v Birmingham (h) - 18/12/21

[Blue blood]

30 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Remember Lucas Neill? Even the great John Williams could not stop player power when they want to run their contract down.

I think that's the point. That occasionally players do run down their contracts but most of the time this doesn't - or didn't - happen at Rovers. Make no mistake about it under Hughes most of the team was highly desirable and yet there's only one example of it. So for us to now have 4 first team 11 members doing this is very unusual. 

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

There is also a huge risk in losing our players in January, more of a risk than this 'wage structure' being broke in my view. Until it emerged recently that three players haven't accepted the club's offer I hadn't heard the words 'wage structure' relating to Rovers for many years. Now it's being banded about to pass the buck on to the players in my opinion and make them appear mercenary.

With Waggott and these owners who knows what will happen but the reality is this could derail a real chance of promotion and in all honesty would fit in with the crazy decision making over the last decade.

It keeps being spun on here as breaking the wage structure but there is no evidence of that. It's assumed most of these guys are on lower end wages and the might want parity with some others. That results in a large rise % wise from what they are on now but not necessarily busting 15 grand a week each.

Waggot and co seem to be judging them on future values if we read whats been said i'e what he thinks they might sell for in a season or two after the club has committed to pay rises.  That's not the same as trying to say oh they all want what Gallagher is on. Gallagher who's been offered an extension by the way despite being high paid but more of a squad man - because he's a striker so 'might' double in value quickly.

They need to look at these lads as how important they are to the team and club and not oh we'll only offer you a couple of grand more because you'll never be worth more than 2 or 3 million.

Really, who trusts Waggots judgement ?   There's very little evidence for that because he's landed us in this situation in the first place.

[Gav]

13 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Even Williams couldn’t do anything more if the players refuse to sign deals out in front of them 

We could potentially lose 5 first team players shortly, can you ever remember a time when that happened under John Williams? 

I'll answer for you, no ney never, because John and Jack would never have allowed the place to be run by a third rate CEO and bargain basement owners. 

[tomphil]

38 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Remember Lucas Neill? Even the great John Williams could not stop player power when they want to run their contract down.

Good old Lucas turned down Liverpool for West Ham and 75k a week from the 30 ish he was on at Rovers.

Lucas still ended up bankrupt so not a great example to use i don't think.

[arbitro]

17 minutes ago, Gav said:

We could potentially lose 5 first team players shortly, can you ever remember a time when that happened under John Williams? 

I'll answer for you, no ney never, because John and Jack would never have allowed the place to be run by a third rate CEO and bargain basement owners. 

There was proper succession planning under John Williams and Tom Finn. I remember players were offered new deals well before their old ones run down and invariably they signed. I remember Garry Flitcroft saying he was offered a new deal when he was rehabilitating after an awful injury. He cited that as the main reason for his loyalty which is a two way street.

It's incredible to think that our season and probably the best chance of promotion could be derailed by money when you consider how much this lot have spunked on absolute dross. Only under Venkys could this surreality occur.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

25 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Good old Lucas turned down Liverpool for West Ham and 75k a week from the 30 ish he was on at Rovers.

Lucas still ended up bankrupt so not a great example to use i don't think.

Yes its a great example. Lucas wanted to leave for a better deal. He refused a better deal and got the deal HE or his agent wanted. I used it as Gav said the even great John Williams would not allow these incidents to happen. I was just proving that in times past the club cannot control it. 

Granted I can't remember so many being up at once nor am I defending the present Rovers staff just pointing out that it has happened before. 

What became of Neill after or where he went to is irrelevent. Some may say his bankruptency as Karma 

[1864roverite]

36 minutes ago, Gav said:

We could potentially lose 5 first team players shortly, can you ever remember a time when that happened under John Williams? 

I'll answer for you, no ney never, because John and Jack would never have allowed the place to be run by a third rate CEO and bargain basement owners. 

Oh I am in agreement with most of your post however I reinforce the view that neither JW or Jack would fare better in the current scenario - it is the player and agent alone whom holds the cards and have done as each contract passes the half way mark!

[dingles staying down 4ever]

43 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

I think that's the point. That occasionally players do run down their contracts but most of the time this doesn't - or didn't - happen at Rovers. Make no mistake about it under Hughes most of the team was highly desirable and yet there's only one example of it. So for us to now have 4 first team 11 members doing this is very unusual. 

As you say the better players were desirable but in most circumstances, when a club called and a player wanted to leave we ended up selling. End of contract never came into the equation. The player got his way. I grant you I can only remember Neill keeping his options open to the end but the players usually held the power. 

The Colin Hendry fiasco where he signed a contract one day to change his mind the day after and forced a move to Rangers proved that the players held power and even the great Mr Williams could not control that.

The issue is that we have so many player's contracts up at once. The fact that so many players are waiting just goes to show how big a mistake that is.

[Gav]

2 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Oh I am in agreement with most of your post however I reinforce the view that neither JW or Jack would fare better in the current scenario - it is the player and agent alone whom holds the cards and have done as each contract passes the half way mark!

Jack and John Williams would never have allowed us to get into this scenario in the first place, as history quite clearly shows us. As Tony says above, succession planning is part of the role, Waggott probably doesn't have the tools in his locker to adopt such a plan.

Do you think the teams around us are in the same strife as we could potentially find ourselves? I'd say not, which already gives them a significant advantage over us for the run in. 

[rigger]

1 minute ago, Gav said:

Jack and John Williams would never have allowed us to get into this scenario in the first place, as history quite clearly shows us. As Tony says above, succession planning is part of the role, Waggott probably doesn't have the tools in his locker to adopt such a plan.

Do you think the teams around us are in the same strife as we could potentially find ourselves? I'd say not, which already gives them a significant advantage over us for the run in. 

The only significant advantage is, points on the board. 

[47er]

17 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Oh I am in agreement with most of your post however I reinforce the view that neither JW or Jack would fare better in the current scenario - it is the player and agent alone whom holds the cards and have done as each contract passes the half way mark!

You'd have to say though that we haven't managed this situation very well? Putting decisions off to the last possible minute is Venky style to a tee.

[1864roverite]

1 minute ago, 47er said:

You'd have to say though that we haven't managed this situation very well? Putting decisions off to the last possible minute is Venky style to a tee.

Would you accept it if someone told you they out of the 3 players 2 of them had contracts offered 19 months ago?

I cannot disagree its abysmal management and indeed we have to accept that covid issues have played some part with financial issues but no I know full well both would have not got this far whilst at the same time Jack would have sold them !

[rigger]

To tell the truth, I am not too bothered about players running down contracts, if they are playing well. It's when they are running down contracts and not putting a shift in, that winds me up.

[47er]

2 hours ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

That’s needlessly provocative.

Rubbish ( or is that provocative too?) You can't run a football club like a bike shop. When opportunities come along you have to seize them. We have waited a long time to get as near to promotion as we are now.

Why let it slip for what will be peanuts comparatively if we were promoted?

If we allow several of our best players to leave because we wouldn't pay them what they believe they could earn elsewhere, it will prove conclusively to me that Venkys are not serious about this club regaining a place in the Premier League.

[47er]

5 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Would you accept it if someone told you they out of the 3 players 2 of them had contracts offered 19 months ago?

But that's meaningless if we don't know what was offered!!!

[47er]

6 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

I cannot disagree its abysmal management and indeed we have to accept that covid issues have played some part with financial issues but no I know full well both would have not got this far whilst at the same time Jack would have sold them !

I never used the term "abysmal"---see how you ratcheted  it up there?

Secondly, you know no such thing. Very few players ,if any, left Rovers for issues over pay in Jack's time.

That full-back who went to United and rarely played for them is the only one I can think of.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Will someone please make it abundantly clear to our absent owners the riches that lay just around the corner with promotion.

I'm now terrified they will make stupid and rash decisions when we appear to be in a position of strength for the first time in a decade....they have form!

Oh Lord!

 

[davulsukur]

*Watches highlights*

*Closes Skysports app*

*Opens YouTube app*

First video in feed, Blackburn v Birmingham highlights.

 

[47er]

2 hours ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

That’s needlessly provocative.

Its reasonable to point out that breaking the wage structure for a number of players will render said structure completely redundant. That’s fine if we secure promotion but it’s a gamble which could lock us into an even more precarious financial position if we fail.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s a very difficult situation and demanding that the club simply give the players whatever they want overlooks the potentially significant consequences.

Rich Sharpe in the LT gets it---why can't you?

This has to be seen as a real opportunity by everyone affiliated with the club, players, management, supporters and the owners.

Simply put: this side cannot be broken up. At the very least Rovers must have this group of players still together, the ideal scenario would be to add some depth to it.

[J*B]

1 hour ago, davulsukur said:

*Watches highlights*

*Closes Skysports app*

*Opens YouTube app*

First video in feed, Blackburn v Birmingham highlights.

 

Followed up by your own MOTM review on the BRFCS match centre, one would hope! 

https://www.brfcs.com/magazine/football/match/717061/blackburn-birmingham

[booth]

2 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

Even Williams couldn’t do anything more if the players refuse to sign deals out in front of them 

Huge bonuses for promotion?

[JBiz]

13 minutes ago, booth said:

Huge bonuses for promotion?

I would imagine that’s standard for any contract below top flight.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

5 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I would imagine that’s standard for any contract below top flight.

Then drive the incentive, double the win bonus, goals scored etc. 

[USABlue]

14 hours ago, 47er said:

This is a worry, always has to be one I'm afraid!

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59713763

Our management team need to be putting together a history of our ither want away stars to present to our contractually challenged players.

 The number of players who were doing very very well here then moved for big monies only to pretty much disappear into the sunset, never again reaching the performance highs they had at Rovers.  Sadly we don't have a tangible plan that shows the club has real ambition with our stay away owners.  It's a damn shame but I think we will lose all of em.  Could be a flash in the plan but I think we just might be on the cusp of something special.we.need.ti make these young uns understand that.

[USABlue]

14 hours ago, 47er said:

This is a worry, always has to be one I'm afraid!

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59713763

Forgot to mention poor do's by Mowbary he should be selling these kids a dream nit throwing his arms in the air going oh well.  Fight Mowbary fight.