Ben Brereton Diaz

[lraC]

16 hours ago, tomphil said:

Really should've cashed in on him this summer as long as the money went to another striker, 2 mill looks good right now.

To be fair to him though at least hes delivered some goals and graft contribution over the length of his time here but another daft signing all things considered. 

I remember from the very early days of Venky’s tenure, that a company called the global 11 were involved in some sort of third part ownership scheme. I know that the Formica deal was rejected at one point, due to this and was later accepted due to it being presented in a different format. It was around the time that West Ham were also involved in something similar, with Tevez. 
 

I do wonder, given the reluctance to accept offers for certain players and also given our propensity to go for the odd “Marquee” signing, if there is still some sort of hidden third party type deal, still in the background somewhere?

[47er]

14 hours ago, Andy said:

The season where he'd scored 20 goals by Xmas, he was excellent (well, first half of the season anyway).

It would have been crazy to sell him under Venky's asking price at that point.

Nobody knew that he would revert back to Brereton for the majority of his time after that point.

If we'd sold him at that time, it would have completely derailed our potential promotion push.

People forget that we were going head to head with other top clubs for promotion at the time. There would have been hell to pay with the supporters if we'd sold him to one of them at that point without a replacement and our promotion hopes disappeared.

In fact they did disappear---emphatically, even though we kept him! But no-one knew thats how it would work out.

In retrospect it looks an awful decision.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

I remember from the very early days of Venky’s tenure, that a company called the global 11 were involved in some sort of third part ownership scheme. I know that the Formica deal was rejected at one point, due to this and was later accepted due to it being presented in a different format. It was around the time that West Ham were also involved in something similar, with Tevez. 
 

I do wonder, given the reluctance to accept offers for certain players and also given our propensity to go for the odd “Marquee” signing, if there is still some sort of hidden third party type deal, still in the background somewhere?

In the case of Gally it's Crown Football and our old mate who used to get a lot of BRFC business !

At last glance about a third of its current clients have had a foot in Rovers at some point.

As for BBD god knows but it was certainly an odd amount of money for the club to suddenly splash out on a complete gamble then not go to proper lengths to protect that gamble for giving some kind of return.

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

I remember from the very early days of Venky’s tenure, that a company called the global 11 were involved in some sort of third part ownership scheme. I know that the Formica deal was rejected at one point, due to this and was later accepted due to it being presented in a different format. It was around the time that West Ham were also involved in something similar, with Tevez. 
 

I do wonder, given the reluctance to accept offers for certain players and also given our propensity to go for the odd “Marquee” signing, if there is still some sort of hidden third party type deal, still in the background somewhere?

Should still be considered a real possibility.

I do find it suspicious that we keep letting players leave for free.

A free transfer usually means a bigger signing on fee (if you're a total piece of shit like waggot you steal the whole thing) and bigger wages, all of which an agent would get a percentage of.

[roversfan99]

22 minutes ago, 47er said:

People forget that we were going head to head with other top clubs for promotion at the time. There would have been hell to pay with the supporters if we'd sold him to one of them at that point without a replacement and our promotion hopes disappeared.

In fact they did disappear---emphatically, even though we kept him! But no-one knew thats how it would work out.

In retrospect it looks an awful decision.

1. Who has ever said that we should sell him in the January? The bids came last summer.

2. Why would the club consider supporter reactions to any decision anyway? An eficiently run club wouldnt consider that.

[Norbert Rassragr]

With hindsight his form after the world cup was pretty crap but we were not to know that until the end of season. Either way, if he left for let's say £10m none of that would be used for a replacement.

[Mattyblue]

Of course he shouldn't have been sold when flying high mid season in 21/22, however no excuses for him not going last summer.

Though if he'd have been signed up on a new deal in the summer of 2021, a la Gallagher then obviously he would've gone for a good fee this summer.

Just a debacle all round.

[lraC]

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

Should still be considered a real possibility.

I do find it suspicious that we keep letting players leave for free.

A free transfer usually means a bigger signing on fee (if you're a total piece of shit like waggot you steal the whole thing) and bigger wages, all of which an agent would get a percentage of.

Remember the “bargain” we got with the Rochina signing from Barcelona. I remember the agents fee at the time, being way out of line with the norm and questions being asked about it.

Its strange how our players somehow leave for bargain fees or free still, even though these lessons have been learned and we used to be badly advised. 

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

People forget that we were going head to head with other top clubs for promotion at the time. There would have been hell to pay with the supporters if we'd sold him to one of them at that point without a replacement and our promotion hopes disappeared.

In fact they did disappear---emphatically, even though we kept him! But no-one knew thats how it would work out.

In retrospect it looks an awful decision.

Also worth noticing that last summer we appointed a new DoF and head coach plus no recruitment so to sell him would have been crazy decision. 

Also no club came close to our asking price for BBD and we only received 3 offers. Nice and Sevilla for £8.4m and Fulham offer of £6m plus £4m in add ons. Should we have sold for those amounts? 

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

In the case of Gally it's Crown Football and our old mate who used to get a lot of BRFC business !

At last glance about a third of its current clients have had a foot in Rovers at some point.

As for BBD god knows but it was certainly an odd amount of money for the club to suddenly splash out on a complete gamble then not go to proper lengths to protect that gamble for giving some kind of return.

GB tried several times to get BBD and his agent to agree a new contract here. BBD didn't want to sign a new contract. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

It’s ok with hindsight to criticise the club but the player has all the cards. We did our best in the circumstances in my opinion.

[tomphil]

29 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Also worth noticing that last summer we appointed a new DoF and head coach plus no recruitment so to sell him would have been crazy decision. 

Also no club came close to our asking price for BBD and we only received 3 offers. Nice and Sevilla for £8.4m and Fulham offer of £6m plus £4m in add ons. Should we have sold for those amounts? 

GB tried several times to get BBD and his agent to agree a new contract here. BBD didn't want to sign a new contract. 

It was too late then that's the whole point the old regime who spewed all that money on a kid nowhere near ready had 3 years previous to safeguard it in someway.

[Blow-in]

27 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Also worth noticing that last summer we appointed a new DoF and head coach plus no recruitment so to sell him would have been crazy decision. 

Also no club came close to our asking price for BBD and we only received 3 offers. Nice and Sevilla for £8.4m and Fulham offer of £6m plus £4m in add ons. Should we have sold for those amounts?

Yes if he was not going to sign a contract and we were entering the final year of his contract.

 

The point above is correct who cares what the fans think if the club is being run properly then these decisions have to be made.

 

Also this club by and large doesn't give a shit what we think so he was not kept because they were afraid of fan pushback.

[lraC]

For those who need a reminder and those who have never seen it, here is a link to a story about our initial transfer dealings under the then, new ownership. People on the inside back then, were prepared to go public about such matters, but sadly that is no longer the case.

I suppose we were lucky back then, that we had an agent who used to work free of charge. 

Perhaps we just have someone now who doesn’t tell us about the fees we pay for our bargains. 
https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/01/15/revealed-the-letter-that-exposes-the-history-of-blackburn-rovers-crisis-150102/

[roversfan99]

43 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It’s ok with hindsight to criticise the club but the player has all the cards. We did our best in the circumstances in my opinion.

It's nothing to do with hindsight. Any properly run club does not turn down bids in favour of allowing players to enter the final year of their deal. 

Stubbornly not entertaining bids based on an unrealistic price tag is not doing all the club (or moreso the owners) can. The price was also based on Armstrong who was a totally different player in a different year, he had scored 28 goals so naturally he would generate more money and that deal actually turned out to be a stupid one by Southampton so we got lucky that they bid so high.

£8m would have been such a big sum to modern day Rovers. Our current squad cost around £10m (maybe marginally more) spread across the course of about 5 years.

[DE.]

Venky's valuation was purely based on Brereton's goal return across the two previous seasons. I imagine other clubs were a bit more detailed in their approach and saw the significant flaws in his game alongside the goals being scored, hence never submitting a bid close to Venky's valuation. There doesn't even seem to have been much of a bidding war for him as a free agent, I only really remember Villareal being seriously linked. I have to admit I thought there'd be more interest. Maybe there was and it just wasn't reported. But Villareal seemed to be a done deal from the later months of last year.

Edited October 9, 2023 by DE.

[tomphil]

The Villareal thing was on the cards for a full 12 months or so before he actually signed there.  Think he'd set his heart on that and it was a done deal that only a Rovers promotion or a decent Prem offer would have altered.

 

[roversfan99]

The stance on the price tag was mentioned by Broughton. Had we accepted the bids and he subsequently turned any clubs down, different story. I dont think he would have turned down the likes of Nice who were playing in Europe and Everton.

[chaddyrovers]

Did Everton even bid for him???

[47er]

10 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

1. Who has ever said that we should sell him in the January? The bids came last summer.

2. Why would the club consider supporter reactions to any decision anyway? An eficiently run club wouldnt consider that.

Yeah, I realised I'd mixed him up with Rothwell! 😥 new puppy---up at 5-3am every morning and stuffed!

I should add that the assumption that we would have got some,all of any transfer money for Diaz for the transfer kitty is just that---an assumption.

[roversfan99]

13 minutes ago, 47er said:

Yeah, I realised I'd mixed him up with Rothwell! 😥 new puppy---up at 5-3am every morning and stuffed!

I should add that the assumption that we would have got some,all of any transfer money for Diaz for the transfer kitty is just that---an assumption.

It is, but that is part of the problem. No consistency in always giving a % (not 100%) of any sales to continiously try and implement any sort of model. Thats when Broughton ever mentions a model, he is wasting his breath.

[Upside Down]

9 hours ago, lraC said:

For those who need a reminder and those who have never seen it, here is a link to a story about our initial transfer dealings under the then, new ownership. People on the inside back then, were prepared to go public about such matters, but sadly that is no longer the case.

I suppose we were lucky back then, that we had an agent who used to work free of charge. 

Perhaps we just have someone now who doesn’t tell us about the fees we pay for our bargains. 
https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/01/15/revealed-the-letter-that-exposes-the-history-of-blackburn-rovers-crisis-150102/

Hardly surprising that we keep doing business that is favourable to agents.

[lraC]

9 hours ago, DE. said:

Venky's valuation was purely based on Brereton's goal return across the two previous seasons. I imagine other clubs were a bit more detailed in their approach and saw the significant flaws in his game alongside the goals being scored, hence never submitting a bid close to Venky's valuation. There doesn't even seem to have been much of a bidding war for him as a free agent, I only really remember Villareal being seriously linked. I have to admit I thought there'd be more interest. Maybe there was and it just wasn't reported. But Villareal seemed to be a done deal from the later months of last year.

Venky’s valuation, will not have been arrived it by them. I doubt they would know the offside rule and that a game has two halves of 45 minutes.

Someone else will have given them this figure and perhaps it was someone, who would benefit from him walking away for nothing. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by lraC

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

11 hours ago, lraC said:

Venky’s valuation, will not have been arrived it by them. I doubt they would know the offside rule and that a game has two halves of 45 minutes.

Someone else will have given them this figure and perhaps it was someone, who would benefit from him walking away for nothing. 

They probably think he’s still at Rovers, they’ll be phoning soon to ask why he isn’t in the team.

[joey_big_nose]

21 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It’s ok with hindsight to criticise the club but the player has all the cards. We did our best in the circumstances in my opinion.

Agreed - everyones annoyed that he left for free but we would have been more annoyed if he left for 6M as everyone, including me,would have (wrongly) assumed Breretons 22/23 would replicate 21/22 form. Such is life.

Whats important is we might have not only replaced him but potentially upgraded with Sigurdsson.

Vibes I'm getting is that Gregg knows what hes doing. Szmodics, Hyam, Brittain are all performing very well. And while too early to be sure Sigurdsson, Moran, Hill and Tronstad look good, with promising signs from Leo. 

Just need Ennis or Telalovic to step up.

[roversfan99]

Why would anyone be annoyed at getting (Nice bid more reportedly but we will go with it) £6m for a player otherwise certain to leave for free the year after?

Even if Sigurdsson does replace him well, and crucially stays beyond this season. That doesn't lessen the importance of such a sum to Rovers these days.