Ben Brereton Diaz

[Adam C]

52 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Again, why would protecting assets with sensible contract management be affected by what random fans might think?

The time to do it was during the covid season when he became a decent player but prior to his real breakthrough as a goalscorer. Maybe it didnt happen due to the owners cutting back during covid. So plan B should have been to accept the bids that came with a year left on his deal. 

I think it’s more that nobody at the time would’ve thought it was a good idea to extend his contract. Nobody cares what supporters think but neither supporters nor management could’ve predicted that BBD would become such a good player. Hence “the vast majority of posters here would have been up in arms if we’d offered Brereton a new contract” 

Or to put it another way, the vast majority of people would have thought it was a bad idea to offer BBD a new contract, ie hindsight is a wonderful thing and accurate foresight is extremely rare. 

[roversfan99]

29 minutes ago, Adam C said:

I think it’s more that nobody at the time would’ve thought it was a good idea to extend his contract. Nobody cares what supporters think but neither supporters nor management could’ve predicted that BBD would become such a good player. Hence “the vast majority of posters here would have been up in arms if we’d offered Brereton a new contract” 

Or to put it another way, the vast majority of people would have thought it was a bad idea to offer BBD a new contract, ie hindsight is a wonderful thing and accurate foresight is extremely rare. 

Even if we didnt think he would become so good. During the covid season he became a very useful one. Add in cost and a contract is a no brainer.

[bluebruce]

On 06/04/2024 at 21:09, Adam C said:

I think it’s more that nobody at the time would’ve thought it was a good idea to extend his contract. Nobody cares what supporters think but neither supporters nor management could’ve predicted that BBD would become such a good player. Hence “the vast majority of posters here would have been up in arms if we’d offered Brereton a new contract” 

Or to put it another way, the vast majority of people would have thought it was a bad idea to offer BBD a new contract, ie hindsight is a wonderful thing and accurate foresight is extremely rare. 

I'd have been perfectly fine with extending his contract after the 20/21 season where he scored 7 goals from out wide. In fact after the investment we had made, it was a pretty obvious thing to do.

[Eddie]

52 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I'd have been perfectly fine with extending his contract after the 20/21 season where he scored 7 goals from out wide. In fact after the investment we had made, it was a pretty obvious thing to do.

Maybe you would have been. Maybe, that's the benefit of hindsight.

I know I didn't. In the same way that I don't want Gallagher to be offered a new contract right now. If Gallagher re-signs and we get more of the same then it will prove to have been a massive waste of money. If we let him go and he goes on to score 15-20 goals at a Championship club next season, supporters will be questioning the decision.

BBD had done nothing to justify a new deal and, by the time he did, he was too late.

You're basically advocating that every player under 26/27 should be offered a new deal to protect our investment. That will work out some of the time, but it will lead to some awful contracts.  

[Mattyblue]

No issue at all in giving him a contract in 2021, he was obviously improving in 20/21 - 40 appearances, so an established player, well up on previous years, culminating in Copa America.

Of course such a player who was a £7million signing should get a new deal to protect the club’s investment.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Maybe you would have been. Maybe, that's the benefit of hindsight.

I know I didn't. In the same way that I don't want Gallagher to be offered a new contract right now. If Gallagher re-signs and we get more of the same then it will prove to have been a massive waste of money. If we let him go and he goes on to score 15-20 goals at a Championship club next season, supporters will be questioning the decision.

BBD had done nothing to justify a new deal and, by the time he did, he was too late.

You're basically advocating that every player under 26/27 should be offered a new deal to protect our investment. That will work out some of the time, but it will lead to some awful contracts.  

It's not the benefit of hindsight, it's the benefit of remembering that I was relatively happy with him in that season and thought it was worth protecting our £7 million investment.

I do want to keep Gallagher, although it will have to be at the right wage level. But he has less potential to improve now than Brereton did in that season as he's a lot older. IMO we don't have the money to buy someone at a similar level but on less wages. Additionally, we were rejecting cash bids for him this January, so he does have some market value.

BBD had scored 7 goals in the league from out wide and looked like a nailed on starter who may improve and we'd invested 7 million in, to justify a new deal. At that point his wage demands wouldn't have been too high, and the understanding is he wasn't on all that much.

I'm not basically advocating that, you're entirely putting words in my mouth.

[philipl]

Hardly any club were giving any players new contracts in that COVID season.

Other clubs have been hit harder by player walk aways at contract end than us.

Plus we effectively picked up the likes of Hedges and Tronstad at or close to the end of their contracts.

[Mattyblue]

That’s a different issue than if the club should have given him a new deal in 2021 - which the answer is yes, of course they should.

[arbitro]

4 hours ago, philipl said:

Hardly any club were giving any players new contracts in that COVID season.

Other clubs have been hit harder by player walk aways at contract end than us.

Plus we effectively picked up the likes of Hedges and Tronstad at or close to the end of their contracts.

Which clubs and who were the players involved?

[Eddie]

21 hours ago, bluebruce said:

It's not the benefit of hindsight, it's the benefit of remembering that I was relatively happy with him in that season and thought it was worth protecting our £7 million investment.

I do want to keep Gallagher, although it will have to be at the right wage level. But he has less potential to improve now than Brereton did in that season as he's a lot older. IMO we don't have the money to buy someone at a similar level but on less wages. Additionally, we were rejecting cash bids for him this January, so he does have some market value.

BBD had scored 7 goals in the league from out wide and looked like a nailed on starter who may improve and we'd invested 7 million in, to justify a new deal. At that point his wage demands wouldn't have been too high, and the understanding is he wasn't on all that much.

I'm not basically advocating that, you're entirely putting words in my mouth.

OK, which player under 23/24 do you think we should let walk at the moment? 

[bluebruce]

29 minutes ago, Eddie said:

OK, which player under 23/24 do you think we should let walk at the moment? 

None from the first team squad.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

None from the first team squad.

So what words was I putting into your mouth?

[bluebruce]

35 minutes ago, Eddie said:

So what words was I putting into your mouth?

I thought it was pretty obvious, but: "You're basically advocating that every player under 26/27 should be offered a new deal to protect our investment. That will work out some of the time, but it will lead to some awful contracts."

I never said this. Nor do I believe in that as an absolute policy.

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

I thought it was pretty obvious, but: "You're basically advocating that every player under 26/27 should be offered a new deal to protect our investment. That will work out some of the time, but it will lead to some awful contracts."

I never said this. Nor do I believe in that as an absolute policy.

But, you just happen to believe it to be sound policy at the moment and have indicated that you would have also seen it as sound policy 3/4 years ago.

It ultimately proved to be a pretty correct assumption. 

[bluebruce]

13 minutes ago, Eddie said:

But, you just happen to believe it to be sound policy at the moment and have indicated that you would have also seen it as sound policy 3/4 years ago.

It ultimately proved to be a pretty correct assumption. 

You seem to struggle with nuance. I never said anything about a policy, nor have I implied it. I simply believe that in this current situation, we should attempt to renew the players with expiring contracts, at the right terms. I never mentioned their ages, that was all you - in fact Gally is older than the age range you said. Nor did I say it should have been a full-on policy 3/4 years ago, I was talking about a single player. It's all situational, not policy, and that's why you're putting words in my mouth by saying what you said. But what we did 3/4 years ago, not renewing the contracts of BBD, Lenihan, Rothwell, cost us an absolute fuckton in lost revenue, so even if it had been a general policy I espoused, which it wasn't and isn't, we'd still have made a lot more money on it than we'd have lost in extra contracts.

Though I should probably clarify this summer on reflection - I wouldn't renew the broken Fleck, and although after his first few games I'd potentially have been ok with a cheap further year from MacFadzean if he maintained his form, I wouldn't now. Forgot about those two when answering your question. I was essentially just thinking about Dolan and Gally, who both have 1 year extension options that I'd exercise. If Gally won't commit to a further contract at reduced terms, I'd be open to offers for him. Same for Dolan, with a bit more leeway on his contract.

Hyam, Siggy and Markanday are out of contract next summer and don't have extension options. I'd see what they want this summer, and if it's too much, again consider any offers or actively attempt to sell them.

If I were to put words in your mouth like you have with me, I'd say that 'your policy' of letting everyone's contracts expire has fucked us over repeatedly, a lot more than it's benefitted us, and we have no money to replace them.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

You seem to struggle with nuance. I never said anything about a policy, nor have I implied it. I simply believe that in this current situation, we should attempt to renew the players with expiring contracts, at the right terms. I never mentioned their ages, that was all you - in fact Gally is older than the age range you said. Nor did I say it should have been a full-on policy 3/4 years ago, I was talking about a single player. It's all situational, not policy, and that's why you're putting words in my mouth by saying what you said. But what we did 3/4 years ago, not renewing the contracts of BBD, Lenihan, Rothwell, cost us an absolute fuckton in lost revenue, so even if it had been a general policy I espoused, which it wasn't and isn't, we'd still have made a lot more money on it than we'd have lost in extra contracts..

🙄