was not talking about scoring goals.  Danilo has had his moments, and even a couple of excellent games, but he's also been invisible at times.  Johnson has been consistently dangerous up front (even in missing his chance at Arsenal, he had the talent and ability to at least win the chance).  We don't have a luxury of goalscoring on this team.  Our offence is one of the weakest in the Premiership.  Awoniyi had a great SECOND HALF of last season.  Some of his goals were set up by Johnson.  Johnson's playing time was greatly reduced in the last 10 games.   I'm not sure why.  I'm not prepared to say we play better without Johnson.  I've rarely seen the two of Awoniyi and Johnson on the pitch in the right formation to allow them to compliment one another.

4.  Your analysis is correct when you argue that getting rid of a player who the team does not correctly utilize, logically, does not produce a signifant net loss in the performance of the team.  But failing to utilize him properly does.  That's the problem to solve, and it costs no money to solve it.

[Tricky]

I would sell neither, but if I had to sell one, it would be Danilo.  He's unproven.  Johnson is a guaranteed goal scorer for whoever he plays with.  He'd probably score more with a different club that would play him more, put him into a wider position on the pitch, and get the ball to him more often, so he might be worth more to another club than to us.

While I understand that even the money of billionaires is not unlimited, as a fan (and not a shareholder) I really only care about the quality of the team on the field.  Selling either one of these players is a significant loss of on-field talent.

So are you saying then that irrespective of any penalties we may possibly face as a result of failing FFP rules, you would sooner hold on to a player, even though his sale would/could be the difference between having a points deduction of say 9 points, which would almost certainly relegate us back to the Championship or we are put under a transfer embargo, where we cant go out and buy additional players to strengthen the squad to being able to compete in the PL minus that player? Sadly, whilst our owner may be a billionaire, Forest are not a big club. Our ground only holds 29,000 currently which restricts the amount of income it generates. Unfortunately, we have to sell on our greatest assets in order to compete in the league without falling foul of FFP. Selling on Johnson for £40+M would see the club generate £40+M profit. Selling Danilo for say £30M would see us make a profit of around £11M (after our initial purchase and less 20% add ons to Palmeiras). 

Johnson is indeed a proven goal scorer, I can't deny that. He is fast on the counter and his pace does worry defences. But he is a luxury player. If he loses the ball he very rarely chases back to win the ball back. He stands moaning at the officials more often than not. He is not strong on the ball at pace either and gets out muscled too many times. He isn't that strong with his head either. 

But it is unfair to compare him to Danilo using the goals scored argument. Danilo is a box to box midfielder with an amazing vision. His remit is to move the ball forwards through the midfield either by passing the ball or running with it. What I have seen of Danilo so far, he is good at what he does. Give him more time in the PL and I can see him representing Brazil and being touted by the top European sides in a couple of years if he continues to develop the way he has been doing so far.  Johnson has been with the first team for two seasons now. Danilo for half of one. 

I do agree that losing either one of these players would be a significant loss to the side, but we have already seen, at the end of last season and in the latter stages of the match at Arsenal, that we can play well and attack teams better when Johnson isn't in the side. His sale, should it happen, would IMO be felt much less than selling Danilo.

1.  No I'm not saying we should load up on salaries to the point of being penalized points.  Is anyone even suggesting we need to sell one of these two players to avoid that?   I don't think so.

2.  The gate is a very small percentage of team revenue (just as it is in the NFL).  If we stay in the Premiership, the team gets its share of Premiership TV and marketing revenue.  That's what matters to the team's finances (that, and corporate sponsorships and merchandise) A small stadium is not an impediment to having a competitive football team.  Leicester's stadium is about the same size as ours, and they recently won the League.  I do agree that there's greater profit in selling Johnson, but of course there's a reason for that.

3.  When I say Danilo is unproven, I do mean in the playing role that you describe.  I was not talking about scoring goals.  Danilo has had his moments, and even a couple of excellent games, but he's also been invisible at times.  Johnson has been consistently dangerous up front (even in missing his chance at Arsenal, he had the talent and ability to at least win the chance).  We don't have a luxury of goalscoring on this team.  Our offence is one of the weakest in the Premiership.  Awoniyi had a great SECOND HALF of last season.  Some of his goals were set up by Johnson.  Johnson's playing time was greatly reduced in the last 10 games.   I'm not sure why.  I'm not prepared to say we play better without Johnson.  I've rarely seen the two of Awoniyi and Johnson on the pitch in the right formation to allow them to compliment one another.

4.  Your analysis is correct when you argue that getting rid of a player who the team does not correctly utilize, logically, does not produce a signifant net loss in the performance of the team.  But failing to utilize him properly does.  That's the problem to solve, and it costs no money to solve it.

Just on the first point JWB. I assume you are in the States by the way you have mentioned certain things. This is not a dig at your location BTW.

The point I am making here is that it would appear you are not aware of the possibility (I'm not saying for definite), we may be running close to our loss margin in terms of FFP (or whatever it is called now). If this is so, then the sale of Johnson for anything over £40M will greatly help the club to avoid unnecessary penalties moving forwards. This point has been reported on by a large section of the British press.

Obviously, the ideal solution would be to offload those players that are currently picking up their pay packet each week and not making any contribution to the progress of the club and there are a large number of them that have been made available. Not only would we bring in much needed finances from any potential sales, but it would also greatly reduce our wage bill. Sadly, at this moment in time, there doesnt appear to be any takers for any of these, although one or two names have been mooted as being the subject of interest from other clubs.

It is maddening to think that we may have to sell one of our better players in order to be able to buy other players, needed in some instances as more needed to shore up our defence and midfield. Equally, it is maddening to think we have to sell to stay on the right side of the rules. But! No player is bigger than the club. No matter how talented they are, or how much potential they may have, Nottingham Forest Football Club and its best interests must come first. Whether we like it or not!

[Reds73]

No way is Danilo being sold or even sufficient interest in him at present.
His agent has confirmed he won’t be going anywhere for at least another 12 months

[JWJW]

Johnson...........sell him.

He is a luxury player for a team who have high possession stats. He does not suit our style and its why we get better results when he is not playing, like the end of the last season when he was more an impact sub.

Selling him and getting some decent players in will make us much stronger.........turns us from lower 6 to mid table.

60m is the figure being quoted that EM will accept............ cash or cash plus players to the value of 60m

[JWJW]

That puts Chelsea in the driving seat as they have plenty of players they dont need and can use as part of any deal.

[Forest1970]

Sell Johnson and get the best possible deal for him. But this is where we'll see what is more important to the lad whether its playing time or the money.

[JoeWorrallsBrain]

I would sell neither, but if I had to sell one, it would be Danilo.  He's unproven.  Johnson is a guaranteed goal scorer for whoever he plays with.  He'd probably score more with a different club that would play him more, put him into a wider position on the pitch, and get the ball to him more often, so he might be worth more to another club than to us.

While I understand that even the money of billionaires is not unlimited, as a fan (and not a shareholder) I really only care about the quality of the team on the field.  Selling either one of these players is a significant loss of on-field talent.

So are you saying then that irrespective of any penalties we may possibly face as a result of failing FFP rules, you would sooner hold on to a player, even though his sale would/could be the difference between having a points deduction of say 9 points, which would almost certainly relegate us back to the Championship or we are put under a transfer embargo, where we cant go out and buy additional players to strengthen the squad to being able to compete in the PL minus that player? Sadly, whilst our owner may be a billionaire, Forest are not a big club. Our ground only holds 29,000 currently which restricts the amount of income it generates. Unfortunately, we have to sell on our greatest assets in order to compete in the league without falling foul of FFP. Selling on Johnson for £40+M would see the club generate £40+M profit. Selling Danilo for say £30M would see us make a profit of around £11M (after our initial purchase and less 20% add ons to Palmeiras). 

Johnson is indeed a proven goal scorer, I can't deny that. He is fast on the counter and his pace does worry defences. But he is a luxury player. If he loses the ball he very rarely chases back to win the ball back. He stands moaning at the officials more often than not. He is not strong on the ball at pace either and gets out muscled too many times. He isn't that strong with his head either. 

But it is unfair to compare him to Danilo using the goals scored argument. Danilo is a box to box midfielder with an amazing vision. His remit is to move the ball forwards through the midfield either by passing the ball or running with it. What I have seen of Danilo so far, he is good at what he does. Give him more time in the PL and I can see him representing Brazil and being touted by the top European sides in a couple of years if he continues to develop the way he has been doing so far.  Johnson has been with the first team for two seasons now. Danilo for half of one. 

I do agree that losing either one of these players would be a significant loss to the side, but we have already seen, at the end of last season and in the latter stages of the match at Arsenal, that we can play well and attack teams better when Johnson isn't in the side. His sale, should it happen, would IMO be felt much less than selling Danilo.

1.  No I'm not saying we should load up on salaries to the point of being penalized points.  Is anyone even suggesting we need to sell one of these two players to avoid that?   I don't think so.

2.  The gate is a very small percentage of team revenue (just as it is in the NFL).  If we stay in the Premiership, the team gets its share of Premiership TV and marketing revenue.  That's what matters to the team's finances (that, and corporate sponsorships and merchandise) A small stadium is not an impediment to having a competitive football team.  Leicester's stadium is about the same size as ours, and they recently won the League.  I do agree that there's greater profit in selling Johnson, but of course there's a reason for that.

3.  When I say Danilo is unproven, I do mean in the playing role that you describe.  I was not talking about scoring goals.  Danilo has had his moments, and even a couple of excellent games, but he's also been invisible at times.  Johnson has been consistently dangerous up front (even in missing his chance at Arsenal, he had the talent and ability to at least win the chance).  We don't have a luxury of goalscoring on this team.  Our offence is one of the weakest in the Premiership.  Awoniyi had a great SECOND HALF of last season.  Some of his goals were set up by Johnson.  Johnson's playing time was greatly reduced in the last 10 games.   I'm not sure why.  I'm not prepared to say we play better without Johnson.  I've rarely seen the two of Awoniyi and Johnson on the pitch in the right formation to allow them to compliment one another.

4.  Your analysis is correct when you argue that getting rid of a player who the team does not correctly utilize, logically, does not produce a signifant net loss in the performance of the team.  But failing to utilize him properly does.  That's the problem to solve, and it costs no money to solve it.

Just on the first point JWB. I assume you are in the States by the way you have mentioned certain things. This is not a dig at your location BTW.

The point I am making here is that it would appear you are not aware of the possibility (I'm not saying for definite), we may be running close to our loss margin in terms of FFP (or whatever it is called now). If this is so, then the sale of Johnson for anything over £40M will greatly help the club to avoid unnecessary penalties moving forwards. This point has been reported on by a large section of the British press.

Obviously, the ideal solution would be to offload those players that are currently picking up their pay packet each week and not making any contribution to the progress of the club and there are a large number of them that have been made available. Not only would we bring in much needed finances from any potential sales, but it would also greatly reduce our wage bill. Sadly, at this moment in time, there doesnt appear to be any takers for any of these, although one or two names have been mooted as being the subject of interest from other clubs.

It is maddening to think that we may have to sell one of our better players in order to be able to buy other players, needed in some instances as more needed to shore up our defence and midfield. Equally, it is maddening to think we have to sell to stay on the right side of the rules. But! No player is bigger than the club. No matter how talented they are, or how much potential they may have, Nottingham Forest Football Club and its best interests must come first. Whether we like it or not!

Here is an article on where the Premiership may be going with salary cap (or any analogous salary control idea):

Looks like they are heading towards a salary cap equal to 4X the revenue of whoever finishes last.  An interesting formula.  Where would Forest's salaries fall if we speculate that a future cap might be based on 4X Luton's revenue?   Where would the big clubs stand?  They surely would have bigger problems than we would!

I am admittedly better versed in how the salary cap systems work in the North American sports leagues.  Having said that, is anyone concerned that Forest needs to sell one of these two players in order to bring itself into line with current spending rules, or potential rules?  Or is it really an evaluation of what value we could get for the money we'd collect?  I haven't seen anyone state that our current salaries are not in compliance, and I assume that if we collected 40 million for Johnson that we would then go out and spend 40 million on an equally talented midfielder, thereby raising our current salary spending.

Here is an article which represents my understanding of the current FFP rules:

The current rules turn on a clubs own finances (so every team has its own unique cap).  Have Forest, based on a projection of income for this season, already overspent?

[RetroRed]

Issue here is selling our young talent and dismantling the future foundation of a good team. Trouble with Forest these days we tend to reinvest in over the hill S**t players and that is why we spent 20 years plus in the lower divisions. We need a sustainable plan to grow the club and this should where possible EXCLUDE selling the prized assets.

100 percent agree - and on that basis, cannot possibly vote.