January Transfer window 2022

[islander200]

2 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

If you think the most we are paying is 10k, I'm highly confident you're very wrong. Talk in the past has been of more like double that being the ceiling. I'd be astonished if Dack is on less than 15k.

We are deffo paying more than 10k a week.

Iv read and heard Dack is on £18.5 a week.Gallagher on 20+ a week at Southampton isn't coming here for £10k.And it was reported at the time that Mulgrew was earning 14k a week

[islander200]

Diallo who was mentioned as a possible loan signing is joining Rangers for rest of season

[Miller11]

3 hours ago, Mellor Rover said:

The contract situation has been an odd one for me.

Lenihan's was completely mis-manged, had his disciplinary concerns, but always been solid.

Rothwell, I'll be honest, I'd have sold in summer. Glad I'm not making them decisions now! Will be a huge loss.

Nyambe's sounds mostly (albeit from the club) to be player driven, rather than an insulting package from us. He's young, no commitments, and been here 13 years. May well just fancy a new challenge. Again, before the season, if it was clear he wasn't going to sign I'd have sold then.

The improvements in both Lenihan and Rothwell this season have been enormous. I thought they’d probably both plateaued in terms of their development, but at 27 they have both really pushed on. Any contracts they were offered 18 months ago definitely need revisiting and upping.

I’d disagree with your assessment of the Nyambe situation. It’s well documented there is a real issue in terms of contract offers for academy graduates. Nyambe is now a well established first teamer and an international who will be nearing 200 first team appearances by the end of the season. He shouldn’t be bracketed in with players like Butterworth, Rankin-Costello and, as good as he has been, Wharton. He’s been paid less than Davenport and up until last summer Chapman, and all the whispers I am hearing suggest his offer (again put on the table 18 months ago) was a poor one, certainly not in keeping with his position in the squad. We may well see a similar situation with Travis next year.

Anyway, it makes little sense for the club or players to arty too much about contracts right now. Revisit it when next season is a bit clearer.

[Torgeir]

4 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

I still think Boro or Forest will come through the pack and challenge. QPR are due some bad luck.

I don’t think Edun is good enough at protecting the back three like Travis is. The latter is a big key, even if his performances vary he’s a constant nuisance to the opposition and is probably our second smartest player after Ayala. Johnson did well against Bork but struggles to find the rhythm of the games when coming off the bench. I’d like a combative central mf’er in, and a forward. Other than that we’re good I think. 

[Torgeir]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

I think Rothwell doesn't want to go because of the bonus on the table. So doesn't really matter what people offer him unless it's worth more than the bonus.

He’ll want to stay longer if we win promotion. Improved contract offer likely if that happens, plus a crack at the big time. 
 

[tomphil]

47 minutes ago, islander200 said:

We are deffo paying more than 10k a week.

Iv read and heard Dack is on £18.5 a week.Gallagher on 20+ a week at Southampton isn't coming here for £10k.And it was reported at the time that Mulgrew was earning 14k a week

The way iv'e read it is they get good bonuses that can net them 20/25k pwk.

Appearances, goals, wins etc.

Not a bad way to do things although you can see why he's always in a rush to get the likes of Gally and Ayala on as soon a he can. Keep the boys happy.

[Paul Mani]

I find it amazing that people are so adamant we’ve managed the contract situations so badly. It’s pretty obvious that we’ve offered them all new deals that have been on the table for months. None of us know the details of those deals but it seems that many are surmising that the deals are not good enough when it’s just as likely that the deals are fine and that the players are choosing not to sign because they feel they can get more.

The signing of the deal is the job of the player guys, if they don’t want to sign and we aren’t prepared to break our wage structure then so be it. It doesn’t have to be a failing….just is what it is.

[yankfan]

16 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

I find it amazing that people are so adamant we’ve managed the contract situations so badly. It’s pretty obvious that we’ve offered them all new deals that have been on the table for months. None of us know the details of those deals but it seems that many are surmising that the deals are not good enough when it’s just as likely that the deals are fine and that the players are choosing not to sign because they feel they can get more.

The signing of the deal is the job of the player guys, if they don’t want to sign and we aren’t prepared to break our wage structure then so be it. It doesn’t have to be a failing….just is what it is.

If the deals aren’t signed because they players believe they can get more, isn’t that the definition of the deals not being good enough? 

[JHRover]

25 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

I find it amazing that people are so adamant we’ve managed the contract situations so badly. It’s pretty obvious that we’ve offered them all new deals that have been on the table for months. None of us know the details of those deals but it seems that many are surmising that the deals are not good enough when it’s just as likely that the deals are fine and that the players are choosing not to sign because they feel they can get more.

The signing of the deal is the job of the player guys, if they don’t want to sign and we aren’t prepared to break our wage structure then so be it. It doesn’t have to be a failing….just is what it is.

That might be all well and good if 2 or 3 had signed up and 2 or 3 were hanging off signing. That might suggest that reasonable offers were being made but some were following advice not to sign because they might get better elsewhere.

(Where on earth they are expecting to get those better deals I am not sure as there aren't many Championship clubs able to burn through £20 million a year like we can)

Fact of the matter is that all of them are refusing to sign, which tells me there is something very wrong with our approach. This isn't one or two players it is 5 or 6 and these offers have been on the table for many months. I am also convinced that had he been given the freedom to do so Mowbray would have given new deals to at least a few of those who left last summer.

It is abundantly clear that there have been considerable cuts to spending and Mowbray has admitted that in interviews whilst leaping to the owners defence blaming the pandemic and refusing them to criticise them for it.

Whether it be due to FFP or the pandemic or the owners cutting their overheads it is a fact that outgoings have been cut. In view of that it baffles me why so many are happy to go with the belief that good sensible offers have been made and are on the table when all other steps by the club have been to cut costs yet apparently they are making improved offers to players?. Seems to me far more likely that the club smells an opportunity to make further cuts or that Venkys have refused wage increases. When you look at things from that standpoint everything we have seen makes perfect sense.

Of course the elephant in the room is the loss of assets that have taken years and cost fortunes to develop on free transfers to rival clubs but that seems to be a risk they are happy to take, or in the case of Venkys simply don't care about.

Edited January 27, 2022 by JHRover

[islander200]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

That might be all well and good if 2 or 3 had signed up and 2 or 3 were hanging off signing. That might suggest that reasonable offers were being made but some were following advice not to sign because they might get better elsewhere.

(Where on earth they are expecting to get those better deals I am not sure as there aren't many Championship clubs able to burn through £20 million a year like we can)

Fact of the matter is that all of them are refusing to sign, which tells me there is something very wrong with our approach. This isn't one or two players it is 5 or 6 and these offers have been on the table for many months. I am also convinced that had he been given the freedom to do so Mowbray would have given new deals to at least a few of those who left last summer.

It is abundantly clear that there have been considerable cuts to spending and Mowbray has admitted that in interviews whilst leaping to the owners defence blaming the pandemic and refusing them to criticise them for it.

Whether it be due to FFP or the pandemic or the owners cutting their overheads it is a fact that outgoings have been cut. In view of that it baffles me why so many are happy to go with the belief that good sensible offers have been made and are on the table. Seems to me far more likely that the club smells an opportunity to make further cuts or that Venkys have refused wage increases. When you look at things from that standpoint everything we have seen makes perfect sense.

Of course the elephant in the room is the loss of assets that have taken years and cost fortunes to develop on free transfers to rival clubs but that seems to be a risk they are happy to take, or in the case of Venkys simply don't care about.

It was the right thing not to renew any of the out of contract players.

If the finance was available going off Mowbrays demeanor at the time then Evans and Bennett at the the very least would still be here.

We wouldnt be sat 2nd now and the likes of Buckley would still be living off the occasional start and coming off the bench.

Nyambe is the biggest disappointment.To be fair to the club Rothwell wasn't worthy of higher end wages 12-18 months ago similar with Lenihen.

Nothing is going to happen on the contract front now.Lets carry on our form, secure promotion and see what happens 

[only2garners]

12 minutes ago, yankfan said:

If the deals aren’t signed because they players believe they can get more, isn’t that the definition of the deals not being good enough? 

Well no, because the players believing they can get a better deal elsewhere doesn't mean that there are actually better offers out there. Maybe what they have found is that what Rovers are offering is actually what they are worth. None of us knows one way or the other.

My understanding in all three cases is that it is their agents who are advising the players not to sign. Now that might be because they believe that there are better offers but if that was the reality would they not be nearer the door?

It is clearly the agent's job to get the best financial deal for their player but it's also in the agent's interest to encourage movement. It could simply be that not signing allows the agent and player to test the market. Maybe they will decide to sign at the last minute - unlikely now. Maybe they will just run their contract down and look again for next season - probably attractive as the chance of a big promotion bonus is there if they stay until May.

Whatever, it looks like the club are determined not to let them go unless someone comes up with a completely daft bid at the last minute. I can't see it but maybe someone like Newcastle are daft enough.

[joey_big_nose]

16 minutes ago, yankfan said:

If the deals aren’t signed because they players believe they can get more, isn’t that the definition of the deals not being good enough? 

I suppose a line has just been drawn in the sand on what we will accept.  TBH - if not paying over the odds keeps the club on a better financial footing and we bring through young players who perform it can't be a bad thing. 

Having a lower wage budget is not necessarily an impediment to success. Teams with modest wages have done well (Brentford, Huddersfield a few years back etc), while teams with huge wage budgets (including us after our prem relegation, Sunderland etc) have not done that well. We've spent little but are currently having our best season in 10 years. Its not really spend more get more. 

 

[Paul Mani]

26 minutes ago, yankfan said:

If the deals aren’t signed because they players believe they can get more, isn’t that the definition of the deals not being good enough? 

Eh? Simple answer - No.

[RevidgeBlue]

50 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

I find it amazing that people are so adamant we’ve managed the contract situations so badly. It’s pretty obvious that we’ve offered them all new deals that have been on the table for months. None of us know the details of those deals but it seems that many are surmising that the deals are not good enough when it’s just as likely that the deals are fine and that the players are choosing not to sign because they feel they can get more.

The signing of the deal is the job of the player guys, if they don’t want to sign and we aren’t prepared to break our wage structure then so be it. It doesn’t have to be a failing….just is what it is.

Or perhaps the offers on the table aren't good enough because for example the manager, like you, holds the ludicrous view that JRC is better than Nyambe?

[joey_big_nose]

32 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Fact of the matter is that all of them are refusing to sign, which tells me there is something very wrong with our approach. This isn't one or two players it is 5 or 6 and these offers have been on the table for many months. I am also convinced that had he been given the freedom to do so Mowbray would have given new deals to at least a few of those who left last summer.

Yes its a funny game. We were all thinking we were heading for a really tough season losing Armstrong, Elliott, THB, Holtby etc and not bringing much in. But we're having a great season. 

Mowbray not being able to extend the old guard was a blessing. And that's not really to pick on Mowbray - I think most managers would extend the more senior players if the squad was light on experience. But I think the big learning generally is experience isn't maybe as important as is sometimes thought, and you can do a lot with young players if you have a very strong academy as we luckily do.

So in that model if Lenihan, Rothwell, Nyambe have been offered reasonable deals and they don't want to sign let them go and lets bring Wharton, Garrett etc through. \

I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of all this they do actually end up signing anyway whether we go up or not as our offer is probably pretty competitive unless a prem or parachute club come in.

Edit - actually I will be surprised for Rothwell or Lenihan, they will definitely be offered by a prem or parachute club as Rothwell already has. Nyambe I think may not get quite as much interest.

Edited January 27, 2022 by joey_big_nose

[Guest]

Or they didn’t think we’d be in the position where we are last summer and so didn’t want to commit 3/4 years.

[Ossydave]

No point in going over and over the contract situation, if we want to offer more to players we simply need to get promoted or add another 10k to the attendance every week 🤨

Also on the subject of goalkeepers and Pears being shite, is it not time our academy started knocking a few decent ones out? That's who we should be looking to for backup instead of attempting so sign back up.....

[RevidgeBlue]

15 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

Eh? Simple answer - No.

Simple answer yes - because the players or possibly their agents have decided the deals aren't good enough.

The fault on this lies with the Club. It's down to the manager to prioritise and identify which are our really important players that need rewarding accordingly and those which aren't quite as crucial. Mowbray has failed to do that over the last few seasons and has thrown silly money at players who aren't up to it and squad fillers.

Then, when you've successfully identified your key players you need to get the deals done in good time. By the time you've left it too late as we did with these 3, all the power lies with the player.

Edited January 27, 2022 by RevidgeBlue

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Ossydave said:

No point in going over and over the contract situation, if we want to offer more to players we simply need to get promoted or add another 10k to the attendance every week 🤨

Also on the subject of goalkeepers and Pears being shite, is it not time our academy started knocking a few decent ones out? That's who we should be looking to for backup instead of attempting so sign back up.....

I was wondering the other day why we never seem to get any striking sensations coming out of the Academy.

It always seems to be either centre halves or even more predominantly slightly built technically gifted midfielders.

[darrenrover]

46 minutes ago, yankfan said:

If the deals aren’t signed because they players believe they can get more, isn’t that the definition of the deals not being good enough? 

No.

It's what BRFC think the player is worth paying.

If they think they can get more elsewhere, that's the players (and/or their agents) prerogative. If the phone's not ringing with countless offers from other clubs (which it's not), the players should commit IMO and would be stupid not to.

[Gav]

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

I find it amazing that people are so adamant we’ve managed the contract situations so badly. It’s pretty obvious that we’ve offered them all new deals that have been on the table for months. None of us know the details of those deals but it seems that many are surmising that the deals are not good enough when it’s just as likely that the deals are fine and that the players are choosing not to sign because they feel they can get more.

The signing of the deal is the job of the player guys, if they don’t want to sign and we aren’t prepared to break our wage structure then so be it. It doesn’t have to be a failing….just is what it is.

Where have you been for the past 10yrs Paul? This lot have handled everything badly, I'm still waiting for Hoilett to sign........

I look at it this way, would the club under Williams and Walker have allowed 3 or 4 first team regulars in 1992 or 2001 squads to run down the contracts in the promotion season? Not a bleedin chance!

Its not like we're getting the wages under control at the club, they've been off the scale for past 10yrs under this shower and will remain so because they couldn't care less, its pocket change to them.

[1864roverite]

As it currently stands there have been only 2 derisory bids for Rothwell and not a single bid for DL or RN despite their form and despite the performance of the team that in itself paints a picture that it’s not all rosey outside of Ewood. It also clearly tells us all that there are bit bigger offers on the table from other Championship clubs there’s not even conclusive suggestions or evidence that premier league clubs are ready to move in with bids!

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, Gav said:

Where have you been for the past 10yrs Paul? This lot have handled everything badly, I'm still waiting for Hoilett to sign........

I look at it this way, would the club under Williams and Walker have allowed 3 or 4 first team regulars in 1992 or 2001 squads to run down the contracts in the promotion season? Not a bleedin chance!

Its not like we're getting the wages under control at the club, they've been off the scale for past 10yrs under this shower and will remain so because they couldn't care less, its pocket change to them.

Broadly agree Gav.

The only thing I'd say is "FFP" but even so you've  got to recognise who your better players are and pay them accordingly and not waste money on giving the likes of Bennett, Evans, Downing, Gladwin deals and pay Charlie Mulgrew £2m quid over 2 years to play for Fleetwood.

[islander200]

7 minutes ago, Gav said:

Where have you been for the past 10yrs Paul? This lot have handled everything badly, I'm still waiting for Hoilett to sign........

I look at it this way, would the club under Williams and Walker have allowed 3 or 4 first team regulars in 1992 or 2001 squads to run down the contracts in the promotion season? Not a bleedin chance!

Its not like we're getting the wages under control at the club, they've been off the scale for past 10yrs under this shower and will remain so because they couldn't care less, its pocket change to them.

And what about FFP Gav?We were paying Rhodes 35k a week so they have paid big wages in this division.

Our wages running 180% to turnover prior to this summer,were we didn't renew some of the higher earning older players.

The wages did need cutting it wasnt sustainable to keep running our wage bill as high with income into the club minimal.

The owners are only allowed to put so much in, and a look at the accounts tells us they are putting in what they can every season.

It wasn't a promotion season until our good run after the Fulham game.

[RevidgeBlue]

17 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

No.

It's what BRFC think the player is worth paying.

If they think they can get more elsewhere, that's the players (and/or their agents) prerogative. If the phone's not ringing with countless offers from other clubs (which it's not), the players should commit IMO and would be stupid not to.

It's timing surely. If you make this players sensible enough and improved offers before the start of the 2020/21 season it's hard to believe any of them aren't signing them with 2 years still to run on their current deals.