Danny Fox | Page 2 | Vital Football

Danny Fox

Stormin' Norman said:
I for one am not blaming Fox, i'm blaming the clown that signed him, didn't clown know he was injury prone? Everyone else did!

Fox won't be arsed how much stick he gets, he'll still pick up a decent weekly wedge for fucking about on the treatment table!
Click to expand...

We all knew Powell was injury prone but that didn't stop us bringing him back.

Sometimes you have to take a chance with players, if Fox had not picked up these injuries he would have no doubt been a decent asset. Given that we are not the blessed with a massive budget we have to look in the bargain bucket for signings.

Over his career Fox has shown that he has the skill required to compete at this level, and that was the gamble. He came in last season and steadied a back four that was creaking and looking likely to break, he filled in at left back which was a problem position for us at that time and enabled us to stay in the championship. Had we not signed him we may have already been playing League One football now.

As I said, it was a risk, one that brought short term benefits and unfortunately long term losses. You can lay the blame at the feet of Cook or you can take the view that his signing was a factor in us remaining in the championship and served its purpose, it all depends on which side of the Cook Out argument you subscribe to.
 
Stormin' Norman said:
Cook buying crocks was the point i was making, God knows how we ended up talking about players with mental health issues, i just wish folk would stay on topic instead of twisting everything, its disagreeing for the sake of it sometimes on here!
Click to expand...
Kettle, pot, black comes to mind!
 
Stormin' Norman said:
I feel for Kirkland i really do, but i don't see what that has to do with Cook buying a bloody crock!
Click to expand...

This:
"Fox won't be arsed how much stick he gets, he'll still pick up a decent weekly wedge for fucking about on the treatment table!"

As I said, he might be arsed. Most players actually want to play. As for the treatment table, believe me, he won't be fucking around on that either. What's that supposed to mean anyways?

Your dig at Cook, I get it.

Your dig at Fox, I don't.
 
I don't see a reason to have a pop at Cook or Fox tbh. Don't get me wrong, there's a million reasons I want Cook out, and that won't change barring an absolute miracle, but signing Fox wasn't in and of itself a bad move. He was a short term solution to a temporary problem, and he succeeded in that sense. Yeah, he's a crock, but he did what was needed at the time he was signed, and lets face it, it wasn't a bucket load of millions wasted. The only bad move was giving him such a long contractb knowing his injury record, but if that's what it took to get him and he was the right man doing the right job at the right time, so be it.

Personally, I'd prefer if Fox was released at this point or at the end of the season. If we have to pay him half of next season's wages, fair enough. We don't need someone we can't rely on now, and we can't afford to pay senior player wages for a player who's never ever fit, but that's not a negative reflection on Fox the person, Fox the player or Fox the professional. It's just unfortunate, but football is an unforgiving game, and we can't afford to be a charity.

No-one is to blame... Certainly not Danny Fox... Not even Cook, for once.
 
Can see a casual note on the website in June that he's left the club and we wish him all the best. Another that will vanish into the memory hole
 
The thing is if Fox wasn't older and injury prone he'd still probaly be playing as the captain at Forrest, but the reason he was available last season was due to those issues - 6 months earlier before his latest spell out the Forest fans were raving about him. We knew those issues when we took him on and we decided the cost vs benefit analysis of the potential upside was worth the risk.

Did the risk pay off? It depends how you view his contribution. He's missed virtually all season this year through injury and quite frankly was dodgy when fit. So this year he was a total waste of money but last year he played 10 games, (missed 7 through injury) and got 2 wins 6 draws and 2 loses (1 loss was after he went off injured) conceeding 10 goals and keeping 3 clean sheets. By comparison we conceeded 54 in 36 and kept 9 clean sheets without Fox. So on the face of it it does look like Fox much like Mulgrew this year had an impact on the number of goals going in and that would've helped to keep us up. The 6m of staying up was obviously worth the 270kish fee and say 10k a week in wages we paid to Fox. It's just a case of if you think we'd have stayed up without Fox or if we could've gotten more value elsewhere and if last seasons contribution is outweighed by how much money has been wasted while he's been out.

We took the gamble, it's not gone as well as we hoped in terms of how much we've had him on the pitch but you can argue we got enough to make it a worthwhile gamble already. Personally I thought at the time it was a gamble worth taking and i think it just about paid off enough for us to not be too down on the judgement to bring him in - althought i can see why others would say he was too high risk in the first place and we'd have been better spending the money elsehwere.

Fox signed a contract to be here another year, i suspect at his age and injury record no one else will be coming in for him - why would the club pay him off rather than keep him?

If, and it is a giant if, we can keep him fit he'll be a Rolls Royce in L1 next season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.