JANUARY TRANSFER WINDOW

[tomphil]

20 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Name me another Rovers signing with a transfer fee reported that included wages.

I'm not going down that road but i'm certain there have been transfers announced as whole package deals when big figures have been banded about although i'm not saying it's been here but it probably has. Like a lot of other things in football it's the smoke and mirrors dress things up as it suits scenario.

Nobody actually knows except the club accountants and the agents but they probably should announce every deal like that including signing on fees and agents fees seeing as we want more clarity in the game. Maybe someone will figure out  when our next set of figures gets released.

Probably isn't the case in the BB signing I was just trying to fathom a bit more sense to the 7 million figure but i'm more inclined to go with they've committed to it over 4 years as seems to be the talk down Notts way.

[Stuart]

16 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I'm not going down that road but i'm certain there have been transfers announced as whole package deals when big figures have been banded about although i'm not saying it's been here but it probably has. Like a lot of other things in football it's the smoke and mirrors dress things up as it suits scenario.

Nobody actually knows except the club accountants and the agents but they probably should announce every deal like that including signing on fees and agents fees seeing as we want more clarity in the game. Maybe someone will figure out  when our next set of figures gets released.

Probably isn't the case in the BB signing I was just trying to fathom a bit more sense to the 7 million figure but i'm more inclined to go with they've committed to it over 4 years as seems to be the talk down Notts way.

Bigging up the transfer fee suits nobody in this situation. Certainly not Brereton but it also means we will see other clubs wanting more from us for their players. No wonder we can’t afford them: “look at his record, he’s a better player that Brereton and he cost £7m”.

[JBiz]

37 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Hes just saying he had a budget. Like every other CEO. 

Yea - and there is no way that this seasons budget is minus 7m and huge wage for Brereton. Its is being talked as if we could've spent that figure over 2 or 3 players, or on someone like (Hasta's example) Charlie Austin on loan.

I still (regardless of his on pitch impact) believe that this particularly deal was in our available seasonal budget because, a 19 year old with lower wages = more we can spend on a transfer fee. That is pretty much exactly what Waggott is saying. I also think the fee is heavily performance related and structured over a few seasons, thats not costing this budget anywhere near what 6 months of 40/50k PW and a loan fee would do.

All old ground, yet still dismissed as "defending" something. Its merely opinion. 

 

32 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Joe (Biz) stop moving the goalposts!

Let’s simplify this matter before you inevitably over complicate things again.

Brereton cost £7 Million and for that amount of money, ideally, he needed to be able to fit straight into the team and make a difference. There are obviously loads of reasons he hasn’t and whether he does eventually come good or doesn’t, but it’s got to be a concern that we are spending almost our record transfer free (eventually) on a guy that hasn’t made that much different yet.

Because he’s only 19, I’m prepared to give him much more time, but I can understand completely why other supporters are concerned about his lack of impact SO FAR! 

(This post will probably really wind you up, so I’m bringing you some tobacco back from holiday to offset your annoyance! ?).

I'm sorry Kenneth (peep show reference), but I am not wound up by opinions - whether they agree or disagree, and on this most of yours on this echo mine (the age, needing more time etc). If there is one thing that puts me off this site from time to time it is the "you will defend anything" or "mr positive/opposite" or "venky apologist" crap - you should know this.

Our opinion differs on the first part though. I think we all wanted or expected more - but this fee/deal is being over blown and criticised due the perceived expense and drain of the clubs coffers, and its closeness to records set in 1998, 2001, or 2012.

A transfer fee figure alone, that doesn't reflect the difference between signing someone on big wages compared to a 19 year old probably on his first professional terms before arriving. For instance, Rhodes in 2012 came in for a record 8m and reportedly 35k a week. Hasta (and FM2019) seem to think BB is earning about 1/10th of that sum, so is it fair to say he should be expected to dislodge Graham "cos he cost 7m"?

32 minutes ago, 47er said:

Doesn't matter how its structured, its still £7M we could have spent on someone else.

How do you know this. For instance, its reported we wanted Bamford and Celina. Did both of those players want to fit into our wage structure? Did both of those selling clubs want to accept structured deals? Did both of those players want to come to us despite competition from other championship teams? Far too much assumption and in hindsight, Ben might never get in the team - that doesn't mean I can't disagree with those already prepared to write him off.

27 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Realistic? £3m for Brereton and would immediately be less than half the problem and half the pressure! He could even go into the U23s without it being an issue.

The idea of a transfer fee being talked about but secretly including the wages for the length of his contract is unheard of.

There really is a simple answer to this one. The club just need to confirm that the fee was nowhere near the reported £7m mark.

Given everything that has happened (and not happened) since Brezza signed, it doesn’t seem at all likely though.

You're relying on a rumour again, I am sorry but I don't buy that sort of thing, you should know that. Most transfer fees are secret i.e. "undisclosed" and I think that you'd have to be completely naive to assume the public ones are simply on the basis of transparency.

The simple answer for me is for you to start trying to catch up with the spiralling costs of trying to compete in this league. A really easy way to do that is go through our young players who are in the 18 - and list the ones you'd accept 7m as a reasonable fee for. I can't think of anyone. 

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

That doesn't mean he's on peanuts.  Its basically saying we had a pot of money and can divide I think up how we see fit.  Even if he's only on, say, four grand a week, that's four grand a week extra we could have added to the wage bill to bring someone like Austin in on loan.  Whatever budget we had, a large portion of it has  now gone on Brereton. There's no getting away from it.

As for him not getting supported at Ewood, yes there are lots of individuals who say he's crap and a waste of money. Such is football. However he can't hear this and he's never received noticeable dissent or abuse from the Ewood crowd. You are coming across like we should be singing his name and in raptures every time he's on the pitch otherwise it's unfair on him and he'll never make it as a footballer.

 

Yea 3/4 grand a week with incentives sounds about right. Hence why I don't think that there was ever the realistic option to tie so much money up in wages as opposed to transfer fees on younger players we can potentially improve and sell on in future.

An estimate with Austin for 6 months could be, say he is on 70k pw reported - 1m loan fee and 1/2 the wages for 6 months- nearly 2.5m after taxes/bonuses etc? 

For instance, a simple financial suggestion (remember we had those audits) would've been to change the model from signing older free/loan players on established wages, to signing younger risks who represent a potential investment.

Wages are simply costs, transfer fees are for acquiring "capital". Im not suggesting it is the most ambitious way to run the club, but it certainly puts us in a better position to demand decent fees for anyone we are receiving interest in, since theres no rush to fill a hole for FFP/huge wage players.

 

[Stuart]

7 minutes ago, Biz said:

Yea - and there is no way that this seasons budget is minus 7m and huge wage for Brereton. Its is being talked as if we could've spent that figure over 2 or 3 players, or on someone like (Hasta's example) Charlie Austin on loan.

I still (regardless of his on pitch impact) believe that this particularly deal was in our available seasonal budget because, a 19 year old with lower wages = more we can spend on a transfer fee. That is pretty much exactly what Waggott is saying. I also think the fee is heavily performance related and structured over a few seasons, thats not costing this budget anywhere near what 6 months of 40/50k PW and a loan fee would do.

All old ground, yet still dismissed as "defending" something. Its merely opinion. 

 

I'm sorry Kenneth (peep show reference), but I am not wound up by opinions - whether they agree or disagree, and on this most of yours on this echo mine (the age, needing more time etc). If there is one thing that puts me off this site from time to time it is the "you will defend anything" or "mr positive/opposite" or "venky apologist" crap - you should know this.

Our opinion differs on the first part though. I think we all wanted or expected more - but this fee/deal is being over blown and criticised due the perceived expense and drain of the clubs coffers, and its closeness to records set in 1998, 2001, or 2012.

A transfer fee figure alone, that doesn't reflect the difference between signing someone on big wages compared to a 19 year old probably on his first professional terms before arriving. For instance, Rhodes in 2012 came in for a record 8m and reportedly 35k a week. Hasta (and FM2019) seem to think BB is earning about 1/10th of that sum, so is it fair to say he should be expected to dislodge Graham "cos he cost 7m"?

How do you know this. For instance, its reported we wanted Bamford and Celina. Did both of those players want to fit into our wage structure? Did both of those selling clubs want to accept structured deals? Did both of those players want to come to us despite competition from other championship teams? Far too much assumption and in hindsight, Ben might never get in the team - that doesn't mean I can't disagree with those already prepared to write him off.

You're relying on a rumour again, I am sorry but I don't buy that sort of thing, you should know that. Most transfer fees are secret i.e. "undisclosed" and I think that you'd have to be completely naive to assume the public ones are simply on the basis of transparency.

The simple answer for me is for you to start trying to catch up with the spiralling costs of trying to compete in this league. A really easy way to do that is go through our young players who are in the 18 - and list the ones you'd accept 7m as a reasonable fee for. I can't think of anyone. 

Yea 3/4 grand a week with incentives sounds about right. Hence why I don't think that there was ever the realistic option to tie so much money up in wages as opposed to transfer fees on younger players we can potentially improve and sell on in future.

An estimate with Austin for 6 months could be, say he is on 70k pw reported - 1m loan fee and 1/2 the wages for 6 months- nearly 2.5m after taxes/bonuses etc? 

For instance, a simple financial suggestion (remember we had those audits) would've been to change the model from signing older free/loan players on established wages, to signing younger risks who represent a potential investment.

Wages are simply costs, transfer fees are for acquiring "capital". Im not suggesting it is the most ambitious way to run the club, but it certainly puts us in a better position to demand decent fees for anyone we are receiving interest in, since theres no rush to fill a hole for FFP/huge wage players.

 

The “rumour” is that he didn’t cost £7m...

[JBiz]

Just now, Stuart said:

The “rumour” is that he didn’t cost £7m...

Depends which report you believe - many said up to 7m, but that is a caveat doesn’t suit the angle of criticism.

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, Biz said:

 

I know most players are applauded off but the point was I didn't think the majority at home to Newcastle got behind BB. There is a difference between abuse and being behind someone - I mean, I aint saying half the ground are baying for blood - I merely disagreed with the notion all is positive with him at Ewood. 

Case in point, the lads behind me. As I said, I couldn't write the words they used on here - and there was a palpable (over) reaction to everything he did. The fact that @gumboots is sarcastically suggesting the round of applause was relief sums up how many fans are seeing his impact thus far. I just think thats premature.

I did reply to the earlier post and question but did that stupid thing where I clicked next page before posting and it disappeared. To summarise what I said about his ability, the key part; - its too early to say exactly what he has or hasn't. Looks to strike a ball well (see preston/bournemouth disallowed goals) can run with the ball, looks strong, and gets into the right positions largely - if you read back, I also said I think he is second guessing most things at the moment, being used out of position and not quite up to the intensity that TM wants.

I take back what I said about politics. The two charlatans you mentioned have a huge hand in taking this country into a whirlwind of nonsensical arguments.

All this from the bloke who was having a pop at fans the other day for not being criminally underwhelmed and criticising transfer business! If any fan wants to be racist or sexist, or any member of the public around me for that matter - they will be pulled up on it. I am not sure why you are belittling these issues, or even referencing them since I merely mentioned that some nasty comments I have heard towards his contributions wouldn't pass the swear filter on here! 

Again, I am not sure why you have made light of racism/sexism issues either. Those issues at Ewood aren't worth joking about, in fact ask @S8 & Blue what one of the lads behind me said about Kodja earlier in the year. That was reported to the stewards and club, and Id expect anyone including yourself to do the same if you hear racism, sexism and anything else like that at Ewood.

I said all fans aren't behind him. The swear filter probably wont let me type the regular comment from the bloke who sits directly behind me, thats not suggesting the player is impacted by his specific comments. However, if you can't hear the overall noise whenever he makes a mistake, loose pass, loses possession - id suggest getting some hearing aids - and if you think all 19 year old lads have thick skin for that - you'd be wrong.

Hold on, the comment was the fans are behind him. You cannot surely behind someone if you are standing up to shout abusive comments less than 5 minutes into a game after one bad pass. I am not insulted or upset by that either I am merely pointing out that moaning/groaning is an example of NOT being behind a player.

I think if we are accusing people of something - i.e. being over sensitive, It might be worth stopping reacting with such anger when anyone pulls you up for one of your daily assumptions.

I am unsure how you've come to the conclusion Davies got it worse. For instance, Davies played 20 odd times for us, and I can't remember a single comment from the Riverside towards him. Remember plenty of "we're shit" commentary at the time, and I particularly remember Davies getting a lot of credit for the game against Charlton - which was one of the only wins in the first half of the season.

I don't remember swathes of fans standing up shouting specific "7m, your a shit @#/?, Davies" at his first misplaced pass 3 minutes into games. Maybe it is the area of the ground that I sit now, or perhaps its the empty seats that make single voices carry further.

Either way - all the comments above still don't change the initial retort and point - "at games, people get behind everyone" is simply untrue.

 

Edit - as you can see, the swear filter doesn't allow the word that is seemingly saved for Ben where I sit!

"I am merely pointing out that moaning/groaning is an example of NOT being behind a player.

and ... However, if you can't hear the overall noise whenever he makes a mistake, loose pass, loses possession - id suggest getting some hearing aids - and if you think all 19 year old lads have thick skin for that - you'd be wrong."

Im going to focus on these 2 quotes. If you feel that considers not being behind Brereton, and you think that is a reaction saved specially for Brereton, then I will have to strongly disagree. Whenever anyone makes a mistake, or does something wrong that impacts negatively on our team, the natural, impulsive reaction is to be frustrated. If you think that only applies to Brereton then you are sadly mistaken, the only reason almost everything he does seems to cause frustration is because sadly much of what he does has not come off. For example, when he had a very presentable chance against Newcastle and skewed it out for a throw in, But likewise, when Dack missed that sitter in extra time, the golden boy would have been "subjected" to the exact same sort of reaction. When Raya decided to run stupidly out of his goal and ended up giving away a penalty against Birmingham, the same reaction. Its just a normal reaction, one of frustration, seen at every single ground, I'm watching Spurs now and Lucas Moura just headed a sitter wide, que groans. If you consider groans when Brereton makes a mistake to be "not being behind him" then you are totally wrong.

In fact, the applause he got (that you seem to now be considering as to whether it was relief and sarcasm, it wasnt and Brereton didnt think it was hence him embracing it and turning round to clap all stands as he went off) is an example that the fans are behind him like anyone else. If the fans did something other than warmly applaud him, then because it wasnt on the back of a miss, a bad touch, a misplaced pass, it would have been far more pre-meditated and you would have had a point.

"To summarise what I said about his ability, the key part; - its too early to say exactly what he has or hasn't." - you have to be fair suggested you cant be certain that he will be a success. But you seem pretty sure that you think he will be, but what tangible evidence or reasoning do you have to support this?

"Looks to strike a ball well (see preston/bournemouth disallowed goals) can run with the ball, looks strong, and gets into the right positions largely" - to be fair the 2 finishes you mention were smart ones but his last 2 presentable chances have ended up for an opposition throw in. But I totally disagree that he gets into the right positions. He rarely gets into goalscoring positions, and when players have had the ball wide, I've repeatedly been frustrated by his reluctance to get into the box. Contrast to Nuttall, he has an obvious knack of getting into the right positions, and its night and day between the 2. I also disagree that he looks strong, for me he is incredibly weak and needs to improve that side of things in the gym. I do suspect that his game is based on running with the ball, I have seen flickers that its were his strengths lie, so I can give you that. And I dont think his lack of desperation to impress in terms of not chasing down, not jumping for headers, things like that can really be tolerated.

"if you read back, I also said I think he is second guessing most things at the moment, being used out of position and not quite up to the intensity that TM wants." - the out of position line has worn a bit thin in that, bar the Newcastle game, the majority of his game time in the last couple of months has been in a central role. Strangely, when Mowbray  said he doesnt see him as a striker yet, from that moment I noticed that he seemed to be used centrally far more often.

 

3 hours ago, deryck guyler's spoon said:

According to a mate some bloke at Bramhall Lane was shouting abuse at Brereton as he warmed up on the touchline. 

I was at Bramall Lane and didnt see anything of the sort, but he started that game so wasnt warming up on the touchline!

[JBiz]

@roversfan99

the short reply to that is read back through other comments because you’ve asked me the same questions repeatedly and they’ve been answered.

 

[roversfan99]

Just now, Biz said:

@roversfan99

the short reply to that is read back through other comments because you’ve asked me the same questions repeatedly and they’ve been answered.

 

That last post was hardly a series of questions. Just correcting you that the groans you hear after Brereton does something wrong is the sort of reaction saved especially for him, and not repeated when anyone else messes up. Nor is it abuse.

I also dont understand how a constant downplaying of any proper knowledge on what exactly Brereton is good at (based on not enough game time) can go hand in hand with such confidence that he will prove a success.

[Stuart]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

Depends which report you believe - many said up to 7m, but that is a caveat doesn’t suit the angle of criticism.

Nor does the opposite.

Round and round we go but one thing is clear: the club has allowed a perception to form that Brereton cost £7m, which would make him the most expensive player in our squad - by some distance . This has become a huge burden and looks to have impacted the lads confidence, and he doesn’t play.

Somebody could come out and clarify the fee and take that pressure off but they do not.

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Nor does the opposite.

Round and round we go but one thing is clear: the club has allowed a perception to form that Brereton cost £7m, which would make him the most expensive player in our squad - by some distance . This has become a huge burden and looks to have impacted the lads confidence, and he doesn’t play.

Somebody could come out and clarify the fee and take that pressure off but they do not.

It may be possible that they're not allowed to come out and publicly state the fee. 

[Hasta]

 

34 minutes ago, Biz said:

I still (regardless of his on pitch impact) believe that this particularly deal was in our available seasonal budget because, a 19 year old with lower wages = more we can spend on a transfer fee. That is pretty much exactly what Waggott is saying. I also think the fee is heavily performance related and structured over a few seasons, thats not costing this budget anywhere near what 6 months of 40/50k PW and a loan fee would do.

But there was money left in the budget after August, and more money was made available in January, so had we not signed BB we could have signed someone for a similar fee and paid them bigger wages.  Buying Brereton emptied a large chunk of that budget, and we have seen no return on the pitch for blowing that budget yet.

Whether the money was spent on fees or wages, it was still spent and stops us having that money to spend on other targets.

You've hit the nail on the head that we've tried to buy capital, a future sellable assett, rather than instant impact to the team. However on what we've seen so far, that seems a failed gamble. 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Hasta

[Stuart]

3 minutes ago, Hasta said:

You've hit the nail on the head that we've tried to buy capital, a future sellable assett, rather than instant impact to the team. However on what we've seen so far, that seems a failed gamble. 

Anyone who has been in football for any length of time knows this is a very dangerous policy.

If your football team is successful your best players become valuable. It doesn’t really work in reverse.

[Eddie]

Anyone who has been in football long enough also knows that judging players 6 months after they were signed, for good or for bad, is a very dangerous policy. 

[JacknOry]

14 hours ago, J*B said:

Probably, but I do find it very interesting - and try and take it on board. This thread will naturally disappear this month anyway so I'm not massively fussed it's way off topic now! 

You sure about that?

[booth]

14 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

My mum and dad put 2 people in their place at Newcastle game also.

What did they call you?

[CD_93]

Gallagher straight back out of the Southampton squad. Top trolling ?

[SBlue]

1 minute ago, CD_93 said:

Gallagher straight back out of the Southampton squad. Top trolling ?

He’ll be broken. In bits all week that he couldn’t join us. Poor lad.

[Exiled in Toronto]

39 minutes ago, Hasta said:

 

But there was money left in the budget after August, and more money was made available in January, so had we not signed BB we could have signed someone for a similar fee and paid them bigger wages.  Buying Brereton emptied a large chunk of that budget, and we have seen no return on the pitch for blowing that budget yet.

Whether the money was spent on fees or wages, it was still spent and stops us having that money to spend on other targets.

You've hit the nail on the head that we've tried to buy capital, a future sellable assett, rather than instant impact to the team. However on what we've seen so far, that seems a failed gamble. 

 

 

Not wishing to be picky, but one doesn’t judge the success of a future sellable asset on how it performs in the first few months after you have bought it, especially when you don’t finish paying for it for another 2.5 years.

[Tom Stinny]

One thing everyone can agree on is if Brereton score 7-8 goals from now until the end of the season then all of a sudden he's worth 7-8 million.

 

Football's a funny game you can be poor for 6 months. Have a very good month or two and everything becomes positive.

 

At least he isn't Leon best number two

[Stuart]

36 minutes ago, Tom Stinny said:

One thing everyone can agree on is if Brereton score 7-8 goals from now until the end of the season then all of a sudden he's worth 7-8 million.

 

Football's a funny game you can be poor for 6 months. Have a very good month or two and everything becomes positive.

 

At least he isn't Leon best number two

A month or two? Right now I’d take a game or two!

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Not wishing to be picky, but one doesn’t judge the success of a future sellable asset on how it performs in the first few months after you have bought it, especially when you don’t finish paying for it for another 2.5 years.

Obviously. And nowhere did I say it did !

Edited February 2, 2019 by Hasta

[roversfan99]

39 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Anyone who has been in football long enough also knows that judging players 6 months after they were signed, for good or for bad, is a very dangerous policy. 

Presume Reed also comes under the category "jury still out" then?

Armstrong cannot be judged on his loan spell last season. Wasnt here long enough to be judged.

[G Somerset Rover]

Good job we didn’t bolster the squad in January.

[47er]

8 hours ago, Biz said:

Depends which report you believe - many said up to 7m, but that is a caveat doesn’t suit the angle of criticism.

I said "its £7M we could have spent on someone else". With the best will in the world I can't see how that cannot be true!

For that matter we could have spent it tarting up the stadium.

Whatever we could have done with it, it would have been better than what we actually did!

Edited February 2, 2019 by 47er

[JBiz]

11 hours ago, 47er said:

I said "its £7M we could have spent on someone else". With the best will in the world I can't see how that cannot be true!

For that matter we could have spent it tarting up the stadium.

Whatever we could have done with it, it would have been better than what we actually did!

Yea. We could’ve signed a few premier league frees like Etuhu and Murphy, that would’ve turned out better than it this wouldn’t it..

You know how tiresome it is reading comments and views of people who have the memory of goldfish?

If you genuinely think that signing was a “blunder” after 5 months, the fee was “obscene” and it was the worst thing we could’ve done, you really are not worth discussing football with.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Biz