[Archived] Jordan Rhodes

[EgyptianPete]

You are gambling that the players you bring in contribute to that figure and make the players around them better. I can see both sides of the argument, it seems stupid to remove that amount of goals, yet his overall play is not of that high a standard.

I am of the mind set that if you can sell one and bring in 2 (both quality) then that's how you should operate, only way we can improve as we don't have the income otherwise to do it.

Unless we get around the fair play rules, otherwise we would never be allowed to buy a player over £50,

(Tongue in cheek)

[Speedie Dived]

Unless we get around the fair play rules, otherwise we would never be allowed to buy a player over £50,

(Tongue in cheek)

That's the whole point, one way around the rules is by selling players. Basically what Spurs have done with Bale, but on a smaller scale.

Some numbers. Rhodes played in 48 games last season (in total he played 58 inc Hudds and Scotland)

I think this shows that when Rhodes did score it more often had a positive impact upon the game than not.

No of Games Result?

W D L

Did Rhodes Score? Yes 12 8 4

No 3 8 13

Of course, the exact opposite could be said. We he doesn't score he is not contributing to the team.

[RevidgeBlue]

You are gambling that the players you bring in contribute to that figure and make the players around them better. I can see both sides of the argument, it seems stupid to remove that amount of goals, yet his overall play is not of that high a standard.

I am of the mind set that if you can sell one and bring in 2 (both quality) then that's how you should operate, only way we can improve as we don't have the income otherwise to do it.

Thanks for the very reasonable reply.

"Gamble" is the operative word here I think.

[Stuart]

That's the whole point, one way around the rules is by selling players. Basically what Spurs have done with Bale, but on a smaller scale.

Of course, the exact opposite could be said. We he doesn't score he is not contributing to the team.

If he was the complete player you seem to want him to be he wouldn't be at Rovers.

I'll take his goals and be grateful, thanks. We have enough players who can't put the ball into the net.

[RevidgeBlue]

Of course, the exact opposite could be said. We he doesn't score he is not contributing to the team.

Eh? That's a non sequitur surely.

What it does tend to indicate is that when he didn't score, no-one else did either.

But of course we know that already.

[Jimmy612]

Thanks for the very reasonable reply.

"Gamble" is the operative word here I think.

So what exactly are we gambling with here? We aren't going to go up this season imo (could we in yours?) - Could we go down? For me I think we'll do enough to stay up. Would we have enough to stay up without Rhodes? AT THE MOMENT, I'm not entirely sure.

I'm not convinced by Best and I have seen nothing of DJ so far. I fear we would have the same problems that we have with Rhodes i.e. not good enough at holding up the ball/running the flanks, but we would also be missing 10 goals (assuming those two score 15 - 20 between them)(also assuming Rhodes gets 25 plus - which certainly is not guaranteed)

I would absolutely say that if we let Rhodes go we need a replacement front man, who can weigh in with some goals (15) -but also do the all important 'kean side of the game'. If we found a striker like that plus an attacking minded midfielder (e.g. I note Nick Powell may be going on loan to Wigan), then would we really be any worse than we are now? I don't think so. INFACT - I think we might be better.

Can we afford the gamble? Do we owe Hudders any money? Has GB got appropriate alternatives lined up?

All questions that I do not have the answer to. Until I have those answers, there is no way that I could say yes or no to letting Jordan Rhodes leave.

What i'm doing here, and I think Den, Parson and Speedie are doing the same, is suggesting that Rhodes is not the be all and end all, and with a bit of shrewd trasfer dealings could be replaced adequately.

I guess it all depends on just how much you trust GB to 1. make sure that he gets any money from the transferto improve the squad, and 2. Spend it wisely on 2 or 3 players which would take a mid-table/bottom half squad into a top half/challenging squad

[den]

Or are you suggesting Goodwillie would have converted those chances that Rhodes did?

No, I was suggesting that we might have brought someone else in with £8m.

Well, we're on around lap 60 here with this one. What will be, will be. There is no right or wrong answer, it's about opinions. If people think we must keep hold of Rhodes at all costs, then fair enough, that might be the best thing for us. Hopefully though, some folk might realise there are alternatives that might be the better option as well.

Edit.......... Just posted at the same time as Jimmy above. He sums my feelings up perfectly.

[SoldierMo]

Thats where you wrong we can easily be playoff challengers with the squad we got jus need to add that one striker on loan that we looking for....once in the playoffs anything can happen....win the playoffs and the jackpot is there

[Jimmy612]

Thats where you wrong we can easily be playoff challengers with the squad we got jus need to add that one striker on loan that we looking for....once in the playoffs anything can happen....win the playoffs and the jackpot is there

And where is that striker going to play Mo? Because we won't be playing 4-4-2 this season. Are you suggesting that new striker starts and then Rhodes comes on when legs are tired on 65/70mins? Like a Hernandez? That might work you know

Oh, and the bit in bold - I really do not see that unfortunately. All opinion

[SoldierMo]

Why wont we b able to play 442 with a midfield of marshall cairney evans judge...add williamson taylor lowe king etc...formations and tactics are always changeable

[Speedie Dived]

What i'm doing here, and I think Den, Parson and Speedie are doing the same, is suggesting that Rhodes is not the be all and end all, and with a bit of shrewd trasfer dealings could be replaced adequately.

I guess it all depends on just how much you trust GB to 1. make sure that he gets any money from the transferto improve the squad, and 2. Spend it wisely on 2 or 3 players which would take a mid-table/bottom half squad into a top half/challenging squad

That in a nutshell explains what i am thinking. If rumours are to be believed and GB does not fancy Rhodes then he would have no problem selling to a Championship rival.

[glen9mullan]

No, I was suggesting that we might have brought someone else in with £8m.

Well, we're on around lap 60 here with this one. What will be, will be. There is no right or wrong answer, it's about opinions. If people think we must keep hold of Rhodes at all costs, then fair enough, that might be the best thing for us. Hopefully though, some folk might realise there are alternatives that might be the better option as well.

Edit.......... Just posted at the same time as Jimmy above. He sums my feelings up perfectly.

Rovers summer spending was done and dusted last summer , a big money signing was not even in the offing .

The deal for Rhodes was under exceptional circumstances , was not planned and would not of been repeated elsewhere in the squad .

The talk of 8 million being spent elsewhere was never going to happen . This deal was personally funded by the family , had the deal not happened , they would be 8 million better off .

Seen a few post suggesting if we had spent that money in a few areas we would of been better off , but the truth is Rovers marquee signing was Best , the budget was spent , and it was a one off deal .

Would the sale of Rhodes see the transfer fee reinvested into the squad ???

If I was a betting man the answer would be no .

So on that basis a sale would generate cash but not a replacement .

That's not a gamble worth taking

[Speedie Dived]

Thats where you wrong we can easily be playoff challengers with the squad we got jus need to add that one striker on loan that we looking for....once in the playoffs anything can happen....win the playoffs and the jackpot is there

We only play with one up top though, throw a second one on if we are losing. And IMO last year's squad was nowhere near good enough for play-offs, we were in a relegation fight until Millwall.

[darrenrover]

Might stick in the throat somewhat but as an all round striker, with all the attributes, Charlie Austin would have been the ideal replacement IMO.

[den]

Rovers summer spending was done and dusted last summer , a big money signing was not even in the offing .

The deal for Rhodes was under exceptional circumstances , was not planned and would not of been repeated elsewhere in the squad .

The talk of 8 million being spent elsewhere was never going to happen . This deal was personally funded by the family , had the deal not happened , they would be 8 million better off .

Two points Glen.

1. You would have had to be in the minds of the Raos to know that.

And

2. That's really got nothing to do with the substance of the discussion, which is about the sale, or otherwise of Rhodes

[Jimmy612]

Would the sale of Rhodes see the transfer fee reinvested into the squad ???

If I was a betting man the answer would be no .

So on that basis a sale would generate cash but not a replacement .

That's not a gamble worth taking

..

Then in that scenario, Mani 's theory is completely out of the window. There is no way GB or coaches will let Rhodes go because he thinks we already have better.

As I alluded to in my earlier post: Does GB feel confident he will be allowed to spend incoming cash?..... Do we owe Hudders a lot, therefore paying them would leave us diddly squat anyway?...... Does GB have the right alternatives lined up and good to go?

If the answer to those 3 is no, then we have to keep Rhodes and I assume we will keep Rhodes.

Glen you say you feel the money would not be re-invested into the squad. Would that be because of FFP restrictions or because of our learned owners pulling the purse strings shut? Bearing in mind of course that let's face it, there will be ways and means around this FFP.crap

[glen9mullan]

Two points Glen.

1. You would have had to be in the minds of the Raos to know that.

And

2. That's really got nothing to do with the substance of the discussion, which is about the sale, or otherwise of Rhodes

1. Affirmative

2. Yes it has everything to do with the sale of Rhodes . If we sell him , spend nothing on a replacement how is that good business ? Rovers are eyeing up a loan striker to compliment what we have , Rhodes sale will not make x amount of millions available to buy 2 or 3 players

..

Then in that scenario, Mani 's theory is completely out of the window. There is no way GB or coaches will let Rhodes go because he thinks we already have better.

As I alluded to in my earlier post: Does GB feel confident he will be allowed to spend incoming cash?..... Do we owe Hudders a lot, therefore paying them would leave us diddly squat anyway?...... Does GB have the right alternatives lined up and good to go?

If the answer to those 3 is no, then we have to keep Rhodes and I assume we will keep Rhodes.

Glen you say you feel the money would not be re-invested into the squad. Would that be because of FFP restrictions or because of our learned owners pulling the purse strings shut? Bearing in mind of course that let's face it, there will be ways and means around this FFP.crap

FFP does not come into it as you have already stated , always ways around it .

Venky's always sign the cheques in the end .

However our eyes are on loans , a couple of midfielders from league 1, which hopefully will just be a passing an interest and the free market .

Nothing suggest at this moment a few days before the window closes that Rovers will be spending any real cash on a Rhodes replacement or to that matter a partner .

[Jimmy612]

1. Affirmative

2. Yes it has everything to do with the sale of Rhodes . If we sell him , spend nothing on a replacement how is that good business ? Rovers are eyeing up a loan striker to compliment what we have , Rhodes sale will not make x amount of millions available to buy 2 or 3 players

FFP does not come into it as you have already stated , always ways around it .

Venky's always sign the cheques in the end .

However our eyes are on loans , a couple of midfielders from league 1, which hopefully will just be a passing an interest and the free market .

Nothing suggest at this moment a few days before the window closes that Rovers will be spending any real cash on a Rhodes replacement or to that matter a partner .

Well in that case, unless something is drastically wrong financially i.e. they want the money in OR Bowyer believes he can bring in better (by what you've just said i doubt it) you fully expect Rhodes to be here come next Wednesday?

[Amo]

Rhodes is Venky's only hope of getting back on the PL gravy train.

And before anyone suggests 'asset stripping' before a swift exit - Why is GB being allowed to sign players by the dozen and why are more and more players being paid off?

[den]

1. Affirmative

2. Yes it has everything to do with the sale of Rhodes . If we sell him , spend nothing on a replacement how is that good business ? Rovers are eyeing up a loan striker to compliment what we have , Rhodes sale will not make x amount of millions available to buy 2 or 3 players

No-one would want to sell their top goal scorer, unless there was money for replacements, that's already been said a number of times. Again though, to know whether they would make that money available, you would have to be in their heads. I don't think we have any mind readers here.

And the answer isn't "affirmative". It's yes den, you're right

[glen9mullan]

Well in that case, unless something is drastically wrong financially i.e. they want the money in OR Bowyer believes he can bring in better (by what you've just said i doubt it) you fully expect Rhodes to be here come next Wednesday?

I have always been confident Rhodes would be here Wednesday and despite interest from Wigan , I fully expect him to remain .

A bid could come in from a Prem club before then, however it would have to be serious money and I just can't see that being the case .

Player happy at Rovers at present , so I can't imagine he will be banging a door down for an exit .

I'm sure this debate will rumble on until the window closes , but I think it's possibly one under the radar which may be the talk of this board come window close , rather than a Rhodes sale

[yoda]

I have always been confident Rhodes would be here Wednesday and despite interest from Wigan , I fully expect him to remain .

A bid could come in from a Prem club before then, however it would have to be serious money and I just can't see that being the case .

Player happy at Rovers at present , so I can't imagine he will be banging a door down for an exit .

I'm sure this debate will rumble on until the window closes , but I think it's possibly one under the radar which may be the talk of this board come window close , rather than a Rhodes sale

you little tease you

[arbitro]

I have always been confident Rhodes would be here Wednesday and despite interest from Wigan , I fully expect him to remain .

A bid could come in from a Prem club before then, however it would have to be serious money and I just can't see that being the case .

Player happy at Rovers at present , so I can't imagine he will be banging a door down for an exit .

I'm sure this debate will rumble on until the window closes , but I think it's possibly one under the radar which may be the talk of this board come window close , rather than a Rhodes sale

In or out?

[glen9mullan]

In or out?

Out

[den]

That would be Hanley then.