Ben Brereton Diaz

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

Yes. The newspaper article above does say he was played out of position so I'm putting it down to that.

Could be that Mowbray wants us to pay a more fluid front line with all forwards dropping off etc. But Tony seems too much of a traditionalist to me. My guess is we will see Brereton deployed central with the expectation to win the knock downs and lay offs.

Yep, maybe we are considering a new, more fluid, way of playing without a traditional central striker. The game is evolving all the time. How many what I would call " traditional " wingers did you see in the recent World Cup. I can only think of a couple.

[rock steady]

If you watch the FA Cup game against Arsenal he played up front on his own.

Lead the line very well and put in a pretty complete performance, with a fair bit of back to goal work.

[47er]

3 hours ago, EgyptianPete said:

Good grief chaps we have just signed one of the brightest prospects in years, you would never have dreamt this last season and still some of you are complaining, any player can have an injury thats football, unlucky or not injury or not  he is here to stay, he is ours so please stop the what if this and what if that, enough already.

It appears you only come on here to say all we do is moan. If we had your discernment eh?

[LeftWinger]

1 hour ago, OnePhilT said:

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just questioning a couple of realistic hypothetical situations. £6m is an exciting amount to spend, so I'm delighted that things are back on the up at Rovers and that Mowbray is getting backed - that has to go without saying. £6m is also a lot to spend in hindsight for a club like us, which is exactly what we're doing - we'll be seeing him play at Rovers for four months, and only then will we start to pay, regardless of how he performs, or how injured he could end up. Sure, that might not happen, and all might turn out well, but you can't simply dismiss that paying £6m in hindsight with the possibility of seeing him not up to scratch or mega injured is going to be a good thing. To some people, they seem to think it makes no difference if we pay now and find out he's garbage or injured later, or if we pay several months down the line after finding it out. I think it actually matters. We'll feel tied down to something that we no longer want.

Mowbray has earned a lot of trust from the fans, so I'll say no more on the matter, but it seems like spending the £6m is exciting the lot of us without actually analysing this supposedly binding obligation to buy - the confusing bit being that it's worded as an option to buy on official channels. Something just seems odd to me. Hopefully it's nothing.

How do you know we'll only start to pay in four months? There could be a chunk upfront as a loan fee. 

I'd ignore the wording as 'option to buy'. It's probably got to be worded in a certain way to get through the loophole of us technically signing him after the transfer window has shut. It's probably just been advised that 'option to buy' is the best way of wording the deal within the rules.

[Bigdoggsteel]

This is a permanent deal in all but name. That's really all we need to focus on 

[EgyptianPete]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

It appears you only come on here to say all we do is moan. If we had your discernment eh?

Well guys looking at the posts i am correct, lots of what if etc, i am a Rover through and through i just find it irritating, why not post what a good signing NF Loss we have a good un, that would be better

[Mattyblue]

Or people just post their opinion? 

[K-Hod]

13 minutes ago, EgyptianPete said:

Well guys looking at the posts i am correct, lots of what if etc, i am a Rover through and through i just find it irritating, why not post what a good signing NF Loss we have a good un, that would be better

Everyone on here is a Rover through and through, that's kind of the point. 

Not everyone is ever going to agree with each other all the time, that's just life. Probably best to just keep scrolling, rather than labelling people en masse....

 

[FGS5635]

[blueboy3333]

On ‎28‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 20:51, S8 & Blue said:

 

Exciting times

 

They've let her out again.

[Speedie's Gonna Get Ya]

11 hours ago, 47er said:

No we wouldn't! I know this because we didn't! There were regrets that we had to force Speedie out after all he'd done but, collectively, we wet ourselves with excitement.

We knew who he was alright. You're making this up! 

 

Agree in part. Smashing the British transfer record was the most exciting part initially for a player that was much talked about and had played for England. That said, his 118 appearances and 23 goal record for Southampton isn’t what got us excited. It was his potential.

Remember the BBE singing Speedie’s name in our first home game in the Prem against Arsenal. They played a goodbye message from him to the fans. I remember the chant morphing from Speedie to Shearer as Alan ran out on to the pitch. We never looked back from there.

Also remember Speedie getting arrested on S’oton’s pre-season tour (to Channel Islands?) and seem to recall 4,000 holes putting posters up around the old BBE turnstiles saying “We’ll spring Speedie.” Happy days!

 

 

[Pedro]

His goals away at Palace won me over straight away. 

[SBlue]

12 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

They've let her out again.

She must have heard Harry Chapman is at the Dunkenhalgh or something.

Edited August 30, 2018 by S8 & Blue

[Speedie's Gonna Get Ya]

20 minutes ago, Pedro said:

His goals away at Palace won me over straight away. 

Totally. I remember thinking “WOW. That’s why we broke the transfer record.” He was so explosive.

 

[bluebruce]

11 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

 £6m is also a lot to spend in hindsight for a club like us, which is exactly what we're doing - we'll be seeing him play at Rovers for four months, and only then will we start to pay, regardless of how he performs, or how injured he could end up. Sure, that might not happen, and all might turn out well, but you can't simply dismiss that paying £6m in hindsight with the possibility of seeing him not up to scratch or mega injured is going to be a good thing. To some people, they seem to think it makes no difference if we pay now and find out he's garbage or injured later, or if we pay several months down the line after finding it out. I think it actually matters. We'll feel tied down to something that we no longer want.

It really doesn't make a difference. Unless you think about it all wrong.

If we spend 6m or whatever in Jan, and he has gotten injured or been poor, we will be miffed at paying 6m for a waster.

If we spent 6m last month and he gets injured or is poor...we will be miffed at paying 6m for a waster.

We will 'feel tied down to something we no longer want' either way (though hopefully it won't happen).

The only difference is we have saved interest payments by not handing it over yet.

[SBlue]

Just pretend we’ve spent the money already. Because we have.

It is loophole wording.

 

And if 19 year old long term contract Ben Brereton will have some fans making judgements on his future with us within the next 16 weeks then God help us all.

[roversfan99]

16 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

Just pretend we’ve spent the money already. Because we have.

It is loophole wording.

 

And if 19 year old long term contract Ben Brereton will have some fans making judgements on his future with us within the next 16 weeks then God help us all.

Of course people will make judgements, positive or negative, based on his performances in the next 16 weeks. Like any other player.

As you say, the deal is a buy in all but a minor technicality. People were right to wonder, based on the wording, as to whether it was a buy, or a loan with the option. Now general consensus from all around shows that its a buy. So any suggestions of us sending him back without paying a fee for him if he fails would be baseless and moot.

[SBlue]

.

Edited August 30, 2018 by S8 & Blue
Makes no sense

[roversfan99]

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

Its a loophole and everyone’s at it.

Unless Forest REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted rid of him then why would they agree a price we were okay with today and just wait, hope and pray that we are willing to pay it?

They can’t back out so if he’s amazing and looks worth double then unfortunately for them the price is still agreed at 6m

If he is crap or his leg explodes then we just send back a player unwanted by both clubs who isn’t worth 6m anymore.

It would be completely no risk for us and would be one of the greatest transfer negotiations I’ve ever heard of. Surely it HAS to be a contractual obligation if the fee is agreed.

Otherwise Forest are just riskily betting that he won’t be worth any more nor any less in January.

 

 

It would be astonishingly stupid and illogical to me...

So you might be right ?

 

ive has a few so might be a bit fuddled.

Apologies, my point maybe wasnt worded well perhaps.

My points were that firstly, I agree that is was a buy. We have bought Ben Brereton in the only way we legally can under the current loan window. That said, people were perfectly entitled, and it was neither positive or negative of people to do so, to enquire as to whether that was the case. There was a genuine grey area which needed clarity, which has since been provided. The wording when we announced him said the word "option" which made people unsure if that was the case, as initially rumoured prior to his signing. For example, I think Antonsson had an option to buy (that is rumoured) in his loan deal last year, but only if we wanted to activate it at the end of his loan spell, ie it was temporary with a pre-agreed fee should both parties decide at the end of it. In the end, we didnt.

As you suggest, whether he does well, plays rubbish, breaks his leg, scores 20 goals, is worth more, or is worth less when January comes around, it is totally irrelevant. He will be our player REGARDLESS. As you say, its a "contractual obligation," Ben Brereton is for all intents and purposes, a Blackburn Rovers permanent employee. Journalists from both sides have since confirmed it was a buy in all but name, and Mowbray has since been quoted saying that it is a long term deal. It would be like getting to January, and saying we should send Armstrong back to Newcastle, Rothwell back to Oxford or Dack back to Gillingham, all without ever paying a fee. 

"And if 19 year old long term contract Ben Brereton will have some fans making judgements on his future with us within the next 16 weeks then God help us all." - this was what I disagreed with. People will judge, game by game, his performances like anyone else. As long as people do so safe in the knowledge that if he does poorly, he cant be "sent back" and bare everything in mind, age included, and also note that the "next 16 weeks" is a pointlessly specific deadline as January doesnt make a difference to his long term employment here, then theres no issue with that. Something I presume youd agree with.

Sorry if this wordy reply does nothing to clear anything up!

[TugaysMarlboro]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

It really doesn't make a difference. Unless you think about it all wrong.

If we spend 6m or whatever in Jan, and he has gotten injured or been poor, we will be miffed at paying 6m for a waster.

If we spent 6m last month and he gets injured or is poor...we will be miffed at paying 6m for a waster.

We will 'feel tied down to something we no longer want' either way (though hopefully it won't happen).

The only difference is we have saved interest payments by not handing it over yet.

I'd be more worried about the fact it would only take our management team 4 months to come to that opinion after purchasing him for 7m (our almost recording signing). That would surely mean this scouting system we have is tripe.

[SBlue]

 

@roversfan99

yeah something like that! Thanks for articulating for me ?

Of course people will judge and have an opinion, I think my point was that because it would be unwise to write him off (or on!) in the next four months considering his age and experience... that the option to back out should be forgotten about, even if we had one!

 

[K-Hod]

I think people just need to be more careful with their wording of stuff tbh (en masse, not just you, Ell!). For example 'he had a rubbish game' or 'he's been rubbish so far', instead of just 'he's rubbish'.

I.E.- an observation about someone's performance isn't 'writing someone off' necessarily for the most part.

[blueboy3333]

10 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

That could work well in our favour now that he knows he's valued here.

Why?

[Exiled in Toronto]

13 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

 

@roversfan99

yeah something like that! Thanks for articulating for me ?

Of course people will judge and have an opinion, I think my point was that because it would be unwise to write him off (or on!) in the next four months considering his age and experience... that the option to back out should be forgotten about, even if we had one!

 

At one time or another over the last 18 months many on here wrote off, or wanted dropped: Raya, Nyambe, Evans, Bennett and Graham, so I’m happy to let Mogga call this one.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Exiled in Toronto

[blueboy3333]

7 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

At one time or another over the last 18 months many on here wrote off, or wanted dropped: Raya, Nyambe, Evans, Bennett and Graham, so I’m happy to let Mogga call this one.

Good for you. I thought Caddis, Whittingham, Samuel and Gladwin were a waste of money as soon as I saw them. I'm happy to trust in my own eyes.