Robbo Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Well if we are going to ask which of our saleable players are expendable assets certainly one of Dunn/Rochina/Vukcevic/Formica qualify. Four players for one position. We can shoehorn them onto the wing but they aren’t really wingers. On the face of it losing any of them seems a bad idea – Dunn is in great form, Rochina is exceptionally gifted, Formica is solid with a knack for scoring goals, Vukcevic has only just arrived at the club and is an excellent player if his international appearances are anything to go by. One of them should go. I would argue losing Formica would not be so bad if we brought good players we did need (defensive midfielders, strikers, fullbacks, right winger). It would appear that we'll be sacrificing a decent player in order to improve another area on the pitch. If that's the only option open to us then so be it. Out of the 4 above i'd also select Formica but maybe Formica is the one player out of the four that we have actually received an enquiry for?
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
J*B Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Mauro Formica has a ridiculous amount of technical ability, as well as engine and guts unrivalled by 90% of our squad. I would be devestated to lose him.
BrisRover Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Mauro Formica has a ridiculous amount of technical ability, as well as engine and guts unrivalled by 90% of our squad. I would be devestated to lose him. I'll Second That
67splitscreen Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Should be the last one out of door IMO, wonder if Philipl will expand on his accusation?.
OJRovers Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 This just shows that the whole squad is available at the right price.
Hughesy Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 According to today's LT Olympiakos are offering £400k loan fee with a agreed price of £2.5m, however Rovers are demanding a written agreement that they have to buy him and for £3.5m in the summer, regardless of our league position. It also says that Flamengo are now after him too.
koi Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Says who? And why? Our owners and money, they need it, fast.
davulsukur Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/9488445.Greeks_fall_short_of_Formica_asking_price_as_Flamengo_join_the_race/ Link to LET article that Hughesy refers to above.
hesfromburn Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 According to today's LT Olympiakos are offering £400k loan fee with a agreed price of £2.5m, however Rovers are demanding a written agreement that they have to buy him and for £3.5m in the summer, regardless of our league position. It also says that Flamengo are now after him too. No said they wanted it to be in writing that they buy him after the loan period if we suffer relegation. are you stirring trouble?
Hughesy Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 No said they wanted it to be in writing that they buy him after the loan period if we suffer relegation. are you stirring trouble? Sorry?? What's your problem? I read it as they want it guaranteed they will buy him, regardless of league.
budha Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 It is also understood that Rovers wanted it in writing that Olympiakos would make it a permanent switch in the summer should the club suffer Premier League relegation. How can that be read somehow differently than what it says?
LeChuck Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Hughesyland is a very different world to ours...
braddock Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 It's funny when somebody makes several good posts that a few disagree with, then if he misreads something or somebody takes a dislike to the way they said something then their sanity is questioned. Seems fair. Also, regarding the Philipl outburst, Formica's quotes that I have seen (a week or two ago) suggested it was only the club standing in his way and that he was excited by a move. I won't question your sanity, only your motives.
RoyRover Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 I'd be very annoyed if we let him go. I think he's done well recently. He's not placed with pace, but he works hard, covers a lot of ground, has great technical ability and finally seems to be able to play more consistently at this level. It's a joke that we would have to sell him, to raise funds that are supposed to be there for buying players anyway.
ruggles1995 Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 looks like he wants out, and it is now looking like only a matter of time, just trying to agree on a fee by the looks of it
Stuart Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 I didn't think there was any money in Greece these days
Mercer Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Even if Rovers were offered £3.5m, it would not cover the substantial agents' fees that have been speculated about by many since this deal was done. What we do know is that the initial deal took some time to complete and was speculated to be untidy. I wonder if Rovers believe that selling Formica now might just close this book ?
braddock Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Even if Rovers were offered £3.5m, it would not cover the substantial agents' fees that have been speculated about by many since this deal was done. What we do know is that the initial deal took some time to complete and was speculated to be untidy. I wonder if Rovers believe that selling Formica now might just close this book ? I wonder if it's one of the more obvious reasons posted?
67splitscreen Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Stop dressing it up Hughesy- he's being forced out. Also, regarding the Philipl outburst, Formica's quotes that I have seen (a week or two ago) suggested it was only the club standing in his way and that he was excited by a move. I won't question your sanity, only your motives. I spoke with Nicko yesterday, definitely being pushed from the top, why? he has no idea, only that it doesn't get much higher.
Hughesy Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 I spoke with Nicko yesterday, definitely being pushed from the top, why? he has no idea, only that it doesn't get much higher. Issues around his 3rd party ownership so clearing the problem away before anything is acted on?
67splitscreen Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Issues around his 3rd party ownership so clearing the problem away before anything is acted on? Have to take your word for it but was the original move not blocked by the PL for those reasons, it was allegedly sorted, then allowed, Strange!
DavidMailsTightPerm Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Even if Rovers were offered £3.5m, it would not cover the substantial agents' fees that have been speculated about by many since this deal was done. The Sporting Intelligence web site guy - who has broken a lot of Rovers related stories - reckoned that the Formica agents fee was only around £200k (if I remember rightly) - it was nowhere near the rumoured millions - or that paid to get Rochina.
JAL Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 The Sporting Intelligence web site guy - who has broken a lot of Rovers related stories - reckoned that the Formica agents fee was only around £200k (if I remember rightly) - it was nowhere near the rumoured millions - or that paid to get Rochina. If true, then just where did the missing millions go?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.