Forest Spend V QPR Spend

[qpr_matt]

sirpie, thanks for that..

So in terms of spend very little difference, but obviosuly table position suggest they have spent more wisely.

Would add, very few wanted Adebola when it was rumoured we wanted him

But Faulin wasnt really £3.5mil though, we all know this. RUmours going by this site it was around 500k-1 mil

[Mr M]

It’s not the money; it’s the constant merry go-round of managerial changes. They have had the same manger for over a year, how many have we had in that period?

[sirpiechucker]

I'm no Forest expert but I would guess that if you've only had two managers since August 2008 and you've been at the club from before that it is less disruptive than having had Dowie, Ainsworth, Sousa, Magilton, Gallen/Bricham and Hart all in control. Ephraim who is still a young lad has had all of those managers plus Gregory, Harford and De Canio as well as any bosses at West Ham and Leeds.

Half our squad is below the age of 24 and so many manager changes won't be helping their development.

How accurate any of the fees are is anyones guess but the the key difference is how the money has been spent and how one man has had control of team affairs whilst we've had half a dozen.

[Slim Pickings]

Do Forest have a sporting director?

[Rich]

The way in which we have spent on transfer fees comfirms to me that we didn't pay anywhere near £3.5m for Faurlin. So, I reckon we have probably spent only half the amount Forest have. They have covered all areas where we have been short of full backs and strikers for ages. As SPC also says the manager merry go round makes it nearly impossible to be successful. It means the money the previous managers spent can become irrelevant as the new manager rates other players higher. It also means if he wants new players, like the last manager and the one before and the one before etc.., he is only likely to get loans and freebies as the board feel as if they have spent enough already.
They would even have the balls to say this if pressed, but wouldn't know what to reply if you then stated that surely the manager who brought the players in, 4 managers ago, wasn't good enough to manage (hence his sacking) so why would his signings be!

[Half Empty]

If the board arent willing to spend 2 million on the likes of Beckford now when we desperately need a striker, then why would they have spent 3.5 million when we already had plenty of midfielders at the start of the season????

[vblockranger]

just spin and lies....i expect no less from Rangers these days

[old school qpr]

Do Forest have a sporting director?

yes david pleat

[Loftladder]

Of the 18 in yesterday’s squad against WBA 8 of them were already at the club at the start of their 1st season back in the Championship in August 2008. Those players were: Morgan, Wilson, Cohen, Smith, Perch, Chambers, McGugan and Tyson. Meaning that 10 of the 18 have been signed since their promotion a season and a half ago.

As with all deals nowadays the real cost to the club isn’t always publicised and even an approximate figure is questioned. For instance, soccerbase state that Camp cost Forest £100k but I’ve read figures ranging from this figure to £500k. When Camp signed the official story reported that the figure was undisclosed. Using soccerbase, wikipedia as well as the BBC and other football websites here is a cost of what Forest paid for the remaining 10 players.

Camp - £100k (possibly higher but no more than £500k), Shorey – on loan from Aston Villa, Majewski – on loan from Polonia Warsaw, Anderson - £250k, Gunter - £1.75m, McKenna - £750k, Moussi - £250k, Blackstock - £1m (possibly higher but no more than £1.5m), Adebola – Free Transfer and McGoldrick - £1m.

Taking the highest amounts for both Camp and Blackstock and added to the rest of the players who’ve been brought in since they were a Championship team again comes to £5.5m. They have obviously spent money on other players within their squad but that is just how much they have spent on the 10 players who featured yesterday who’ve been brought into the club since August 2008.

For comparison, using our last squad against Sheffield United we had Stewart, Leigertwood, Ephraim, Buzsaky, Hall, Agyemang, Connolly and Balanta who were all at the club prior to August 2008. So using the same period of time to compare squad we’ve spent the following:

Cerny – Free Transfer, Ramage – Free Transfer, Gorkss - £250k, Borrowdale - £100k, Routledge - £600k, Faurlin - £3.5m (deal worth up to this amount), Simpson – on loan from Arsenal, Taylor – on loan from Chelsea, Parker – youth team, Helguson - £1m (undisclosed deal but rumored amount). Total’s £50k less that of Nottingham Forest’s the difference though is probably greater depending on the actual cost to the club by signing Faurlin. We too have spent money on other players in this time who aren’t featured in the 18 listed above.

For me it’s not what we have spent it is how we have spent it. Is £3.5m on a young Argentine who may now be replaced by Quashie or Faye a good deal when compared to the £750k spent on Paul McKenna? Is the free transfer of Adebola a better or worse one than that of Pellicori? Is spending £1.75m on an out and out right back better than a free transfer for a centre back who is being played at right back?

and Forest came from 19th place in 2008/09. So they have come a long way in a short time whereas we have stood still. The difference between good management and leadership, and bad.

[ScottJones]

But Faulin wasnt really £3.5mil though, we all know this. RUmours going by this site it was around 500k-1 mil

lmfao

lets just say he was a steal

[m_cooper]

nothing to do with how much money is spent,just bringing in players who want to play for the club and the manager;simple really

[Goddard]

Do Forest have a sporting director?

yes david pleat

True. And it's not something that Billy Davies is exactly doing cartwheels about:


In a quiet office at Forest's slightly chaotic academy complex, a mile from the City Ground, Davies reflects on what he has achieved. The conversation confirms the passion and excitement exuded by his jack-in-the-box pitch-side demeanour. Yet it reveals the potential for Forest's progress to be undermined.

It is a question about David Pleat that brings this to the surface. Pleat, the former Spurs manager turned media sage, is Forest's "football consultant", a role that gives him the ear of the club's multi-millionaire owner, the venture capitalist, Nigel Doughty, who is reckoned to have funnelled £50 million into the club.

Pleat's presence would be a source of discomfort for most managers, and rumours of spats with Davies have never been far away. Central to these was Pleat's place on Forest's transfer acquisitions committee, to which Davies must go if he wants to sign a new player.
mail online


How long before that little arrangement causes a problem at Forest too?