Thursday deadline.

[afootballfan]

I'd take Lansbury, always seemed like a decent championship mid, and always seems to play well against us

[old darwen blue]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

Me neither. I don't believe we should be upping the original offer too. He has been offered what the club thinks he is worth and that should be it. If he can get a better deal elsewhere he should take it.

As good as Danny has been for us there’s no way we should be giving two years well  paid contracts to a striker who rarely lasts 90 minutes. 

If the piggies think he is the answer then they quite clearly haven’t a clue. 

 

Which is nice.  

Edited June 7, 2018 by old darwen blue

[G Somerset Rover]

8 minutes ago, afootballfan said:

I'd take Lansbury, always seemed like a decent championship mid, and always seems to play well against us

I like Lansbury too but I see two issues: cost, and his temperament. We can get away with one Dack (personality wise) at the club, but not two. IMO of course.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Gavlar Somerset Rover!

[Tom]

Lansbury is on £40k currently isn’t he?

[Tom]

41 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

He's 33 in August. Why should he get the same now as he did 2 years ago when he was only  31?

As one or two others have said we shouldn't budge and if anyone else is daft enough to be offering a longer deal and  he can do better elsewhere he should go for it as he is very much in the Autumn of his career.

Sorry I didn’t mean similar wages I meant a similar contract in terms of another year option after the initial year is up 

[Bigdoggsteel]

So we let him go for the sake of, let's say, less than 200,000. All those saying let him go, what then? Who do we sign to replace him? I know, not yer job to identify any potential signings... But ye will be quick to criticise Mowbray or whoever if he isn't replaced properly. 

I don't think we should be held for ransom, but this isn't some random player. We know what he is about and what he brings to the team. Whether it's for 90 min every week or not, he is still a very useful player to have around. Good, experienced strikers don't grow on trees. 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[RoverKyle]

I think it's really important that we keep Graham. He bailed us out in games last season on his own at times. He's no longer a 90 minute player but he's vital to the way we play and would be very hard to replace for reasonable money.

I can understand concerns about his continued form and fitness, but I can't see a similar player costing us any less than £2mill in the current market. I'd be looking to offer him a 12 month deal with a 12 month extension as people have mentioned.

Does anyone know why his 12 month extension hasn't just automatically kicked in?

[roversfan99]

I dont understand why we didnt just activate his year extension as mentioned above.

Id be incredibly frustrated if our summer business started off with Graham leaving and Conway staying, that is for sure.

[islander200]

45 minutes ago, RoverKyle said:

I think it's really important that we keep Graham. He bailed us out in games last season on his own at times. He's no longer a 90 minute player but he's vital to the way we play and would be very hard to replace for reasonable money.

I can understand concerns about his continued form and fitness, but I can't see a similar player costing us any less than £2mill in the current market. I'd be looking to offer him a 12 month deal with a 12 month extension as people have mentioned.

Does anyone know why his 12 month extension hasn't just automatically kicked in?

Yeah because we don't want to pay him as much.If we take up the option it would be on the same terms as when he first signed for us 

[islander200]

44 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont understand why we didnt just activate his year extension as mentioned above.

Id be incredibly frustrated if our summer business started off with Graham leaving and Conway staying, that is for sure.

I have no idea what wage Graham was on when he first signed.Thought I read/heard he was on 14 grand a week last season after the relegation clause so presuming he was on closer go 20 a week before our relegation. The club obviously don't want to pay him as much hence them not taking up the option and preferring to renegotiate

[JacknOry]

This guy was a PL starter a few years back and is certainly more than capable of doing it in the Championship as we well know. Like others have said, he would be difficult to replace - especially on the cheap. He is only 32, its not like he is approaching the Teddy Sheringham/Ibrahimovic age group. 

We will have to replace him eventually but I would rather we sign someone as backup or to rotate with him so that they can bed in and prove themselves rather than being left to find someone expected to fit right in. Good and experienced strikers dont come cheap.

I can understand that he wants the best deal he can get as it is likely to be the last one he ever gets but feel it should be incentive based before it kicking in an optional second year.

[RoverKyle]

1 hour ago, islander200 said:

Yeah because we don't want to pay him as much.If we take up the option it would be on the same terms as when he first signed for us 

Fair play. That's understandable.

[1864roverite]

The sun continues to affect some people’s judgement?????????

[blueboy3333]

Just now, 1864roverite said:

The sun continues to affect some people’s judgement?????????

You keep logging on to say the same thing so I'm not sure you escaped the rays unscathed?

[Glosrover]

2 hours ago, islander200 said:

I have no idea what wage Graham was on when he first signed.Thought I read/heard he was on 14 grand a week last season after the relegation clause so presuming he was on closer go 20 a week before our relegation. The club obviously don't want to pay him as much hence them not taking up the option and preferring to renegotiate

Maybe the contract is being interpreted by one of the parties as the relegation clause being automatically reversed due to promotion?? 

[islander200]

Just now, Glosrover said:

Maybe the contract is being interpreted by one of the parties as the relegation clause being automatically reversed due to promotion?? 

I'm going off the telegraph.It said the club decided to not take up the year option as they preferred to renegotiate with Graham.If we had of taken up the option presumably he would be on the same money as when he initially signed with us when we were in the Championship 

[Stuart]

8 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

It would be strange if we didn't offer him a 2 year deal considering we offered Whittingham and Caddis the same deal last summer. Obviously it will be more money but then again Graham will offer more to the team. If these rumours are true then he's either being greedy or we have offered a contract that makes him look elsewhere, a bit like Warnock did with Whittingham last year.

You did that on purpose didn’t you.  

[tonygreenbank]

12 hours ago, unsall said:

Don’t know any details,only Bolton have offered more money,believe he hopes Rovers come back with better offer,but you can’t blame Rovers not to give silly contracts to older players (Murphy) etc.

I have to ask how do you know this is true or are you spreading fake news?

 

[Scotland1]

The same Danny Graham who at Brentford vowed to stay! Same DG who despite being attempted to be offloaded last summer in fact stayed.

im inclined to think we’ve offered him a significantly below par money deal and he’s had something sensible not great at Bolton offered and still lower than his wage last year but feels respected.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, Scotland1 said:

The same Danny Graham who at Brentford vowed to stay! Same DG who despite being attempted to be offloaded last summer in fact stayed.

im inclined to think we’ve offered him a significantly below par money deal and he’s had something sensible not great at Bolton offered and still lower than his wage last year but feels respected.

Is English your first language ? I'm struggling a bit to make sense of  the second sentence.

[Jim Royle]

Lansbury is on £45k a week

He ain’t coming to ewood

[unsall]

1 hour ago, tonygreenbank said:

I have to ask how do you know this is true or are you spreading fake news?

 

Because I’ve been told by someone who’s ITK,if you don’t want to believe it,no problem,just saying what’s happening.

[chaddyrovers]

13 hours ago, arbitro said:

Me neither. I don't believe we should be upping the original offer too. He has been offered what the club thinks he is worth and that should be it. If he can get a better deal elsewhere he should take it.

I mostly agree there, I wouldn't be more money and I more inclined to offer more incentives based contract 

13 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Nail on the head. The very same fans saying we shouldn't offer him a  bit extra to keep him are the very ones who will be moaning if we can't replace what he does for the team. For a few extra thousand a year I don't see how it doesn't make sense to keep him. We won't sign equal quality for the difference 

He is 32, not 42. No reason with correct diet and training we couldn't get at least another 2 good years out of him. 

How much training does Graham do and is he fitness/dieting going to be good enough? 

not sure I would give him 2 years deal at this stage

13 hours ago, J*B said:

Nobody direct or I would have posted it - just a middle man. 

Regardless, I think Graham is value at 2 years and wouldn't be surprised to see him get a 2 year deal on reduced weekly wages. He can still perform.

All depends on the wage per week and whether you offer him incentives based contract for 12 months with if he appears in more than 30 games he get a new contract on the same terms for another 12 months

 

10 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

This? Also suggests Erhun Oztumer and Kieffer Moore.

Moore could be target if Graham doesn't sign here a new contract. Other striker targets IMO could be Adam Armstrong, Sam Winnall, Ivan Toney, 

10 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I suggest we make a move for him too! 

Lansbury on 40k a week and most likely transfer fee of 5 mil plus? can we really afford it? please be realistic

8 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

So we let him go for the sake of, let's say, less than 200,000. All those saying let him go, what then? Who do we sign to replace him? I know, not yer job to identify any potential signings... But ye will be quick to criticise Mowbray or whoever if he isn't replaced properly. 

I don't think we should be held for ransom, but this isn't some random player. We know what he is about and what he brings to the team. Whether it's for 90 min every week or not, he is still a very useful player to have around. Good, experienced strikers don't grow on trees. 

 

Surely Mowbray will be looking to replace Graham within the next season or 2 anyway with a new target man type. 

depends on how much Graham wages and whether we see it has value for money?

8 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont understand why we didnt just activate his year extension as mentioned above.

Id be incredibly frustrated if our summer business started off with Graham leaving and Conway staying, that is for sure.

surely we shouldn't be held to ransom for a player who will be 33 years old in August and I suspect this season he wont be starting every game and is he really worth a new contract back on his previous Championship wages(if that's the wage he after)?

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, unsall said:

Because I’ve been told by someone who’s ITK,if you don’t want to believe it,no problem,just saying what’s happening.

I believe what you saying unsall. no reason to not believing you as you have proved track record

[tomphil]

How can Bolton be in a position to offer good money to Danny Graham ?

Just sounds like a tool to use in haggling a bigger deal from Rovers imo. Surely he's more happy to stay here than risk going across to that shower for a couple of quid more.