Steve Howard - Doncaster Speaks!

[canary cherub 1]

In this week''s column ND said that Derby were "willing to pay a fee of more than twice what we valued Steve at".  They paid £1m.  Does that mean that we valued him at less than £500,000? 

Doncaster . . . you''re fired!

 

 

 

[mbncfc 1]

Morning MM [:)]

I have to say that at the time I thought £1m was a lot of money for Steve Howard. I may be proved wrong in time, but that was my opinion there and then - I can''t change that.

To be honest, I''m not sure how relevant the difference in our valuations is. We wouldn''t have paid £1m for Howard, so how far off we were doesn''t really matter. If we really wanted him, they would have pulled out a few more stops (I''m sure there are many reasons why they didn''t want to do this - and probably not all good ones). The comparison (and a bit of exaggeration I''m sure) does give ND a good quote in his column though...

With him discussing a subject that is quite close to a lot of the issues you have MM, I''m a little surprised that Steve Howard was the only point you''ve initially raised from ND''s column. Personally, it may not be completely agreeable - his final comments that we should look to Colchester and Burnley as successful models doesn''t quite appeal to my ambitions for NCFC - but I think a lot of the points he makes are reasonable.

What do you think?

[Syteanric 1]

so now we are looking at Colchester and Burnley as role Models, yet it wasnt that long ago we were looking at Bolton and charlton...

 Heading in the right direction then Doncaster, Eh???

 He might be saying we should look at Bristol city and Doncaster (the football club, not you Neil!) as role models soon.

Then Rochdale and Bury.

down the football leagues we go????

jas :)

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

incredible.

so we balked at an extra 500K !!

doncaster & co haven''t a clue about valuations (unless we''re selling of course). Its called market forces and if we can''t compete with other Championship clubs then that''s division we''ll be staying in.

had we got howard we would have had a decent striking partner for earnie and further up the league rather than wheeling Thorne out

 

 

[Cluck 0]

And I get slammed for doubting the Boards ambition?........dear me.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

Morning MM [:)]

I have to say that at the time I thought £1m was a lot of money for Steve Howard. I may be proved wrong in time, but that was my opinion there and then - I can''t change that.

To be honest, I''m not sure how relevant the difference in our valuations is. We wouldn''t have paid £1m for Howard, so how far off we were doesn''t really matter. If we really wanted him, they would have pulled out a few more stops (I''m sure there are many reasons why they didn''t want to do this - and probably not all good ones). The comparison (and a bit of exaggeration I''m sure) does give ND a good quote in his column though...

With him discussing a subject that is quite close to a lot of the issues you have MM, I''m a little surprised that Steve Howard was the only point you''ve initially raised from ND''s column. Personally, it may not be completely agreeable - his final comments that we should look to Colchester and Burnley as successful models doesn''t quite appeal to my ambitions for NCFC - but I think a lot of the points he makes are reasonable.

What do you think?

[/quote]

mbncfc, I picked it out of ND''s column because it stood out a mile.  It reared up and smacked me on the snout.

A valuation that is so wide of the mark calls into question our ability to estimate what a player is worth.  More importantly though, it does not suggest that we were at all serious about trying to sign him in the first place.  If it had been closer and we''d really tried to compete I could have accepted it.  But we didn''t even try.  And it sums up our club''s approach to everything. 

You know what, it''s not just lack of ambition.  It goes further than that.  It''s a basic lack of desire to compete, and it''s a disease that has spread itself right through the club from top to bottom.  A desire to compete is the most essential requirement of all in a football club.  It''s even more important than money and ability.  If it isn''t there, we might as well pack up now.

Thank you for challenging me mbncfc.  As a result, any lingering doubts I might have had about needing a complete change at the top at Carrow Road have just vanished down the drain.  SACK THE BOARD!

 

 

 

 

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

A desire to compete is the most essential requirement of all in a football club.  It''s even more important than money and ability.  If it isn''t there, we might as well pack up now.

Thank you for challenging me mbncfc.  As a result, any lingering doubts I might have had about needing a complete change at the top at Carrow Road have just vanished down the drain.  SACK THE BOARD!

[/quote]

Crumbs MM, I don''t think that was the effect I was going for at all! [:S][:D]

The first bit I''ve quoted from you I really like. I said something very similar in a thread earlier this week. Those, as a club, who desire it most will get it and deserve it. Relating that to our Board to me is a difficult one to call. Desire is not something you can switch on. It is spontaneous and almost subconscious. It comes with hunger, freshness and passion. Things can go stale and to turn it around sometimes requires a duster or two...

I''m slightly unsure as to whether NW had the Board''s full backing at the start of this season. In January and the summer, the excuse of doubts in the manager will be completely redundant. I''ve been disappointed before with past transfer windows and I don''t want it to be the same again, but once bitten, twice shy...

It will be interesting to see in January, which is PG and the Board''s first and latest success checkpoint respectively, what happens. Either PG is a man carrying a duster, or he isn''t.

Can I ask MM, that you wait until the season is over (eg promotion is a pinprick on the blanket of faith [;)]) before any protests start up... I''m not one for contributing to our own downfall [:D]

On a more serious note, points taken and very well made... [Y]

[Rethinking the future 0]

I have read the comments made by ND a couple of times and feel that a few of the posters who are complaining about us not spending only an extra £500,000 are missing the issue.

ND actually said (quoted from EDP24, Dec 06)

"And that, in turn, is why the market for players'' salaries is as high as it is. When we were in discussions with Luton Town over striker Steve Howard last summer, we ended up being outbid by Derby, who were willing to pay a fee more than twice what we valued Steve at; and offer him wages around double what we would have been able to pay him."

In relation to wages ND said...

"If that player''s market worth is £15,000 per week, it is utterly irrelevant that Colney is a lovely place to train, or that Norfolk is a wonderful place to live, if we are offering that player £8,000 per week. Quite simply, he will go to the club that is offering him £15,000 per week"

Howard signed a 3 year deal at Derby. If he was on wages of £15,000 per week, then his anual salary would be £780,000, and the cost of the 3 year contract would be £2.34m.

The question to ask is this...

Is Steve Howard worth £3.34m

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

In this week''s column ND said that Derby were "willing to pay a fee of more than twice what we valued Steve at".  They paid £1m.  Does that mean that we valued him at less than £500,000? 

Doncaster . . . you''re fired!

 

 

 

[/quote]

This was common knowledge in the summer but everybody just used it as a stick to beat Worthy with at the time. Since we failed in getting Steve Howard we have lost McKenzie too and the only striker we have managed to bring into the club is the fans choice to play in defence. Unbelievable!

Here again is what Worthy said last summer about Hulse being plan A and Howard being plan B:-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.

“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”

“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.

“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

 

[Syteanric 1]

the problem we have i feel is when the club makes enquirys for players... we probably contact a club with a figure already in mind. EG "how much for Steve howard, we have 500,000 in the kitty" to which Luton reply "actually we were looking for around 1 million" we baulk as it doesnt fit in with our valuation...

 We dont try and haggle, we dont offer "sweetners" (EG a player plus 500,000 or 500,000 now and 500,000 spread out over 12 months) when the income is coming in to fund the deal.

we go in with the only figure we are prepared to pay and dont want to go any higher.. if they dont meet the buying clubs valuation then thats it!

 im sure we have missed out on loads of quality players over the years just because we wouldnt push the boat out when it was needed.

jas :)

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

Hang on a minute - hardly anyone was impressed with Howard when we were linked with a move; I recall defending him as I knew he was a decent player who could do a good job for us, but even I would have baulked big-time at paying £1m.  Most people''s valuation was c£300k-500k - ie what we were willing to pay - and this was fair enough, based on experience and age.  It is quite astonishing what hindsight (and 9 his goals for Derby so far) has done to change everyone else''s opinions!!

Re: the other comments in Doomcasters column I would agree with others that getting linked with using Burnley and Colchester as templates for us to follow is not really what we should be aiming for...though to be fair he is only saying that they show what teamwork and ''togetherness'' can achieve - which is fair enough.   That said, it does rather beg a question about our long lauded use of Charlton as a ''role model'', as there is no mention of them...I hope this change is not due to us no longer thinking we will ever be as ''good'' as Charlton and that treading water in the Championship with the odd season stint in the top flight now is all we aspire to, as this does not sound particularly ambitious.

[Evil Monkey 52]

I may be wrong, but didn''t we baulk at the idea of signing a veteran target man for £1 million.  Considering his age and rather modest scoring record, surely £500k would have been more than enough by our terms? Some posters on this board used Howard as an example of "if we''re willing to pay loads of money for a journeyman striker, why not pay "nowt" for Sutton".  Now we''re saying that the board isn''t ambitious enough for not paying a million for him??As I''ve said elsewhere, I have my doubts and my worries, but surely this kind of reasoning is simply counter-productive - if we question every single decision the board makes, then we''ll turn into Wolves.  And I don''t mean the lupine creature...

[7rew 0]

"FilletTheFishWife . wrote the following post at 07/12/2006 12:28 PM:

incredible.

so we balked at an extra 500K !!

doncaster & co haven''t a clue about valuations (unless we''re

selling of course). Its called market forces and if we can''t compete

with other Championship clubs then that''s division we''ll be staying in.

had we got howard we would have had a decent striking partner for

earnie and further up the league rather than wheeling Thorne out"

The board baulked at paying more than twice their valuation, most people do.

[Evil Monkey 52]

And the word of the week, apparently, is "baulk" or "baulked"... I love it... [:)]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Rethinking the future"]I have read the comments made by ND a couple of times and feel that a few of the posters who are complaining about us not spending only an extra £500,000 are missing the issue. ND actually said (quoted from EDP24, Dec 06) "And that, in turn, is why the market for players'' salaries is as high as it is. When we were in discussions with Luton Town over striker Steve Howard last summer, we ended up being outbid by Derby, who were willing to pay a fee more than twice what we valued Steve at; and offer him wages around double what we would have been able to pay him." In relation to wages ND said... "If that player''s market worth is £15,000 per week, it is utterly irrelevant that Colney is a lovely place to train, or that Norfolk is a wonderful place to live, if we are offering that player £8,000 per week. Quite simply, he will go to the club that is offering him £15,000 per week" Howard signed a 3 year deal at Derby. If he was on wages of £15,000 per week, then his anual salary would be £780,000, and the cost of the 3 year contract would be £2.34m. The question to ask is this... Is Steve Howard worth £3.34m[/quote]

1.  It is stating the obvious to say that Derby would have offered him wages in line with his valuation.  Therefore if they valued him at double, it''s not exactly earth-shattering if they were willing to pay him double what we were offering. 

2.  You seem to be assuming that ND''s reference to a £15,000 wage level applies to Steve Howard.  Maybe it does and maybe it doesn''t, but he hasn''t actually said so.  

3.  Is he worth £2.34m over three seasons?  If Steve Howard had made the difference between finishing in the top six and finishing outside, and especially if finishing in the top six had resulted in promotion - then yes, worth every penny.  As a partner for Earnie it would have been a genuine possibility, and we''d have been more likely to hang on to Earnie too.  

At the end of the day, we simply didn''t try to sign him.  Either our board wants to compete with other clubs in the Championship or they don''t.  If the latter, then they should step aside.  If a football club does not want to compete, there''s no reason for it to exist.

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]And the word of the week, apparently, is "baulk" or "baulked"... I love it... [:)]
[/quote]

I think it''s a snooker word [:)]

I have no doubt that Howard was not worth the transfer fee or indeed the contract we would have to give him. Unfortunately we either have to pay the going rate for quality a targetman, or not sign one. The board chose the latter option.

 

[Alex Harvey-Jones 0]

I agree - there is no way Howard was worth £1million!! However all strikers are priced over the odds because they''re in short supply. It seems to work both ways for our board - they''re happy to charge other clubs inflated prices for players like Ashton but then seem surprised and disgusted when other teams want large amounts of money for their strikers. In my opinion paying over the odds for a striker who will perform is far better than not having one! Sadly the board seem to disagree! I think Earnie and Howard would have made a good partnership!

[CambridgeCanary 0]

I think that this thread is a little unfair.  If Derby were offering double the wages then it was a lost cause so why not take a point of principle and stick to a budget?   Also, few people on this Board saw the potential at the time and support for signing him was lukewarm at best.

Finally, what about some credit to the Board for paying over the odds to get a striker when they do do so?  Most people thought Earnshaw was overpriced at £3.5m.  Look back at the threads at the time and many of you posted that the fee was too high.  Again, hindsight makes him look a bargain but no one disputed taht we paid very top dollar at the time.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I have said before that there''s a bit of hindsight involved in the Steve Howard thing because I was definitely dubious at the time as to whether he was worth the money. But if you listened to what Worthy said at the time he was right, hindsight or no hindsight!

It is fair to point out that the £1m we would have paid for Howard would have had to have been written off over the course of his contract because of his age he would not be an "investment". The money paid for Earnshaw and Ashton was hardly a gamble in the same way. And in any case, none of that  excuses the board for not bringing in Ashton during the August window of our Prem season.

I am not a poster who constantly critices this board but in my view they have not learned from previous mistakes in these areas.

 

[djc 0]

People here are quick to blame the board for lack of money or lack of ambition, but didnt Norwich make a near £2m offer for some bloke who went off to Wigan Reserves?

Perhaps the board didnt feel the £1m for Howard was "Worth" paying, bearing in mind all the other judgements made by our then manager? Perhaps Worthy wasnt worthy of another £1m?

A player is only worth what A) the selling club sees fit to do business for, and B) What the buying club is prepared to pay.

Okay, so we have missed out on Howard with 8 or 9 goals to his name this season, but (a blessing in disguise) we still have that £1m in our bank which hopefully PG will be allowed to spend as he sees fit. 

[macdougalls perm 0]

I can only imagine the rabid comments that would have been posted on here if we had signed a 31 year old striker with an average (at best) record for £1m! [*-)] 

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Cluck in Boots"]And I get slammed for doubting the Boards ambition?........dear me.[/quote]

People are forgetting something here - WORTHINGTON! Most of you guys were going on about not giving the guy money to spend on players, the board didn''t one way or another and now people question it.

£1million+ is over priced for Howard. In all fairness that could have bought the club Chopra who would you rather have right now? I think a little perspective as well as less selective hindsight is required. Most people at the time were even questioning a bid for the player at all let alone anything near a million for him.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Chicken

Chopra is a better player than Howard but I would rather have Howard than Chopra. What we need is a target man that can hold the ball up, bring other players into the game and score goals. Those players cost big money and earn high wages because there are not many available. Iwan was the best example of this type of player to play for us in recent seasons and it should be remembered that he cost us £850,000 way back when, and he could virtually rewrite his own contract every couple of seasons because there was never a shortage of clubs queueing up for his services.