[Archived] Transfer Topic The Final Day

[wandel77]

Jacobsen can play LB, he did at FC Copenhagen for almost a whole season, and are also doing it on the Danish national team. but he is best as a RB.

[Roversider]

Quick question, would Sam have preferred Warnock to stay?

Answer, an emphatic yes.

Did Warnock want to stay?

Answer, an emphatic no.

So we go and sign Chimbonda who at Wigan was a very hot property. Now Sam has got him at a good price because he hasn't performed as well for Spurs. I would back Sam to bring him back to his best. Chimbonda has played all positions across the back 4 so as a left back he is an option plus he provides cover elsewhere.

If you look at the squad now compared to the one Sam inherited I think it is much more balanced with cover across the team.

The proof of whether that is the case will happen over this season.

However the objective is to remain in the Premiership AND to make certain that the club we love remains around for generations to come. That inevitably impacts the decisions on signings, get used to it or choose another club to support.

Having watched us in the depths of the old Third Division and seeing us take a hiding at Shrewsbury I reckon these are good times. Maybe I may like the ambition (albeit naive) of other supporters but I aim to be positive and not depressed by what might be. Still everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is based on decades of experience following Rovers.

[Hughesy]

Sorry Hughesy but does selling a left back and signing a right back make good footballing sense?

I was on about from a business sense. Seriously Is Warnock worth 5 times more than Chimbonda?

People are forgetting the amount of mistakes/ goals warnock was at fault for. Yes he tried hard, yes he seemed to give everything - but he isnt anything to lose sleep over.

I have to agree with BFS (The poster), I know you always try and look at things positively Hughesy which is a refreshing change, I'm the same the majority of the time, but while it may make sense from a short term business point of view it certainly doesn't improve us on the pitch, Chimbonda WAS an excellent right back and could be again, he could even become a very good left back but right now we just have to wait and see really.

As I said it might be good business in the short term but if we continue to weaken the playing the squad in order to improve the finances then in the future it could lead to relegation which certainly won't improve our financial situation and we have to wonder, was it all worth it?

I'm not saying we should have kept Warnock, he wanted to go, we got a good price and that's fair enough but I think we should have aimed a bit higher with his replacement. I have nothing against Chimbonda, he's a decent player but he simply isn't as good a left back as Warnock was which is difficult to argue. (I wasn't even Warnock's biggest fan either).

Do you think losing Warnock and replacing him with probably Givet is going to send us down?

I think it makes sense because Like I said - Warnock isnt worth 5 times that of Chimbonda. Givet will probably go left back - and he's a better left back than Warnock. Sam wants a defence in which the defenders first priority is to Defend - with Givet he has that, with Warnock im not so sure - he was always off on runs and often got caught out.

[rebelmswar]

Allardyce going for a Brazilian...

... if that doesnt make you vom your breakfast, nothing will.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11676_5519222,00.html

If it was Man U buying him he would be a UK citizen by breakfast.

[American]

Thank you.

At last a well-balanced contribution.

I pointed out a while back that Warnock +Gally out and Salgado+ Chimbonda in equals huge strain on the wages bill irrespective of whatever surplus got generated from transfer fees.

Wages get paid every month, transfer fees get spread over as much as four years.

The wages bill is what JW and the board and the bank manager will all be looking at. The bank manager will be happy to have seen the overdraft buttressed by net transfer fees contracted (we don't know if they have been paid) for about 50% of its size and if the cash is being handed over advantagiously, the interest bill should at least halve from £1.5m or thereabouts last year.

Warnock, Santa Cruz and everyone else we sent away were all getting paid a wage, and suffice to say, it was probably every month!!!!

How the hell can everyone factor the taking on of wages, but not factor wages going off of the books? If we're still paying these guys every month even though they have left, we deserve to go broke!!

[Stuart]

It fascinates me that so many people are judging the 'budget' based purely on transfer fees. The modern game isn't based on that premise, you have to take the whole cost of the deal which includes a lot you can't see.

1) Fee to transferring club

2) Agents fees

3) Contract settlements

4) Signing on fees

5) Wages (which can vary dramatically if the fee is low)

6) Other costs (eg houses, minders, translators)

7) Anything else I forget

If that doesn't make sense look at the mess 'appy 'arry left Portsmouth in, lots of applause for heis wheeling and dealing but hidden costs really added up to hole the Pompey ship. Remember the Titanic was sunk by the 90% of the iceberg not in sight!

Sam has traditionally gone for players on low transfers but big wages, I suspect that he was given the choice of balancing wages and fees and he chose the former. Salgado for one will be on big money and no transfer fee, lots of hidden costs.

So before berating the board for poor support consider whether we see all the true costs of the deals.

All the same I also suspect there is a bit of posturing to keep the prices we are paying to a more sensible level.

There have always been lean times for Rovers, this is not the worst!

To be honest Roversider, and I've probably unfairly picked on one point here and taken it totally out of context, I'm sick to the back teeth of people saying that wages are accounted for in the transfer budget when buying player.

If this is the case then surely all of our players wages are sat somewhere gaining interested and being drawn down on on a monthly basis. This means then that we should be able to keep all of our players if we were relegated because the money set aside to pay them would still be there!

Yet, if we are eventually relegated, we will almost certainly 'be forced' to sell players because they are on Premier League wages which we "won't be able to afford".

Which is it, because I'm genuinely perplexed? (Open question)

[rebelmswar]

Warnock, Santa Cruz and everyone else we sent away were all getting paid a wage, and suffice to say, it was probably every month!!!!

How the hell can everyone factor the taking on of wages, but not factor wages going off of the books? If we're still paying these guys every month even though they have left, we deserve to go broke!!

Its easy American, plausible deniability.

[alexanders]

Nothing from Nicko all day.

[nicko]

Nothing from Nicko all day.

Officially business is over...so taking a keen interest on other clubs making moves.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Probably supping Iron Bru with his mate Coyle.

[Hi Mack]

Officially business is over...so taking a keen interest on other clubs making moves.

Are you sure Mr Nixon?..................................

[LeChuck]

If it was Man U buying him he would be a UK citizen by breakfast.

Don't be soft. You know they were refused a work permit for Maicon, right? I bet that still hurts them.

[nicko]

Are you sure Mr Nixon?..................................

No, I'm sure there are still things happening...but it would mean another player leaving first I believe.

If you know different would a PM be out of the question?

[MeanGreenMachine]

if thats the case the board should wear stripey jumpers and a mask. Its criminal how much they are holding us back.

[Sparky Marky]

Got to be Samba out...

[rebelmswar]

Don't be soft. You know they were refused a work permit for Maicon, right? I bet that still hurts them.

My hatred overshadows my common sense at times..... lot of that going around, must be catching.

[Tom]

Samba out cannot be considered surely.

I think Benni out / attacking midfielder in would be an attractive proposition for our Glum chum.

[Atty]

if thats the case the board should wear stripey jumpers and a mask. Its criminal how much they are holding us back.

Agree

Will it be a good deal when the club sell samba for over 10 million next summer?

I thought the club have a wage budget which is 80% of our turnover not 120%!!

A lot of things just don't make sense, why have a wage budget if your going to include the wages as part of the transfer fee.

Something has to be going on at ewood. The board are probably already planning the samba sale.

Nicko what do you think happen to all the money the club has made on transfers these past two seasons or is there anyway you can find out.

[Hughesy]

Zurab & Brown are two who I didnt expect to survive - maybe they will be sold??

[Bobby G]

If its another first teamer, I will puke. At this rate, the only sellable asset is Samba, and it better not be him out and Gohouri in.

Nicko, is United doing anything? Is it true Chelsea will bid for Ribery?

[joey_big_nose]

Zurab & Brown are two who I didnt expect to survive - maybe they will be sold??

Zurab is now 100% surplus. I imagine he is being hawked around as we speak. No future for him at Rovers at all unless Nelsen's injury is really serious.

With Bunn away Brown will stay. We won't be looking to sell. But if someone comes in with a decent offer I am sure he will go.

[Lathund]

How the hell can everyone factor the taking on of wages, but not factor wages going off of the books? I

Because we were paying way, way too much in wages before they left. Now we're just paying too much. An improvement, sure, but our wage bill really was crippling before.

I think that the lack of spending is a calculated risk. The books have to be balanced at some stage, and the sooner we get rid of our debt, the fewer (And smaller) interest payments are due. One then needs to look at the state of the league. Under Sam we had (albeit barely) top-half form. From the players who actually played a part in that we've lost Ooijer, Warnock, Tugay and Mokoena. Ooijer and Warnock are adequately replaced by Salgado, Chimbonda and Jacobsen (And hopefully the return of Emerton), in fact it's an improvement in my mind. No more Olsson, Simpson or Andrews at the back! N'Zonzi looks like an improvement on Mokoena. Tugay's creativity is lacking, that's true, but as much as I love him, he wasn't the influential player last season that he once was.

Up front and on the wings we're stronger with the additions of Kalinic, Di Santo, Hoilett (Considering we only had Roberts and Benni for half the season. Roberts for less than that really). Robinson looks miles better now than he did for the first half of last season as well. Most of all, we have Allardyce for the whole season. He has his faults, but surely even his biggest critics (waggy excepted...) would rather have him than Ince?

I don't see us in the top half of the table, but I don't see us fighting for survival either. It's not a season to get excited about, but I see it as a rebuilding year. The more money we spend on reducing debt this year, and the more we reduce wages, the more money will be available for wages and transfers next year. That's plain to see for anyone who doesn't believe that money disappears into the pockets of JW or the trustees.

We'll also be rid of at least one of our big earners in central midfield (Reid, who's contract expires.. if he stays it'll be on much less than he is on now) and probably more. I don't believe for a second that Sam doesn't realise that the midfield needs strengthening. The problem is that Reid, Dunn, Grella, Andrews and Emerton are on a lot of money. Disproportionately so really, preventing us to spend even more there.

We've also seen a few signings of "projects" such as N'Zonzi, EvH, Kalinic, Hoilett (I know he was at the club already, but essentially he is a new arrival), and that Sam rates some of the youngsters like Doran. Like I said, all this to me points to rebuilding. A calculated risk that our current squad can keep us up, and that the savings made this year puts us on a sounder financial footing for the future.

One can agree or disagree of course, but I think it's the way to go. We'd all like the trust to invest more, a lot more, but at this time we need to operate under the assumption that we'll have to make do without any outside investment. Spending beyond our means is great if it results in success and a takeover. If it doesn't, we're screwed. I'm not even talking about Leeds-type excesses, even just losses of £3-4m a year will hurt us. More and more for every year that it goes on.

[Bobby G]

Sensible post Lathund. I agree ONLY if this is the case behind the scenes rather than us trying to make SENSE of a disappointing situation with fingers crossed.

[Roversider]

To be honest Roversider, and I've probably unfairly picked on one point here and taken it totally out of context, I'm sick to the back teeth of people saying that wages are accounted for in the transfer budget when buying player.

If this is the case then surely all of our players wages are sat somewhere gaining interested and being drawn down on on a monthly basis. This means then that we should be able to keep all of our players if we were relegated because the money set aside to pay them would still be there!

Yet, if we are eventually relegated, we will almost certainly 'be forced' to sell players because they are on Premier League wages which we "won't be able to afford".

Which is it, because I'm genuinely perplexed? (Open question)

Wages and transfer fees come out of the total budget, to a degree it is down to Sam and John Williams to decide whether to up the wages at the cost of the transfer fee or vice versa.

In terms of cash flow it is also true that transfer fees are rarely paid out at one go, installments are the norm unless a trade has been done on a lower price offsetting money up front. Look at Pompey who needed to sell to pay the next installment on Crouch. Also with performance clauses built in the fees can be pretty complicated. Suffice to say wages and fees are both coming out of the same pot.

Unfortunately that makes simplistic calculations a load of tosh based on the very limited information we have.

The transfer budget and wages budgets are not sitting in a bank somewhere, we are in debt but at least significantly less than some of our rivals. If we go down the income falls at a breathtaking rate, wages and transfer fees are budgeted on an expected league position in the Premiership, higher position is a bonus with places worth about £0.5m a place, lower is bad news, relegation is catastrophe.

I am sure that conspiracy theorists will point to a board determined to take money out but Jack always wanted Rovers to be run on a sound business footing. He gave us plenty of capital investment to help that (Ewood Park and Brockhall) but from now on its down to the revenue coming from the Premiership. Whilst I may hope for some more spending I also trust John Williams because, so far, he hasn't shown any reason not to.

[London_Rover]

I just asked my mate who is a Bolton fan this:

"Did Big Sam ever say at Bolton that he wasn't going to sign anyone then go on to sign people?"

His reply was:

"He did that almost continuously. I imagine he is lining up a further 3 / 4 right backs to add to your team as we speak!"

So there is a chance he might be bluffing and we might get a new midfielder in.