[Archived] Nickos (newer) Thread

[Lathund]

Well it's not bad business, but it's not as good as buying for 1m and selling for 17m or paying slightly more up front and then not having any, or a much lower, sell on clause. I'd rather hoped we'd seen the last of daft clauses when we had to let Bellamy go for half his market value - and a 50% sell on clause comes into "daft" territory imo.

It's not daft at all. I don't think the deal would've gone through at all without a clause, and if it had it'd be at several million more. £5m would be a low estimate IMO, but one that I don't think anyone would consider unrealistically high.

So let's look at it from a risk-reward perspective;

Either we risk £1-£2m (Some clauses would trigger still) or we risk £5m+. For a club our size that's an easy choice to make when dealing with a player you have no guarantee will be a success. Paying £5m for proven quality that we'd get 2+ seasons from is perfectly fine, but we can't throw that around for unproven youngsters.

Worth considering also that who on earth thought he'd be worth £17m now??!!? I didn't, and I can't remember anyone else on here doing either. Assuming the full £3m was paid, any fee below £7m would've seen us better off with the actual deal than with the £5m straight up. I think we'd all have agreed at the time of the signing that it was far more realistic to expect less then £7m than it would've been to expect more than that.

"daft" would be to pay £5m+ (money we might not even have had) for an unproven youngster with the assumption that we'll go on to sell him for a club-record (or close to it) fee.

As some posters have said already; the reason we're disappointed is that we counted on getting £15m and not £10m. Had we known this all along we'd be feeling much better about it. Only with the benefit of 2½ years of hindsight would a straight cash deal have been better, had it been at all possible.

[hawkiiz]

I take it you are including the Bentley sale in that? or are you saying original £10m plus £5m from Hughes sale and trusts £3m = £18m?

As far as Cruz is concerned the guy has never made any suggestion that he wants to leave, so I wouldn't care if an offer of £30m came in, I'd still say no.

hughes and JW said earlier this spring that the transer budget was about 10 million this year. i doubt that its any less now...

even if those 10 million include the 3 new millions from the trust and the couple of millions we probably still have from hughes and his gang, we still have 10 million to spend! so it can be whatever between 10 and 20 i guess. not bad no matter what.

[philipl]

Waggy has been saying it was 50% for quite a while.

Nicko confirmed it this morning ten pages back in this thread

I simply looked at the original deal, such as it was, and concluded there had to be a big missing piece for it to have made sense for Arsenal to have sold him when they did.

Just looking at the numbers at that time smelt like a 50% sell-on clause which is one of the reasons I have been and remain so against selling Bentley.

[Ricky]

When he joined us was Bentley really one of the hottest young talents though??

He'd had a bad loan period at Norwich where he didnt really do a great deal.

Wenger has already come out and said that he sometimes asks for buy back clauses on young players and that he didnt do this for Bentley. Now surely if he really thought he was going to be that good he would have asked for a buy back option on him. I can't see us agreeing to a 50% sell on but I guess time will tell. I didn't think we'd agree to a £6.5m buy out for Bellamy so what do I know.

[Exiled_Rover]

Re: Bentley's sell-on fee = disaster.

Re: Bert on the right wing = disaster. He can't cross.

Emerton isn't a great crosser, but it's the fact he's terrified of the touchline monster that really hurts his production as a winger. Perhaps Ince has brought Buffy in to slay that particular demon?

[MarkBRFC]

Waggy has been saying it was 50% for quite a while.

I simply looked at the original deal, such as it was, and concluded there had to be a big missing piece for it to have made sense for Arsenal to have sold him when they did.

Just looking at the numbers at that time smelt like a 50% sell-on clause which is one of the reasons I have been and remain so against selling Bentley.

Ha, the same man that said our FA Cup semi final a couple of years ago was going to be played at the Emirates?

In all honesty, just like the rest of us, you havent a clue if there is a 50% clause or not have you?

[den]

hughes and JW said earlier this spring that the transer budget was about 10 million this year. i doubt that its any less now...

I haven't read that anywhere, can you point me in the right direction there, or even better post a link?

[philipl]

The Bentley story is this:

£17 million is the asking price.

Spurs have had swaps turned down - but are expected to sell those players and come back with the cash...and very soon.

Everton, Villa and Liverpool will also have to find that figure.

The figure is high because there is a sell-on to Arsenal. I am told this 50 per cent above what was paid. Bentley cost more in installments than you might imagine - around £3 million.

So if Rovers get £17 million they would have to give Arsenal around £7 million of that. These are estimated rough figures, but not far away.

Rovers would be left with £10 million 'clear' but a profit of only £7 million.

Paul Ince is willing to sell - and I don't blame him - and John Williams is holding out for the sum.

With any luck this could get done quickly. My sources suggest Spurs will come back with cash and then it is up to the others to match it.

The sooner the better.

No markbrfc, nicko hasn't a clue either, sadly.

[Ricky]

Lets wait and see, Nicko has been wrong before you know.

[Nate]

Taken from 4-4-2, albeit the Australian version.

Rovers Woo Roo Duo

Any whispers, Nicko?

[hawkiiz]

I haven't read that anywhere, can you point me in the right direction there, or even better post a link?

its a bit old but i will try to find it

i really hope im not wrong about this hahaha

[modes98]

out-and-out goalscorer that is Huntelaar.

If i was buying a striker I'd want an out and out goal scorer. As long as the ball hits the net that is all i care about. Thus why i don't like Jason Roberts.

Lets wait and see, Nicko has been wrong before you know.

Personally doubt we would allow a 50% clause but we will see.

[nicko]

Taken from 4-4-2, albeit the Australian version.

Rovers Woo Roo Duo

Any whispers, Nicko?

Those two have been trying to come over for some time. Both decent, good competitors.

Right now I think the list is much longer than three or four for that position.

No need to rush, you never know who could become available.

[Dave S]

What is the situation with Zabaleta?

Was he ever for sale? Does he now look likely to go to City?

[nicko]

What is the situation with Zabaleta?

Was he ever for sale? Does he now look likely to go to City?

Zabaleta is for sale. I suspect Man City will have to sell before they can bid.

[FourLaneBlue]

Forgot to say...

I understand Emerton would be put back on the right wing, explaining why they are trying so hard for a new and top right back.

Oh my Lord...so you mean to say that the replacement for David Bentley would be...Brett Emerton?!?

With news of the probable 50% sell-on clause this is a very bad summer so far for Rovers fans

Buying a player who had dont next to nothing in the Premierhip - and who the selling club could not wait to gfet rid of - for 3 million and then bowing down to demands of a 50% sell-on clause does not sound a good deal to me. It makes sense however as Bellamy was still at the club and we were yet to have our hands burnt by his release clause. Hence the tough talk about no more release clauses did not come out until well after Bentley had been bought.

[Exiledfan]

nicko, there are strong manu ties at brfc now with ince and knox. is there any indication that rovers might be looking to old trafford to solve any of their needs through loans or otherwise?

i also do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that manu would come in for bentley. after all, ronaldo plays very much a roving attacker and united were very successful when beckham's crosses were flying in from the right.

Looks like it's Burnley with the Man U links.

Set to sign Eagles according to reports.

[hawkiiz]

Zabaleta is for sale. I suspect Man City will have to sell before they can bid.

yep. shinawatralala are locked down in thailand, with no money and a his trial started today. i think he will be stuck there for a while. possibly 13 years if some people get what they want. poor hughsey

[broadsword]

Zabaleta is for sale. I suspect Man City will have to sell before they can bid.

Oh the irony! Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

One young Brazilian geezer fopr mucho dosh, but on the tick, and wheeling and dealign required to get any more in.

[Iceman]

Wil say it again.man city bought the wrong brazilian from cska.when i watched them i thought vagner love,was super.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Waggy has been saying it was 50% for quite a while.

Nicko confirmed it this morning ten pages back in this thread

I simply looked at the original deal, such as it was, and concluded there had to be a big missing piece for it to have made sense for Arsenal to have sold him when they did.

Just looking at the numbers at that time smelt like a 50% sell-on clause which is one of the reasons I have been and remain so against selling Bentley.

Whether Nicko is right about the sell on clause or not - will be flushed out in the next few days. Word of the clause getting into the media will force Rovers to either confirm the existance of the clause or deny it. Of course they don't have to confirm the % - but we should at least get some form of confirmation. 50% seems extremely high to me - but we will see I suppose.

[Wild Irish Rover]

and still nothing has actually haapened.... all.................day.....................................Yawn

[hawkiiz]

anyone.

if bents leave for 17 milliion. lets say arsenal get their share.. how much will his agent get? will he get any of the actual sum or what is the deal?

read on another fan page that when harry kewell went from leeds to pool for 7 mill, leeds only got 2 because the agent and harry took the rest. no idea what so ever if it is true.

[incy wincy little spider]

Roque is a vastly superior player to Huntelaar. I think Wenger knows that too.

Personally I think Huntelaar is as least as good as RSC! Seen him almost ever week and hes usaully best player on the pitch by a long way. Hes the future of Ajax!

[BiggusLaddus]

its a bit old but i will try to find it

i really hope im not wrong about this hahaha

I'll save you the trouble.

JW and MH said that there would be money to spend, and Nicko estimated this to be around £10m. To my knowledge that figure was never confirmed by anyone at the club and would always be subject to change anyway.

With a new unproven manager, the board might decide to give him less money until he's proven he can spot decent players, or they might give him more to help him get started. Who knows...