The Contract Situation

[davulsukur]

6 hours ago, islander200 said:

I'm not Rothwells biggest fan but none of the players have covered themselves in glory in this latest death spiral.

Imo the only 2 who have shown any consistency in this spell have been Van Hecke and Kaminski.

It was a no win situation whatever they decided to with Rothwell not saying you but are you telling me if we sold Rothwell in January brought a couple of others in and we still went on awful run and dropped out of the playoffs people wouldn't be saying " stupid owners our best chance in years and we go and sell one of our better performers this season to a direct rival in Bournemouth"

People can maybe rightly critise the owners for stepping in and interfering in a football decision but they had given the manager their decision and it should have been kept in house,instead we had the manager creating drama by going public trying to force their hand which was never going to work.

We were second at the time.What sort of message would it have sent out to the fan base selling him to a team at the time we were in direct competition for a place in the premier league

No, you're right, it was a no win situation. 

But, there was always a huge risk that Rothwell wouldn't be committed after not getting a move. 

Can't remember if it was Mowbray or just the general media but Rothwell was being painted out as the bad guy, it was all set up for him to move on and for once we actually had (according to Mowbray) a couple of players to come in and replace. 

Obviously, we can look back in hindsight now but we ended up with the worst situation that could be played out.

If we sold him, at the very least we would have had 2 new players, joining a promotion push and would have been keen to impress/make an impact. Of course it might not have worked out but keeping unhappy players is always a risk and inevitably their form/commitment will always dip, even if temporarily. 

It's just our luck under Venkys that it would work out in the worst way. I suppose selling JR would have probably resulted in the new players being tosh, just the curse of Venkys.

[JHRover]

32 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Complete guesswork.So why did the manager say they did say no?

You do not know if they did or didn't speak to the manager or tell whoever at the club Rothwell wasn't for sale but you are stating as fact they didn't. 

If the owners like you say have stopped all communication then who gave the go ahead for company to be set up in their name to buy the training ground and lodge 16.6 million into the club?Did Mowbray or Waggott forge their signatures?

Mowbray stated 2 days prior that Rothwell was definitely staying then changed it to Rothwell wanted to leave but the owners wouldn't sanction it.

You have absolutely no idea what communication the owners have with people at the club so why do you state your opinion backed up by no insider information as fact?

You believe what you want to believe but if you are relying purely on what Mowbray has had to say in his press conferences I think you are on dodgy ground.

I know they haven't been in contact with the manager for a long, long time, and they have allowed his contract to run down without any direction as to what is happening next. They've also allowed these players including Rothwell to run their contracts down without intervening. So seems unlikely to say the least that they would then suddenly block a proposed sale

The training ground stunt I doubt required any significant input from the main owners other than authorisation.

Read what I said and compare to what you've just typed - Rothwell wanted to leave but the owners wouldn't sanction it

Isn't that the same as what I said? The owners would not authorise a sale. 

The difference is that some people want to believe the owners picked up the phone and rejected the move because they wanted us to have a better chance of promotion. I think that is unlikely given their behaviour. ''Wouldn't sanction it' could just as easily mean that the people at Ewood/Brockhall couldn't get a response or approval from India.

[Mattyblue]

Despite everything surrounding him and his performances since January, he got a very decent reception when warming up down the touch line last Saturday…

that ‘negative’ Ewood strikes again.

[islander200]

10 minutes ago, JHRover said:

You believe what you want to believe but if you are relying purely on what Mowbray has had to say in his press conferences I think you are on dodgy ground.

I know they haven't been in contact with the manager for a long, long time, and they have allowed his contract to run down without any direction as to what is happening next. They've also allowed these players including Rothwell to run their contracts down without intervening. So seems unlikely to say the least that they would then suddenly block a proposed sale

The training ground stunt I doubt required any significant input from the main owners other than authorisation.

Read what I said and compare to what you've just typed - Rothwell wanted to leave but the owners wouldn't sanction it

Isn't that the same as what I said? The owners would not authorise a sale. 

The difference is that some people want to believe the owners picked up the phone and rejected the move because they wanted us to have a better chance of promotion. I think that is unlikely given their behaviour. ''Wouldn't sanction it' could just as easily mean that the people at Ewood/Brockhall couldn't get a response or approval from India.

It COULD mean that like you say.So why are you making out the people who believe the owners put a stop to Rothwell moving to Bournemouth are stupid? That's the issue Iv got with your post.

You have absolutely no idea what communication the owners had with the club over January... neither do I.Difference is I ain't calling people stupid for following what the manager said to the press.

[tomphil]

Mowbray is the king of contradictions and narrative changes, he'll say what suits him at the time.

 

[Wheelton Blue]

22 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Mowbray is the king of contradictions and narrative changes, he'll say what suits him at the time.

 

Exactly.

My view is that he said the owners wouldn't 'sanction the move' - whatever that means - because it suited him to say that at the time for his own reasons. 

[roversfan99]

6 hours ago, islander200 said:

Complete guesswork.So why did the manager say they did say no?

You do not know if they did or didn't speak to the manager or tell whoever at the club Rothwell wasn't for sale but you are stating as fact they didn't. 

If the owners like you say have stopped all communication then who gave the go ahead for company to be set up in their name to buy the training ground and lodge 16.6 million into the club?Did Mowbray or Waggott forge their signatures?

Mowbray stated 2 days prior that Rothwell was definitely staying then changed it to Rothwell wanted to leave but the owners wouldn't sanction it.

You have absolutely no idea what communication the owners have with people at the club so why do you state your opinion backed up by no insider information as fact?

The issue was not with Mowbray not keeping it in house, there is no way whatsoever that the owners should be overruling the manager and interfering over decisions relating to the playing squad.

[islander200]

38 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The issue was not with Mowbray not keeping it in house, there is no way whatsoever that the owners should be overruling the manager and interfering over decisions relating to the playing squad.

Regardless Mowbray shouldn't have been going public with it.What purpose did it serve?

Two days prior to that interview he was telling the media Rothwell going nowhere.

 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, islander200 said:

Regardless Mowbray shouldn't have been going public with it.What purpose did it serve?

Two days prior to that interview he was telling the media Rothwell going nowhere.

 

The problem is owner interference, what is said afterwards is not important in comparison.

[Wheelton Blue]

As a reminder, who actually said that the owners interfered?

[islander200]

29 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The problem is owner interference, what is said afterwards is not important in comparison.

He should have kept his mouth shut.

You are like Mowbrays guardian angel defending his honour.

He had been Informed of the owners decision.He knew he wasn't being sold.So he should not have been speaking about it.

Like it or lump it , it's the owners money running the club and you are daft you believe the managers say is final at other clubs.

The point my initial post on this matter was making, was it was a no win situation for the owners Just because You believe that doing what Mowbray asked was the right way I believe majority of fans would have been more angry at selling him to a promotion rival.

Maybe we could have bought another Hedges with the money and kept them on the bench till next season.

Edited April 24, 2022 by islander200

[Crimpshrine]

13 hours ago, JHRover said:

Does anyone still believe that Venkys actively intervened and refused the Rothwell sale to give us a better shot at promotion?

I'd have hoped that nonsense would have been consigned to the dustbin by now along with most other drivel that they come out with down there.

The reality is that we are such a dysfunctional shambles that even when presented with a lucrative offer that our manager wants to accept they can't get Venkys to answer the phone to sanction it and so the player stays. 

 

Exactly how I see it - and Bournemouth weren't bothered as they had achieved what they wanted to and unsettled the player.

One well run club one shambles of a club.

[Mattyblue]

34 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

As a reminder, who actually said that the owners interfered?

TM himself.

From the LT article…

“I’ve talked through the scenario. The owners are pretty adamant that Joe Rothwell isn’t getting sold. The slight grey area is that we could add two 23 or 24-year-old players who were two really talented players in this league, why wouldn’t we do it now?

“Why would we not use the Rothwell money for two 23-year-old footballers who are really good and give them five-year contracts and you’re making the squad better, in place of a lad who wants to go somewhere else.

“But at the same time I understand it’s difficult for the owners to accept money for one of our better players while we’re doing so well.”

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19885006.blackburn-rovers-owners-venkys-standing-firm-joe-rothwell/

Edited April 24, 2022 by Mattyblue

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, islander200 said:

He should have kept his mouth shut.

You are like Mowbrays guardian angel defending his honour.

He had been Informed of the owners decision.He knew he wasn't being sold.So he should not have been speaking about it.

Like it or lump it , it's the owners money running the club and you are daft you believe the managers say is final at other clubs.

The point my initial post on this matter was making, was it was a no win situation for the owners Just because You believe that doing what Mowbray asked was the right way I believe majority of fans would have been more angry at selling him to a promotion rival.

Maybe we could have bought another Hedges with the money and kept them on the bench till next season.

And you are like Venkys spokesperson defending their honour, assuming even when they stop spending that it is only regulations preventing them for some reason. We have nothing to be thankful for to Venkys.

You say it was a no win situation for Venkys, it was not a situation that fell under their remit. Had they given the manager autonomy to choose what he did, then it would be him who is judged based on the success or failure of any replacements.

I want Mowbray sacked just like you, but when something illogical is done which includes owners overruling a manager in place to make footballing decisions, then surely the criticism goes towards the owners for doing that rather than the manager for mentioning that to the press.

[islander200]

14 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

And you are like Venkys spokesperson defending their honour, assuming even when they stop spending that it is only regulations preventing them for some reason. We have nothing to be thankful for to Venkys.

You say it was a no win situation for Venkys, it was not a situation that fell under their remit. Had they given the manager autonomy to choose what he did, then it would be him who is judged based on the success or failure of any replacements.

I want Mowbray sacked just like you, but when something illogical is done which includes owners overruling a manager in place to make footballing decisions, then surely the criticism goes towards the owners for doing that rather than the manager for mentioning that to the press.

Where have I defended Venkys?Iv always said they are shit owners.

Only defence iv ever given them is over the backing they have given Mowbray.I know YOU only count transfer fees spent which imo is nonsense because all the other players who have been brought in on loan/,Free transfers have cost a pretty penny over their time at the club, not to mention them signing off on stupid contracts for ageing players based on Mowbrays recommendations.

Plus the man has never been forced to sell one player.2 first teamers sold in 5 years.

I would have sold Rothwell but I honestly think if a similar situation arose at another club the owners would be thinking long and hard over selling a star man to a team at the time we were competing directly with for second place.There would have been uproar by many if he had signed for Bournemouth and our season imploded which it probably would have done anyway with Mowbrays track record.

 

 

[roversfan99]

Just now, islander200 said:

Where have I defended Venkys?Iv always said they are shit owners.

Only defence iv ever given them is over the backing they have given Mowbray.I know YOU only count transfer fees spent which imo is nonsense because all the other players who have been brought in on loan/,Free transfers have cost a pretty penny over their time at the club, not to mention them signing off on stupid contracts for ageing players based on Mowbrays recommendations.

Plus the man has never been forced to sell one player.2 first teamers sold in 5 years.

I would have sold Rothwell but I honestly think if a similar situation arose at another club the owners would be thinking long and hard over selling a star man to a team at the time we were competing directly with for second place.There would have been uproar by many if he had signed for Bournemouth and our season imploded which it probably would have done anyway with Mowbrays track record.

 

 

But it wouldn't have been down to Venkys assuming that any proceeds were available for reinvestment. The owners shouldn't be making those decisions, we can speculate over what happens at other clubs and I don't really care but I do care that we know it happened here and it was piss poor on behalf of Venkys.

Loans and frees are obviously the cheapest way of signing players, again we don't know if any loan fee is paid and how much wage contribution is made by us, this season Mowbray said he didn't want loans and that we had to wait until the end of the window because we had to sell the parent clubs a vision of how we would use them as if it was based on finance we wouldn't be given the players. Filling the squad with loans isn't some sort of costly luxury.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

The issue was not with Mowbray not keeping it in house, there is no way whatsoever that the owners should be overruling the manager and interfering over decisions relating to the playing squad.

How do we know its was the owner's decision? All we have is Mowbray word for it. 

Mowbray has been given more than enough time and money spent including wages and fees to got us promote or at least a couple of playoffs spots over the last 4 years. He hasn't got the know out to maintain a promotion push.  

TBH, I have more enough of his excuses now. Just leave Mowbray now

[Tom]

Here’s where I think the leavers end up through no research just lazy speculation 

Nyambe - Watford 

Rothwell - Bournemouth 

Lenihan - most likely to stay but maybe Celtic 

[JHRover]

I think Lenihan will end up at somewhere like Middlesbrough, Sheff United or West Brom

Wilder is an admirer and tried to sign him for Sheff United previously. He also tends to focus on British/Irish players so expect Lenihan on a free to feature highly on his list. Sheff United will need freshening up with some slightly younger players and will be able to offer him a wage rise. Likewise Bruce will be rebuilding WBA on a limited budget so ideal for them.

I would be surprised if Bournemouth were still interested in Rothwell if they are promoted. If not then expect him to go there, assuming Parker is still manager, but if they go up I would expect them to have bigger fish to fry.

[lraC]

On 24/04/2022 at 17:08, chaddyrovers said:

How do we know its was the owner's decision? All we have is Mowbray word for it. 

Mowbray has been given more than enough time and money spent including wages and fees to got us promote or at least a couple of playoffs spots over the last 4 years. He hasn't got the know out to maintain a promotion push.  

TBH, I have more enough of his excuses now. Just leave Mowbray now

This is pure guesswork, but assuming agents are still involved in a deeper role than just acting as an agent for players, we have one that lives quite close to Ewood that ,may have preferred Rothwell to be a free agent.

More money in it for the player and the agent and none at all for the club. If the £6 million being banded about is true (subject to promotion being secured for Bournemouth), then a nice slice of that for the agent, could be a very tempting reason for him to stay put.

All is fair in love and war when it comes to agents commission, according to this article.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/agent-tony-mcgill-lost-390k-6931675

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by lraC

[Upside Down]

16 hours ago, lraC said:

This is pure guesswork, but assuming agents are still involved in a deeper role than just acting as an agent for players, we have one that lives quite close to Ewood that ,may have preferred Rothwell to be a free agent.

More money in it for the player and the agent and none at all for the club. If the £6 million being banded about is true (subject to promotion being secured for Bournemouth), then a nice slice of that for the agent, could be a very tempting reason for him to stay put.

All is fair in love and war when it comes to agents commission, according to this article.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/agent-tony-mcgill-lost-390k-6931675

 

 

I think the safe bet would be to assume that agents are still working behind the scenes at this club. 

[Mattyblue]

Apropos of nothing, assuming Nyambe shortly goes with all the loanees, Ayala will be the only outfield non British & Irish born player on the books (and he’s spent his career in England).

That must be a pretty rare occurrence in the top two divisions in the modern game?

Edited May 2, 2022 by Mattyblue

[Miller11]

So, 2 down, 1 to go.

[Sweaty Gussets]

Blackburn Rovers contract stance on Bradley Dack and Daniel Ayala - LancsLive

JDT - "It's a conversation regarding the quality of the player and what you have in the building," Tomasson told Lancs Live on the pair's futures. "What you have in the youth, what you have in the building and what you can find, the financial side as well.

"We will make decisions as a club. Those two players have done a very good job for the club and this season as well. We are happy with them. It's something that more or less will be Gregg's department."

Gregg's call!

[RoverDom]

Get rid of Ayala unless you could convince him to take a huge pay cut. Getting half a season out of Ayala on cheapo wages - could do a lot worse. 

Dack I would keep unless we've got a 20+  season striker who we need the wages for. I don't want to free up Dacks wages to fund a disappointing loan fee