[Archived] Nickos (newer) Thread

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I can't see Bentley interesting Utd, his work rate is nowhere near high enough for Fergie. If he does leave for God's sake don't put Emerton out there, he's awful on the wing. Best I saw him play was for Australia V England before he joined Rovers, he played a sort of old inside right position and he ran England ragged with some surging ball carrying runs from one half to the other. I can't see Santa Cruz going to Arsenal either, he's no where near quick enough for their style of football,Adebayor could run backwards faster than Santa can run forwards.

Somebody mentioned systems of play earlier on, the golden rule is " Make the system fit your players, not the other way round"

Just one thought, If Quiroz leaves Utd would it be a good time for them to bring Hughes in as a sort of apprentice prior to Fergie bailing out ? I bet City are a bit uneasy at the moment.

[tony gale's mic]

Just one thought, If Quiroz leaves Utd would it be a good time for them to bring Hughes in as a sort of apprentice prior to Fergie bailing out ? I bet City are a bit uneasy at the moment.

There is absolutely zero chance of that happening. The man has just joined City!

[Pinch]

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.

The big money will be spent on an attacking midfielder.

And the belief is that by selling Bentley it will take all pressure off selling Roque.

We shall see.

I'm interested to hear from all those who were so critical of Lennon's crossing ability. I don't recall Emo being a wing wizard per say, but what about his crossing ability? Acceptable replacement for Bents?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

We're talking football here, loyalty factor nil, he could always use the excuse that he had been miss-led about the dosh on offer. He's already been there longer than Steve Coppell !

[tony gale's mic]

We're talking football here, loyalty factor nil, he could always use the excuse that he had been miss-led about the dosh on offer. He's already been there longer than Steve Coppell !

Either way, he'd only leave if he was offered Ferguson's job for sure. And United wouldnt appoint Hughes as an 'apprentice' anyway, they'd wait till Ferguson left or said he was going and they'd pick out the best possible candidate at that time. And unless Hughes guides City into the Champions League places, there's absolutely no chance he'll meet their standards.

[roverfanuk]

Anyone else taking immense pleasure in knowing that Sparky went to Man City for a bigger transfer kitty. Man City have blown their cash on Jo, someone Sparky probably had nothing to do with buying, someone who isnt any better then Santa Cruz.

Now he is back in exactly the same position as he was with us, knowing that if he wants to buy, he needs to sell first. We have the upper hand though knowing that we have £13 million (possibly more with Sparkies compo!) and if we sell Bentley we can probably get someone as good for less then what were selling Bentley for and will have money for the other needed positions!

Im laughing anyway!

[Dunnfc]

Weve turned swap deals down intresting......

If we could get 13 mill and Malbranque id settle for that because we have then got a class midfielder, and share 13 mill 6.5 mill each.

[Hughesy]

Just out of interest has anybody actually confirmed that Arsenal have a sell on clause. Just wondering af anyone at the club has confirmed it or wether it's just speculation at present.

No they havent.

I spoke with an ex player, an old guy still very much in with the club, one of Jack Walkers old mates and last week he told me that it was no where near 50% but that there was a small clause added in there.

[Eddie]

Weve turned swap deals down intresting......

If we could get 13 mill and Malbranque id settle for that because we have then got a class midfielder, and share 13 mill 6.5 mill each.

ummm what?

[BRFC4EVA]

What happens with any sell on clause if Bentley is swapped for a coupla of players. Say for example (hypothetically of course im not trying to argue if they are good or bad deals) that we swapped Bentley for Young and Petrov or Jenas and Lennon would that negate the sell on fee?

[FourLaneBlue]

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.

As with Bellamy, Bentley's career was going nowhere fast when we signed him. Bellamy was training with Newcastle's stiffs, Bentley hadn't really pulled up any trees at Norwich out on loan and Arsenal didn't want him at that stage. It was only the expertise of Hughes and his coaching staff that pulled Bentley round. In other words we do all Arsenal's hard work for them, and they take an equal share of the credit or profit.

The only bright side of this is that Arsenal Spurs and ManUre probably wouldn't want Bentley, and Liverpool and Spurs probably can't afford him at 17m. Player swap deals are a no go area for us because we'd lose DB and we'd possibly then have to stump up cash to Arsenal as well.

The real doomsday scenario for us is if Spurs manage to offload enough of their unwanted players to raise the cash for DB and then the RSC to Arsenal thing turns into reality.

Edit: We don't even know if RSC has some sort of clause allowing him also to leave on the cheap in specified circumstances. Hopefully not, but you never know.

I agree with the post. People are saying that the Bentley deal was good...but that is only with hindsight. Bentley was not an England international at the time and had not impressed in spells at Norwich or with us particularly. For then to pay what amounted to a 3million plus a 50% sell-on fee is excessive. Sure he turned out to be a great signing but we did not necessarily know that.

[FourLaneBlue]

I still think it's odd that news of the existence of the sell on clause has only just emerged today.

It differs markedly from the Bellamy saga when tabloids had been bleating on about his clause for a long time before his eventual transfer to Liverpool.

[daren]

I agree with the post. People are saying that the Bentley deal was good...but that is only with hindsight. Bentley was not an England international at the time and had not impressed in spells at Norwich or with us particularly. For then to pay what amounted to a 3million plus a 50% sell-on fee is excessive. Sure he turned out to be a great signing but we did not necessarily know that.

Well, the sell on seems high, but much of that three million allegedly comes from the activation of specific clauses (like "playing for England")

[hawkiiz]

What happens with any sell on clause if Bentley is swapped for a coupla of players. Say for example (hypothetically of course im not trying to argue if they are good or bad deals) that we swapped Bentley for Young and Petrov or Jenas and Lennon would that negate the sell on fee?

lets say they swap bentley for a player of equal value. (17 m). then we will of course get nothing from the other club, but we will have to pay arsenal 7m because of the clause.

like thenodrog said, the ONLY way round such a clause is to make bentley see out his contract at rovers and let him go for free.

[FourLaneBlue]

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.

I think you are rewriting history a bit there. At the time Bentley was damaged goods with an attitude problem that had seen him forced out of Arsenal and a poor loan at Norwich had been followed by him doing little at Rovers. For us to pay 3million on a big gamble was surely a reasonable fee. As for "£5m would be a low estimate"...no way. The discussion among Rovers fans was if he would ever really make it or be yet another faded talents who didn´t make it.

If we had played hardball enough then surely we could have got Bentley in without the sell-on clause on top of 3million. Arsenal badly wanted rid and I do not remember any other club seriously after him at the time. Still...we do not know...Rovers agreed to their demands so, as with Bellamy, we do not know if they could have ultimately pulled off the transfers without the clauses or not.

[FourLaneBlue]

Well, the sell on seems high, but much of that three million allegedly comes from the activation of specific clauses (like "playing for England")

If that is true then it is not so bad a deal granted. It is very disappointing though after what we were thinking we could get for him.

[philipl]

Actually, it looks like the Bentley deal was £750K down then appearance and England cap clauses which have triggered another £2.25m since he joined and 50% of any surplus between an eventual sale figure and the amount actually paid at that time.

I still think that is an OK deal. It covered every eventuality from having to sell him to Norwich without making a loss if he reproduced his Norwich form to giving Rovers a decent upside on turning him eventually into Beckham's successor.

[matduggy]

For then to pay what amounted to a 3million plus a 50% sell-on fee is excessive. Sure he turned out to be a great signing but we did not necessarily know that.

Conversely, if he turned out to be poor, then he would not have received any England caps and we would not have had to pay the add-ons...which is only fair.

[American Rover12]

The American relatives are ready to meet Burnley..............

That would explain their money for the transfer kitty this season...

[thenodrog]

What happens with any sell on clause if Bentley is swapped for a coupla of players. Say for example (hypothetically of course im not trying to argue if they are good or bad deals) that we swapped Bentley for Young and Petrov or Jenas and Lennon would that negate the sell on fee?

Just read the thread BRFC4EVA rather than take the lazy way.

btw nothing personal I'm just weary of reading so many posts enquiring about or apertaining to the same old things when it's just as easy to read the past few pages.

[thenodrog]

Yes, but Bert can be taught how to cross.

Not now he can't.

[den]

Not now he can't.

Lots of folk reckon he can.

[BRFC4EVA]

Just read the thread BRFC4EVA rather than take the lazy way.

btw nothing personal I'm just weary of reading so many posts enquiring about or apertaining to the same old things when it's just as easy to read the past few pages.

Fair enough, but there is 191 bloody pages-I wasnt to know that the question I asked was answered in the last 10 pages or so-I coulda been looking all night! I take your point though.

[Blue n White Rover]

lets say they swap bentley for a player of equal value. (17 m). then we will of course get nothing from the other club, but we will have to pay arsenal 7m because of the clause.

like thenodrog said, the ONLY way round such a clause is to make bentley see out his contract at rovers and let him go for free.

But what if the two clubs disagree on the value of the player?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Lots of folk reckon he can.

I'm not one of them.