v Middlesbrough (a) - 15/10/22

[47er]

2 hours ago, Blue blood said:

I get football is all about opinions but this is pretty silly. Chelsea should let Mount and James go for free because they came through the ranks and cost nothing? Or TAA from Liverpool. Maybe the Wharton lads should be allowed to run down their contract? Terrible logic.

Also given the fees we paid for Brittan and Hyam and SS it clearly did cost us something to replace them. I mean they literally cost fees. Two of the three literally are like for like replacements. To say it doesn't cost us anything is a denial of reality. 

I'd also question the issue that no one wanted them on a number of fronts. Most pertinently though we wanted them, hence the contract offers and we didn't get them, so it's hardly like it's no loss given that we wanted them to stay. 

I also have doubts there's any club who lost so much of their team for free but haven't any stats to hand. Mind you that doesn't really matter as when you are going to make up straw man arguments like costing us nothing.

I'm afraid on this one it's pretty undisputable the club dropped a clanger. 

Yeah,well said. We shouldn't have bothered securing Philips either because he cost us nowt!

[1864roverite]

12 hours ago, 47er said:

Which Championship club lost 3 regular players last summer?

bumley lost  6 alone

[1864roverite]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

Yeah,well said. We shouldn't have bothered securing Philips either because he cost us nowt!

Phillips is a young upcoming star not a 28yr old player looking for a last pay day its non comparable as he will more likely command a fee that will outnumber anything Lenihan has earned at Ewood in his career.

[1864roverite]

4 hours ago, Blue blood said:

I get football is all about opinions but this is pretty silly. Chelsea should let Mount and James go for free because they came through the ranks and cost nothing? Or TAA from Liverpool. Maybe the Wharton lads should be allowed to run down their contract? Terrible logic.

Also given the fees we paid for Brittan and Hyam and SS it clearly did cost us something to replace them. I mean they literally cost fees. Two of the three literally are like for like replacements. To say it doesn't cost us anything is a denial of reality. 

I'd also question the issue that no one wanted them on a number of fronts. Most pertinently though we wanted them, hence the contract offers and we didn't get them, so it's hardly like it's no loss given that we wanted them to stay. 

I also have doubts there's any club who lost so much of their team for free but haven't any stats to hand. Mind you that doesn't really matter as when you are going to make up straw man arguments like costing us nothing.

I'm afraid on this one it's pretty undisputable the club dropped a clanger. 

The players you mention are young and established international players none of the ex-Rovers 3 are/were. 

A players valuation decreases over the period of his contract as he gets older, not one of the three would have garnished significant fees whereas Hyam has the potential for added value as does Brittain.

I dont accept the blame the club in its entirety the players have 50% blame as well!

 

[1864roverite]

3 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

1864’s mental gymnastics are something to behold these days. Strong stuff that tea…

Oops I forgot that you are always right!!😀

[47er]

11 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

bumley lost  6 alone

Oh come off it! That's an example of a club demoted from the Premier league! Pathetic.

[47er]

10 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Phillips is a young upcoming star not a 28yr old player looking for a last pay day its non comparable as he will more likely command a fee that will outnumber anything Lenihan has earned at Ewood in his career.

So it depends on the age then and the size of the fee. You'll say anything to defend this club. Joke.

Praise them when they do something good, criticise when they stuff up. That's normal.

[Mattyblue]

Debating like a 12 year old again, I see 🙄

[1864roverite]

3 hours ago, 47er said:

Oh come off it! That's an example of a club demoted from the Premier league! Pathetic.

you asked for examples and got one!

[1864roverite]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Debating like a 12 year old again, I see 🙄

No just against others who have differing views like yourself and who don't appear to accept that.

[Mattyblue]

I accept your view, but I disagree with it. Kind of the whole point of a forum…

[Blue blood]

7 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

The players you mention are young and established international players none of the ex-Rovers 3 are/were.

 I also asked should we let the Wharton lads run their contracts down? Not internationals but pretty crucial to us. 

And as for the 3 I think Nayambe regularly plays for his country and Lenihen has a few caps? Also it's championship level Vs prem level, but I think you can make the adjustment unless you are saying it's a different story for the premier league?

Perhaps most pertinently all three were established in the Rovers team. And that what counts most to the club. 

7 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

 

A players valuation decreases over the period of his contract as he gets older, not one of the three would have garnished significant fees whereas Hyam has the potential for added value as does Brittain.

Firstly all three were in their prime and therefore saleable assets. You talk about them getting older but they weren't at the twilight of their career by any stretch. To say they had no value because of their age blatantly isn't true. 

Not true about the fees either. Rothwell for example we reputedly turned down a fee of £6 million for which is a sizeable fee. Also given what other players of similar calibre have gone for I would suggest the fees would be decent. 

Even if the fees aren't great (which I don't think would be true) then to quote Tesco every little helps. Even if we got a fraction of what it costs through selling them that still would have contributed significantly to funding the replacements. Britain for example was £1 million, even the most pessimistic of views would show we'd have certainly recouped that. The lack of fees could very likely be the difference between at least one more addition and not. 

7 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

I dont accept the blame the club in its entirety the players have 50% blame as well!

 

This is the debate - how much are the club to blame? Glad we agree the club did arse it up. I think 50:50 is too generous to the club. If we had things sorted in time then a decision on a non signing player could have made with at least a year, maybe 18 months to go. That way we'd have got some return on them. Instead that's when we start negotiations leaving us up the creak. Given it's also happened with Armstrong and Bereton I think it shows the trend of the club badly managing this. Also given players can and do run down contracts it's something the club should have been prepared for. I'd say 80:20 minimum the club are to blame. 

[47er]

8 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

you asked for examples and got one!

childish

[Upside Down]

I know you are but what am I?