[Archived] Transfer Talk Part 2

[chaddyrovers]

Josh King's transfer set to go to Tribunal.

Look like Anton Forrester will be re-sign for Rovers and be Rovers 4th choice(IMO)

Best wasnt at Training either

http://m.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/13362436.Captain_Grant_Hanley_raring_to_go_as_Blackburn_Rovers_get_set_for_Josh_King_tribunal/

[Stuart]

Josh King's transfer set to go to Tribunal.

Look like Anton Forrester will be re-sign for Rovers and be Rovers 4th choice(IMO)

Best wasnt at Training either

http://m.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/13362436.Captain_Grant_Hanley_raring_to_go_as_Blackburn_Rovers_get_set_for_Josh_King_tribunal/

Somebody please tell me that Hanley isn't going to carry on being captain,

[Rover_Shaun]

I'm not sure if you got the right end of the stick Stefan (taking your Kamy is Nicko and were all sheep comment from another topic into consideration). Every single bit of Rovers outgoing transfer business was not predicted to happen by 23:59:59 on 30/06/15

[thenodrog]

also I believe today and possible tomorrow will be fitness tests and running.

here is article about what to do on pre season week 1 written by Simon Bitcon who is fitness coach at Man City. http://performance.fourfourtwo.com/training-guides/pre-season-training-week-1

didn't Simon Bitcon used to work for Rovers?

Whoever is in charge needs to bin off those instructions adapt training to suit the weather conditons this week.

As far as signings are concerned we are in a cleft stick. No one any good will want to speak to Rovers in their current situation of being under embargo and skint. They will always choose the other option as any self respecting agent will do his utmost to get them to another club. So the current options open to us are to sign some bog average player who thinks we are a step up, sign someone with injury / personality / other 'issues', or wait until everyone else is 'fit up' and filter through the flotsam and jetsom of the footballing world.

The results of this will of course then allow certain 'Enders' and any number of stay away's possessing goldfish memories and non existent powers of reasoning to lay full blame on anyone from Bowyer, Shaw, Lowe, Hanley, tea boy etc etc etc. So just for them never ever forget the damaging parts played in this by Kean and Anderson, Hubner et al at Kentaro/SEM, numerous overseas agents, to a lesser extent the LMA, gentlemen of the popular press and assorted idlers and free loaders in the squad. They are the evil ones who have effectively destroyed BRFC. All of course under the watch of inexperienced, nincompoops from India who imo have been the starry eyed victims of one massive great opportunist sting.

[blueboy3333]

I'm not sure if you got the right end of the stick Stefan (taking your Kamy is Nicko and were all sheep comment from another topic into consideration). Every single bit of Rovers outgoing transfer business was not predicted to happen by 23:59:59 on 31/06/15

i'm not sure much will happen on that day.

Whoever is in charge needs to bin off those instructions adapt training to suit the weather conditons this week.

a pedalo on Stanley Park?

[thenodrog]

a pedalo on Stanley Park?

Not a bad idea so long as said pedalo is dragging a couple of tractor tyres.

[Rover_Shaun]

31st June LOL. Teach me for typing whilst walking

Could Hanleys midriff double as tyres?

[JHRover]

What a bizarre thing to say. Have you got Morris confused with someone else? Cairney?

Any chance the Cairney transfer was rushed through to have an impact on the embargo?

If that was the driving force behind the deal, which I doubt as that would require some sort of planning from the club, it still wouldn't make sense.

Its well documented that the very earliest we will be out of the embargo is January, probably more likely next summer. Is it worth offloading one of your best midfield players to a league rival to 'have a chance' of being out of the embargo in 6-12 months?

If it was indeed some carefully considered move by the club to achieve a release from the embargo sooner than it would have been otherwise, then why not say so? All they would need to do is put a few sentences on the website along the lines of:

'The club did not want to lose Tom Cairney, but took the considered decision that letting him go to Fulham at that price was a sacrifice worth taking to achieve a quicker escape from the transfer embargo. The club is now confident that it will be close to FFP compliance by January.'

There. That's all they would need to say, and it would make things a lot more acceptable in my eyes. But they haven't said that. And it is that silence that inevitably leads to speculation, rumours, instability and criticism from supporters.

The other thing we need to consider here is the Gestede factor. It has been abundantly clear since January that he would be moving to a Premier League club by the end of this summer. The club has done nothing to dispel these rumours and has basically admitted he is for sale but only at a certain price.

By sticking to a valuation of £7 million cash the club has so far managed to price him out of Watford and Norwich's reach. But that won't continue. One of two things will happen. Either Watford/Norwich will increase their bid to a level Rovers do business at, or Gestede will start to kick up one almighty fuss about being priced out of a move. In our predicament with the embargo and squad places the last thing we need is to have a £7 million rated player sulking and not giving 100% to the club.

Priority number one this summer should have been to sell Gestede to the highest bidder in the Premier League asap. Use the £5-6 million profit towards lifting the embargo and ensure that no other top players leave, certainly not to Championship clubs.

To sell Cairney for £2-3 million to a Championship rival adds to our problems, as he will need replacing as well as Gestede. Not only that but the money brought in for Cairney will have minimal impact on losses when compared to the money Premier League clubs could pay for Rhodes or Gestede who were both more sought after.

Nobody could complain if the club pocketed £15 million and sold the two strikers to Premier League sides. But to sell our most gifted midfielder to a rival for the relatively small amount of £2-3 million, and still be at high risk of losing the other two, in my opinion makes no sense.

[thenodrog]

If that was the driving force behind the deal, which I doubt as that would require some sort of planning from the club, it still wouldn't make sense.

Its well documented that the very earliest we will be out of the embargo is January, probably more likely next summer. Is it worth offloading one of your best midfield players to a league rival to 'have a chance' of being out of the embargo in 6-12 months?

The other thing we need to consider here is the Gestede factor. It has been abundantly clear since January that he would be moving to a Premier League club by the end of this summer. The club has done nothing to dispel these rumours and has basically admitted he is for sale but only at a certain price.

By sticking to a valuation of £7 million cash the club has so far managed to price him out of Watford and Norwich's reach. But that won't continue. One of two things will happen. Either Watford/Norwich will increase their bid to a level Rovers do business at, or Gestede will start to kick up one almighty fuss about being priced out of a move. In our predicament with the embargo and squad places the last thing we need is to have a £7 million rated player sulking and not giving 100% to the club.

Priority number one this summer should have been to sell Gestede to the highest bidder in the Premier League asap. Use the £5-6 million profit towards lifting the embargo and ensure that no other top players leave, certainly not to Championship clubs.

You've just valued him yourself at 7m. Why should the club value him at any less? Especially considering that Rhodes is supposedly worth more and considering also that McCormack set the bar for top scorers in the championship with an 11m move to Fulham

[JBiz]

Somebody please tell me that Hanley isn't going to carry on being captain,

http://mobile.rovers.co.uk//news/article/grant-hanley-2518074.aspx

[chaddyrovers]

Ryan Nyambe has signed a new 3 years deal.

Plus other players like Forrester

http://mobile.rovers.co.uk//news/article/ryan-nyambe-new-deal-2518295.aspx

[chaddyrovers]

Lenihan signed a new 1 year deal

Rovers are delighted to announce that Darragh Lenihan has signed a new one-year deal.

http://t.co/ATuxXxyKu2http://t.co/NzYHlxLJkG

[Reedy You're A Star]

Ryan Nyambe has signed a new 3 years deal.

Plus other players like Forrester

http://mobile.rovers.co.uk//news/article/ryan-nyambe-new-deal-2518295.aspx

Lenihan too:

http://www.rovers.co.uk/news/article/darragh-lenihan-2518357.aspx

Good news!

[JHRover]

Indeed good news with Lenighan and Nyambe signing deals.

However, I do find it a bit strange that we've only given Lenighan 12 months. Likewise we only gave O'Sullivan 12 months too.

Surely if these lads are going to be our future and our plan is to develop and sell at a profit then we need to be giving them better contracts? Otherwise if they have good seasons for us next year they will be free to go wherever they want the year after.

[J*B]

If that was the driving force behind the deal, which I doubt as that would require some sort of planning from the club, it still wouldn't make sense.

Its well documented that the very earliest we will be out of the embargo is January, probably more likely next summer. Is it worth offloading one of your best midfield players to a league rival to 'have a chance' of being out of the embargo in 6-12 months?

If it was indeed some carefully considered move by the club to achieve a release from the embargo sooner than it would have been otherwise, then why not say so? All they would need to do is put a few sentences on the website along the lines of:

'The club did not want to lose Tom Cairney, but took the considered decision that letting him go to Fulham at that price was a sacrifice worth taking to achieve a quicker escape from the transfer embargo. The club is now confident that it will be close to FFP compliance by January.'

There. That's all they would need to say, and it would make things a lot more acceptable in my eyes. But they haven't said that. And it is that silence that inevitably leads to speculation, rumours, instability and criticism from supporters.

The other thing we need to consider here is the Gestede factor. It has been abundantly clear since January that he would be moving to a Premier League club by the end of this summer. The club has done nothing to dispel these rumours and has basically admitted he is for sale but only at a certain price.

By sticking to a valuation of £7 million cash the club has so far managed to price him out of Watford and Norwich's reach. But that won't continue. One of two things will happen. Either Watford/Norwich will increase their bid to a level Rovers do business at, or Gestede will start to kick up one almighty fuss about being priced out of a move. In our predicament with the embargo and squad places the last thing we need is to have a £7 million rated player sulking and not giving 100% to the club.

Priority number one this summer should have been to sell Gestede to the highest bidder in the Premier League asap. Use the £5-6 million profit towards lifting the embargo and ensure that no other top players leave, certainly not to Championship clubs.

To sell Cairney for £2-3 million to a Championship rival adds to our problems, as he will need replacing as well as Gestede. Not only that but the money brought in for Cairney will have minimal impact on losses when compared to the money Premier League clubs could pay for Rhodes or Gestede who were both more sought after.

Nobody could complain if the club pocketed £15 million and sold the two strikers to Premier League sides. But to sell our most gifted midfielder to a rival for the relatively small amount of £2-3 million, and still be at high risk of losing the other two, in my opinion makes no sense.

7M isn't enough to lift any embargo. Selling Gestede has absolutely zero effect on anything other than losing his goals.

[tomphil]

Nothing wrong with a bit of the old carrot and stick as far as young players go. too many ruined by giving them 3 year deals on several grand pwk at that age. Simply give them an extension well before the 12 months is up if they are showing the right stuff.

We are now looking to produce players to force their way into a midtable modestly paid championship squad. You get the feeling if other clubs were coveting these lads they'd be in there now offering terms and forcing our hand a bit.

[cesus]

Indeed good news with Lenighan and Nyambe signing deals.

However, I do find it a bit strange that we've only given Lenighan 12 months. Likewise we only gave O'Sullivan 12 months too.

Surely if these lads are going to be our future and our plan is to develop and sell at a profit then we need to be giving them better contracts? Otherwise if they have good seasons for us next year they will be free to go wherever they want the year after.

I know they are only young but I'd say a little player power probably motivated only one year deals. Bowyer hasn't really brought through any of our young lads unless absolutely desperate. I could believe both of the players wanting to know they really are part of first team plans before committing longer term probably around Feb/Mar time in my opinion.

[JHRover]

7M isn't enough to lift any embargo. Selling Gestede has absolutely zero effect on anything other than losing his goals.

It must come close to lifting the embargo. If we pocket £7 million cash up front for him and don't spend any of that then we can't be far off the permittable loss.

We don't have to reach the £8 million loss figure. Bolton didn't and Brighton didn't. They just made sufficient reductions to persuade the League to not punish them.

According to our very own MD our losses in our last accounts were £26 million, falsely inflated to £42 million. Knock the £7 million off and we're at £19 million losses. Take out the pay-offs to Campbell, Orr and the others which will have amounted to several million, the wages saved in recent months by offloading about 12 players, some compensation money for Josh King and we ought to be below £15 million. Add in the money for Cairney and we must be.

If we reduce our losses from £26 million to less than £15 million in the space of 12 months then I don't see how anyone could argue we weren't trying and succeeding in getting our losses down towards the acceptable level.

-------

I'm a bit perplexed by the ongoings at Leeds United. Their accounts in November 2014 showed losses which led to them being embargoed in January. So presumably whatever losses they were making were substantial and well beyond what is permitted.

Then by March they have reduced them sufficiently to have the embargo lifted (which can only be explained by the sale of Ross McCormack for £11 million).

Now they are talking about splashing the cash this summer. Indeed they have just signed Chris Wood for £2.5 million on estimated £20 k a week wages.

Yet surely a deal such as the one above will immediately put them back over the threshold? It seems that now it has been lifted there is little/no risk of it being reinstated in the future, when really sensible and limited spending ought to be the case for a club recently under an embargo.

It suggests to me that once we are out of the embargo (if we really want to be out of it) then there would be nothing stopping us from spending decent money on decent players.

[The_Expert]

It suggests to me that once we are out of the embargo (if we really want to be out of it) then there would be nothing stopping us from spending decent money on decent players.

Except the small matter of having insufficient operating income to service any additional debt that this might create...

[joey_big_nose]

My guess is that Lenihan and O'Sullivan have got offered a lot less than what they want so have said they will only sign one year deals.

Great negotiating by the club if no one else fancies them in a year. Awful negotiating if they turn out to be good and immediately jump ship. Though I suppose in that eventuality we may get some compensation from tribunal.

If they are seen as genuine first team players it seems absolutely ridiculous to only tie them to one year deals. I can only assume that ultimately we don't really rate them and they will be on the fringe of the squad. If not we are idiots.

[JHRover]

Except the small matter of having insufficient operating income to service any additional debt that this might create...

That's why the club need to continue to develop other streams of income and improve the level of sponsorship at the club. The deal with Dafabet is undoubtedly a start.

No club in this division has sufficient operating income to spend millions on players and give them £20 k a week wages. Not even the mighty Leeds United. That's why most clubs are owned by wealthy people who pump in money, and almost all the clubs lose money year in year out.

It all depends on what the owners of the club want to do going forward.

Smaller clubs than us are able to throw money around despite big losses and huge debts - QPR and Fulham being prime examples. I'm not buying the self pity story of we can't compete whilst everyone else is allowed to do as they want regardless.

[tomphil]

Maybe our accounts dept can't commit to ANY deal longer than 12 months now. Remember the wording in the accounts and the last season of parachutes................

[thenodrog]

Indeed good news with Lenighan and Nyambe signing deals.

However, I do find it a bit strange that we've only given Lenighan 12 months. Likewise we only gave O'Sullivan 12 months too.

Surely if these lads are going to be our future and our plan is to develop and sell at a profit then we need to be giving them better contracts? Otherwise if they have good seasons for us next year they will be free to go wherever they want the year after.

Have you considered that 1 year deals might be at their or their agents insistence?

[thenodrog]

It must come close to lifting the embargo. If we pocket £7 million cash up front for him and don't spend any of that then we can't be far off the permittable loss.

We don't have to reach the £8 million loss figure. Bolton didn't and Brighton didn't. They just made sufficient reductions to persuade the League to not punish them.

According to our very own MD our losses in our last accounts were £26 million, falsely inflated to £42 million. Knock the £7 million off and we're at £19 million losses. Take out the pay-offs to Campbell, Orr and the others which will have amounted to several million, the wages saved in recent months by offloading about 12 players, some compensation money for Josh King and we ought to be below £15 million. Add in the money for Cairney and we must be.

If we reduce our losses from £26 million to less than £15 million in the space of 12 months then I don't see how anyone could argue we weren't trying and succeeding in getting our losses down towards the acceptable level.

-------

I'm a bit perplexed by the ongoings at Leeds United. Their accounts in November 2014 showed losses which led to them being embargoed in January. So presumably whatever losses they were making were substantial and well beyond what is permitted.

Then by March they have reduced them sufficiently to have the embargo lifted (which can only be explained by the sale of Ross McCormack for £11 million).

Now they are talking about splashing the cash this summer. Indeed they have just signed Chris Wood for £2.5 million on estimated £20 k a week wages.

Yet surely a deal such as the one above will immediately put them back over the threshold? It seems that now it has been lifted there is little/no risk of it being reinstated in the future, when really sensible and limited spending ought to be the case for a club recently under an embargo.

It suggests to me that once we are out of the embargo (if we really want to be out of it) then there would be nothing stopping us from spending decent money on decent players.

Through a combination of attendances and ST prices Leed's turnover is 3x ours don't forget.

A short cut for them would surely be to keep the same squad and give Dyche a couple of Million to manage them. The likes of him, Big Sam and Pulis are worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately many supporters across the country have unrealistic delusions of grandeur.

[tomphil]

Don't forget SKY's regular and generous contribution to Leeds !