[Archived] Roque Santa Cruz Thread

[den]

No we don't.

Just stop carping and criticising all the time, and certainly stop twisting what others are saying to suit your own arguments.

Yes you do. Loads of you said there was no alternative to selling Bentley when we did and loads of people have said that if Rocky wants to go this January, there's nothing we can do about it. You're already struggling to defend the decision to let Bents go without a replacement.

GB, again you're struggling with any opinion that goes against what the Paulettes would like to hear.

[gumboots]

Yes you do. Loads of you said there was no alternative to selling Bentley when we did and loads of people have said that if Rocky wants to go this January, there's nothing we can do about it. You're already struggling to defend the decision to let Bents go without a replacement.

GB, again you're struggling with any opinion that goes against what the Paulettes would like to hear.

No. I said you don't know how hard they tried. You don't know the deal with Santa Cruz. You don't know what his new contract contains. You and I and most of those who post on here know nothing about the internal running of our club. there are things that deserve criticism, but i don't think selling players always falls into that category because you simply do not know what has been tried to make them stay. A player determined to get a move usually ends up getting his own way. You don't have to make it easy for them but there does come a point where making it hard makes it so bad for everybody else that you just don't do it. Like it or not, all clubs lose players they would rather not lose. Bentley fits into that category for us and Roque if he does go would fit into it too, but it doesn't mean to say you can realistically do a lot to keep them. you can't afford to leave them in the reserves - it's against the rules and makes no sense anyway and if they are going to disrupt others then sometimes you have to bite the bullet, get the best deal for the club and let go quickly.

[47er]

once you've lined up a replacement.

[gumboots]

once you've lined up a replacement.

Like Hughes did with Savage?

[47er]

Sorry? Thought that Hughes was remiss at the time. What's your point?

[gumboots]

Sorry? Thought that Hughes was remiss at the time. What's your point?

Just thought I'd make it plain before the Ince bashers get in with the comments about not replacing Bentley etc that all managers sometimes make the mistake of not replacing first.

[den]

Just thought I'd make it plain before the Ince bashers get in with the comments about not replacing Bentley etc that all managers sometimes make the mistake of not replacing first.

Hence another potential problem with having the attitude that there's "nothing we can do" if a player wants to move. Replacing top players is difficult.

Gumboots, - you think Ince tried hard to keep hold of Bentley? Personally I think he simply reacted to Bentley throwing a wobbler. He couldn't get rid quickly enough, with little thought about replacing him.

Unless of course he had the same idea of Matthias, that we couldn't stop someone like Bentley leaving to go to a better team. Maybe he also believed that we could replace him with someone better.

And no, I'm not anti Ince.

[philipl]

I think there are two things everybody can agree upon:

1) Aston Villa have shown it is possible to have your most important player and club skipper be in open revolt for three months and completely tapped up by a rival yet hang on to him and come through stronger as a club.

2) Tottenham have shown what happens when you focus on the deal to get the best price for selling key players and take your eye off the ball on what it is doing to your team.

The following is perhaps more open to argument:

Savage was completely gone as a player and the Rovers did amazingly well to get the price they did for him when they did. Yes, we should have signed a replacement and still have not in my opinion- I am completely unconvinced by what little I have seen of Grella and Andrews thus far.

With the benefit of hindsight, selling Bentley has thus far proven to be a big mistake for all of Bentley, Spurs, England and Rovers.

I am delighted that Roque's interview turned out to have been wifully mangled in translation and I hope we will see a Rovers centre forward playing in the Final in Cape Town.

[DingleBaiter]

Every time we have a player excelling he is immediately linked with other clubs, so how come this sort of media speculation does not appear to happen quite as often or quite as intense with the likes of Everton, Boro, Pompey, Bolton and other clubs of similar status to ourselves?

Isn't your answer in your question?

There's always tons of confusion/naivete on the subject of players being linked away. Is it the player that's after a move? Is it his agent pushing it? Is it the quality of the player so high other clubs are after him? Is is that the current club is a 'soft touch' PR-wise so the media et al can say anything without being brought to task? Is it the player is totally happy playing-wise at the club, but just wants to get another deal and thus threatens a move?

It's never a simple 'black or white' situation. I don't doubt Roque is content here. I don't doubt it serves his purpose to be linked to City, or any other club for that matter (City will be mentioned in 1000s of stories now, given the money - as we once where when we had it). Would he want to move on to City, or another club? In effect, all 3 could be true.

Personally, I'd rather have players other clubs want - or of such a quality an agent feels he can 'unsettle' or cash in on - rather than not, it shows we've some 'quality'. I'd suggest the answer to your question was we had a squad of players that was better (individually & collectively) than most of those around us AND playing at the peak of their game.

As to the Bentley replacement issue, again it's not as simplistic as people would like to think. Could we have brought someone in to fit that gap? Yes. Could we have done it within the commercial constraints at the time? Probably not. If we had, could we have guaranteed he would have performed at the same level? No.

Fact is, whatever Ince saw - and what he could have done - didn't fit his factors at the time. Even if it sells us short in the interim, I respect that, even though it's a step back. Raping the club to bring a player like Pennant in and risk unsettling everything - for nothing more than a gamble - would probably have been more damaging long term.

Every player has his price, and I'd always back JW to do the best business for our club based on past performance. I thought he pulled a rabbit out of the hat in selling a player we wanted rid of, at the peak of his saleability, and getting more than I felt he was worth especially given the lack of competition for his signature. Even if Bentley hadn't had such a Wendy, and a club offered what we got, he'd probably have been sold anyway. The fact we washed our hands of him and got a good deal was the proverbial gift horse. Equally for McCarthy (either on the Chelsea/Sunderland issues) whatever was on the table clearly either wasn't right, or both managers said they'd rather keep him.

Given RSC's value at the time City supposedly bid for him this Summer, and their increased wealth, it's not a situation I'm fearful of at this stage. What needs noting is Roque, no matter how many times people call him a model pro, is no different ultimately than most footballers. A deal comes in that's good to turn down, he's off - or in fairness, we could decide to sell him anyway.

Maybe he's deliberately playing carp to keep his value low and see off the interest of other clubs We've bent over enough for him, with bringing Julio in, new contract etc - I'm sure we won't lose out whatever happens.

[gumboots]

Gumboots, - you think Ince tried hard to keep hold of Bentley? Personally I think he simply reacted to Bentley throwing a wobbler. He couldn't get rid quickly enough, with little thought about replacing him.

And no, I'm not anti Ince.

You think, but you don't know. and I didn't say you were just as I'm not definitely pro, but you do seem to spend a lot of your time criticising his decisions based on what you think without being in full possession of the facts.

[den]

C'mon Gumboots. How long had Ince been here when he sold Bentley? He obviously didn't think it through properly, or we wouldn't be making the best of a bad job, right wing wise, at the moment.

Selling Bentley, so early pre season, then not getting in a replacement was a mistake, admit it, it's obvious.

As Philip says, Gareth Barry is an example of Villa benefitting from slugging it out with Liverpool as best they could. Barry might yet go to LPool, but Villa have bought time and things might change.

Utd could have sold Ronaldo. They could have taken the top money on offer and used the reasoning that he wasn't happy at Utd, to allow him to move. Again, he might move, but at present he's playing for Utd and who knows what will happen, - he might just be persuaded to stay even longer. Ferguson realises you gight to keep the best.

It's simply down to the mindset at a club. You either try desperately to hold on to players, or you take the view that you're better off without unsettled players and get rid. One mindset is progressive, one is regressive. The difference between the two is vast.

As for my views on Ince, I have reservations as to whether he's up to the job yes. I hope he is. I'll be there tomorrow and every home game fully supporting him. What label does that entitle me to?

I think, for the benefit of everyone else, I'd better shut up now.

[BRFC95]

Selling Bentley, so early pre season, then not getting in a replacement was a mistake, admit it, it's obvious.

For (Please don't use that word again)s sake, how many posts have you devoted to this subject? How much longer do we have to put up with your whining?

Why don't you (Please don't use that word again) off to Deepdale you moaning (Please don't use that word again)er

[BuckyRover]

It's not obvious.

Ince has until January to decide on the type of players he wants to buy. (Pacy, Good passer, industrious, cut-inside, plays on the byline etc. etc.)

He needs to learn what weaknesses there are in the side and then decide what is required.

There was no need for him to gamble with our limited funds.

If what has happened since is anything to go by (it's the only thing to go by), Bentley's value would have dropped. He did nothing while playing for England, Capello has favoured Walcott since the Arsenal v Liverpool champions league quarter final. Shaun Wright Phillips has been in sparkling form and even if Bentley was in sparkling form for us, the media would always have highlighted Wright-Phllips.

[den]

For (Please don't use that word again)s sake, how many posts have you devoted to this subject? How much longer do we have to put up with your whining?

Why don't you (Please don't use that word again) off to Deepdale you moaning (Please don't use that word again)er

Oh, some good points there.

[DingleBaiter]

C'mon Gumboots. How long had Ince been here when he sold Bentley? He obviously didn't think it through properly, or we wouldn't be making the best of a bad job, right wing wise, at the moment.

With respect, your views are valid although you're only basing them on your perception and opinions. We don't - and possibly will never - know what the circumstances were at the time the decision was made. Also, you're stringing two different circumstances - the sale, and the lack of recruitment of a replacement - together that may (or may not) be mutually exclusive.

To think we could have held onto Bentley until we got a replacement is disengenous in the extreme. Although it happened with Robinson/Friedel, I'd suggest that was an exception rather than a rule.

The Barry arguments falls down on two obvious, yet fundamental factors. Liverpool either couldn't - or wouldn't - pay Villa's valuation. Villa wanted to keep Barry. The opposite was true with Bentley.

As for Ferguson/Ronaldo, I'd suggest a better comparison would have been Jap Stam. He couldn't get shut of him quick enough, and has admitted it was a mistake subsequently.

Back to old Roque, the 'gift horse' argument applies. The inclination to sell is usually proportional to the money on offer. If they come back with 15 million on the table, we may start talking with a view to getting more. If they come in with 30 million, we'd be saying 'pass us your pen'. Whether we have a replacement, or can find one, is secondary to the wedge, and in that respect most clubs are in the same boat.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

C'mon Gumboots. How long had Ince been here when he sold Bentley? He obviously didn't think it through properly, or we wouldn't be making the best of a bad job, right wing wise, at the moment.

Selling Bentley, so early pre season, then not getting in a replacement was a mistake, admit it, it's obvious.

As Philip says, Gareth Barry is an example of Villa benefitting from slugging it out with Liverpool as best they could. Barry might yet go to LPool, but Villa have bought time and things might change.

Utd could have sold Ronaldo. They could have taken the top money on offer and used the reasoning that he wasn't happy at Utd, to allow him to move. Again, he might move, but at present he's playing for Utd and who knows what will happen, - he might just be persuaded to stay even longer. Ferguson realises you gight to keep the best.

It's simply down to the mindset at a club. You either try desperately to hold on to players, or you take the view that you're better off without unsettled players and get rid. One mindset is progressive, one is regressive. The difference between the two is vast.

As for my views on Ince, I have reservations as to whether he's up to the job yes. I hope he is. I'll be there tomorrow and every home game fully supporting him. What label does that entitle me to?

I think, for the benefit of everyone else, I'd better shut up now.

Point of fact re: Barry

He would have moved if the Scouse Yanks had got there act together and met the valuation 15 minutes earlier. Difference was Spurs met our valuation, Liverpool did not meet Villas until it was too late. Villa also had UEFA cup as a bargaining tool which Rovers did not have.

[philipl]

With respect, your views are valid although you're only basing them on your perception and opinions. We don't - and possibly will never - know what the circumstances were at the time the decision was made. Also, you're stringing two different circumstances - the sale, and the lack of recruitment of a replacement - together that may (or may not) be mutually exclusive.

To think we could have held onto Bentley until we got a replacement is disengenous in the extreme. Although it happened with Robinson/Friedel, I'd suggest that was an exception rather than a rule.

The Barry arguments falls down on two obvious, yet fundamental factors. Liverpool either couldn't - or wouldn't - pay Villa's valuation. Villa wanted to keep Barry. The opposite was true with Bentley.

As for Ferguson/Ronaldo, I'd suggest a better comparison would have been Jap Stam. He couldn't get shut of him quick enough, and has admitted it was a mistake subsequently.

Back to old Roque, the 'gift horse' argument applies. The inclination to sell is usually proportional to the money on offer. If they come back with 15 million on the table, we may start talking with a view to getting more. If they come in with 30 million, we'd be saying 'pass us your pen'. Whether we have a replacement, or can find one, is secondary to the wedge, and in that respect most clubs are in the same boat.

1) Spurs have not paid our £17m asking price up front have they? Villa could have sold Barry for £15m as Liverpool offered that at one time.

2) "Pass us your pen" for £30m- exactly what Spurs did with Berbatov on 1 September. Thankfully we are not in the same boat called bottom of the league with 2 points but could be if we sold RSC.

[gumboots]

1) Spurs have not paid our £17m asking price up front have they? Villa could have sold Barry for £15m as Liverpool offered that at one time.

2) "Pass us your pen" for £30m- exactly what Spurs did with Berbatov on 1 September. Thankfully we are not in the same boat called bottom of the league with 2 points but could be if we sold RSC.

Berbatov rather forced spurs hand by actually going to Manchester off his own bat, if reports are to be believed. Spurs were denying they had given him permission until it was a fait accompli and they had little option but to agree to the sale. They'd brought the situation on themselves to some extent by trying the brinkmanship they are well known for but got caught out on this occasion. I'll repeat - we don't know exactly what goes on at our club or any other, and we don't know what steps our club took to try to keep Bentley. We couldn't offer European football. we have no prospect at the moment of having any money to spend, unlike Villa with Barry. OK it wasn't champions League but you couldn't say they weren't progressing, they have a bigger fan base etc to persuade Barry that being there, whilst it might not be where he wants to be, is not that bad. and wasn't a large part of ronaldo's posturing about Madrid to get more cash and to put himself in the spotlight where he seems to like being.

[philipl]

Berbatov rather forced spurs hand by actually going to Manchester off his own bat, if reports are to be believed. Spurs were denying they had given him permission until it was a fait accompli and they had little option but to agree to the sale. They'd brought the situation on themselves to some extent by trying the brinkmanship they are well known for but got caught out on this occasion. I'll repeat - we don't know exactly what goes on at our club or any other, and we don't know what steps our club took to try to keep Bentley. We couldn't offer European football. we have no prospect at the moment of having any money to spend, unlike Villa with Barry. OK it wasn't champions League but you couldn't say they weren't progressing, they have a bigger fan base etc to persuade Barry that being there, whilst it might not be where he wants to be, is not that bad. and wasn't a large part of ronaldo's posturing about Madrid to get more cash and to put himself in the spotlight where he seems to like being.

We will have to disagree.

Berb had not got permission to go to Man United. He had been given permission to go to Manchester as Spurs had accepted City's bid of £32m .

Remember Ince arrived and said he was keeping all the players including Bentley. A few days later he did a complete about face.

It would have turned nasty but Rovers could have held Bentley to his contract and in my opinion with the Arsenal clause there, should have done so.

[DingleBaiter]

We will have to disagree.

Berb had not got permission to go to Man United. He had been given permission to go to Manchester as Spurs had accepted City's bid of £32m .

Remember Ince arrived and said he was keeping all the players including Bentley. A few days later he did a complete about face.

It would have turned nasty but Rovers could have held Bentley to his contract and in my opinion with the Arsenal clause there, should have done so.

I thought you were into the commercial aspects of the game as well as the football, Philip? Is your Bentley stance based on stubbornness, principles, outmoded concept of loyalty or what? Are we not doing Bentley the same dis-service as we do to Ince by compariing historically? There would be no guarantees if we'd kept Bentley, he would perform at anything like the level we'd seen. Even last season his consistency noticeable dropped when he moved more into the England sphere, and the stories started appearing.

I often think sometimes people read too much into what's written in the rags, or (possibly worse) on boards such as these. We should accept that not everything spoken/printed in football, especially regarding players/transfers/agents, even direct quotes; isn't always the truth.

Just because Spurs didn't pay our 'supposed' 17 million isn't a big deal really; if it mattered so much, I'm sure we wouldn't have done the deal. You more than anyone should appreciate the trading game?

Berbatov was a similar situation to Bentley, in that he showed his disregard for anything like decorum when he allowed himself to be kidnapped. Spurs showed just how powerless clubs can be at times - however, they left themselves be taken down that path by previous deals. Did they want to sell him? Yes, it seems so. Was it more a case of getting the best deal, rather than principles? Probably - otherwise, why would they drop their complaint (like they did with Arnesen) when they heard the chink of lucre?

[den]

The Barry arguments falls down on two obvious, yet fundamental factors. Liverpool either couldn't - or wouldn't - pay Villa's valuation. Villa wanted to keep Barry. The opposite was true with Bentley.

I used Barry as an example of a player who was denied his move, after personally attacking MON and attacking the club for not allowing him to leave. He's still there and playing well. Villa are definately better off for having Barry in their side. If Liverpool don't come back in for him, then Barry might be at Villa, playing extremely well for a few years yet.

If we had just simply have let Rocky go, [which is what this discussion was about and is what some people were saying, because "it's no good keeping players who aren't happy"], we wouldn't have even given ourselves a chance of keeping him.

That's where I will stop, all you Paulettes will be glad to know.

[Exiled in Toronto]

That's where I will stop, all you Paulettes will be glad to know.

And there we have it. Giving a bloke a chance to prove himself via result and performances = being a 'Paulette'

[den]

And there we have it. Giving a bloke a chance to prove himself via result and performances = being a 'Paulette'

It was a joke EIT.

Goodness knows how many times I've been called anti - Ince, just because I question some of his decisions. I must have been anti Dalglish, anti - Hughes as well.

[philipl]

We were paying Bentley £20K a week on a contract with no immediate danger of a Bosman. The player had an England place to protect so if Rovers had simply dropped him, he would have fallen into line sharp enough, particularly with a triple your money contract waiting to be signed at Ewood. From a commercial standpoint with quite probably 50% of the profit heading back to Arsenal, it made no sense to sell.

From a football standpoint, it made no sense to sell without a replacement lined up but it appears Ince's second error of judgement was to believe that Emerton was good enough to play right wing and keep RSC happy (it is RSC's thread by the way).

I think we gave in and rolled over like pussycats having their tummies tickled when we agreed to sell him. Villa put up with a huge amount of flack from Barry and his people but they had the balls to ride through it. We didn't.

[gumboots]

We were paying Bentley £20K a week on a contract with no immediate danger of a Bosman. The player had an England place to protect so if Rovers had simply dropped him, he would have fallen into line sharp enough, particularly with a triple your money contract waiting to be signed at Ewood. From a commercial standpoint with quite probably 50% of the profit heading back to Arsenal, it made no sense to sell.

From a football standpoint, it made no sense to sell without a replacement lined up but it appears Ince's second error of judgement was to believe that Emerton was good enough to play right wing and keep RSC happy (it is RSC's thread by the way).

I think we gave in and rolled over like pussycats having their tummies tickled when we agreed to sell him. Villa put up with a huge amount of flack from Barry and his people but they had the balls to ride through it. We didn't.

And their manager had his feet well and truly under the table, is highly rated in football circles and they had European football and are a "big" club in many people's estimations. Barry's place in the England squad was also relatively secure and there wasn't pressure on him as there appears to have been on Bentley to get to a bigger club playing in Europe. I don't want to see Santa Cruz go and I'd like to see us try to keep him but if he does want to go and is determined I really don't see how a club like ours can hang on without doing damage to our club. Doesn't mean we have to open the door for him; just that we have to weigh up pros and cons and make a decision based on far more than we as fans see.