Thursday deadline.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Biz said:

Have you watched football recently? That’s football for any club bar the top 4, and even then - the best are always likely to be tempted to PSG or another European giant.

 As will Dack if PSG come in for him next week. All players have a price. The good news is that he obviously has no intention of moving imminently.

Still doesn't alter the fact we are two quality strikers and two wide men short though.

[Tom]

Superb news about Dack; now to add to the squad!

[Bbrovers2288]

Great about dack but we are all craving new signings here, new contracts aren’t cutting it 

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

Perhaps no serious outlay could be sanctioned until Dack signed.... 

[bluebruce]

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happier but that's the extent of the extra security). Even with him being happier, if a bigger club comes in offering more, he'd be off like they all would. There were also zero rumours, that I've heard, this summer about a move, only last Jan. We didn't 'owe' him a new deal just a year after the last. He got us out of League One, but we got him out of it too. On the pitch, he delivered more than we expected, but not tons more. We bought him as a marquee signing and I'm sure his wage and promotion wage rise matched that.

To my mind, all we have done is given away more money on what may be quite a strained budget, raised the club's wage structure which may affect other signings and renewals in future, and made Dack a bit happier so he possibly doesn't leave (lad seemed pretty happy anyway though).

The only other possible plus I see is if we are planning to sign someone on a bigger wage, it will be too late for Dack to moan about it.

I know I will attract flak for this though. I'm not one of the doom and gloom brigade at all btw, for anyone who hasn't realised.

Edited July 20, 2018 by bluebruce

[JBiz]

@bluebruce

you don’t get flak for having an opinion around here, you are welcome to it, and whilst I disagree I respect where you’re coming from.

However...

Got to keep these talismanic players who change games. 

[SBlue]

Just now, bluebruce said:

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happier but that's the extent of the extra security). Even with him being happier, if a bigger club comes in offering more, he'd be off like they all would. There were also zero rumours, that I've heard, this summer about a move, only last Jan. We didn't 'owe' him a new deal just a year after the last. He got us out of League One, but we got him out of it too. On the pitch, he delivered more than we expected, but not tons more. We bought him as a marquee signing and I'm sure his wage and promotion wage rise matched that.

To my mind, all we have done is given away more money on what may be quite a strained budget, raised the club's wage structure which may affect other signings and renewals in future, and made Dack a bit happier so he possibly doesn't leave (lad seemed pretty happy anyway though).

The only other possible plus I see is if we are planning to sign someone on a bigger wage, it will be too late for Dack to moan about it.

I know I will attract flak for this though. I'm not one of the doom and gloom brigade at all btw, for anyone who hasn't realised.

Immediate flak ?

 

The bit in bold is exactly why I'm glad we did it and why we had to. 

We needed to ensure that we aren't bringing in any new recruits that will upset the apple cart by being on more than our star player. 

He's worth being one of the top earners if not the top.

This could now be the catalyst for getting some 'bigger' players over the line.

[bluebruce]

Oh you definitely get flak for having an opinion around here! Perhaps not from you though Biz, and I appreciate that.

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 As will Dack if PSG come in for him next week. All players have a price. The good news is that he obviously has no intention of moving imminently.

Still doesn't alter the fact we are two quality strikers and two wide men short though.

Does Dack play for a top four premier league club? So why would PSG be a worthy element of any reply that suggests he may leave to them? Get a grip.

You would be as angry or annoyed as me if we sold him like Cairney or Gestede. For a small fee to a potential or near rival. A new deal, a happy player - a corner turned?

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

Immediate flak ?

 

The bit in bold is exactly why I'm glad we did it and why we had to. 

We needed to ensure that we aren't bringing in any new recruits that will upset the apple cart by being on more than our star player. 

He's worth being one of the top earners if not the top.

This could now be the catalyst for getting some 'bigger' players over the line.

Or more likely given apparent financial constraints, enough of a loss in budget that we don't have the money for any bigger players. If I felt I could take it as a sign of intent that we had a very healthy budget, I'd be delighted (but still questioning why it isn't 4 years), but I just can't bring myself to think that. I do think we have a little to spend, more than some do, but nothing mind blowing and this can only reduce it.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, bluebruce said:

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happy but that's the extent of the extra security). Even with him being happier, if a bigger club comes in offering more, he'd be off like they all would. There were also zero rumours, that I've heard, this summer about a move, only last Jan. We didn't 'owe' him a new deal just a year after the last. He got us out of League One, but we got him out of it too. On the pitch, he delivered more than we expected, but not tons more. We bought him as a marquee signing and I'm sure his wage and promotion wage rise matched that.

To my mind, all we have done is given away more money on what may be quite a strained budget, raised the club's wage structure which may affect other signings and renewals in future, and made Dack a bit happier so he possibly doesn't leave (lad seemed pretty happy anyway though).

The only other possible plus I see is if we are planning to sign someone on a bigger wage, it will be too late for Dack to moan about it.

I know I will attract flak for this though. I'm not one of the doom and gloom brigade at all btw, for anyone who hasn't realised.

I disagree re Dack , he carried the team practically single handed my at times last season and I think it was absolutely essential to offer him new terms to try and keep him as happy as possible.

What we don't know at this stage is whether or not his new deal has a release clause in and if it does, what level it is set at. From our point of view it's hopefully as high as possible to deter any outside interest and ensure us a bumper price I'd he does leave. The player would obviously want it as low as possible if there is such a clause.

I would agree with you that there was no need at all to give the likes of Smallwood and Williams new deals.

[Ewood Ace]

5 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happier but that's the extent of the extra security). 

His previous deal ran until 2020 this deal runs until 2021.

[roverstdt]

Slowly but surely Rovers are going about there work in a calm and discreet manner. Coming to show that our trust and patience are being rewarded. We won't always get it right no one does however, i am far happier with the way we have conducted ourselves under Mowbray than any other manager. On to the new season!

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I disagree re Dack , he carried the team practically single handed my at times last season and I think it was absolutely essential to offer him new terms to try and keep him as happy as possible.

What we don't know at this stage is whether or not his new deal has a release clause in and if it does, what level it is set at. From our point of view it's hopefully as high as possible to deter any outside interest and ensure us a bumper price I'd he does leave. The player would obviously want it as low as possible if there is such a clause.

I would agree with you that there was no need at all to give the likes of Smallwood and Williams new deals.

He did what we paid for. Like I said, he delivered a bit above it, but still. You shouldn't award players big increases in pay, which I'm sure it is, every time they have a good or great season. Because you can't reduce their pay when they don't. I don't feel Dack will disappoint in this league, but I wouldn't as he just had a great season in a lower one. Crazier things have happened. New deals should come with extra security for the club, ie another year.

I disagree about Smallwood and Williams actually too. Both had one year left on their deals, and are at the very least, good enough squad players for this level. Wouldn't like to lose either for free next year.

I can see the argument that it may increase a fee we could get, and deter bidders. That is how the psychology of the market works. Just feel the psychology is a bit flawed as, in real terms, we have the same length of contract as before and that is where the security lies. A bidding club may even wonder why it isn't longer and wonder if he isn't committed and just wanted more money while he waits for a bigger club. I do think it should make Dack a bit less likely to push though, hopefully. Just wonder whether it is worth that, on balance. Guess it depends on the wages and terms we are talking, which as you say, we will never see.

I'm relieved though, in the sense that, because the club said ages ago they were giving him a new deal, if he hadn't signed it then it would have been very worrying. I just don't think many people would have insisted we needed a new contract for a player with three years left if we hadn't trumpeted it.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Biz said:

Does Dack play for a top four premier league club? So why would PSG be a worthy element of any reply that suggests he may leave to them? Get a grip.

You would be as angry or annoyed as me if we sold him like Cairney or Gestede. For a small fee to a potential or near rival. A new deal, a happy player - a corner turned?

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it here. You know as well as I do PSG was just a figurative example. If any major Club came in unexpectedly for him before the end of the window There's every chance he'd be off regardless of the new deal.

However the new deal is undoubtedly great news. If he does leave at any point we should now get a price which reflects his true worth and it shows that as at today he is quite happy to commit to the Club.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

His previous deal ran until 2020 this deal runs until 2021.

Oh really? My apologies then, I thought we signed him on a 4 year initially. Fair enough, that makes me feel a good chunk better. Think we should have been looking at 4 last time and this time though. Guess he or his agent don't like to commit that far ahead if it has been 3 both times.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, bluebruce said:

He did what we paid for. Like I said, he delivered a bit above it, but still. You shouldn't award players big increases in pay, which I'm sure it is, every time they have a good or great season. Because you can't reduce their pay when they don't. I don't feel Dack will disappoint in this league, but I wouldn't as he just had a great season in a lower one. Crazier things have happened. New deals should come with extra security for the club, ie another year.

I disagree about Smallwood and Williams actually too. Both had one year left on their deals, and are at the very least, good enough squad players for this level. Wouldn't like to lose either for free next year.

I can see the argument that it may increase a fee we could get, and deter bidders. That is how the psychology of the market works. Just feel the psychology is a bit flawed as, in real terms, we have the same length of contract as before and that is where the security lies. A bidding club may even wonder why it isn't longer and wonder if he isn't committed and just wanted more money while he waits for a bigger club. I do think it should make Dack a bit less likely to push though, hopefully. Just wonder whether it is worth that, on balance. Guess it depends on the wages and terms we are talking, which as you say, we will never see.

I'm relieved though, in the sense that, because the club said ages ago they were giving him a new deal, if he hadn't signed it then it would have been very worrying. I just don't think many people would have insisted we needed a new contract for a player with three years left if we hadn't trumpeted it.

Have to agree to disagree. I think Dack is potentially so far above the level of the rest of the squad you have to treat him as a special case.

Albeit on a much  lower level I would like it to Shearer. Uncle Jack gave him numerous unsolicited pay rises even though technically under the terms of his contract he maybe wasn't entitled to it.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

According to the LT, his previous deal ran for another three years anyway, so it would have run out in 2021.

@bluebruce If every football player did what they were paid for, then the world would be full to the brim with superstars. For every Bradley Dack, there are 10 Ashley Wards and 1 Bradley Orr. You can't not reward players for doing what you imagined they'd do - not in football, anyway!

Not the argument I was making though. And all players are rewarded, more than amply at League One upwards, for what they do. No need for us to make it a one way street of huge boosts for one good year when it can't go the other way. I know it's the way football works, but I think it's daft.

The other bit about his contract length, yeh I've just seen...so my stance remains after all lol

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Have to agree to disagree. I think Dack is potentially so far above the level of the rest of the squad you have to treat him as a special case.

Albeit on a much  lower level I would like it to Shearer. Uncle Jack gave him numerous unsolicited pay rises even though technically under the terms of his contract he maybe wasn't entitled to it.

Did he? I just remember after his iniital deal we gave him a 30k a week one, and then a 50k a week one. He did offer him one more in a desparate bid to stop the Newcy move, but don't recall others. We also had Manure constantly hovering over him, rather than just one club in the last window when we were a lower league.

The one thing that makes me think maybe you're right though is we would have had to offer him a new deal next summer if he tore up the Champs....and possibly a much pricier one. But I do think if he does that we are gonna need to sell anyway.

[perthblue02]

Just now, bluebruce said:

Not the argument I was making though. And all players are rewarded, more than amply at League One upwards, for what they do. No need for us to make it a one way street of huge boosts for one good year when it can't go the other way. I know it's the way football works, but I think it's daft.

The other bit about his contract length, yeh I've just seen...so my stance remains after all lol

One thing that we do not know is, as part of the negotiations on his new contract the club may have protected themselves by increasing any release clause . Would be very stupid not to

Edited July 20, 2018 by perthblue02

[islander200]

25 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happier but that's the extent of the extra security). Even with him being happier, if a bigger club comes in offering more, he'd be off like they all would. There were also zero rumours, that I've heard, this summer about a move, only last Jan. We didn't 'owe' him a new deal just a year after the last. He got us out of League One, but we got him out of it too. On the pitch, he delivered more than we expected, but not tons more. We bought him as a marquee signing and I'm sure his wage and promotion wage rise matched that.

To my mind, all we have done is given away more money on what may be quite a strained budget, raised the club's wage structure which may affect other signings and renewals in future, and made Dack a bit happier so he possibly doesn't leave (lad seemed pretty happy anyway though).

The only other possible plus I see is if we are planning to sign someone on a bigger wage, it will be too late for Dack to moan about it.

I know I will attract flak for this though. I'm not one of the doom and gloom brigade at all btw, for anyone who hasn't realised.

Dack deserved more money.

In your work place if you proved yourself to be one of the most effective employees would you not think you deserve as much/more than a co-worker who isn't as effective as you?

I get where your coming from but his performances are worthy of better terms.He signed from Gillingham I can't imagine he was on massive money when he joined and has proven himself as our top performer 

[rog of the rovers]

Intent and proof you'll be rewarded if your performances merit it.

No complaints from me.

Also hope the release clause has gone up!

[Torgeir]

He initially signed a three-year deal with the option of a fourth. Perhaps there was a minimum release clause in there that has now changed? Or his agent has put some mild pressure on the club saying he was the league's star performer last season and will look for deals elsewhere if not offered improved terms - I don't know. Mowbray did say early on after clinching promotion that some players would be offered better terms  - I think our wage structure was totally revamped after suffering relegation. I also hope the contracts the club offer the players now are heavily bonus incentivised.

[bluebruce]

Just now, perthblue02 said:

One thing that we do not know is, as part of the negotiations on his new contract the club may have protected themselves by increasing any release clause . Would be very stupid not to

Very good point, if there was one then it would make tons of sense to increase it a good chunk. Course, could be there wasn't one and now there is. We won't know. Hope you're right.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, perthblue02 said:

One thing that we do not know is, as part of the negotiations on his new contract the club may have protected themselves by increasing any release clause . Would be very stupid not to

Absolutely.  I would imagine there is one in and if as we are led to believe he was happy to sign a new deal all along I'd guess the delay was most likely down to haggling over the level the release clause was to be pitched at.