Will S. Hunt be playing in the Forest game?

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

He did have a clause, however when Doyle got a raise Hunt was not a happy bunny, and decided he deserved one too, negotiations will have gone on through Jan, as other clubs did or did not come in forr him. The new deal was signed in Feb, so i guess he got what he wanted, and did not need to perform here to be able to leave if we failed to go up.

[Agent Balti]

This is where it all gets horribly complicated and double standards seem to be afoot from what the club say and do.

The club say "cutting our cloth".

Club gives Hunt (and Doyle) monster contracts.

Followed by end of season failure.

The club say "cutting our cloth" again.

(Club 'buys' Rodgers etc expensively.)

No expensive signings incoming.

Expensive sales continue.

Hammond watches Nugent, swap deal mooted. (OK, it's not happened yet, but run with me...)

Still cutting our cloth are we? It's always been stated the transfer fees aren't the problem, it's the wages. Yet the club seems to reverse this trend by buying nobody put stacking up wages! OK, we've lost almost all of the high earners, bar Hunt now...but still, it's strange move to possibly alienate the rest of the players who are on 'decent' money, whilst one 'superstar' earns a packet on top.

Being Devil's Advocate, I will add that someone will have to be the top earner...and strikers are where we win games, so it's logical that Nugent (for arguments sake) will need to score the goals to propel us to where we want to be...ergo, paid more.

But if Hunt was on £30k a week for the next 3 years (estimate) then paying Nugent the same for 3 years = no difference, in essence.

[Huntley & Palmer]

Don't forget Harper must be on a very good wage as well, I imagine Ingimarsson will be on a decent whack too

[Snowball]

This is where it all gets horribly complicated and double standards seem to be afoot from what the club say and do.


NOT IMO. The signals have been there since the end of last year which was why Rodgers was a shoe-in for the job and 10-1 on




The club say "cutting our cloth".

YES, more or less as always, once Sir Mad had got over his initial investments. Haven't we always preched the
message of living within our means?




Club gives Hunt (and Doyle) monster contracts.

Rightly or wrongly (I believe wrongly) the club felt these two were essential to the club
if it was going to bounce straight back. It's clear that they struck deals with both which

(a) gave them good money and made them more likely to say/more expensive to other clubs
(b) Had an official or private promise that they could go if we stayed down. Doyle said this on radio

Sir Mad has said that this was a gamble which would have been rewarded by the extra money
in the top flight (or earned back by selling both players)



Followed by end of season failure.

That "Failure" is to go into the last day and had we won we'd be in the Premiership. Of course it's
disappointing, but don't times change, eh? Miss out on the very last day on the biggest prize in football?

I didn't see the season as a failure exactly. HOW it came about, with a sticky start then a great first half
followed by the horror story (especially at home) THAT was sickening, but fourth is fourth.

I think the club went AWOL mentally, put down probably to a combo of locker-room unrest, some very poor
managerial decisions (Lita, Kitson, Little) and (maybe) SHunt off the field. But the biggest thing was SSC
admitting he was lost, clueless, and seeming to have gone mentally after Xmas.



The club say "cutting our cloth" again.


Just common sense, start losing the bigger earners (doesn't mean they are better) and planning IN CASE
we spend a few years in the Championship. CoC also obviously meant trimming the squad and selling
Doyle-Hunt.


(Club 'buys' Rodgers etc expensively.)

That is no big deal. If Rodgers can bring ONE player through to be worth a million then he has covered his fee

But the club sees him as the man to lead them back to glory (but in a new way) so 1,000,000 is small potatoes
spread over say 3-4 years. That's why he was a shoe-in, brought in to head up a youth policy



No expensive signings incoming.

Doesn't worry me as long as the CB position ends up covered. Fans seem to think that hearing "X bought for 3M"
will change things. Stoke with Sonko? Stoke with Kitson? Vila and Shorey? It doesn't always follow.

The kids like HRK, Church, Davies, Henry in a year may well be worth something similar to Simon Cox. That is
we might have a lot of players in the 1-2M bracket. I admit that this year might be tough (might well not be)
but the future looks excellent








Expensive sales continue.

All part of the plan





Hammond watches Nugent, swap deal mooted. (OK, it's not happened yet, but run with me...) Still cutting our cloth are we? It's always been stated the transfer fees aren't the problem, it's the wages. Yet the club seems to reverse this trend by buying nobody put stacking up wages! OK, we've lost almost all of the high earners, bar Hunt now...but still, it's strange move to possibly alienate the rest of the players who are on 'decent' money, whilst one 'superstar' earns a packet on top. Being Devil's Advocate, I will add that someone will have to be the top earner...and strikers are where we win games, so it's logical that Nugent (for arguments sake) will need to score the goals to propel us to where we want to be...ergo, paid more. But if Hunt was on £30k a week for the next 3 years (estimate) then paying Nugent the same for 3 years = no difference, in essence.


But there is a HUGE difference (provided Nugent isn't "blown". Nugent is a seriously class act, scored some amazing goals in the Championship, was called up to play for England, is mature, a goal-scorer, a big, strong target man and exactly what we need. IF IF IF he was a straight swap and same wages he might not be a problem in the changing-room. He fills a position we need filling, he replaces DOYLE.

So we lose (for example, not saying the figures are right) 65K a week (Doyle and SHunt) and pay out (say) 30K a week. I would say that Nugent at his best is a better player than Doyle.

So the club sorts its striker problem out: Nugent-Hunt-Long-Church-Mooney-Henry sheesh that isn't exactly bad, is it?

and is 7 million and 1.5 million a year better off. Plus they don't NEED to sign Smith so save (say) 1.4 million and (say) 14K a week wages)

We'd then get Smith January or in Summer 2010 for peanuts/nothing



I'd just like to add I don't know if we are serious about Nugent
or if he CAN be brought back to his best, but at his best he was
very special, outstanding at this level

If he was on the ball and injury free and at Reading I think he'd be the league's top-scorer

[Mr Angry]

OMG!!!

I found myself agreeing with Snowball!

I must have Swine Flu.

Ah no - I still think WR posts rubbish; phew - thats alright then!!

[Vision]

The Hunt and Doyle January wage rises do seem odd on the surface but if you look at it logically they were already the top earners at the club and the most saleable assets. So to add an extra 5-10k a week for 6 months (less in Hunt's case) in order to maximise their sale value if we failed to get promoted.

Would we have got 6.5m for Doyle if he hadn't signed that extra deal? perhaps but more likely not.

The Hunt deal looks less logical but only because we're not looking like getting the maximum 5m for him. I still reckon he'll go for around 3m in the next week or so.

The other alternatives were to wait which would in all probability have effected the sale value or cash in on them both in January which wouldn't exactly have been a popular decision.

EDIT: The added gamble of course came with bringing in Kitson and Little who would also have been on Premiership wages.