Ben Brereton Diaz

[JBiz]

19 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont see how people pointing out the illogical nature of that process to be "over-entitled."

I appreciate that signing the right striker isnt necessarily easy but I refuse to accept that it is impossible to sign a striker fit for purpose, to challenge Danny Graham. For all intents and purposes we had signed a player to at least provide some form of competition, we could have understood if for now he was Grahams understudy

You mentioned fans being over-entitled and unwilling to allow him time, but the confusion manly stems around how he is being used.

We have a 7m project who has featured occasionally out of position. Of course hes not been signed to be at his maximum levels this season, but firstly im not sure we can really afford to sign such an expensive player solely for the future, and I also dont think that considering he played fairly regularly over a couple of years at Forest, that he wouldnt be able to contribute a lot more now should he play in his natural position.

I expected Graham to be the main man, and Brereton to be initially his understudy, he could learn plenty from Graham, he could provide the fresh legs off the bench or play when Graham is injured etc, and I am aware that there would be an adaptation period regardless.

What people seem to be of the opinion that Brereton needs is to play in his best position! Something you agreed with strongly last week!

 

Surely is an over entitled expectation to demand Danny Graham’s replacement one transfer window back into the championship?

Confusion sounds fair but criticism would be a better word to describe what I would describe of over-expectation and impatient judgement. For instance his “square peg - square hole” position, which as many of us know can and will probably develop with age/games.

I would like to see him have a run up top, but I’m not prepared to criticise his inclusion out wide, especially when we’ve utilised a 1 striker system for nearly all of the TMs time here. I can’t remember saying I don’t fancy him out wide though, I haven’t got anywhere near even making a judgement yet. Only thing I can remember is he takes an age to tie his laces...

 

[arbitro]

25 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I agree with your 1st point. 

Marriott's wages were a problem. McGoldrick could have been a decent signing but he is in his 30's, Bamford isn't a number 9 striker

Brereton isn't the same type of player as Graham so we are going to have change our style. Said this when we signed him he wasn't a like for like replacement for Graham. Mowbray had spoken of changing our style to more of passing style. 

He is 19 years and need time to develop and understand the ways our team plays under Mowbray. This take times. The club debt shouldn't be any kind of factor in judging Brereton at all. 

 

 

firstly, thankyou for sharing this info. 

I mostly agree with this remit and building a young and exciting who will improving and increase in value. Plus I think it suits Mowbray's coaching staff.

on Brereton's scouting report wouldn't someone like our Chief scout Stuart Harvey and Mowbray's number 2 Mark Venus not done the scouting on Brereton?  

You missed my point. The debt has (or will) increase by up to £7m if he were to regress. I'm not blaming him, far from it. The blame will lie with whoever agreed it. Of course his value could increase but both scenarios have to be looked at. My other point is that for £7m a club in our position should have bought the finished article, not waiting for somebody to develop and playing a bit part every now and then. 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, arbitro said:

You missed my point. The debt has (or will) increase by up to £7m if he were to regress. I'm not blaming him, far from it. The blame will lie with whoever agreed it. Of course his value could increase but both scenarios have to be looked at. My other point is that for £7m a club in our position should have bought the finished article, not waiting for somebody to develop and playing a bit part every now and then. 

I disagree with your point on 7m should be the finished article.  Every signing is a risk and even if we sign like say Waghorn what happen if he didn't settle in the area and wanting to move in 6 months time. 

I agree with Mowbray who wants to younger players and developing them. I think it is the right way for us to go as a club

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

I disagree with your point on 7m should be the finished article.  Every signing is a risk and even if we sign like say Waghorn what happen if he didn't settle in the area and wanting to move in 6 months time. 

I agree with Mowbray who wants to younger players and developing them. I think it is the right way for us to go as a club

You are correct that every signing is a risk. That is what many are saying about Brereton aligned to the fact that £7m is a hell of a lot of money for us to risk.

[Mattyblue]

Who else in the Championship are buying raw 19 year olds for £7million? Other clubs would be buying finished articles at that price (or a couple), players that could very well fire a team knocking on the door of the top 6 to promotion.

I’m all for the young English talent approach. Rothwell, Armstrong et al coupled with a good number of Academy lads in the team is working well. 

But this one is a very odd deal.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Mattyblue

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, Biz said:

Surely is an over entitled expectation to demand Danny Graham’s replacement one transfer window back into the championship?

Confusion sounds fair but criticism would be a better word to describe what I would describe of over-expectation and impatient judgement. For instance his “square peg - square hole” position, which as many of us know can and will probably develop with age/games.

I would like to see him have a run up top, but I’m not prepared to criticise his inclusion out wide, especially when we’ve utilised a 1 striker system for nearly all of the TMs time here. I can’t remember saying I don’t fancy him out wide though, I haven’t got anywhere near even making a judgement yet. Only thing I can remember is he takes an age to tie his laces...

 

Brereton signed with a promising reputation, on the back of playing for Nottingham Forest for over a season, primarily as a centre forward, week in, week out in the Championship. The game he made his name was as a striker against Arsenal, ripping them apart. That said, I think my expectations and thoughts are fair in that I DIDNT expect him to come here and instantly take that mantle, regardless of his price tag or desire to come here to play football. I expected Graham to continue as our first choice, but Brereton to offer much fiercer competition than Samuel and Nuttall have in the past, maybe playing if Graham was unable to, replacing him off the bench, hell, even playing wide occasionally if Graham was still on the pitch! I didnt expect him to be first choice striker, taking everything in his stride, already on 10 goals etc.

The brunt of the criticism seems to have strayed towards Mowbray, on the assumption that he gave the green light to sign off the deal. From what I've seen, Brereton does not look comfortable or look of any use playing in a wide position. Armstrong is a fair example but he took to it straight away, hes quicker than Brereton, hes more nimble, he runs at players more comfortably, and hes far smaller so I can somewhat understand the logic. He's also still considered to be a striker.

Most of my criticism doesnt even come around the fact that I dont see the logic or any real signs that Brereton could make an effective wide man, based on what I have seen so far and based on his struggles there for Forest according to their fans. Lets assume that Brereton suddenly becomes very effective in that role. Even then, it would leave us short up front, as we were prior to the summer. We have Palmer, Rothwell and Armstrong already competing for that solitary attacking wide role that Mowbray employs. Beneath a 33 year old Danny Graham, we then resort to playing our best player out of position there, and even Kasey Palmer has been mentioned for that position, highlighting the lack of depth we have. Ergo, Brereton wouldnt be fit for purpose for what we was missing. If Mowbray had signed a striker AND Brereton then maybe this discussion wouldnt be taking place.

 

[Exiled in Toronto]

13 minutes ago, arbitro said:

You missed my point. The debt has (or will) increase by up to £7m if he were to regress. I'm not blaming him, far from it. The blame will lie with whoever agreed it. Of course his value could increase but both scenarios have to be looked at. My other point is that for £7m a club in our position should have bought the finished article, not waiting for somebody to develop and playing a bit part every now and then. 

I suspect the visits by the accounting firms  has had an influence over how the club spends its money.

£7 million on a young prospect is a big departure for us, but that £7m will i) be weighted towards performance-related factors and ii) be amortized over the life of the contract, so I’d be surprised if more than £1m hits the accounts in the first year. Given inflation trends in transfer fees, if he makes any kind of good impression, he’ll be worth 2x or 3x that in a year or two.

The accountants will most likely have pointed out that such a scenario is financially much lower risk than buying proven players on much bigger wages. The wages can’t be amortized and, should they be higher than for our existing top players, there’s a multiplicative effect. Bring in a player on £30k/week and most likely you’d have to give Mulgrew, Evans, Dack, Graham and Bennett an extra £10k/week each, all that adding up to £4 million a year extra hitting the accounts. And the said proven player could break his ankle in the first week, or be another John Radford.

I think this was a much a financial as a football decision

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Who else in the Championship are buying raw 19 year olds for £7million? Other clubs would be buying finished articles at that price, players that could very well fire a team knocking on the door of the top 6 to promotion.

I’m all for the young English talent approach. Rothwell, Armstrong et al coupled with a good number of Academy lads in the team is working well. 

But this one is a very odd deal.

Very odd deal? 

Why keep comparing to other teams? 

Brereton is great talent and he will become a good player here if manage right which I believe Mowbray is. 

I hope Brereton is starting today aswell

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Very odd deal? 

Why keep comparing to other teams? 

Brereton is great talent and he will become a good player here if manage right which I believe Mowbray is. 

I hope Brereton is starting today aswell

Youve stated more than once that you wouldnt play him wide. So whats changed?

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I suspect the visits by the accounting firms  has had an influence over how the club spends its money.

£7 million on a young prospect is a big departure for us, but that £7m will i) be weighted towards performance-related factors and ii) be amortized over the life of the contract, so I’d be surprised if more than £1m hits the accounts in the first year. Given inflation trends in transfer fees, if he makes any kind of good impression, he’ll be worth 2x or 3x that in a year or two.

The accountants will most likely have pointed out that such a scenario is financially much lower risk than buying proven players on much bigger wages. The wages can’t be amortized and, should they be higher than for our existing top players, there’s a multiplicative effect. Bring in a player on £30k/week and most likely you’d have to give Mulgrew, Evans, Dack, Graham and Bennett an extra £10k/week each, all that adding up to £4 million a year extra hitting the accounts. And the said proven player could break his ankle in the first week, or be another John Radford.

I think this was a much a financial as a football decision

That could be the case regarding the fee but lots of fees are paid that way and have been for years. Jack Walker actually charged Newcastle interest as they paid in instalments. I'd be surprised if  Bradenton wasn't in the middle bracket earners on £10 - £15k per week. He will also have had a significant signing on free paid in instalments. As the players you mentioned are all contracted it is unlikely they would be given a rise if we brought somebody in on more money (unless a clause affords them parity with a higher earner). If anybody at the club agreed to such a clause they should be sacked.

[Mattyblue]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Very odd deal? 

Why keep comparing to other teams? 

Brereton is great talent and he will become a good player here if manage right which I believe Mowbray is. 

I hope Brereton is starting today aswell

Yes, very odd.

Of course you compare yourselves to the other teams in the league - it’s the competition! But ok, put it another way, I would have much preferred the money to be spent on more established players, we aren’t a million miles from a top 6 team, that money could have got us there.

Hope you’re right on the other points.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Just now, arbitro said:

That could be the case regarding the fee but lots of fees are paid that way and have been for years. Jack Walker actually charged Newcastle interest as they paid in instalments. I'd be surprised if  Bradenton wasn't in the middle bracket earners on £10 - £15k per week. He will also have had a significant signing on free paid in instalments. As the players you mentioned are all contracted it is unlikely they would be given a rise if we brought somebody in on more money (unless a clause affords them parity with a higher earner). If anybody at the club agreed to such a clause they should be sacked.

I think it would be more driven by Mowbray’s sense of loyalty and fair play than by the pen pushers Tony. I get the impression he wouldn’t be able to sleep at night bringing in a bigger earner. Plus none of his signings while he has been here come close to being finished articles, other than Dack who was still a significant punt we should remember, and did come minutes away from spending a chunk of this season in jail.

I think Mowbray is a builder rather than an assembler, so I’m not expecting many signings to walk straight into the team.

[Neal]

23 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I suspect the visits by the accounting firms  has had an influence over how the club spends its money.

£7 million on a young prospect is a big departure for us, but that £7m will i) be weighted towards performance-related factors and ii) be amortized over the life of the contract, so I’d be surprised if more than £1m hits the accounts in the first year. Given inflation trends in transfer fees, if he makes any kind of good impression, he’ll be worth 2x or 3x that in a year or two.

The accountants will most likely have pointed out that such a scenario is financially much lower risk than buying proven players on much bigger wages. The wages can’t be amortized and, should they be higher than for our existing top players, there’s a multiplicative effect. Bring in a player on £30k/week and most likely you’d have to give Mulgrew, Evans, Dack, Graham and Bennett an extra £10k/week each, all that adding up to £4 million a year extra hitting the accounts. And the said proven player could break his ankle in the first week, or be another John Radford.

I think this was a much a financial as a football decision

He might need to start a game to do that... ?

[Exiled in Toronto]

Just now, Neal said:

He might need to start a game to do that... ?

I think we all agree on that.  He has more pages on this thread than consecutive minutes on the field! ?

Another poster mentioned MGP, I’d forgotten Hughes didn’t play him for months till an away cup tie when he played most of the stiffs, scored a goal and the rest is history (kinda)

[Neal]

12 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I think we all agree on that.  He has more pages on this thread than consecutive minutes on the field! ?

Another poster mentioned MGP, I’d forgotten Hughes didn’t play him for months till an away cup tie when he played most of the stiffs, scored a goal and the rest is history (kinda)

Yeah i remember him being almost forgotten about... Unfortunately i think BB has cost us about x7 times more than MGP! 

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Marriott's wages were a problem. McGoldrick could have been a decent signing but he is in his 30's, Bamford isn't a number 9 striker

Brereton isn't the same type of player as Graham so we are going to have change our style. Said this when we signed him he wasn't a like for like replacement for Graham. Mowbray had spoken of changing our style to more of passing style. 

He is 19 years and need time to develop and understand the ways our team plays under Mowbray. This take times. The club debt shouldn't be any kind of factor in judging Brereton at all. 

 

on Brereton's scouting report wouldn't someone like our Chief scout Stuart Harvey and Mowbray's number 2 Mark Venus not done the scouting on Brereton?  

Who says Marriott's wages were a problem?

He's 19 for goodness sake and joined in a £7m deal. 

Shudder to think what Mowbray would do with 'youngsters' like Mbappe, Alex-Arnold, Ampadu, Sessegnon !

Bottom line is if you are good enough then you are old enough and, IMV, Brereton isn't good enough and will be an expensive flop.

And if Mowbray was reliant on scouting reports from others and hadn't seen the player himself and committed the club to a huge deal then, IMV, he should be sacked.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Mercer

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Very odd deal? 

Why keep comparing to other teams? 

Brereton is great talent and he will become a good player here if manage right which I believe Mowbray is. 

I hope Brereton is starting today aswell

What has he ever done?

[K-Hod]

The caveat for me is that we aren’t really the kind of club that spends that amount of money on someone for the future, we aren’t Man City...

Mercer’s posts above probably would have looked more reasonable with ‘so far’ added. 

[JBiz]

8 minutes ago, Mercer said:

And if Mowbray was reliant on scouting reports from others and hadn't seen the player himself and committed the club to a huge deal then, IMV, he should be sacked.

 

[JBiz]

3 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

The caveat for me is that we aren’t really the kind of club that spends that amount of money on someone for the future, we aren’t Man City...

Mercer’s posts above probably would have looked more reasonable with ‘so far’ added. 

This “that amount” talk needs to remember we’ve spent more paying players off in recent history than B.B. probably cost us upfront 

[philipl]

1 hour ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I suspect the visits by the accounting firms  has had an influence over how the club spends its money.

£7 million on a young prospect is a big departure for us, but that £7m will i) be weighted towards performance-related factors and ii) be amortized over the life of the contract, so I’d be surprised if more than £1m hits the accounts in the first year. Given inflation trends in transfer fees, if he makes any kind of good impression, he’ll be worth 2x or 3x that in a year or two.

The accountants will most likely have pointed out that such a scenario is financially much lower risk than buying proven players on much bigger wages. The wages can’t be amortized and, should they be higher than for our existing top players, there’s a multiplicative effect. Bring in a player on £30k/week and most likely you’d have to give Mulgrew, Evans, Dack, Graham and Bennett an extra £10k/week each, all that adding up to £4 million a year extra hitting the accounts. And the said proven player could break his ankle in the first week, or be another John Radford.

I think this was a much a financial as a football decision

Ok I am really going into the mixer.

Most fans haven't got the first iota of understanding of the club they are supporting  as it is run TODAY.

Something has happened in the Pune bungalow compound.

It might be that finally the penny dropped for Mr and Mrs D in football terms. As sure a thing for getting promotion Neil Warnock was in place as Manager and tantrict gold earrings replaced him with as certainty for getting relegation as possible in Coiley (pass the sick bag). Even Mrs D (who does get abstracts of these pages) recognised an almighty balls up.

But of course we are talking family and Balaji might have lead pious Venkat astray just once too often- who knows...

What Has happened is that control of Rovers is unambiguously in the hands of Madam.

And yes she called in double bean counters 18 months ago and yes I completely misread this as bean counters for sellers and buyers- NO Mrs D cannily had two lots in to look at current values and operations and separately at future plans and her £750K bought her honesty. Both accountants knew the others were reporting and had to play it absolutely straight accordingly.

In retrospect this also told us that Mrs D is both wise enough and wealthy enough to ignore sunk costs. Money gone into a third division Rovers is lost- call it loans, share capital, moon dust or whatever- the money is gone and the question is what we do from here.

 

Thankfully the answer for every Rovers fan was take the opportunity to srip the cost base but back Mowbray with a low cost (£5m in transfers) shot at first time promotion. When it looked like that was working in came Waggot, the first CEO or Chairman worthy of the title since Williams/Finn.

Now we are running according to a strategy. Looking forward there is a strategy covering THE NEXT THREE WINDOWS- not something you find on FIFA 18 games.

 

This summer we achieved most of the strategic objectives- remember the wailing banshees on 31 July on this message board becoming mostly silenced by 31 August?

One of the strategic objectives surrounded the centre forward. Love him to bits but DG is not immortal and is prone to injury. So an amount around £7m was assigned for a centre forward. Yes other forwards were looked at. Yes Brereton was adjudged to be the best fit for our STRATEGIC needs.

No that £7m was not going to be spent on a mish mash of centre halves and midfielders. 

[JBiz]

I think we’d all agree a step in the right direction today? Pace and trickery to force a penalty cutting in from the wing. Potentially earned a starting berth since our next game is a previous league one team?

 

 

[Tom]

Good Cameo and some great game management, much more promise seen there 

[JacknOry]

3 minutes ago, Biz said:

I think we’d all agree a step in the right direction today? Pace and trickery to force a penalty cutting in from the wing. Potentially earned a starting berth since our next game is a previous league one team?

 

 

He did well against Leeds and today in the short time he was on the pitch. He does show a maturity when closing out the game and was very clever drawing the penalty...was hoping he stepped up to take it though - not gonna happen with Dack around though I guess. 

I just want to see more of him though, 10 mins here, 15 mins there...give the guy a shot up top. I actually thought today was a good opportunity when Graham went off as we had a decent hold on the game rather than being behind or trying to defend a lead. We needed to try and get forward and score with the oppo trying to do anything to stop us. 

[blueboy3333]

6 hours ago, unsall said:

Just up at Brockhall,talking to TM, you would not believe the team, this MB in just over 2 hours will go mental. 

Was this a joke? Pretty standard team selection.