[Archived] Bentley

[rover6]

Losing your best midfielder is an easier pill to swallow when you get a big fee for him. The comparisons with Duff ring true. We were very reliant on Duff for creativity (too reliant) and the same had became true of Bentley. We must not repeat the transfer errors made by Souness after selling Duff. We signed a right footed "worker" (Steven Reid) to replace a wing wizard.

People often say, "you can't replace someone like Duff or Bentley." You can't if you don't try.

When Souness signed Reid to play left wing, he was not trying.

In addition, from reports, Alan Judge put in a very useful performance against Northwich Victoria (central midfield), which follows up good cameos with the firsts. If he is permitted to settle down in one position, he could be a really useful player for us in the future - maybe, even, Bentley's long-term successor.

[Trickstar]

Does anyone else want to smash thier computer to bits when you turn to the BBC football section and they have that close up picture of bentley with that smug grin on his face, and then listening to his irratating cockney voice on the radio everytime the news is on saying all his mates are spurs fans and he was on the phone everyday trying to make the move work

[FourLaneBlue]

I don't think we did blink on the price to any appreciable extent.

Spurs initially tried to give us 12m up front which was rejected, and we don't know what triggers the add ons. So unless they're contingent on something like Bentley amassing 150 England caps we have every chance of bringing in 17m gross eventually.

Bentley showed a distinct lack of class in the end in the way he conducted himself pre season and with his comments in the press conference today. What use would he have been to us this season in that frame of mind? He didn't even perform in the second half of last season.

Where we did blunder was with the size of the sell on clause.

Exactly right there Rev.

15million + add ons is a very good deal for Bentley. We certainly did not cave in on this one like we did with Ferguson a few years back. The situations seemed similar with regards to poor attitude and allegedly refusing to play/train (mystery convenient injuries) but this is a very good fee for Bentley. The only way we could have got more was through a bidding war but Bentley himself seemingly put paid to that by refusing to even consider Villa.

Through his actions he has shown that we could not have trusted him to knuckle down and work hard like Barry seems to have agreed to do. Bentley´s short yet chequered history is one of petulance and a lack of regard for public opinion. With such big sums involved it was not worth the risk. Selling good players is not the problem...it is replacing them with tat that is. Ince has plenty of money to bring in two players to boost the side as a whole and to make up for Bentley. Hopefully that will mean better than the likes of MK Dons journeymen.

Tougher negotiations need to be made in future by Rovers or they will come to be seen as a soft touch by players, clubs and their agents. Always good for a sell-on clause so we do not get the full value when we sell the player on.

Agreed- David Bentley would literally have been nothing without his time at Ewood.

Exactly...so why allow a 50% sell-on clause? He had done little for us by that time. JW blinked on that one unfortunately...I can believe that clause was all important in the Bellamy transfer going through but I cannot see it on this. Arsenal were desperate to get shut and he had been mediocre - at best - with Norwich.

[Ronin]

Does anyone else want to smash thier computer to bits when you turn to the BBC football section and they have that close up picture of bentley with that smug grin on his face, and then listening to his irratating cockney voice on the radio everytime the news is on saying all his mates are spurs fans and he was on the phone everyday trying to make the move work

I bet it'll be on SSN for the rest of the frickin' week now as well. One to avoid!!!

[M-K]

Exactly...so why allow a 50% sell-on clause? He had done little for us by that time. JW blinked on that one unfortunately...I can believe that clause was all important in the Bellamy transfer going through but I cannot see it on this. Arsenal were desperate to get shut and he had been mediocre - at best - with Norwich.

If Blackburn hadn't signed him because of a sell-on clause, plenty of other teams would have.

[FINRover]

"Arsenal stand to pocket up to £7m from David Bentley's move from Blackburn to Tottenham as part of the terms of his transfer to Ewood Park in 2006."

One gossip...Arsenal take only £7m. That's mean "only" 40-50% sell-on clause. Very good deal for Arsenal.

Is generally sell-on clause 25%?

[FourLaneBlue]

If Blackburn hadn't signed him because of a sell-on clause, plenty of other teams would have.

Really? Which teams were those at the time?

Those willing to take him off their hands and pay what seems to have totalled 3million even before the sell-on clause?

In total this punt on an unwanted player with supposed attitude problems has cost 9 million. Seems like we took all the risks on Bentley yet Arsenal got most of the reward when it came time to sell.

[Exiled_Rover]

Really? Which teams were those at the time?

Those willing to take him off their hands and pay what seems to have totalled 3million even before the sell-on clause?

In total this punt on an unwanted player with supposed attitude problems has cost 9 million. Seems like we took all the risks on Bentley yet Arsenal got most of the reward when it came time to sell.

That's the biggest kick in the teeth: L'Arse are rewarded handsomely for doing sweet FA.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Time to move on folks...we'll bounce back stronger because we are proud Blackburn Rovers.

Again though, it would have been nice to hear Bentley give credit to the club who made him what he is today and for the Rovers fans who stood by him and chanted his name when opposition fans jeered and swore at his every move,we couldn't have done any more for him.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Perhaps we expect too much? ........Football in general is in a sad state of affairs.

[Rovermatt]

Arsenal have made a tidy profit from a player they wanted rid of anyway. No doubt their windfall will be used to bring in some trophy-shy young talent.

[rover6]

This is completely unrelated to football and has no bearing on my estimations of Bentley as a footballer.

His press conference was probably more tedious than listening to Bryan Robson reading out the shipping forecast. I tried watching it but had to give up through exquisite pain.

[21 Rover]

Bentley sell on set at 20% for arsenal

20% of the fee

[FourLaneBlue]

20%?

Something like hope has just come back onto this board!

Where have you been all summer; Hope?

[RevidgeBlue]

Bentley sell on set at 20% for arsenal

20% of the fee

That would be much more like it, in line with the industry "norm", and quite acceptable.

20% of 15m is only 3m, 20% of 12m 2.4m.

Sadly I fear the 40/50% figure is now too widely reported to be completely fictitious.

[philipl]

Let's put this thing into perspective.

When Rovers bought Bentley he had been at Ewood half a season and was beginning to show the real ability he had after awful times at Arsenal and Norwich.

Arsenal actualy helped Rovers out of a problem as we needed to bring another loan player in and could only do so by sending an existing loanee away or buying one of them- we were at the max allowed by the EPL.

When Bentley was signed, the minimum amount Rovers were committed to was spending well under £1m. Go back to the posts at the beginning of this thread and see how big a risk Bentley was perceived to be.

When I suggested the sell-on might be as much as 50% I was unaware that there were trigger clauses which raised that initial £600K or so to well over £2m. To me, there had to be a massive sell-on clause if Rovers had signed the best English player of his year for under £1m.

I sincerely hope the sell-on is only 20% seeing as there were add-on payments triggered.

All-in-all it was a very good piece of business if the clause is 20% as Rovers protected the downside if we got the Norwich Bentley and made an appropriate profit from developing the Beckham Bentley.

Shame the lad is a complete nonce.

[FourLaneBlue]

I sincerely hope the sell-on is only 20% seeing as there were add-on payments triggered.

All-in-all it was a very good piece of business if the clause is 20% as Rovers protected the downside if we got the Norwich Bentley and made an appropriate profit from developing the Beckham Bentley.

That is a fair enough summary philipl...a 20% sell-on clause is a decent enough bit of business and would mean well played to JW. 50% would not be though...that is too much of possible future profits to hand away on a transfer that ultimately cost 3 million according to some reports.

[RoyRover]

I am extremely angry, not at Ince, Rovers or JW but the man called "David Bentley".

When he arrived at Rovers he was a young man who looked like he was throwing his talent away, as shown with a poor season at Norwich where huge question marks appeared over his attitude and work rate.

We invested in him, gave him time to mature and develop as a first team player.

Where would David Bentley be today without Rovers? Answer probably like Routledge, being passed from team to team for a lesser fee every time.

What thanks do we get the fans, the club, the chairman for the above, NOTHING, not a single word about Rovers, the fans, NOTHING. This is why I was heartened to hear Brad's words in the LET it brought some sanity to a crazy world of football.

I couldn't agree more. Bentley was well on the way to becoming the next Wayne Routledge, before we gave him the chance to develop and play regularly in the Premiership. He didn't have a thing to say about us, what we did for, that we allowed him to leave and that is because of us that he got into the England team. It certainly leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when you see him sitting there in a Tottenham shirt, when he only signed a new contract a while back. His behavior during this whole affair has been disgraceful, firstly by going on TV and saying that he wanted to leave and that there was no chance that he was going to stay, by then feigning injuries during pre-season so he wouldn't have to train and play, then walking out of pre-season in a sulk because his dream move wasn't going fast enough and then admitting as much when during the press conference he said how did everything he could to get this move. He's an arrogant little prick and I hope that Reid or Nelsen snap him in two when Spurs come to Ewood Park. Lets see how much he develops and how much further he goes at Spurs. He has just given me another reason to totally despise that club.

[M-K]

Really? Which teams were those at the time?

Those willing to take him off their hands and pay what seems to have totalled 3million even before the sell-on clause?

In total this punt on an unwanted player with supposed attitude problems has cost 9 million. Seems like we took all the risks on Bentley yet Arsenal got most of the reward when it came time to sell.

What I mean is that there's absolutely no way the guy would have been unemployed if Blackburn hadn't signed him. Some other mid-table club like Fulham, Middlesbrough, Man City (or even Spurs) would have had him on Arsenal's terms and would have reaped the benefits if he'd developed in the same way he did here. Maybe he's just a late starter who might have turned out to be good no matter where he went.

Anyway, Blackburn just made a huge profit out of a bloke who was here for a couple of seasons! Better than the Bellamy deal.

[blue/white]

That would be much more like it, in line with the industry "norm", and quite acceptable.

20% of 15m is only 3m, 20% of 12m 2.4m.

Sadly I fear the 40/50% figure is now too widely reported to be completely fictitious.

I would hope JW would have knocked down any

crazy sell-on clause to an industry norm (as someone called it)

during the original deal w/ the Arse.

[Roar of the Rover]

Just managed to watch the Bentley interview on the BBC Website and not even once did he mention Rovers, let alone thank us for making him the player he is.

Great player but I think he'll create his own downfall.

Don't expect a welcome reception next season!

[Majiball]

Let's put this thing into perspective.

When Rovers bought Bentley he had been at Ewood half a season and was beginning to show the real ability he had after awful times at Arsenal and Norwich.

Arsenal actualy helped Rovers out of a problem as we needed to bring another loan player in and could only do so by sending an existing loanee away or buying one of them- we were at the max allowed by the EPL.

When Bentley was signed, the minimum amount Rovers were committed to was spending well under £1m. Go back to the posts at the beginning of this thread and see how big a risk Bentley was perceived to be.

When I suggested the sell-on might be as much as 50% I was unaware that there were trigger clauses which raised that initial £600K or so to well over £2m. To me, there had to be a massive sell-on clause if Rovers had signed the best English player of his year for under £1m.

I sincerely hope the sell-on is only 20% seeing as there were add-on payments triggered.

All-in-all it was a very good piece of business if the clause is 20% as Rovers protected the downside if we got the Norwich Bentley and made an appropriate profit from developing the Beckham Bentley.

Shame the lad is a complete nonce.

PLEASE READ ABOVE

Its the most sensible comment I've read on here today (sorry but have just read 10 pages of mindless crap on Nicko's thread) whether its 50% or 20% what are we gonna do, we paid bugger all at the time, and have 9M (min) in the bank 6M profit, great stuff. Wenger put sell ons in his other sales of up to 40% don't forget arsenal trained him for 7 years.

We have 9M (min) to sign a replacement at the time it was cracking business we had fook all cash to spend and got a U21 international, and then a full international at a cost of 3M.

Great business JW!

[Hughesy]

Helllllllllllllllllllllllo!

That on sky wasnt the full interview though. I saw an extra bit on the local news where he was talking about how his time at the club was good days for him and the manager and how Hughes held the key, but has now left. Said he was going regardless of new manager or old too.

Shame he couldnt acknowledge our help - expect to get booed Big Head!

[Rover down South]

Yes i was, - as i am for every england game.

against switzerland he was magnificent.

against usa - he was as bad as all the rest on the pitch. it was just one of those strange games that never really kicked into life.

but to try and say he's not international class, just shows you up for your clear lack of footballing knowledge.

I have plenty of football knowledge my friend. This time next year I guarantee you Bentley will NOT be in the England team as he IS NOT international class. We shall see & then we will see who has better footballing knowledge.

Dos Santos will be the signing the Spuds fans rave about.

[alexanders]

If we buy Pennant i foresee that in 1 year from now:

Pennant is on the national team and Bentley is not

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

I do wonder about this sell on clause - though it could be keeping things in confidence - not revealing it does serve one of two purposes :-

1. If it is around 50% - it saves JW from some awkward questions about the original deal

2. If it is around 20% - other clubs won't know how much money we really have - as we can play the 50% card - i.e. we don't have much money from Bentley.

I'd be disappointed if we agreed to such a large sell on clause.