[Archived] Blackburn Rovers Transfer Topic

[rovers1995]

Nicko when can you let us know the names of the two players that Rovers are looking at that you suggested earlier?

[modes98]

Yes but he only cost about 800k.

I can't imagine that many players are signed just from their performance in a tournament. Most players will have been scouted over weeks and months.

[gazsimm]

Yes but he only cost about 800k.

I can't imagine that many players are signed just from their performance in a tournament. Most players will have been scouted over weeks and months.

800k is a lot of money modes, he has done Rovers no favours at all as he?

[nicko]

Nicko when can you let us know the names of the two players that Rovers are looking at that you suggested earlier?

If and when moves for them move on...

[briansol]

Good prospect but raw. Newcastle can't let him go surely. And would he be a partner for Di Santo?

I'm sure some expert will suggest a great re-sale value...

Did you really believe John Williams and the board would sanction 5 millions on Davies? While Big Sam rates him, John Williams are responsible for the long-term future of the club in financial terms. Williams has in several interview explained the business model of the club, which basicly means that most of the gains from sales would be made available to purchases. The resale factor was by Williams highlighted and the reason from a business perspective a Davies deal will never happen on the terms you reported.

On a personal note, I also think Davies is a proven and good player of his type.

[67splitscreen]

800k is a lot of money modes, he has done Rovers no favours at all as he?

People are saying we should gamble. ??????

[nicko]

Did you really believe John Williams and the board would sanction 5 millions on Davies? While Big Sam rates him, John Williams are responsible for the long-term future of the club in financial terms. Williams has in several interview explained the business model of the club, which basicly means that most of the gains from sales would be made available to purchases. The resale factor was by Williams highlighted and the reason from a business perspective a Davies deal will never happen on the terms you reported.

On a personal note, I also think Davies is a proven and good player of his type.

First things first, the manager should always be allowed to pick his targets. If the money is too much for his budget, then that is a different matter. Even Paul Ince was allowed to sign players who were initially opposed...like Fowler and Andrews.

You have to let a boss decide - and he has to be accountable. Ince lost his job because he signed badly.

Who would have been sacked if the board had made the decisions?

And what knowledge does the board have about the ability of targets?

Some of the names being bandied about in the past days behind the scenes are [a] bizarre and in many cases as old. So the re-sale value thing does not apply here.

It's hard enough getting strikers without tying yourselves down to ones you might be able to sell in the future...

[tcj_jones]

I'm sure some expert will suggest a great re-sale value...

What, as opposed to the expert who believes that spending £5m on a 32/33 year old would be great business, even better than the signing Kevin Kuranyi?

[nicko]

What, as opposed to the expert who believes that spending £5m on a 32/33 year old would be great business, even better than the signing Kevin Kuranyi?

That would be your manager, as I recall.

[Veevs]

First things first, the manager should always be allowed to pick his targets. If the money is too much for his budget, then that is a different matter. Even Paul Ince was allowed to sign players who were initially opposed...like Fowler and Andrews.

You have to let a boss decide - and he has to be accountable. Ince lost his job because he signed badly.

Who would have been sacked if the board had made the decisions?

And what knowledge does the board have about the ability of targets?

Some of the names being bandied about in the past days behind the scenes are [a] bizarre and in many cases as old. So the re-sale value thing does not apply here.

It's hard enough getting strikers without tying yourselves down to ones you might be able to sell in the future...

True the manager has to decide.. but look at our clubs amazing manager history when it comes to buying players..

Dalglish for the most part got it right.. Hughes the same on the whole.. but even experienced managers/coaches like Souness, Hodgeson and co brought in some bank bustlingly bad guys.. Grabbie and Davies to name but two.. then they land themselves with Ince and his amazing bunch of signings that actually had people laughing at us

[joey_big_nose]

True the manager has to decide.. but look at our clubs amazing manager history when it comes to buying players..

Dalglish for the most part got it right.. Hughes the same on the whole.. but even experienced managers/coaches like Souness, Hodgeson and co brought in some bank bustlingly bad guys.. Grabbie and Davies to name but two.. then they land themselves with Ince and his amazing bunch of signings that actually had people laughing at us

Ince didn't do so bad. Robinson is a good signing and Andrews seems like decent value. Grella was a very poor decision based on injurys but he could turn out to be a decent player. Simpson cost nothing. Villanueva was a loan although it did cost a million quid.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the turkeys we have signed in the last fifteen years.

[Amo]

First things first, the manager should always be allowed to pick his targets. If the money is too much for his budget, then that is a different matter. Even Paul Ince was allowed to sign players who were initially opposed...like Fowler and Andrews.

Fowler didn't cost anything beside a short-term contract. Andrews cost around £1.3m tops, and is 28. Davies is almost five years older and would cost £5m. It's not comparative in terms of value for money and resale value.

[alexanders]

Ince didn't do so bad. Robinson is a good signing and Andrews seems like decent value. Grella was a very poor decision based on injurys but he could turn out to be a decent player. Simpson cost nothing. Villanueva was a loan although it did cost a million quid.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the turkeys we have signed in the last fifteen years.

I agree. He did do some very good transfer dealings, especially Robinson. Replacing a 37 yr old with a 27 yr old with the same quality for the same price is brilliant.

The fact that we name Davies as a bad signing earlier, makes me think why we want to go there again?

[briansol]

First things first, the manager should always be allowed to pick his targets. If the money is too much for his budget, then that is a different matter. Even Paul Ince was allowed to sign players who were initially opposed...like Fowler and Andrews.

You have to let a boss decide - and he has to be accountable. Ince lost his job because he signed badly.

Who would have been sacked if the board had made the decisions?

And what knowledge does the board have about the ability of targets?

Some of the names being bandied about in the past days behind the scenes are [a] bizarre and in many cases as old. So the re-sale value thing does not apply here.

It's hard enough getting strikers without tying yourselves down to ones you might be able to sell in the future...

Yes, the boss should without a doubt be able to pick the targets. But the financial constraint will always be a factor. While Big Sam is responsible for short term success, Williams is responsible for the long term and should provide those constraints as in a Davies deal. If you look at Ince's dealings, Andrews and Fowler were low risks financially. Andrews is probably even gained a fair bit on his valuation.

There is no indication that the board or Wiliams interfere , Mark Hughes described us a very well run club. But as Hughes discovered we just don't have much money.

[LeChuck]

Grella was a very poor decision based on injurys but he could turn out to be a decent player.

Grella was a poor decision because he's rubbish. Even if he turns out to be decent, that's nowhere near good enough for a £4 million midfielder. We rarely spend that sort of money on midfielders, it's not unfair to expect him to be one of our best and most important players at that price.

Nicko: Has Janko fallen off the radar or is he still being considered as a possible Roque replacement?

[nicko]

Nicko: Has Janko fallen off the radar or is he still being considered as a possible Roque replacement?

There seems to be less enthusiasm for him than there was in January...

But there is a long way to go before you sign a striker, so it's not impossible that he comes back up the list.

[Veevs]

It was more the whole people laughing at us for signing the fowler that got on my nerves.. I probably did not put into words exactly what I felt.. Personally Ince was a decent enough manager in terms of signings overall.. however he was too cautious and failed to get the best out of what he had.

Judging by how many weeks it took to sign fowler for example the chap spent too much time trying to get the basics he wanted right.. and hell come on did Fowler score many.. what did he do bar pick up a pay cheque thats overall was worth more than most peoples salaries? Was Robinson not the obvious choice anyway? Simpson is now? Grella is now? Then tactical choices like Playing Ooijer against a nippy winger?

Anyways there is a whole separate thread for our mate ince.. I still think the board would be cautious though given that Inces signings have pretty much left already (bar Robinson and Andrews) and Sams rep went downhill after getting to excited at the barcodes.

[unsall]

Still think it will be one of Janko,Beattie or Doyle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ewood and I Would]

Blackburn will not sign a 32 year old for £5m, sorry it just won't happen! Makes me laugh because when journos like A.N Other make transfer claims this is the type of thing nicko would get all smug about and slag off the story because of the details not sound right....

To put it another way there is far more chance of three clubs being intereted in a player at the same time (something that never happens in nicko's world despite Glenn Johnson) then a club with very little resources spending a significant amount of our budget (plus making him the most expensive signing since Andy Cole) on a 32 year old who the fans don't want and whose season seems to mirror Benni McCarthy's in terms of goals.

[Guest benmaxwell]

Nicko. Quick question. Who do you think is the better player and better value for money if these 2 players are in the running to be signed as our perminant replacement for Roque. I don't want to talk about whether we can get them, it's just a simple question. Which of the two?

Kevin Davies or Oscar Cardozo?

[tcj_jones]

That would be your manager, as I recall.

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't doubt that he is interesed in Davies, but I do very much doubt that he'd spend £5m on him.

[nicko]

Blackburn will not sign a 32 year old for £5m, sorry it just won't happen! Makes me laugh because when journos like A.N Other make transfer claims this is the type of thing nicko would get all smug about and slag off the story because of the details not sound right....

To put it another way there is far more chance of three clubs being intereted in a player at the same time (something that never happens in nicko's world despite Glenn Johnson) then a club with very little resources spending a significant amount of our budget (plus making him the most expensive signing since Andy Cole) on a 32 year old who the fans don't want and whose season seems to mirror Benni McCarthy's in terms of goals.

It's Glen.

And like I told you a few days ago, he was signing for Liverpool.

Nice to have you back. Was the Trainspotting Convention good?

[Veevs]

Personally with Sam I reckon he will pull a bunny out of a hat do a jig and some big name like Cordoza will join.. I can but dream but hell he has done it how many times before? If anyone is renown for sell on value or simple value for money its bfs.. lol

[T4E]

It's Glen.

And like I told you a few days ago, he was signing for Liverpool.

Nice to have you back. Was the Trainspotting Convention good?

You're in an ever increasingly feisty mood at the moment. I can only assume you brought one of those handbags back with you.........

[TimmyJimmy]

Ince didn't do so bad. Robinson is a good signing and Andrews seems like decent value. Grella was a very poor decision based on injurys but he could turn out to be a decent player. Simpson cost nothing. Villanueva was a loan although it did cost a million quid.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the turkeys we have signed in the last fifteen years.

Seconded. My take on the Ince saga was that he went because he lost the dressing room but far far more importantly he lost the terraces. Result - we were in a relegation hole at xmas - he had to go. But fairs fair one area he did well in was transfers so I second JBNs comments. Robinson was stonking business. Andrews turned out OK after we got off his back and he put in some good performances for us and tucked away the odd important goal. Villanueva loan, Simpson loan so nowt lost there. Fowler was pay as you play so his total cost was probably less than one of the backroom staff. I didn't want to sign him as the image it gave out was wrong but at the beginning of the season why not? He gave squad cover for peanuts. Grella, well I've declared my bias on that already, he's not a worldy but is a top player nevertheless, it wasn't his fault he got crocked, neither was it Inces. Sh!t happens. The transfer funds that he brought in left the cash pool looking OK so why are people getting pleasure out of flogging a dead horse (ie Ince). On this aspect of his tenure he did well. IMO.