[Archived] Nickos Thread

[stuwilky]

Well if he wants £60k per week then he has to go.

But yet we apparently offered that to a certain Mr Bellamy....

[Eddie]

At the time Bellamy was a better player than Bentley is now. More difficult to replace, a type of talent that is less common. Obviously injuries have meant that things have probably worked out for us well anyway, but we could replace Bentley far more easily.

[Iceman]

what u on about Eddie?Bellamy is a striker,Bents a midfielder.It will be hard to replace Bentley just as hard as it was to replace Bellamy.Actually come to think of it,it wasnt that hard as we got McCarthy Maybe we can do a swap,Bentley for Joe Cole

[modes98]

Well if he wants £60k per week then he has to go.

Every player has their price. If you want to lose the most creative player for the sake of a few extra pennies a week, then fair enough but that doesn't follow along with Hughes' policy of trying to strengthen the team, rather than pull it apart.

Bentley will move on but he has a contract with us for 3 more years at his current wage. If we got him to sign a new 4 year deal at the higher wage it would put us in a much better position to hold out for a greater fee come summer 2009, when he will most likely look to move.

[Eddie]

As I said on the other thread, and I'm sure that many will disagree with me (quite possible that no one will agree with me), that the style in which Bentley plays makes him easier to replace. He can cross very well and has good touch and control, but he doesn't win very many games by himself and we don't even score that many goals as a direct result of his play. He doesn't contribute much at the back, although he does do his fair share of work. If we were to sell him for big money and then replace him with a slightly above average premiership right midfielder I'm not sure that we would notice that much of a difference, especially if we sacrificed a drop in the quality of the crosses for an increase in pace.

[Eddie]

Every player has their price. If you want to lose the most creative player for the sake of a few extra pennies a week, then fair enough but that doesn't follow along with Hughes' policy of trying to strengthen the team, rather than pull it apart.

Bentley will move on but he has a contract with us for 3 more years at his current wage. If we got him to sign a new 4 year deal at the higher wage it would put us in a much better position to hold out for a greater fee come summer 2009, when he will most likely look to move.

Few extra pennies? 60k a week is about 20k a week over what I would expect him to get at Rovers; which translates into 1.04 million a year more, which will then translate into 4-5 million over the course of his contract. For a club that spends a couple million a year in transfers that is a huge difference.

[Cocker]

Few extra pennies? 60k a week is about 20k a week over what I would expect him to get at Rovers; which translates into 1.04 million a year more, which will then translate into 4-5 million over the course of his contract. For a club that spends a couple million a year in transfers that is a huge difference.

But Eddie, I have said previously that if Benni gets 40k a week then Bents should get more.

On one hand we have a guy who works his socks off every game, creates and scores - and for the most part looks our best player each game.

Then we have another guy who sits on the bench for the most and when he does get on doesn't look like he gives two hoots.

Forget everything else just answer who should be paid more?

[Eddie]

I'd pay them the same. I wouldn't have increased Benni's wages this season, but I would have thought he would have already been on about 40k a season. Personally I wouldn't be offering Bentley a new contract, he has three years left to run, I wouldn't start negotiations until next season, unless of course he came and asked for it to be extended on similar terms.

[PAFELL]

But Eddie, I have said previously that if Benni gets 40k a week then Bents should get more.

On one hand we have a guy who works his socks off every game, creates and scores - and for the most part looks our best player each game.

Then we have another guy who sits on the bench for the most and when he does get on doesn't look like he gives two hoots.

Forget everything else just answer who should be paid more?

I believe that Rovers would prefer to keep Bentley rather than Bennie. I also do not believe that it is a coincidence that Bennie Macarthy was given a knew contract and since then has hardly had a game. I think Rovers would be willing to sell Bennie Macarthy - which would relieve the wage bill a little - to enable them to give Bentley what he is asking for. Rovers have left Macarthy on the bench to see if anybody comes in for him.

[Cocker]

Rovers have left Macarthy on the bench to see if anybody comes in for him.

But this seems silly to me. Why leave him on the bench? He wont impress anyone sitting on the bench?

[nicko]

On Bentley...

I have checked with my best Chelsea and Liverpool contacts and the same answer has come back from both:

1 - Bentley is on their lists, but not the top name.

2 - The price is to high and they are looking at other players for less and arguably better.

So I would suggest Bentley's camp knows this as well and are just trying to turn the heat up on the contract talks.

[modes98]

Few extra pennies? 60k a week is about 20k a week over what I would expect him to get at Rovers; which translates into 1.04 million a year more, which will then translate into 4-5 million over the course of his contract. For a club that spends a couple million a year in transfers that is a huge difference.

He will not see out his contract! Your talking the extra Million to keep him here a year and happy, which you will get back next summer in his transfer value anyway. Which gives us extra funds to spend anyway.

Bentley is one of the best right wingers in the league and will expect to be paid so. Your choice is lose him or pay a little bit extra for an extended lifetime and extra merchandise/ticket sales which go with it and the ability to attract a better buyer, maybe. You can expect all you want but i think rovers would be prepared to gamble on keeping him.

[philipl]

What makes Bentley special in a Rovers context surely isn't his crossing and goals, good as they are.

Nobody on the Rovers team except Santa Cruz (and Benni on form) retains posession in extremely tight situations as well as Bentley does. His passes invariably find players in space which again takes pressure off the Rovers and enables us to build a platform for attack and nobody else does this as well at Rovers.

If you watch the top 4, they are supreme masters at retaining posession under pressure and that feature more than anything else marks them out as different from the clubs 5th downwards.

Rovers should not be looking to lose their only top 4 quality midfielder in order to buy in one or more bottom 16 identikit midfielders as some are suggesting.

[modes98]

Rovers should not be looking to lose their only top 4 quality midfielder in order to buy in one or more bottom 16 identikit midfielders as some are suggesting.

Spot on

[joey_big_nose]

What makes Bentley special in a Rovers context surely isn't his crossing and goals, good as they are.

Nobody on the Rovers team except Santa Cruz (and Benni on form) retains posession in extremely tight situations as well as Bentley does. His passes invariably find players in space which again takes pressure off the Rovers and enables us to build a platform for attack and nobody else does this as well at Rovers.

If you watch the top 4, they are supreme masters at retaining posession under pressure and that feature more than anything else marks them out as different from the clubs 5th downwards.

Rovers should not be looking to lose their only top 4 quality midfielder in order to buy in one or more bottom 16 identikit midfielders as some are suggesting.

True, he is an outlet, and I guess thats why he is being moved more centrally so he gets more of the ball.

But if he wants to go and we have lined up (for arguments sake) Huddlestone and Farfan to replace him then there is more benefit in letting him go than keeping him. A player who wants to leave is trouble and bad for morale and the money, if used wisely, can make us a better side.

For me it jsut depends on whether he wants to play for us or not.

[philipl]

Few extra pennies? 60k a week is about 20k a week over what I would expect him to get at Rovers; which translates into 1.04 million a year more, which will then translate into 4-5 million over the course of his contract. For a club that spends a couple million a year in transfers that is a huge difference.

Hang on Eddie, you were all for competing with the £65K a week Pompey are paying Diarra to get him signed up with Rovers in January.

These wages are all a balacing act and no doubt both Rovers and the agents are working out net present values factoring in abilities to buy-out contracts, Bosmans, loyalty bubbles, actuarial risk of injury loss of form, likely transfer values and wages both now and as the next media deal comes due etc etc. The indications are that club and player representatives are talking in the same ballpark if nico's feed back is accurate and nico has staked quite a bit of credibilty on the deal being signed (not that it cost him anything here to call something incorrectly eg the dingles' prospects )

As Roque has commented in his LT article, he has got into a rhythm of playing which is making him a better player with more to come. Bentley equally knows the rhythm of not playing in a big 4 club and the fact that he has developed remarkably as a player whilst at the Rovers from a marginal mid-table first teamer to a likely England regular.

I also suspect that some of the thinking behind giving Bents the chance of the roving man in the hole role is that Walcott is going to be a far more potent threat to Bentley's wide right England berth than Beckham ever will be and so developing that skill at Rovers is a big boost to his England career.

[AndyC]

this is not about money.

its about playing in the champions league for a guy who has more ambition than any other player in our team.

[philipl]

this is not about money.

its about playing in the champions league for a guy who has more ambition than any other player in our team.

In that case he should have stayed at Arsenal.

[LeChuck]

In that case he should have stayed at Arsenal.

The key word in Andy's sentence was 'playing'.

[philipl]

The key word in Andy's sentence was 'playing'.

and I'm sure Sidwell thought he would be playing at Chelsea and Pennant at Liverpool to name two players seemingly on the point of breaking permanently into the England set-up when they were transferred.

[Martin]

I don't think it takes a genius to work out that the best thing for David Bentley's career is to play football consistently. His best chance of doing this over the next two years is by staying put.

Capello picked Bentley this year on the back of his PL performances for Rovers, not because of his contribution in any European competition. He doesn't need to move to get picked for England.

Bentley has much to do yet. He can afford to have an off day or two at Rovers and still remain an automatic choice, such a luxury will not be avaible at Chelsea. He won't play every week at Liverpool regardless.

At 23 he needs to play. He knows this. He moved from Arsenal to play games. Granted he's at a different stage in his career - but the grass is not always greener elsewhere.

We can't lose. We either get £12-15m or we have a talented footballer signed up for another 4 years.

[Boz]

Just briefly touching on the wages debate and how it's ruining football. Amounts paid out by Rovers to Bents/Benny and relating the highest cost to the greatest individual team contribution........ How much is Bradley on? Enough said!

[Eddie]

Rovers should not be looking to lose their only top 4 quality midfielder in order to buy in one or more bottom 16 identikit midfielders as some are suggesting.

I can only assume you are really only talking about me and that isn't exactly what I was saying. If we were to sell Bentley for 10 million, spend 5-6 million replacing him with an above average right winger with a bit of pace and then spend the rest on another area of the squad I think that the team would be better. I wouldn't have said the same thing about Duff, probably not even about Bellamy, they are examples of players with a type of talent that can take teams to another level, who can win games by themselves and have the ability to do something that you didn't even see coming. Bentley is talented, but not in that way. Every once in a while he'll win a game for us with a good free-kick or long range effort, but it won't be that often. In a perfect world I'd like to keep him, but if we do it well we might be able to save money and improve the team by selling him at the right time (which might be this summer).

Hang on Eddie, you were all for competing with the £65K a week Pompey are paying Diarra to get him signed up with Rovers in January.

I was (still am) a big fan of Diarra and thought we should have really, really tried to sign him, but if you re-read what I posted on the issue I never said that we should offer him 65k a week, I actually said quite the opposite.

[LeChuck]

and I'm sure Sidwell thought he would be playing at Chelsea and Pennant at Liverpool to name two players seemingly on the point of breaking permanently into the England set-up when they were transferred.

That's not really a fair comparison, neither have played for England and Sidwell has never been near the squad, we've got a lot of depth in the centre of midfield.

Bentley's value is at least 3x what their values were prior to joining Chelsea/Liverpool, his ability and reputation is also miles ahead of those two. The best comparison I can think of is Wright-Phillips, and he did get his chances to cement his place early on but never recreated his City form for Chelsea. Apparently confidence was the problem, but that's not something Bentley will suffer from by the sounds of it.

[Eddie]

Sidwell was pretty highly rated, nationally probably at about the same level that Bentley is now.

SWP was certainly more highly thought of (he was a better player at that time than Bentley is now), but he didn't get a real chance in the Chelsea team for about a season.

You never know with these things, some players get their chance and some don't, but I'd have to say that the tow big 4 clubs that are almost certain to give you a go if they sign you (United and Arsenal) are the two that Bentley is totally unsuited to playing for and who will probably never have any interest in him. Signing for Chelsea is a huge gamble, signing for Liverpool isn't much safer.