[Archived] Nicko's January Rumour Mill

[dave birch]

One aspect of the "Roque transfer saga" that hasn't been highlighted much is the Pay as you play side of his proposed contract. Based on his injury record this season, he'll not be costing City much on a weekly basis.

Nicko, are you sure that it is part of the deal? It would seem to be a very dangerous way for a player with a history of injuries to go, as it could cost him dearly.

[Mc Love]

My pal @ Boyles (mentioned him before) has just phoned me and reckons Rovers HAVE made a bid for Diouf and that much now depends on Diouf. Sunderland are known to be more reluctant to sell but they know Diuof can be something of a 'lose' canon. He'll give me no better than evens on Diouf becoming a Rover within days.

Bit of contrasting information, saying we didnt want him....do we know who to believe eh Alan?

[VillaSimon]

Can someone explain to me where Tottenham get all their money from? £14m Pavlyuchenko, £16.5m Modric, 16.5m Darren Bent, £15m Bentley, and now £15m for Defoe to finish his loan at Portsmouth.

Jewish goldmine perhaps?

They sold Berba for £30M, Keane for £20M, Defoe for £10M and about half a dozen players for around £4M a piece, Their overall spend was probably pretty low

[RibbleValleyRover]

Well The Mail (paper that hates us) claims that Roque is now pleading/begging to go to City. It also mentions that Hughes knows all about the clause especially that it doesn't kick in until the summer:

'There is an escape clause in his contract, but the release clause doesn't come in until the summer.'

'We have bid a realistic figure, but that is clearly a different figure from what they think they require to allow a player to leave. We accept that.'

'We are just trying to make it happen now but there is a certain level that we won't go above and there may come a time when we just walk away.'

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...y.html?ITO=1490

£10 million is a realistic offer? Get real Sparky...

[budha]

One aspect of the "Roque transfer saga" that hasn't been highlighted much is the Pay as you play side of his proposed contract. Based on his injury record this season, he'll not be costing City much on a weekly basis.

Nicko, are you sure that it is part of the deal? It would seem to be a very dangerous way for a player with a history of injuries to go, as it could cost him dearly.

Perhaps nicko ment that City will be paying us whatever was on top of the £10M cash in performance related installments?

[BuckyRover]

Well The Mail (paper that hates us) claims that Roque is now pleading/begging to go to City. It also mentions that Hughes knows all about the clause especially that it doesn't kick in until the summer:

'There is an escape clause in his contract, but the release clause doesn't come in until the summer.

'We have bid a realistic figure, but that is clearly a different figure from what they think they require to allow a player to leave. We accept that.

'We are just trying to make it happen now but there is a certain level that we won't go above and there may come a time when we just walk away.'

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...y.html?ITO=1490

£10 million is a realistic offer? Get real Sparky...

Has it come to a point where a player won't hand in a transfer request because they will lose a percentage? Pathetic.

[Ewood and I Would]

I think the precedent has already been set - the measure is Wayne Bridge

The thing is Chelsea didn't need the money and we do, therefore you have to offer more to a club like Chelsea who can easily afford to knock back a £9m offer and let Bridge sit on the Bench. Blackbunr are famously poor, meaning we need money, thus weakening our position when it comes to demanding higher transfer fees for our players. Add to the fact that Wayne Bridge hadn't been doing interviews saying he wanted out of Chelski unlike Roque and there's your answer.

The "Wayne Bridge was sold for £11m, so Roque is worth £20m" argument doesn't hold water. Besides, I though most of the fuss over Bridge was how they are paying him in wages and not the fee.

[Fylde Coast Fan]

Well The Mail (paper that hates us) claims that Roque is now pleading/begging to go to City. It also mentions that Hughes knows all about the clause especially that it doesn't kick in until the summer:

'There is an escape clause in his contract, but the release clause doesn't come in until the summer.'

'We have bid a realistic figure, but that is clearly a different figure from what they think they require to allow a player to leave. We accept that.'

'We are just trying to make it happen now but there is a certain level that we won't go above and there may come a time when we just walk away.'

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...y.html?ITO=1490

£10 million is a realistic offer? Get real Sparky...

Ian Ladyman and Peter Ferguson have been putting their name to "stories" straight out of Eastlands since the paper's Shinawatra interview. Ladyman, as I recall, had the byline for the Hughes puff-piece a few weeks ago which attempted to explain that the problems at Citeh are entirely down to the toss players and not his bullying management style.

Hughes is just playing the game though, I can't begrudge him that. If you know the player is desperate to come why would you make it easy on the selling club if you could save a few bob? Business is business.

[Ewood and I Would]

Well The Mail (paper that hates us) claims that Roque is now pleading/begging to go to City. It also mentions that Hughes knows all about the clause especially that it doesn't kick in until the summer:

'There is an escape clause in his contract, but the release clause doesn't come in until the summer.'

'We have bid a realistic figure, but that is clearly a different figure from what they think they require to allow a player to leave. We accept that.'

'We are just trying to make it happen now but there is a certain level that we won't go above and there may come a time when we just walk away.'

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...y.html?ITO=1490

£10 million is a realistic offer? Get real Sparky...

It says "upwards of £16m in the article". I don't think he's only offered 10 million, unless it's 10 up front and a further £6m in adds ons because Hughes was quoted as saying he offered £12m before and this latest offer is "significantly" higher. I know nicko says that's because the original offer was only £8m, but this doesn't make sense to me. Why would a club publically overfate a price from what they are actually offering and make themselves look like bigger spenders than they actually are? It only goes to worsen the image that you are willing to pay over the odds and other clubs then expect more.

Think about it, if they don't get Roque the next club they go to will say "well you were willing to pay over £16m for RSC", they can hardly turn round and say "no we only offered £10m, we just wanted it to look like we offered 16" can they?

[John]

However, I know John Williams [blackburn's chairman] very well and he will get the best deal for his club. If he feels it's not right then we will have to accept that and look elsewhere. It will come to a point where we will have to make a decision and that could be the decision to walk away. If we throw £50m at it then I am sure they would sell but we are not going to do that.

[RovertheHill]

The thing is Chelsea didn't need the money and we do, therefore you have to offer more to a club like Chelsea who can easily afford to knock back a £9m offer and let Bridge sit on the Bench. Blackbunr are famously poor, meaning we need money, thus weakening our position when it comes to demanding higher transfer fees for our players. Add to the fact that Wayne Bridge hadn't been doing interviews saying he wanted out of Chelski unlike Roque and there's your answer.

The "Wayne Bridge was sold for £11m, so Roque is worth £20m" argument doesn't hold water. Besides, I though most of the fuss over Bridge was how they are paying him in wages and not the fee.

I'm sorry but the argument holds very well and it is simple negotiation. We do NOT need to sell Roque - there is NO contractual reason to and there are strong arguments (our league position and the 4 year contract) not to. And if they are prepared to pay that much money for a left back - fee and wages - then they can pay an appropriate amount for a striker. That is the negotiating line to take with City. Hard but fair.

[bennyboyt11]

11pm update tonight Nicko?

[Eddie]

Guys, stop asking. If there is an update, there is an update.

Guys, stop asking. If there is an update, there is an update.

[Ewood and I Would]

I'm sorry but the argument holds very well and it is simple negotiation. We do NOT need to sell Roque - there is NO contractual reason to and there are strong arguments (our league position and the 4 year contract) not to. And if they are prepared to pay that much money for a left back - fee and wages - then they can pay an appropriate amount for a striker. That is the negotiating line to take with City. Hard but fair.

Way to go, you completely ignored the things I said! I agree with your point but I will reiterate

Unlike Wayne Bridge, Roques WANTS to move to City and has done since Hughes moved there. Bridge would have happily (being the key word here) stayed at Chelsea. Unsettled players command lower tranfers fees and City will know how unsettled he is. THAT'S BUSINESS! If you are trying buy something from reluctant sellers, the pauper will always give in before the millionaire. THAT'S BUSINESS (and bloody obvious).

You say we don't need to sell him, well maybe the people that balance the books may disagree, there is no way we'd turn down a big offer if the club felt he wouldn't provide value for money anymore (in terms of wages). We DO need to sell him if his form won't justify his wage bill. That makes the fact he's got 4 years left worse and our league position is a moot point; there is no guarantee RSC will save us from relegation (esp as he's not on form this season) and probably more chance of BFS being able to use that dosh to get players in who will.

Face it, we're seen as the hobos of the premierleague appreciative of every penny we get, that will always affect transfer fees. Do you think Man U would have paid £30m for Berbatove had he been at Rovers? No chance it would have been £20m max.

[nicknj72]

Nick-How did you discover this site? By accident, or told of it's existence by someone?

It used to a lot better!

Ozzie

I discovered the site last summer but didn't register until this week. I think i must have seen a link somewhere on the Heroes and Villains "transfer link" page, as we were all getting a bit desperate about MON signing somebody. This forum was checked several times a day and i appreciate why you don't want every Tom, Dick or Harry on here asking questions to Nicko about other clubs, it's disrespectful. I like it as the banter is pretty good, without people being personal. It gives a great insight to the sort of things that go on in the background, i particularly loved the way Daniel Levy was mentioned as being a pain in the neck to deal with - i'm not a lover of Tottenham anyhow - they're even worse now they have the media darling, 'Arry.

I was really surprised to see Ince didn't work out at Rovers. He was a winner (and a w@nker for that matter), as a player, but those sort of people tend to get success! After an amazing start @ Everton I thought the team would push on. Unfortunately, the team seemed to stop getting the results they needed and you'd hear vibes that the players weren't behind him. When you played my team, Villa, you passed us off the park ! Very very unlucky.

Looking at your squad, there's not too much that needs fixing (IMO). I'd be looking for a big lad who can bully, in the centre of midfield. Dunno if Papa Booba Diop would be people's cup of tea, but that's the sort of player i think you need. I've gotta say tho, i don't see too much of Rovers, apart from the occasional Football First on Sky. You'll have to start putting up with the media going on about "Sam's long ball" (no, not that one!! haha). They were saying it after you passed Man City off the park and it was pretty embarrassing for them to say it! Hope i don't upset anyone with the next one but how popular with the fans is Ryan Nelson? I only ask as i see him as a weak link in Defence (like i said earlier, i don't get to see that many matches, so i might have the wrong impression).

Bet you're glad Burnley look destined to lose in the semi-final eh !

Cheers for the warm welcome!

Nick

[rovers1995]

You're alright nick welcome.

In response to your question, ryan nelsen has been alright under sam hopefully it will continue for the rest of the season.

Hows a certain number 1 doing over there in the midlands, has he been as good as he was for us?

Too right im glad that burnley lost.

Good luck for the rest of the season, hope you get 4th place above the gooners who really are going more and more downhill whenever you watch them.

[T4E]

Welcome aboard Nick. I'm pleased you've given up pretending to be a Rovers fan.

[jim mk2]

. When you played my team, Villa, you passed us off the park ! Very very unlucky.

Welcome to the forum Nick.

I was at Villa that night and Rovers played well for 44 minutes but then conceded a stupid goal right on half time. I remarked to my companion that O'Neill would give Villa a roasting at half time and in the second half there was only one team going to win the match. The 2nd and 3rd goals were again awful from Rovers' point of view and the team went into a horrible decline after that match.

What do Villa fans think of Friedel ? He saved us at least 5 - 10 points a season and has been sorely missed this season.

[SamTheShrew]

mark hughes needs to shut the hell up. i dislike the man more and more by the day. simple answer is: you want the player that badly, you pay it. if city didnt spout off all the time about how rich they are, clubs wouldnt get so annoyed with their blatant disregard of any sort of professionalism or grace.

bid 18m, get your injury prone player who has had one good season in over ten years of professional football, still lose games to crap teams, get the sack...

we leave this inevitable situation happy, 18million richer, and you realise what a mug you were for leaving this club

bye bye RSC, thanks for your 'loyalty'

welcome nick. I live with a villa fan. sadly this season has been far from the usual rivally between our two teams (in my housemates and my eyes anyway), and I have had to put up with alot of success that hasnt been mine to enjoy! and you nicked our hero Brad. good luck for the season!

[Blue n White Rover]

mark hughes needs to shut the hell up. i dislike the man more and more by the day. simple answer is: you want the player that badly, you pay it. if city didnt spout off all the time about how rich they are, clubs wouldnt get so annoyed with their blatant disregard of any sort of professionalism or grace.

Give it a rest! Sparky is a top man and a top manager. Yes we know he is struggling at the moment at City but no Tom, Dick and Arry can do what he did at Rovers. It takes some doing, ask Paul Ince. The fact is he would have done the same to another club if he had the money at Rovers. He's doing his job, I'm pretty sure Sparky doesn't come up with the figure to bid as he ain't no financial genius. His opinion may have been asked but obviously City are trying to broker the best deal possible. Hence, you start off with a low bid and then go higher, any businessman would tell you that.

Bit of jelousy coming in I think from a few of our fans.

As I did when he left i'll say it again. Best of luck Sparky, you're a quality manager!

[thenodrog]

Has it come to a point where a player won't hand in a transfer request because they will lose a percentage? Pathetic.

It's been that way since the 70's.

[cruz]

Yep Sparky needs to shut his cake hole.

The silver haired welsh windbag would be red in the face if it was another manager discussing one of his one legged donkeys

[PAFELL]

However, I know John Williams [blackburn's chairman] very well and he will get the best deal for his club. If he feels it's not right then we will have to accept that and look elsewhere. It will come to a point where we will have to make a decision and that could be the decision to walk away. If we throw £50m at it then I am sure they would sell but we are not going to do that.

In that same article it said Rovers had been offered £18million plus a player on sunday. If that was the case why did Rovers not accept this bid. Especially if £18million reaches the clause in RSC contract - as well as another player.

[Hi Mack]

In that same article it said Rovers had been offered £18million plus a player on sunday. If that was the case why did Rovers not accept this bid. Especially if £18million reaches the clause in RSC contract - as well as another player.

The player may well have been Vassell!

[thenodrog]

Hughes and City should be making the football world tremble with thier spending power. Every player with an agent worth his salt should be looking to go there thus unsettling their rivals squads and spreading fear an apprehension from top 4 clubs looking over their shoulders. The fact is that Hughes has found himself shopping in Harrods with an Aldi mentallity. Trying to penny pinch will not score many brownie points in Abu Dhabi I know that he is trying to work within his football principles but he needs to change pdq. If a player is good enough for todays Man City then he needs to go get em, any dithering surely raises doubts over his judgement of that player. Making the club look like miserly time wasters is NOT the image that he should be purveying if he wants to attract other top players. The whispers will soon start in the press and media about City's ineptitude and the Ayrabs will certainly not stand for what they will perceive to be very public humiliation.