Ben Brereton Diaz

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think it was right approach and option to keep BBD here

Did either JDT or Broughton want to sell?

He was Rovers manager at the time. 

It's am irrelevant question to be honest. We decided to keep BBD cos no one put an offer we deem acceptable and cos he is key player for us. I thought the offers we received were unacceptable based on what previous players were sold for after scoring 20 goals plus at championship level in previous seasons..

It doesn't matter whether either wanted to sell, we have no idea and it doesn't matter because it wasn't down to them either way. Venkys feel it fit to override player sales.

And Mowbray was never in charge of contracts, neither is Tomasson. I do think we should have signed Brereton onto a new deal at that time, 100%, but ultimately, in the summer we still had a chance to generate some considerable funds, it might not have been as much as Armstrong and it might not be how much we could have got if Brereton had longer, but over £8m is still a bloody lot of money for us. We lost just over £11m in 2022 and just over £6m the year before, for a bit of perspective. Equally, we have spent about double that potential fee over five whole seasons.

You keep avoiding this question but it is a simple 2 options. What is more valuable, one season and one season only of Ben Brereton, or £8.4m? That was the choice right in front of us. I can't fathom how anyone can say the former, and not only that, how people can be comfortable with doing the opposite of what well run clubs that we seemingly want to try and employ a similar model too, and taking huge short term risks that then leave us without funds to reinvest when our "project" is supposed to start really thriving.

You mention his calibre, I know he is a goalscorer at this level, I don't doubt his ability. But the above question couldn't be any more correct, it was £8.4m OR one season of him, and we chose the latter as more valuable.

Should a similar calibre of player become available on a season long loan for a massive loan fee in the summer, say I don't know, Joel Piroe. If we was to loan him for £8.4m, there would be uproar.

[47er]

I would argue that for what he has gained from his time at Rovers he's giving very little back.

No plaudits from me.

[Blow-in]

19 minutes ago, 47er said:

I would argue that for what he has gained from his time at Rovers he's giving very little back.

No plaudits from me.

Yeah disappointing way to end if that;s what happens this summer. Very likable player and always looks like he is working hard on the pitch. But we have spunked 7m on a player who has been good for 2 seasons and is now going to walk away for nothing. He could have signed on for 1 year, with a view to being sold or leaving for free at that stage.

[chaddyrovers]

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It doesn't matter whether either wanted to sell, we have no idea and it doesn't matter because it wasn't down to them either way. Venkys feel it fit to override player sales.

Of course it matters but given their comments they back the owners valuation on him. 

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

And Mowbray was never in charge of contracts, neither is Tomasson. I do think we should have signed Brereton onto a new deal at that time, 100%, but ultimately, in the summer we still had a chance to generate some considerable funds, it might not have been as much as Armstrong and it might not be how much we could have got if Brereton had longer, but over £8m is still a bloody lot of money for us. We lost just over £11m in 2022 and just over £6m the year before, for a bit of perspective. Equally, we have spent about double that potential fee over five whole seasons.

Mowbray got extra 6 weeks contract extensions for a few players after the covid lockdown. He also.said he could suggest that a certain player should get a contract extension. 

JDT's role is different to Mowbray one. He is the Head coach here. Plus we have officially director of football in place. Something we didn't before.

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You keep avoiding this question but it is a simple 2 options. What is more valuable, one season and one season only of Ben Brereton, or £8.4m? That was the choice right in front of us. I can't fathom how anyone can say the former, and not only that, how people can be comfortable with doing the opposite of what well run clubs that we seemingly want to try and employ a similar model too, and taking huge short term risks that then leave us without funds to reinvest when our "project" is supposed to start really thriving.

I answered your question but you didnt like the answer tho. I think it's strange way of looking at the BBD situation and irrelevant one. It's short term risk but worth doing it and keeping him here

Rovers kept BBD and when you look at that we had complete overall of staff in key positions of Director of football, Head coach and head of recruitment. I think it was too much of gamble of replace key player like BBD without much scouting and research from those new appointments like Broughton, JDT and Williams 

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You mention his calibre, I know he is a goalscorer at this level, I don't doubt his ability. But the above question couldn't be any more correct, it was £8.4m OR one season of him, and we chose the latter as more valuable.

I still think we made the right decision to keep him. You don't. 

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Should a similar calibre of player become available on a season long loan for a massive loan fee in the summer, say I don't know, Joel Piroe. If we was to loan him for £8.4m, there would be uproar.

That's the way you are looking at the situation and most of us on here aren't and look it we kept a player who is helping us get a playoff place and hopefully promotion, then maybe BBD will stay long term here

[47er]

23 minutes ago, Blow-in said:

Yeah disappointing way to end if that;s what happens this summer. Very likable player and always looks like he is working hard on the pitch. But we have spunked 7m on a player who has been good for 2 seasons and is now going to walk away for nothing. He could have signed on for 1 year, with a view to being sold or leaving for free at that stage.

He could have signed up for a year with a large pay increase as insurance, agreed a minimum fee which would trigger his release and take it from there. But Its all about him. Include in that a trip to play for Chile in a meaningless friendly when he could have rested up after his efforts at Bramall Lane. To add further insult he's got injured in said game when we are desperate to keep our Promotion push on track.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, 47er said:

He could have signed up for a year with a large pay increase as insurance, agreed a minimum fee which would trigger his release and take it from there. But Its all about him. Include in that a trip to play for Chile in a meaningless friendly when he could have rested up after his efforts at Bramall Lane. To add further insult he's got injured in said game when we are desperate to keep our Promotion push on track.

 

That would have been a fucking horrendous business decision from him.

You're one bad injury away from your career ending. Get your money whilst you can. Large increase for one year vs large increase for 4/5 years. 

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

It’s a strange one: hopeless for two years, half decent for six months then for the next six months pretty much every shot/header went in. This season I think he’s been no more than decent, but his increasingly common habit of sticking to the left touchline is limiting us. In his purple patch he got a lot of six-yard box goals and he is mostly too wide to get those now, with those chances going begging thanks to half-a-second-too-late Gallagher. 

[benhben]

I don't think from an on the pitch point of view losing BBD is the end of the world. We will miss his goals of late (still top scorer this year), but the games when BBD was injured we arguably played the best stuff all season. Others will need to step up and we will have to do sensible business in the transfer marker to make up them goals but its not impossible. Id rather keep Hyam.

The massive loss is the lack of a transfer fee to re-invest. Annoying but not the end of the world. 

Loosing good players on a free is an unsustainable position for a club like us. Thankfully it looks like they're trying to sort it. As others have said its a funny one with BBD, because he was absolute garbage until 18 months ago, and by then his contract was already into its final 12-18 months.

[roversfan99]

40 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Of course it matters but given their comments they back the owners valuation on him. 

Mowbray got extra 6 weeks contract extensions for a few players after the covid lockdown. He also.said he could suggest that a certain player should get a contract extension. 

JDT's role is different to Mowbray one. He is the Head coach here. Plus we have officially director of football in place. Something we didn't before.

I answered your question but you didnt like the answer tho. I think it's strange way of looking at the BBD situation and irrelevant one. It's short term risk but worth doing it and keeping him here

Rovers kept BBD and when you look at that we had complete overall of staff in key positions of Director of football, Head coach and head of recruitment. I think it was too much of gamble of replace key player like BBD without much scouting and research from those new appointments like Broughton, JDT and Williams 

I still think we made the right decision to keep him. You don't. 

That's the way you are looking at the situation and most of us on here aren't and look it we kept a player who is helping us get a playoff place and hopefully promotion, then maybe BBD will stay long term here

How is it a strange way of looking at it?! We literally had 2 options, take £8.4m or let him run his contract down whilst having him for this season. The importance we have placed on having him for one year has cost us an opportunity cost of £8.4m.

I very much doubt that Mowbray said not to offer him a new deal, just like with Lenihan and Rothwell. It is not comparable to paying people for 6 weeks during covid. The difference between most of the contracts we have agreed this season is that many are to young players. Sometimes we will have cases where more senior/proven players are reluctant to agree to a new deal, testing the waters elsewhere. It is imperative that we get fees for these players in such situations.

They had the same amount of time to research the signings we did make in the summer, if the attitude was that we didn't have enough time to do so, then Hyam etc wouldn't have signed.

38 minutes ago, 47er said:

He could have signed up for a year with a large pay increase as insurance, agreed a minimum fee which would trigger his release and take it from there. But Its all about him. Include in that a trip to play for Chile in a meaningless friendly when he could have rested up after his efforts at Bramall Lane. To add further insult he's got injured in said game when we are desperate to keep our Promotion push on track.

 

He as a player is much more attractive to clubs as a free agent. Would have made no sense to him to sign an extra year if he is after leaving. We as a club chose to bat off any interest in him so the fact that we won't get a fee for him was avoidable.

[philipl]

I am as certain as I can be all details with Villareal were agreed within the January window and a contract is fully drafted with only Ben' s signature missing.

Now why hasn't he signed it?

[rigger]

9 minutes ago, philipl said:

I am as certain as I can be all details with Villareal were agreed within the January window and a contract is fully drafted with only Ben' s signature missing.

Now why hasn't he signed it?

To see if we get promoted or not.

[47er]

13 minutes ago, philipl said:

I am as certain as I can be all details with Villareal were agreed within the January window and a contract is fully drafted with only Ben' s signature missing.

Now why hasn't he signed it?

Widely rumoured that he has already signed. Why are you certain he hasn't?

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

How is it a strange way of looking at it?! We literally had 2 options, take £8.4m or let him run his contract down whilst having him for this season. The importance we have placed on having him for one year has cost us an opportunity cost of £8.4m.

It didn't cost us £8.4m

Clubs never use net spend when calculating costs of players

For a start we don't know the details of the £8.4m - it could be paid in instalments, £4m of that could have been performance based,  there will be solidarity payments to Nottingham Forest and of course are there any % of future transfer fees included in the original transfer between Rovers and Forest?

I'm going to try one last time, because whilst I agree with you it is sad to lose him, you demanding Chaddy answers this question is just silly because it isn't relevant

A player is costed to the club in two ways: amortisation of transfer fees and wages. Now, this is admittedly an amateur attempt as I am not an account, but Brereton probably costs the club £1.92m a year

That is: Estimated £7m fee over 5 years £1.4m

Wages are estimated £10,000k a week (I think this is high) x 52 weeks = £520,000

Given how delicate Rovers' accounts are, and the consistency between turnover to wages, and the financial assistance each year by Venkys London, the 'wiggle' room for Rovers may be about £2m a year if BBD is sold. Considering FFP runs in 3 year cycles and most contracts are 4+ years

Let's say a new striker costs £5m, that would be £1.25m a year. It would leave you with 750,000 a year left (or £14,400 a week) to purchase a player of a similar standard to Brereton. And you'd still be costing the club more

All of this is assuming: The £8.4m is real and paid in full up front, and that Brereton's wages are as high as £10k but I don't think they are. I think they are closer to £7k p/w. But I hope you get where I am coming from

Waggott and the money men probably thought it was easier for a year for Brereton to cost Rovers £1.92m a year and then forward plan for a new striker next year, knowing that £1.92m a year becomes freed up in club costs and Venkys will provide x amount transfer budget regardless of how much transfer incomings are made anyway

Now I agree with you - pure stupidity. This spate of players leaving for free came from Waggott's decision to not sanction any new contracts during Covid-19. It gave the power of transfer to the players and agents - for some it worked like Lenihan, for some it didn't like Nyambe

But it is in no way comparable to "loaning a player for £8.4m". And this is why I think selling him in the summer for such a paltry amount considering his potential value in the season ahead would have been a silly idea

Edited March 31, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[Sweaty Gussets]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

How is it a strange way of looking at it?! We literally had 2 options, take £8.4m or let him run his contract down whilst having him for this season. The importance we have placed on having him for one year has cost us an opportunity cost of £8.4m.

We don't know how much of that money would have been available to replace him.

We don't know if he was willing to leave, even if we did accept a bid.

We don't know if his goals will get us in the play-offs.

We don't know if his goals will get us to the Prem and a bounty of £150m.

 

[Mike E]

48 minutes ago, 47er said:

Widely rumoured that he has already signed. Why are you certain he hasn't?

I feel like if he had already signed, it would've been announced from Villarreal's end.

[rigger]

16 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I feel like if he had already signed, it would've been announced from Villarreal's end.

 

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Widely rumoured that he has already signed. Why are you certain he hasn't?

Wouldn't it be illegal for Diaz to sign another contract, whilst under contract to the Rovers. Thus making the second contract null and void ? I suppose he could sign a pre-contact, but I don't know how binding a pre-contract is.

Edited March 31, 2023 by rigger

[roversfan99]

14 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It didn't cost us £8.4m

Clubs never use net spend when calculating costs of players

For a start we don't know the details of the £8.4m - it could be paid in instalments, £4m of that could have been performance based,  there will be solidarity payments to Nottingham Forest and of course are there any % of future transfer fees included in the original transfer between Rovers and Forest?

I'm going to try one last time, because whilst I agree with you it is sad to lose him, you demanding Chaddy answers this question is just silly because it isn't relevant

A player is costed to the club in two ways: amortisation of transfer fees and wages. Now, this is admittedly an amateur attempt as I am not an account, but Brereton probably costs the club £1.92m a year

That is: Estimated £7m fee over 5 years £1.4m

Wages are estimated £10,000k a week (I think this is high) x 52 weeks = £520,000

Given how delicate Rovers' accounts are, and the consistency between turnover to wages, and the financial assistance each year by Venkys London, the 'wiggle' room for Rovers may be about £2m a year if BBD is sold. Considering FFP runs in 3 year cycles and most contracts are 4+ years

Let's say a new striker costs £5m, that would be £1.25m a year. It would leave you with 750,000 a year left (or £14,400 a week) to purchase a player of a similar standard to Brereton. And you'd still be costing the club more

All of this is assuming: The £8.4m is real and paid in full up front, and that Brereton's wages are as high as £10k but I don't think they are. I think they are closer to £7k p/w. But I hope you get where I am coming from

Waggott and the money men probably thought it was easier for a year for Brereton to cost Rovers £1.92m a year and then forward plan for a new striker next year, knowing that £1.92m a year becomes freed up in club costs and Venkys will provide x amount transfer budget regardless of how much transfer incomings are made anyway

Now I agree with you - pure stupidity. This spate of players leaving for free came from Waggott's decision to not sanction any new contracts during Covid-19. It gave the power of transfer to the players and agents - for some it worked like Lenihan, for some it didn't like Nyambe

But it is in no way comparable to "loaning a player for £8.4m". And this is why I think selling him in the summer for such a paltry amount considering his potential value in the season ahead would have been a silly idea

I appreciate the fact that his value will have been amortised over the life of his contract and will have a carrying value of £1.4m at the start of the year, so surely there would have been a profit on disposal of £7m which would have then given us wiggle room under FFP? We would also save the expense of a further £1.4m depreciation of his remaining value across that last year, and the wages like you said.

It will be difficult to replace Brereton full stop, but the whole premise of the project is surely to replace assets with cheaper players, develop, sell, replace and continue. It is much more difficult to replace with zero funds.

The disconnect between player sales and purchases under Venkys is baffling, it's just totally at odds with what Broughton seems to be mentioning and Mowbray said similar before, about developing assets and selling them on and replacing. I would say the same to @Sweaty Gussets that it is simply no way to run a football club. Regarding whether he would have gone, had we accepted and Brereton then rejected the move, a totally different story altogether. And if we go up it pays off but it is an incredibly risky way to run the club financially.

[Dreams of 1995]

19 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I appreciate the fact that his value will have been amortised over the life of his contract and will have a carrying value of £1.4m at the start of the year, so surely there would have been a profit on disposal of £7m which would have then given us wiggle room under FFP? We would also save the expense of a further £1.4m depreciation of his remaining value across that last year, and the wages like you said.

It will be difficult to replace Brereton full stop, but the whole premise of the project is surely to replace assets with cheaper players, develop, sell, replace and continue. It is much more difficult to replace with zero funds.

The disconnect between player sales and purchases under Venkys is baffling, it's just totally at odds with what Broughton seems to be mentioning and Mowbray said similar before, about developing assets and selling them on and replacing. I would say the same to @Sweaty Gussets that it is simply no way to run a football club. Regarding whether he would have gone, had we accepted and Brereton then rejected the move, a totally different story altogether. And if we go up it pays off but it is an incredibly risky way to run the club financially.

Well, you have just assumed that Nice are going to send £8.4m and that will be shown as a full figure in our yearly accounts

You'd show a profit on whatever fee we received against his book value in that year

So let's say we had Brereton's book value at £1.4m:

The profit on trading would be £7m

The accounts would show a reduction in amortisation of £1.4m

And you'd save £520,000 in wages

The profit and loss account would benefit by £8.92m

But very few, if any, transfer fees are as shown in the headlines. Nice would have a realistic understanding of BBD's book value. So it could have been that they offered £2m up front with a further £4m over the next two years, and then £2.4m in performance based add ons. Not entirely unreasonable.

So that would show:

Profit on trading of £600,000

The accounts would show a reduction in amortisation of £1.4m

And you'd save £520,000 in wages

So the p and l would benefit by £2.52m

And you would also have to replace him with that. And that doesn't even take into account what we would have to pay Forest, what we may have to pay Forest, and what we would have to pay for Brereton

It is also likely that Brereton 'cost' Rovers much less than £1.4m this year. Given we gave him an extension at the start of his fourth year it would probably be drawn down like

£7m-(3x1.75m)/(1+1) = £875k cost per year for 2 yrs

I don't know, it is a lot more complex than just receiving £8.4m and then expecting it to be wholly reinvested. That's why I think this idea that he 'cost' Rovers 8.4m this season is not right. But I'm verging on nerd territory here so I'll let it rest. Plus I could even be wrong in the above, but that's how I understand it. Chaddy's right not to answer

I think if Brereton plays a part in a team that gets us into the play offs then the about £2m he cost us for the year is a reasonable gamble

Edited March 31, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[roversfan99]

12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Well, you have just assumed that Nice are going to send £8.4m and that will be shown as a full figure in our yearly accounts

You'd show a profit on whatever fee we received against his book value in that year

So let's say we had Brereton's book value at £1.4m:

The profit on trading would be £7m

The accounts would show a reduction in amortisation of £1.4m

And you'd save £520,000 in wages

The profit and loss account would benefit by £8.92m

But very few, if any, transfer fees are as shown in the headlines. Nice would have a realistic understanding of BBD's book value. So it could have been that they offered £2m up front with a further £4m over the next two years, and then £2.4m in performance based add ons. Not entirely unreasonable.

So that would show:

Profit on trading of £600,000

The accounts would show a reduction in amortisation of £1.4m

And you'd save £520,000 in wages

So the p and l would benefit by £2.52m

And you would also have to replace him with that. And that doesn't even take into account what we would have to pay Forest, what we may have to pay Forest, and what we would have to pay for Brereton

It is also likely that Brereton 'cost' Rovers much less than £1.4m this year. Given we gave him an extension at the start of his fourth year it would probably be drawn down like

£7m-(3x1.75m)/(1+1) = £875k cost per year for 2 yrs

I don't know, it is a lot more complex than just receiving £8.4m and then expecting it to be wholly reinvested. That's why I think this idea that he 'cost' Rovers 8.4m this season is not right. But I'm verging on nerd territory here so I'll let it rest. Plus I could even be wrong in the above, but that's how I understand it. Chaddy's right not to answer

I think if Brereton plays a part in a team that gets us into the play offs then the about £2m he cost us for the year is a reasonable gamble

I take your point about instalments and the amount not all hitting the accounts in this financial year, but equally we could fund a new signing in the same way, I think it is probably quite uncommon for fees these days to be paid all at once so we would still have more than a couple of millions worth of leeway even if it is spread across a number of years. In your scenario, offsetting any new players wages against wage savings on Brereton upon departure, we would be able to fund say a £5m new addition across 3 years, saving £333k a year in the process whilst doing so, not factoring in potential add ons.

Of course it is all speculative based on the breakdown of any fee, but even so.

 

[philipl]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

Widely rumoured that he has already signed. Why are you certain he hasn't?

There are formal procedures for a player to sign with a club outside the Federation they are currently registered in.

Villareal have to inform the club holding his registration when the player has signed otherwise the new contract is invalid under UEFA rules.

Rovers are absolutely clear they have received no such notification so officially he has not signed.

I can think of no advantage to either Villareal or Ben for the rules not to be followed. Can you think of any?

 

 

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Well, you have just assumed that Nice are going to send £8.4m and that will be shown as a full figure in our yearly accounts

You'd show a profit on whatever fee we received against his book value in that year

So let's say we had Brereton's book value at £1.4m:

The profit on trading would be £7m

The accounts would show a reduction in amortisation of £1.4m

And you'd save £520,000 in wages

The profit and loss account would benefit by £8.92m

But very few, if any, transfer fees are as shown in the headlines. Nice would have a realistic understanding of BBD's book value. So it could have been that they offered £2m up front with a further £4m over the next two years, and then £2.4m in performance based add ons. Not entirely unreasonable.

So that would show:

Profit on trading of £600,000

The accounts would show a reduction in amortisation of £1.4m

And you'd save £520,000 in wages

So the p and l would benefit by £2.52m

And you would also have to replace him with that. And that doesn't even take into account what we would have to pay Forest, what we may have to pay Forest, and what we would have to pay for Brereton

It is also likely that Brereton 'cost' Rovers much less than £1.4m this year. Given we gave him an extension at the start of his fourth year it would probably be drawn down like

£7m-(3x1.75m)/(1+1) = £875k cost per year for 2 yrs

I don't know, it is a lot more complex than just receiving £8.4m and then expecting it to be wholly reinvested. That's why I think this idea that he 'cost' Rovers 8.4m this season is not right. But I'm verging on nerd territory here so I'll let it rest. Plus I could even be wrong in the above, but that's how I understand it. Chaddy's right not to answer

I think if Brereton plays a part in a team that gets us into the play offs then the about £2m he cost us for the year is a reasonable gamble

I understood your post. Then you came out with this statement.

[joey_big_nose]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

There are formal procedures for a player to sign with a club outside the Federation they are currently registered in.

Villareal have to inform the club holding his registration when the player has signed otherwise the new contract is invalid under UEFA rules.

Rovers are absolutely clear they have received no such notification so officially he has not signed.

I can think of no advantage to either Villareal or Ben for the rules not to be followed. Can you think of any?

 

 

Yeah this is all getting a bit weird.

I suspect theres an angle to it we dont have visibility of.

[Displaced Rover]

As others have said, fairly certain it's agreed but not signed, purely on the basis we might get promoted and he can just sign here. Sure he'd rather play in the Premier League at home, rather than going to Spain.

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, Displaced Rover said:

As others have said, fairly certain it's agreed but not signed, purely on the basis we might get promoted and he can just sign here. Sure he'd rather play in the Premier League at home, rather than going to Spain.

My interpretation also.

[alex l]

Who knows why it hasn't been signed/announced. In any event BBD has pretty much all of the control, unless he has a catastrophic injury. Even if we go up I'd be surprised if he stays, but never say never. I seem to remember MGP once got to the end of the season without a new contract and it looked like he was going, but then it was suddenly announced he had signed a new contract with us. 12 months ago Mbappe appeared nailed on for a freebie to Madrid, but he changed his mind (with a shed load of cash and control).