The Contract Situation

[Wood26]

On 13/12/2021 at 22:56, ben_the_beast said:

Exactly. We have far more to lose right now. To be honest I could take it or leave it as far as Nyambe is concerned. I don't think there will be a queue around the corner for him if he is asking for major money. Lenihan is our captain and is an important member of our inexperienced squad. Rothwell is the one. He merits being equal to our highest earners. 

I think the club need to budge first. Show that we are willing. Because the players. They will have other offers. We can talk about them being happy here etc. But the longer it goes on with the club not showing them they are valued. The closer they will get to being pissed off. 

I’d love to keep all 3 of them, but if they go then so be it. We don’t have money to replace any of them, which is the most disappointing part, but we will replace them one way or the other.

Right now Ayala can’t get in the side, and Buckley has done a great job at left back, although it’s not ideal.

When Dack is back, it’s likely Rothwell is the player to make way.

Love to keep them all, but if we don’t, we will replace them as always and move on.

[Mashed Potatoes]

14 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Interesting situation now. It’s clearly not in any of the holdouts’ interests to sign a pre-contract with any team not mid-table or better in the Prem or they may end up still in the Championship while we are in the Prem, and I don’t think any of them are good enough to attract that kind of suitor. It’s also not in our interests to sell any of them this window. So I think no-one is going anywhere.

Once we get to summer, the shoe is on the other foot: we’ve either gone up or given it a good go. If they all want Premiership football and we haven’t gone up, the only temptation may well be one of the relegated teams, and that can go either way. If we have gone up, they’ll sign for what we offer them.

I think players can only sign pre-contracts with clubs playing in other countries.

[Mashed Potatoes]

8 hours ago, riverholmes said:

I agree with that but I think if (big if) we were to go up, the trio will be approached by established Prem clubs, which would be a big temptation. Rothwell, for sure, would be wanted by half or more of the Prem, if he manages a full season of his current form. I think, whatever the scenario, it's likely our last season with him in the team. I hope I'm wrong, as I think we're seeing the making of an excellent player.

If Prem clubs really are interested then the club will receive offers for them in the forthcoming transfer window. Has there been any press reports of Prem clubs looking at the 3 out of contract ?

[Rochdale_rover]

All 3 are doing great at the minute.

The things is none of these 3 move an start straight away in the Premier league .

They arnt good enough . They are just playing well in a well drilled and organised team at present.

Rothwell for example could not play cm in the prem unless you had 2 sitting midfielders.

In the championship when he loses the ball and the midfield is left wide open he gets away with it 

Happened yesterday a couple of times.

But in the prem you would get punished .

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Rochdale_rover said:

All 3 are doing great at the minute.

The things is none of these 3 move an start straight away in the Premier league .

They arnt good enough . They are just playing well in a well drilled and organised team at present.

Rothwell for example could not play cm in the prem unless you had 2 sitting midfielders.

In the championship when he loses the ball and the midfield is left wide open he gets away with it 

Happened yesterday a couple of times.

But in the prem you would get punished .

It all comes down to a choice between playing regularly, or money. We have to make them want to stay at the Rovers. 

[JacknOry]

16 hours ago, Wood26 said:

I’d love to keep all 3 of them, but if they go then so be it. We don’t have money to replace any of them, which is the most disappointing part, but we will replace them one way or the other.

Right now Ayala can’t get in the side, and Buckley has done a great job at left back, although it’s not ideal.

When Dack is back, it’s likely Rothwell is the player to make way.

Love to keep them all, but if we don’t, we will replace them as always and move on.

Buckley has never played left back .

Dack has to earn a spot, we wont just budge out our top assister and arguably one of the top 3 best players of the seaon. 

 

[chaddyrovers]

Blackburn Rovers goalkeeper Thomas Kaminski insists he's more than happy at the club as talks continue over a new contract extension.

'Happy here' - Thomas Kaminski's view on his Blackburn Rovers future amid contract discussions - LancsLive

[JacknOry]

yeah good job Chadtser, you did mention we should sign him 3 seasons ago.

[Miller11]

None of the so called “contract rebels” look like they want out. The way Nyambe and Lenihan celebrated with each other immediately after the final whistle last night suggests they are going nowhere. 

[roversfan99]

Im not sure there has ever been a suggestion that they arent happy. Just that the budget from the owners isnt sufficient to come close to paying them the going rate.

[RevidgeBlue]

20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

 Just that the budget from the owners isnt sufficient to come close to paying them the going rate.

Or that their agents are being somewhat unrealistic maybe.

The suggestion above has primarily come from you with little evidence tbf.

[roversfan99]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Or that their agents are being somewhat unrealistic maybe.

The suggestion above has primarily come from you with little evidence tbf.

Its a fact that we arent offering them enough money, it has been publically said as such.

That may be simply the owners not putting enough money in the budget to protect key assets, it could be a case of players/agents asking for unrealistically high amounts, or it could most likely be somewhere in between.

[Miller11]

It’s definitely not as cut and dried as it was a couple of months ago. I expect the position of both the players and clubs has changed a bit considering how things are panning out… as ever agents have their own single agenda.

Keeping the squad together seems a sensible gamble for the club, and staying now offers the players as decent a chance of prem football (and salary) next year than any move they are likely to get.

[47er]

On 19/12/2021 at 12:31, Wood26 said:

I’d love to keep all 3 of them, but if they go then so be it. We don’t have money to replace any of them, which is the most disappointing part, but we will replace them one way or the other.

Right now Ayala can’t get in the side, and Buckley has done a great job at left back, although it’s not ideal.

When Dack is back, it’s likely Rothwell is the player to make way.

Love to keep them all, but if we don’t, we will replace them as always and move on.

Very complacent here. We might move on, we'll have no choice, the issue is will we move down? Losing 3 of your very best players doesn't seem a recipe for success to me!

Might never get another chance of promotion like this for years.

We can keep this side together to the end of the season and therefore we should.

[MarkBRFC]

Bloke on quest last night reckons Lenihans contract runs out summer 2023, surely he's got that wrong.

EDIT - My lad informs me the usual reliable Football Manager 22 lists Lenihan as having a 1 year extension in our favour, must be where he's had it from as can't say I have ever seen that reported.

Edited December 31, 2021 by MarkBRFC

[chaddyrovers]

 

 

[rigger]

In the latest article Mowbray states : In Sam Gallagher we have a center forward who can score 20 goals a season. If that is the case why does Mowbray play him on the wing ?

[chaddyrovers]

4 minutes ago, rigger said:

In the latest article Mowbray states : In Sam Gallagher we have a center forward who can score 20 goals a season. If that is the case why does Mowbray play him on the wing ?

He play one of 2 striker roles when played but Mowbray doesn't play the front 2 like Wilder or O'Neill does. Mowbray asked them to play wider and track back. It's has worked so far. 

I think Gallagher will get between 10 to 15 goals this season. 

[rigger]

1 hour ago, El Tombro said:

We only have one proper striker's position and it's hard to dislodge players who are banging in the goals - Armstrong last season, and Brereton this season.

I'm pleased Gally has signed on again. Like Brereton, he's improved in the last season or two, scoring five goals in 12 games so far this season. I like him a lot, and he's grown in confidence now that he's at the peak age. He works hard for the team, has stuck at it in an unfavoured position, and still has a lot to offer to Rovers.

I totally agree, I think if Diaz leaves, Gally will get that forward berth. What I can't understand, is if Mowbray acknowledges that Gally is a center forward, why he brings him on to play wide. In my opinion Gally should only be used to replace Diaz, during games. If a wide player is to be replaced, then for me Dolan would be a better option.

[roversfan99]

I wouldn't have given Gallagher a new deal personally, he contributes an unremarkable handful of goals each season and its easy to point to the Brereton miracle but I don't see Gallagher ever being prolific. He also has serious issues with muscular injuries so missed quite a lot of games, and hasn't developed his ability to bring others into play.

[only2garners]

3 hours ago, rigger said:

In the latest article Mowbray states : In Sam Gallagher we have a center forward who can score 20 goals a season. If that is the case why does Mowbray play him on the wing ?

Presumably because he already has another striker that has scored 20 in half a season?

[JHRover]

Good news on Gallagher although with my Mr Negative hat on again I do have to raise a few concerns.

Happy that he has signed an extension and happy that this seems to suggest that there is at least something happening at the club and some steps being taken to protect assets. This is the first 'major' contract extension in over a year since Dack extended his deal and by most accounts that one had been agreed and drafted before his first major injury.

So it has been a long old time since the Club tied down a senior player. And yes - I am aware that Wharton, Buckley, Dolan and JRC are now 'senior' players but their previous deals were not and converting what were effectively youth or u23 level deals into something reflective of their newfound status would not have been onerous on the club.

In terms of Gallagher I come back to what I said previously which is that I find his extension quite odd for 2-3 reasons. Firstly it is likely that he will already be one of our biggest earners having joined the Club from Southampton where he will have been on a big wage. Secondly we were under less pressure to extend his deal than most others in terms of timescales and performances.

These two factors suggest something amiss with the other players. How can it be that the Club has the resources and the proactiveness to secure Gallagher for longer yet has been unable, supposedly after years of talks, to secure lower earners yet more integral performers such as Lenihan, Nyambe and Rothwell to new terms.

My theory remains that someone upstairs at Rovers has realised that there has been a cock up with those other players and they are desperate to avoid the same happening with Gallagher. Particularly in the cases of Armstrong and Brereton someone in India shelled out big transfer fees to get those in here and both will have turned a healthy profit, albeit much less than we could have got had they been under long term contracts. As it stands, unless we get promoted, we will be forced to sell Brereton in the summer and we will get a fee reflective of his expiring contract - healthy but not a jackpot like we should get.

It wouldn't be the first time that certain players are treated differently to others - for example the owners won't strictly be out of pocket if Rothwell or Nyambe walk for nothing as they strictly cost the owners nothing to bring to the club. Gallagher cost them a lot.

I hope and pray that I am wrong with this and that new contracts follow for these others. I can understand Brereton not committing at this point but the rest - Nyambe, Rothwell, Lenihan, and yes we get onto Travis and Kaminski and even Buckley - need new, long term and improved deals otherwise the club is going to be left in a vulnerable position regardless of what happens in the next 4-5 months.

I'm struggling to understand why when the owners are pumping in the best part of £20 million each year and have recently 'sold' our training ground for £16 million to 'dodge' FFP rules that somewhere among that vast sum of cash and Armstrong sale there is insufficient cash to pay someone like Nyambe what he is after. As others have said he will almost certainly not get a PL move this summer so who is paying him substantially more than Venkys can and how?

 

[rigger]

1 minute ago, only2garners said:

Presumably because he already has another striker that has scored 20 in half a season?

 

1 minute ago, only2garners said:

Presumably because he already has another striker that has scored 20 in half a season?

So what you do is use Gally when Diaz needs resting, not to replace a wide attacker, for which Dolan is much more suited.

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

Good news on Gallagher although with my Mr Negative hat on again I do have to raise a few concerns.

Happy that he has signed an extension and happy that this seems to suggest that there is at least something happening at the club and some steps being taken to protect assets. This is the first 'major' contract extension in over a year since Dack extended his deal and by most accounts that one had been agreed and drafted before his first major injury.

So it has been a long old time since the Club tied down a senior player. And yes - I am aware that Wharton, Buckley, Dolan and JRC are now 'senior' players but their previous deals were not and converting what were effectively youth or u23 level deals into something reflective of their newfound status would not have been onerous on the club.

In terms of Gallagher I come back to what I said previously which is that I find his extension quite odd for 2-3 reasons. Firstly it is likely that he will already be one of our biggest earners having joined the Club from Southampton where he will have been on a big wage. Secondly we were under less pressure to extend his deal than most others in terms of timescales and performances.

These two factors suggest something amiss with the other players. How can it be that the Club has the resources and the proactiveness to secure Gallagher for longer yet has been unable, supposedly after years of talks, to secure lower earners yet more integral performers such as Lenihan, Nyambe and Rothwell to new terms.

My theory remains that someone upstairs at Rovers has realised that there has been a cock up with those other players and they are desperate to avoid the same happening with Gallagher. Particularly in the cases of Armstrong and Brereton someone in India shelled out big transfer fees to get those in here and both will have turned a healthy profit, albeit much less than we could have got had they been under long term contracts. As it stands, unless we get promoted, we will be forced to sell Brereton in the summer and we will get a fee reflective of his expiring contract - healthy but not a jackpot like we should get.

It wouldn't be the first time that certain players are treated differently to others - for example the owners won't strictly be out of pocket if Rothwell or Nyambe walk for nothing as they strictly cost the owners nothing to bring to the club. Gallagher cost them a lot.

I hope and pray that I am wrong with this and that new contracts follow for these others. I can understand Brereton not committing at this point but the rest - Nyambe, Rothwell, Lenihan, and yes we get onto Travis and Kaminski and even Buckley - need new, long term and improved deals otherwise the club is going to be left in a vulnerable position regardless of what happens in the next 4-5 months.

I'm struggling to understand why when the owners are pumping in the best part of £20 million each year and have recently 'sold' our training ground for £16 million to 'dodge' FFP rules that somewhere among that vast sum of cash and Armstrong sale there is insufficient cash to pay someone like Nyambe what he is after. As others have said he will almost certainly not get a PL move this summer so who is paying him substantially more than Venkys can and how?

 

The clubs ability to sign up key first teamers on longer term deals is a concern, it seems that we have a very strict wage budget forced upon us by recent cost cutting by the owners, which long term is counter productive.

With Gallagher though and I mentioned in another thread, Rich Sharpe said that any new deal will have little if any of a pay rise, the difference to the wage bill will be minimal. He hasn't got the power to demand an increase and is unlikely to get a similar deal elsewhere, he is injured quite a bit, his performances since joining have been unremarkable (not without use but nothing special) and he has 18 months left on his deal.

With Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan, they all will justifiably want significant increases on their previous deals when their negotiating power was much weaker, and also they hold further power in only having 6 months left. Brereton's rise has been even more sizable and although he has 18 months left, he is in a massive position of power too. Extending any of these makes sense partially to protect assets, but would all considerably increase the wage bill, something which the owners seem unwilling to sanction. 

The different contract situations are not comparable.

[JHRover]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The clubs ability to sign up key first teamers on longer term deals is a concern, it seems that we have a very strict wage budget forced upon us by recent cost cutting by the owners, which long term is counter productive.

With Gallagher though and I mentioned in another thread, Rich Sharpe said that any new deal will have little if any of a pay rise, the difference to the wage bill will be minimal. He hasn't got the power to demand an increase and is unlikely to get a similar deal elsewhere, he is injured quite a bit, his performances since joining have been unremarkable (not without use but nothing special) and he has 18 months left on his deal.

With Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan, they all will justifiably want significant increases on their previous deals when their negotiating power was much weaker, and also they hold further power in only having 6 months left. Brereton's rise has been even more sizable and although he has 18 months left, he is in a massive position of power too. Extending any of these makes sense partially to protect assets, but would all considerably increase the wage bill, something which the owners seem unwilling to sanction. 

The different contract situations are not comparable.

I get what you are saying but it comes back to this:
 

An extra year for Gallagher, at say £15,000 per week, is an extra commitment from the owners of about £700,000-800,000 (assuming he gets no pay rise). As you say his performances to date unremarkable and unlikely to see a profit on the fee paid for him at this point. Work for him to do to deliver a profit.

An extra two years for Nyambe - lets say he's on £5000 a week now and wants £10,000 - that increase would be a commitment of £500,000 from the owners, yet immediately it would see his transfer value go from £0 in the summer to multi-millions. Overnight, just by signing the deal. 

I get the owners might be reluctant to increase the wage bill but it isn't as simple as that - there has to be an analysis of what happens if they leave for nothing - it costs the owners millions more in lost value and having to source replacements in a difficult market. 

And lets remember that whilst these deals might add substantially to the current wage bill, it would still be way, way, way below what it was last season which we are told had to be slashed only because of FFP rules.