Ben Brereton Diaz

[bluebruce]

Gallagher has a one-year extension option also.

[ben_the_beast]

On 16/04/2023 at 07:24, J*B said:

Let’s be absolutely clear: If a player isn’t signing or being offered a new deal when they have 18 months left they MUST be sold.

This. And if clubs aren't meeting our valuation then that's more fool us for letting a players contract reach that point in the first place. 

Saying our valuation hasn't been met is futile when we're going to lose them for free in a years time. In that situation our valuation means very little.

[roversfan99]

18 months would be a strange limit because then you get into the habit of selling players mid season.

12 months should be the baseline, but if it is clear even 2 years before, or a player is really attracting serious interest at high prices, then you sell and reinvest.

[chaddyrovers]

24 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

18 months would be a strange limit because then you get into the habit of selling players mid season.

12 months should be the baseline, but if it is clear even 2 years before, or a player is really attracting serious interest at high prices, then you sell and reinvest.

but you wouldn't be selling every player but just one or 2 max. 

We should enter talks with players with 2 years left on the contract and after 6 months of talks if no deal can been agreed then sell them

[roversfan99]

6 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

but you wouldn't be selling every player but just one or 2 max. 

We should enter talks with players with 2 years left on the contract and after 6 months of talks if no deal can been agreed then sell them

You don't want to be selling players mid season with 18 months left on their deal. Surely you would wait until the following summer.

You would want to be opening discussions before they have 2 years left.

Better than our current policy with players who are not easy to tie down. Let their contracts run down, reject any bid that isn't really high, and being left scrounging for frees and loans.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You don't want to be selling players mid season with 18 months left on their deal. Surely you would wait until the following summer.

then you get less value and transfer fee. 

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You would want to be opening discussions before they have 2 years left.

that what I said. Get them 6 months to sign unless sell

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Better than our current policy with players who are not easy to tie down. Let their contracts run down, reject any bid that isn't really high, and being left scrounging for frees and loans.

even if we sold BBD last summer then we don't know if any money would have been spend on replacement at least or other areas. That's what we don't know. This summer could have been still frees and loans like most championship clubs budgets are. What is needed smart and clever scouting, finding gems available and look towards the European market something we haven't done in the past 10 years enough. We seem to be already lining players up with one being in director box on Saturday in Marcus Coco

[roversfan99]

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

then you get less value and transfer fee. 

that what I said. Get them 6 months to sign unless sell

even if we sold BBD last summer then we don't know if any money would have been spend on replacement at least or other areas. That's what we don't know. This summer could have been still frees and loans like most championship clubs budgets are. What is needed smart and clever scouting, finding gems available and look towards the European market something we haven't done in the past 10 years enough. We seem to be already lining players up with one being in director box on Saturday in Marcus Coco

There is just no joined up thinking. I am saying that there SHOULD always be part of any sale to reinvest, that is the whole model we should be following yet because we keep letting players leave for free, we end up not reinvesting when we do sell a player.

There needs to be a total change in thinking. It is best to sell in summers to ensure we can replace players every time and to avoid de-railing seasons by selling players in the middle. Start discussions with longer than 2 years left, and sell either in the summer with 2 seasons left or with no exceptions at the latest with 1 season to go. Then ALWAYS reinvest a chunk of that, and you can keep a small percentage for sustainability purposes. If you want £15m and you can only get £10m, take the £10m and reinvest £7m for example, NEVER let them get into that final year.

I am wasting my breath, Venkys wont change 12 years in.

Rich Sharpe said that the player pictured was on behalf of a sponsor.

That Coco doesn't seem like he will help with our lack of goals.

[Mashed Potatoes]

9 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There is just no joined up thinking. I am saying that there SHOULD always be part of any sale to reinvest, that is the whole model we should be following yet because we keep letting players leave for free, we end up not reinvesting when we do sell a player.

There needs to be a total change in thinking. It is best to sell in summers to ensure we can replace players every time and to avoid de-railing seasons by selling players in the middle. Start discussions with longer than 2 years left, and sell either in the summer with 2 seasons left or with no exceptions at the latest with 1 season to go. Then ALWAYS reinvest a chunk of that, and you can keep a small percentage for sustainability purposes. If you want £15m and you can only get £10m, take the £10m and reinvest £7m for example, NEVER let them get into that final year.

I am wasting my breath, Venkys wont change 12 years in.

Rich Sharpe said that the player pictured was on behalf of a sponsor.

That Coco doesn't seem like he will help with our lack of goals.

If Brereton had been sold with 2 years left that would have been the summer of 2021. What sort of transfer fee do you think that a player who at that stage had scored 9 goals in 80 Championship appearances would go for ?

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

If Brereton had been sold with 2 years left that would have been the summer of 2021. What sort of transfer fee do you think that a player who at that stage had scored 9 goals in 80 Championship appearances would go for ?

More than we will get for him this summer.

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There is just no joined up thinking. I am saying that there SHOULD always be part of any sale to reinvest, that is the whole model we should be following yet because we keep letting players leave for free, we end up not reinvesting when we do sell a player.

Whilst it should work like that but as we seen with the Armstrong sale and the sale of the training ground only just stop us being in a transfer embargo and transfer restrictions in summer 2021. 

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There needs to be a total change in thinking. It is best to sell in summers to ensure we can replace players every time and to avoid de-railing seasons by selling players in the middle. Start discussions with longer than 2 years left, and sell either in the summer with 2 seasons left or with no exceptions at the latest with 1 season to go. Then ALWAYS reinvest a chunk of that, and you can keep a small percentage for sustainability purposes. If you want £15m and you can only get £10m, take the £10m and reinvest £7m for example, NEVER let them get into that final year.

 

well we have to agree to disagree on when to sell as you are talking about 1 or 2 players max. 

Yes some money should be reinvest in signings after selling players whilst meeting FFP requirements to make sure no embargo happens

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Rich Sharpe said that the player pictured was on behalf of a sponsor.

That Coco doesn't seem like he will help with our lack of goals.

Someone asked was it Ibrahim Kone. This info come from @J*B

Who knows what Coco is like as a player but I'm sure that Rovers will have done their research and scouting into the player for sure. Have you seen him play? 

[Mashed Potatoes]

6 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

More than we will get for him this summer.

A million at best back then.

[roversfan99]

7 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

If Brereton had been sold with 2 years left that would have been the summer of 2021. What sort of transfer fee do you think that a player who at that stage had scored 9 goals in 80 Championship appearances would go for ?

I said that at the latest, 12 months before. Obviously Brereton wouldn't have attracted bids at that point. But he could and indeed did generate £8.4m in an offer.

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Whilst it should work like that but as we seen with the Armstrong sale and the sale of the training ground only just stop us being in a transfer embargo and transfer restrictions in summer 2021. 

well we have to agree to disagree on when to sell as you are talking about 1 or 2 players max. 

Yes some money should be reinvest in signings after selling players whilst meeting FFP requirements to make sure no embargo happens

Someone asked was it Ibrahim Kone. This info come from @J*B

Who knows what Coco is like as a player but I'm sure that Rovers will have done their research and scouting into the player for sure. Have you seen him play? 

The only reason we needed to do that again down to the lack of planning from the owners down. Piss poor running of the club pissing money away.

With the Brereton sale, there WOULD 100% have been scope to reinvest some. There had to be, because it was money we now dont have, so it would have been an additional sale to what has happened. So even if we sold for £8.4m and then reinvested £5-6m, we would be in a financially better position now.

[Mashed Potatoes]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I said that at the latest, 12 months before. Obviously Brereton wouldn't have attracted bids at that point. But he could and indeed did generate £8.4m in an offer.

The only reason we needed to do that again down to the lack of planning from the owners down. Piss poor running of the club pissing money away.

With the Brereton sale, there WOULD 100% have been scope to reinvest some. There had to be, because it was money we now dont have, so it would have been an additional sale to what has happened. So even if we sold for £8.4m and then reinvested £5-6m, we would be in a financially better position now.

You're assuming that Brereton would have agreed to the move to whoever - rather than wait a year for his contract to run down and be able to move without a transfer fee but presumably a big signing on fee.

Who knows if the owners would have made the transfer fee available for new signings.

[Mattyblue]

BBD should’ve been signing a new contract in summer 2021, not being sold.

(But, but people on brfcs would’ve moaned).

Edited April 17, 2023 by Mattyblue

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

BBD should’ve been signing a new contract in summer 2021, not being sold.

(But, but people on brfcs would’ve moaned).

One of those posters would have been you. On page 192 of this thread - in June 2021 - you said Brereton was struggling with the basics.

[Mattyblue]

Ooo burn ! 🙄

He wasn’t pulling up any trees, and I may well have moaned too. But so what, I’m a nomark fan, not a football club protecting its assets.

Players who aren’t particularly impressing often sign new contracts, fans then often moan about it, and rightfully the clubs don’t give a toss.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Mattyblue

[superniko]

2 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

One of those posters would have been you. On page 192 of this thread - in June 2021 - you said Brereton was struggling with the basics.

I think his point is "so what if we had all moaned?"

We're fans on a forum, not 'experts' employed to make these decisions. They shouldn't take any notice of us in these circumstances

[Mattyblue]

Exactly, just Masher being his usual contrarian self.

[roversfan99]

7 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

You're assuming that Brereton would have agreed to the move to whoever - rather than wait a year for his contract to run down and be able to move without a transfer fee but presumably a big signing on fee.

Who knows if the owners would have made the transfer fee available for new signings.

It is a different conversation altogether had he rejected a new deal AND any potential move elsewhere. As it is, Venkys batted bids out of hand, therefore the blame lies there.

That second line keeps getting trotted out but it is in no way a justification. It is an equally nonsensical defence as random people potentially moaning. Gallagher got a new deal without being as an important an asset (no signs of improvement and nowhere near as young) and although it wasn't met with universal acclaim, that gets blown away instantly. An asset was protected, forget the outside noise. The thing I am asking for is not to allow players to run their deals down, but to sell if necessary and reinvest a %. Not even all of it, just a decent chunk of it.

We didn't NEED that money for sustainability purposes otherwise we would have sold Brereton regardless of inaccurate perceptions about what we perceived his worth to be. We would have taken what we could get and swallowed it up.

He should have been given a new deal after his season of noticeable improvement to protect the asset, prior to last season. Having failed to do so, we HAD to take what we could get.

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

Ooo burn ! 🙄

He wasn’t pulling up any trees, and I may well have moaned too. But so what, I’m a nomark fan, not a football club protecting its assets.

The point I am really making is that so much of the discussion about this player - and some others as well - is people being wise after the event but then berating people employed at the club because they weren't clairvoyants. Things just aren't as simple as they can be represented on this messageboard.

[Mattyblue]

He had a year of his deal left (notwithstanding the option) so it’s not exactly being wise after the event to say we should’ve been re-signing him up.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Mattyblue

[Mashed Potatoes]

3 minutes ago, superniko said:

I think his point is "so what if we had all moaned?"

We're fans on a forum, not 'experts' employed to make these decisions. They shouldn't take any notice of us in these circumstances

Yet the fans on this forum are demanding that at least one particular player should not be in the starting line up, and that another player should be, even though the experts who are employed to make these decisions seem to think otherwise.

[roversfan99]

If you need to be a clairvoyant to be proactive in protecting assets, then most football clubs employ clairvoyants and we need to get looking for some.

[Mashed Potatoes]

2 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

He had a year of his deal left (notwithstanding the option) so it’s not exactly being wise after the event to say we should’ve been re-signing him up.

Even though he "struggled with the basics" ? There are a number of other posters - I won't say who so as to spare their blushes - who thought he was not up to much. It wasn't unreasonable in the summer of 2021 to think that signing him was a mistake because he had delivered relatively little. But a new contract then ? At what sort of salary ?

[MarkBRFC]

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/blackburn-rovers-brereton-contract-update-20868998

The above is from 2 years ago, i think it was just speculation though as he stock rose and someone realised he was out of contract.