[Archived] Franco Di Santo

[joey_big_nose]

My issue is, we have probably been put at the head of the pile with regards to Di Santo as we have probably agreed not to persue our interest in Daniel Sturridge.

We have also (according to Nicko) agreed that we will play Di Santo in the first team regardless. So we are missing out on a perminant signing player we have been linked with for a while (Sturridge), for the sake of making one of the Chelsea team players better.

Chelsea get their man in Sturridge, and we take the risk of playing one of their young stars. If he is rubbish, they don't miss out but we get left in 'it' and if he is any good. We loose him at the end of the season with Sturridge happily relaxing with a 3-4 year contract at Chelsea.

I feel like I am jumping on all your posts and I don't mean to. But the basic fact of the matter is that if Chelsea are going to take Sturrige we dont have a cat in hells chance of getting him anyway. I doubt the Di Santo deal will have any bearing on that either way.

As nicko has since said explicitly that this is in addition to Cruz, not instead of, I guess that the reason the article is different is to make it of more interest to a wider readership (ie. Man City, Villa, Spurs fans).

[Brfcrule1]

I hope we manage to get this guy in permanently eventually but unlikely but will have his name on the back of my shirt also just to get the excitement going his bird is ten times better looking than Roque's wife that should bring some excitement to the ground at least!

[American]

I would say I'm whelmed (not overwhelmed, not underwhelmed, just whelmed) by this.

I don't mind being a stepping stone for players, but I'd prefer we actually make a profit, much like with Bentley, Bellamy and RSC. A lot is being pinned on a player who has potential, but has to get adjusted to the game. We're not the long-term beneficiaries when he gets adjusted.

Hopefully he will adjust immediately, and I'm looking forward to seeing him play, but it is definitely a risk on our side.

[Guest benmaxwell]

I feel like I am jumping on all your posts and I don't mean to. But the basic fact of the matter is that if Chelsea are going to take Sturrige we dont have a cat in hells chance of getting him anyway. I doubt the Di Santo deal will have any bearing on that either way.

Well it's obviously not about money otherwise he would have stayed at City.

Offer him garenteed first team football and i'm sure he would come. Or does he think he is better then Anelka and Drogba...

[cn174]

Didn't Sturridge demand £50,000 a week or something ridiculous a bit back? Maybe not even City are willing to give into such demands.

[Mr. E]

If he was that good wouldn't they give him a few more substitute appearances at Chelsea? Has he ever even scored for them?

[den]

I would say I'm whelmed (not overwhelmed, not underwhelmed, just whelmed) by this.

I don't mind being a stepping stone for players, but I'd prefer we actually make a profit, much like with Bentley, Bellamy and RSC. A lot is being pinned on a player who has potential, but has to get adjusted to the game. We're not the long-term beneficiaries when he gets adjusted.

Hopefully he will adjust immediately, and I'm looking forward to seeing him play, but it is definitely a risk on our side.

What risk?

If Rocky goes we get another two strikers in apart from this youngster. If Rocky stays then we have Rocky, Roberts, Benni and Santo. What's the risk American?

[Eddie]

Of course there's a risk. I assume we'll be paying his wages, probably also a fee attached, so it isn't going to be free. He'll also be taking up a spot in our squad, so he'll have to contribute in some way. It seems like a good idea, he's quite a talent, but as I put in the other thread I don't like the move much if there isn't an option to buy.

[1864roverite]

Well now its out in the open.

Rovers could actually be in for 2 current Chelsea players on loan, Sinclair being the other one, the problem is is that there are also 5 other clubs in for him as well !

It makes sense to me, rid the club of RSC, bring in some cash then give Santos a free role to score at will. Rovers can rebuld the central midfield with the funds generated.

[rover6]

Don't like this loan deal. If he does well, he'll want to move to a bigger club. If he doesn't - well he doesn't. Also, I wonder what sort of word Carlos will put in .

[Ronin]

According to quotes I've seen, Carlos liked it at Rovers (although it does come across as more Premier League than Rovers - http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Football/20935...Blackburn.aspx), just that Sam didn't think he fit into his plans otherwise he would've signed him.

[den]

Of course there's a risk. I assume we'll be paying his wages, probably also a fee attached, so it isn't going to be free. He'll also be taking up a spot in our squad, so he'll have to contribute in some way. It seems like a good idea, he's quite a talent, but as I put in the other thread I don't like the move much if there isn't an option to buy.

Eddie - any player we bring in will cost something. You haven't said what the risk is yet?

As for not liking it because there's no option to buy, what's the problem with that? Surely if the lad does come in and does well, it will be great for Rovers, Chelsea and Santo? Nothing is long term in football any more, so if it works for a year that's good.

I think some people complain for the sake of it.

[Ronin]

Would rather we get someone on loan for a year than a repeat of what happened with Bellamy.

[Guest benmaxwell]

Would rather we get someone on loan for a year than a repeat of what happened with Bellamy.

Yeah those 17 goals he scored for us and the (for lack of a better word) gorgeous attacking football he showed us really stung!

[Stuart]

Yeah those 17 goals he scored for us and the (for lack of a better word) gorgeous attacking football he showed us really stung!

I think he means everyone knows the score going in rather than have to be lied to. Maybe like using an escort agency rather than getting engaged - there's a different expectation in terms of commitment!

[Guest benmaxwell]

I think he means everyone knows the score going in rather than have to be lied to. Maybe like using an escort agency rather than getting engaged - there's a different expectation in terms of commitment!

The problem with using a escort agency is... Never mind.

I would rather we spent some money and brought in a player long term as apposed to taking all the risks, and gaining none of the benefits though through a loan... The more you think about a loan without a view to sign, the more it doesn't really benefit us at all...

[imy9]

The problem with using a escort agency is... Never mind.

I would rather we spent some money and brought in a player long term as apposed to taking all the risks, and gaining none of the benefits though through a loan... The more you think about a loan without a view to sign, the more it doesn't really benefit us at all...

That does not make sense, if we were to pay money for a striker that would come with a lot of risk.

A loan is a no brainer, the player is hungry and wants to do well, we get the benefits of that and if does not work out like Carlos and Simpson? We send them back!

[Stuart]

The problem with using a escort agency is... Never mind.

I would rather we spent some money and brought in a player long term as apposed to taking all the risks, and gaining none of the benefits though through a loan... The more you think about a loan without a view to sign, the more it doesn't really benefit us at all...

We'd all rather that but beggars can't be choosers - or curb crawlers for that matter!

I don't think we are "shopping" in Soho though, rather slightly upwards of Clayton St - if the cost is what your opening line meant, btw.

[Ronin]

I think he means everyone knows the score going in rather than have to be lied to. Maybe like using an escort agency rather than getting engaged - there's a different expectation in terms of commitment!

Something like that

[BRFC1995]

can't imagine the fella earns much but if we have no option to sign and have basically agreed to give him premier league time for chelseas benefit to develop THEIR player we really should'nt be paying a single penny towards his wages and certainly no loan fee if there is definitely no set in stone agreed fee to buy him at the end.

we should just go shopping in scandinavia and and pick up promising strikers from the bigger clubs for 2-2.5m that have at least experienced better leagues than chiles, not really guarenteed to be any better than this guy but at least we have the chance to make money if the gambles pay off and not settle for being a feeder club and have spuds buy the guy from chelsea for their usual 10m in a year.

[Guest benmaxwell]

Completely agree with BRFC1995. We are doing all of Chelsea's work, and gaining nothing long-term. Whilst they sign one quality player, and possibly regain another one back a year later with vastly more experience at the expense of another team.

The more and more i think about it, the more i don't see the sense in this deal. It would have made better sense if we could use him as a bench option. But the way Nicko makes it sound, we are going to be forced to play him all the time on Chelsea's terms regardless of if he is ready or not.

[Hughesy]

So let me get this right. Di Santo will 1st be checked out by Ancelotti, if he doesnt impress then we can take him on loan. However my main concern is, if he impresses during his loan, Chelsea will just recall him. Play him for a while, and then sell him to somebody else, unless there is an agreement in place about a set fee to us.

No if we are taking him on loan for a fee - then I would expect we would have him on loan for the full season. Therefore if he starts banging them in, we get the benefits for this season.

My issue is, we have probably been put at the head of the pile with regards to Di Santo as we have probably agreed not to persue our interest in Daniel Sturridge.

Ha ha like that would matter - do you think Chelsea fear us in the transfer market? Dont be daft!

This deal is done regardless of RSC going - If RSC goes then no doubt we will need a new striker, however that wont be a target man, as that is Di Santos style.

Don't like this loan deal. If he does well, he'll want to move to a bigger club. If he doesn't - well he doesn't.

If he does well - we finish higher than we would of done - simple really.

Eddie - any player we bring in will cost something. You haven't said what the risk is yet?

As for not liking it because there's no option to buy, what's the problem with that? Surely if the lad does come in and does well, it will be great for Rovers, Chelsea and Santo? Nothing is long term in football any more, so if it works for a year that's good.

I think some people complain for the sake of it.

Someone that actually sees some sense in the deal at last!!

[DE.]

Completely agree with BRFC1995. We are doing all of Chelsea's work, and gaining nothing long-term. Whilst they sign one quality player, and possibly regain another one back a year later with vastly more experience at the expense of another team.

The more and more i think about it, the more i don't see the sense in this deal. It would have made better sense if we could use him as a bench option. But the way Nicko makes it sound, we are going to be forced to play him all the time on Chelsea's terms regardless of if he is ready or not.

Chelsea think he'll be a first-teamer by next year. High hopes pinned on the lad, why wouldn't we take him on loan? He comes in and flops - never mind, we don't have to buy him. I'd hope we're not stupid enough to agree that we absolutely have to play him in every single first team match regardless of our situation or his own form - but even if that is the case, he's still likely to be better than all of our back-up strikers. If he does turn out to be awesome - well, like we'd be able to buy him anyway? Another club would snatch him away before we could even think about making the deal permanent, or he'd refuse any contract offer we gave him and continue on with Chelsea, knowing for a fact he could get a better deal at a bigger club elsewhere.

[Guest benmaxwell]

Ha ha like that would matter - do you think Chelsea fear us in the transfer market? Dont be daft!

Read what i said at 15:39.

[Stuart]

If he does well - we finish higher than we would of done - simple really.

Nail. Head. Hit.

I'm getting a bit like a stuck record but this kind of deal is the market we are in. If anything it is (as Nicko put it) quite imaginative. Who knows, the club aren't stupid, they may well have done a really good deal with wages - particularly if we've told Chelsea he'll be a first team starter.