Ben Brereton Diaz

[blueboy3333]

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/football/football-news/aitor-karanka-ben-breretons-blackburn-1945861

The 19-year-old is poised to join Rovers on loan, with a view to a £7m permanent move, which also includes several potential future add-ons, if Brereton is a success at Ewood Park.

[tomphil]

It should hopefully work out better than the c10 million each including wages etc 'invested' in the likes of Best, Etuhu and Murphy !

A  crumb of comfort.

[JBiz]

28 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

That's not a good thing when he can't get a game. We've paid £7m for a sub and are paying him good money to be a sub.

I'll stick with £13m total cost over the length of his contract. 

A comparison; Swansea bought Celina - someone mentioned as a target for us. He cost 4m according to transfermarket. Signed a four year contract. 

Since Swansea are recently relegated, and have players like Bony with a rumoured wage of 125k a week. How much would you guess he is on? Premier league appearances, had a contract till 2020 at city, national team appearances, highly sought, parachute payments...

40/50k? A week? Including NI, (since you don’t pay NI on transfer cost continuously through a contract, only the wage) wouldn’t that make that deal well over 15m? Someone who’d probably cost us twice the amount per week, to sit on the same bench behind Graham?

On Ben - 10m is a better approximate (minus your “fake news” 3m, not forgetting you said 15m earlier either) and I’d suggest we’d probably be in a position to get something back even if he takes a long time to really cut his teeth.

It’s a risk, but I’m still not convinced there was ever an option to spend 7m on a load of league 1/2 players that would’ve gone straight into the first 11.

[JBiz]

52 minutes ago, 47er said:

Are you saying there's a chance we don't have to sign him? 

Don’t tell me you’ve already judged him as poor! 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

1,000,000 a year is 20k a week. I’m not convinced he will be on that. 12.5k a week starting wage would be my estimate, putting him in the Nyambe, Raya, Lenihan category in the club, behind the Mulgrew, Graham, Evans and Dack wages.

So even by your own estimate, for the overall cost of Brereton, we could hypothetically have spent about £4m on an established player who was on around 25k p.w.

I have no objection in principle to either sort of deal but if we'd gone down the established player sort of route and he hadn't started a game either, he'd have been a complete waste of money as well.

I really don't know what the argument is here. People are trying to defend the indefensible and I'm not having a pop at the player, he hasn't had a chance and we don't know if he's any good or not. I'm talking about making a major outlay by our standards and then not using the player.

[Exiled in Toronto]

45 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Many people overlook the fact that employers' NI adds almost 14% to the cost.  In other words, based upon your example, Rovers would pay employers' NI of approx. £100k to £140k pa !  It's a staggering additional cost. 

My estimate, as previously posted, was between £12m and £15m.  Staggering for a lad who only sits on the bench.

If he only sits on the bench there won’t be any fee add-ons. I’d be amazed if he was on any more than £15k/week ie £750k/year.

[Exiled in Toronto]

27 minutes ago, Biz said:

A comparison; Swansea bought Celina - someone mentioned as a target for us. He cost 4m according to transfermarket. Signed a four year contract. 

Since Swansea are recently relegated, and have players like Bony with a rumoured wage of 125k a week. How much would you guess he is on? Premier league appearances, had a contract till 2020 at city, national team appearances, highly sought, parachute payments...

40/50k? A week? Including NI, (since you don’t pay NI on transfer cost continuously through a contract, only the wage) wouldn’t that make that deal well over 15m? Someone who’d probably cost us twice the amount per week, to sit on the same bench behind Graham?

On Ben - 10m is a better approximate (minus your “fake news” 3m, not forgetting you said 15m earlier either) and I’d suggest we’d probably be in a position to get something back even if he takes a long time to really cut his teeth.

It’s a risk, but I’m still not convinced there was ever an option to spend 7m on a load of league 1/2 players that would’ve gone straight into the first 11.

Leaving aside all the made-up numbers -  mine included - this is the crux of the debate: how much latitude did Mowbray have to spend the money?

The least likely scenario IMO is he was sent £7 million with no strings and his FIRST PRIORITY was to blow the lot on a lad who wasn’t anywhere near ready.

Unfortunately, this ‘manager is an idiot’ theory is the least worrisome one. The -  to me - more likely scenario is that so big a sum was only available for ‘investment’ in future potential. Maybe Balaji has a syndicate of friends who like a flutter, and the payoff when you get a transfer right is like 17 black coming up. Even if the lad stands still, transfer fee inflation alone should see a very good chance of getting it all back.

[jim mk2]

Let's face it, the £7m figure wouldn't be mentioned if the lad looked a player. The problem is, he not only isn't good enough for the first team but the raw potential doesn't seem to be there either.  Based on his performances to date, I struggle to see why we would have signed him on a free transfer. 

[tomphil]

Spot on about the possibility of the syndicate type thing betting on players future transfer value. I'm sure some involved with Southampton and Liverpool have cleaned up in recent years.

All part of footballs myriad of legal scams.

[blueboy3333]

5 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Leaving aside all the made-up numbers -  mine included - this is the crux of the debate: how much latitude did Mowbray have to spend the money?

The least likely scenario IMO is he was sent £7 million with no strings and his FIRST PRIORITY was to blow the lot on a lad who wasn’t anywhere near ready.

Unfortunately, this ‘manager is an idiot’ theory is the least worrisome one. The -  to me - more likely scenario is that so big a sum was only available for ‘investment’ in future potential. Maybe Balaji has a syndicate of friends who like a flutter, and the payoff when you get a transfer right is like 17 black coming up. Even if the lad stands still, transfer fee inflation alone should see a very good chance of getting it all back.

He had the money, he chose to spend it on a lad who Mowbray, his assistant and the recruitment team thought had 'huge' potential. It's a hell of a lot of money to spend on 'potential'. 

The bit in bold is just nonsense. If he's shite we'll be lucky to get anything back, especially if we've massively overpaid anyway. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by blueboy3333

[bluebruce]

8 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Even if the lad stands still, transfer fee inflation alone should see a very good chance of getting it all back.

The lad cost so much because of his potential, not because of his current ability or impact. I don't think transfer fee inflation alone would be enough to get it all back.

Plus, if he doesn't improve at all, he simply isn't going to get into the team. If he never plays, his value will drop precipitously.

We're all hoping he does improve, of course.

[JBiz]

37 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So even by your own estimate, for the overall cost of Brereton, we could hypothetically have spent about £4m on an established player who was on around 25k p.w.

I have no objection in principle to either sort of deal but if we'd gone down the established player sort of route and he hadn't started a game either, he'd have been a complete waste of money as well.

I really don't know what the argument is here. People are trying to defend the indefensible and I'm not having a pop at the player, he hasn't had a chance and we don't know if he's any good or not. I'm talking about making a major outlay by our standards and then not using the player.

Waggott effectively said that in his article - that the flex between wages and transfer fee was possible. Question is, was their a player we wanted in that position, and in that range?

@Exiled in Toronto makes a good point about the money could be only available for a youngster who might triple that cost with improvement, but no cash available for a 27 year old on 25/30k a week for 3/4m, as there is less “capital”. 

Call it some gambling scam, or call it a more sensible approach to managing a club with expenditure > income.

Defending the indefensible? I simply responded with my own opinions and quotes. From my view, I’m not sure what aspect of signing this lad could be argued as “indefensible” either...! Questionable perhaps, although I’d prefer “understandable”.

Ive never argued that he is cheap, I don’t agree that his price is an excuse up the expectation levels beyond realistic. Especially when the transfer market at current is looked at ie Celina. 

I’d like to see more from Ben myself, but I didn’t expect him to come in and win games on his own, perhaps more impact so far in his cameos. I also hadn’t anticipated the Danny Graham championship return to be as prolific and injury free (touch wood)

To me, if we can add more potential to the squad with the likes of Ben, or Davenport, Armstrong etc in a transfer window, and if we can continue to do that every summer, I’m quite sure we will develop a team good enough to fight for promotion. Even if it takes a few years.

 

 

[Exiled in Toronto]

23 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

He had the money, he chose to spend it on a lad who Mowbray, his assistant and the recruitment team thought had 'huge' potential. It's a hell of a lot of money to spend on 'potential'. 

The bit in bold is just nonsense. If he's shite we'll be lucky to get anything back, especially if we've massively overpaid anyway. 

Not to someone who has 70 cars in the garage and sends over £15m/year to no seeming benefit to themselves whatsoever. 

 

[47er]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

Don’t tell me you’ve already judged him as poor! 

I'm edging that way!

[RevidgeBlue]

51 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Unfortunately, this ‘manager is an idiot’ theory is the least worrisome one. The -  to me - more likely scenario is that so big a sum was only available for ‘investment’ in future potential. Maybe Balaji has a syndicate of friends who like a flutter, and the payoff when you get a transfer right is like 17 black coming up. Even if the lad stands still, transfer fee inflation alone should see a very good chance of getting it all back.

Ah, so now we're straying into "not the manager's choice" territory for which I've been branded a conspiracy theorist whenever I've put it forward as a possible reason why he wasn't getting a chance.

I have to agree with blueboy and blue bruce on this though, if he does flop we'll get very little back and his value isn't going to increase by sitting on the bench alone.

[47er]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Ah, so now we're straying into "not the manager's choice" territory for which I've been branded a conspiracy theorist whenever I've put it forward as a possible reason why he wasn't getting a chance.

I have to agree with blueboy and blue bruce on this though, if he does flop we'll get very little back and his value isn't going to increase by sitting on the bench alone.

I really hope it was out of TM"s hands. I want to believe he isn't that dopey.

[Tom]

4 minutes ago, 47er said:

I'm edging that way!

I’m not sure yet but I haven’t been convinced.

The thing is if you had the choice to sign him for £7m or walk away in January I bet 90% of us would look elsewhere 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, 47er said:

I really hope it was out of TM"s hands. I want to believe he isn't that dopey.

I would be far more reassured if he was the manager's choice but he deliberately hasn't been handing him a start because we have to pay a hefty premium every time he starts prior to signing permanently. .......But the plan is to unleash him all guns blazing in January.

Somehow I cant see that being the case though. I'm not at all easy with the suggestion that players are being brought to the Club not exactly completelyagainst the manager's wishes but who wouldn't be his own preferred choice.

[bluebruce]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I would be far more reassured if he was the manager's choice but he deliberately hasn't been handing him a start because we have to pay a hefty premium every time he starts prior to signing permanently. .......But the plan is to unleash him all guns blazing in January.

Somehow I cant see that being the case though. I'm not at all easy with the suggestion that players are being brought to the Club not exactly completelyagainst the manager's wishes but who wouldn't be his own preferred choice.

As I've said before, I think it's unrealistic that the deal would be weighted to heavy premiums on starts in the loan stage. I can't see why that would be deemed logically necessary by any party.

However, I can conceive that there might be large chunks of the fee due at 10, 20, 30 or whatever number of starts, whether in the loan portion or after, and that we have been intentionally delaying his starts to make this number of starts coincide with a Venkys cash injection in the future. Since TM likes to take his time introducing players to the first team anyway, he might not object too strongly to being asked to hold him off from starting in the league for a while.

I'm not saying this is what has happened, just that I see it as a conceivable possibility, among a few.

[Stuart]

For Rovers, £7m does not buy potential. At our level it has to mean that another club has invested in their development and we are buying a player ready to go.

The risks involved in that kind of signing are also huge. For it to be an investment we need to double our money to call it a success - when you consider wages. Or they have to deliver on the field and maybe leave for a modest increase.

The current fan thinking seems to be that we are 3-7 players away from having a squad capable of challenging for promotion.

Current fan thinking (as well as the accounts) is that we are skint. Why are Venkys adding to our debt by spending this kind of money on an unproven player? I could see the logic with Rhodes: he was a gamble but had a lot of experience and success, and a great goal record - even if at the division below (and he did what was expected in the Championship). I can’t see the logic in blowing cash we don’t have on such a gamble.

Early signs aren’t great either. If he doesn’t start against Newcastle we’ve bought a dud.

[blueboy3333]

9 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Not to someone who has 70 cars in the garage and sends over £15m/year to no seeming benefit to themselves whatsoever. 

 

No idea about their cars but Venky's will have lost £150m+ if they stop funding Rovers because the club will go bust. I'd imagine that is quite a 'benefit' to them. They have a chance to get into the Prem and make all that money back in a couple of seasons if they invest in players wisely and we get promoted. Promotion is the ONLY way they'll get their money back and if we stay in the Prem the global advertising potential for their company is huge. 

Then there's the whole pride and prestige in owning a football club that is important to them (or so people say). 

But going back to your straw man, £7m is indeed a lot of money to spend on potential (i.e. a player who can't get in a mid-table Championship team) for a club having to comply with FFP. It's practically unheard of. If there are other examples out there I'd love to hear them. 

[blueboy3333]

9 hours ago, Biz said:

or call it a more sensible approach to managing a club with expenditure > income.

Good lord, spending £7m on a 19 year old is a sensible approach.

 

9 hours ago, Biz said:

@Exiled in Toronto makes a good point about the money could be only available for a youngster who might triple that cost with improvement, but no cash available for a 27 year old on 25/30k a week for 3/4m, as there is less “capital”.

You're missing the point. BB has never done owt even at Championship level. £7m is ridiculous. 

It's infinitely better spending £4m on a 27 year old and paying him 25K and getting a top quality Championship player who contributes by winning the team points over 3 years whilst he's still in his prime and who will still end up costing LESS than BB (who may never amount to anything) That player may get us in the play-offs. BB can't get in the team. Do you see the difference?????

Saying he may be worth triple down the line is pie in the sky. We need players who can contribute NOW. 

 

[blueboy3333]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

I could see the logic with Rhodes: he was a gamble but had a lot of experience and success, and a great goal record - even if at the division below (and he did what was expected in the Championship). I can’t see the logic in blowing cash we don’t have on such a gamble.

Exactly, and same with Assombolonga. He cost £6m and came from the division below when he signed for a Championship club. However he'd already had a season or two of banging them in. BB has absolutely no track record of scoring goals. 

Assombolonga and Rhodes also went straight into their new teams and scored goals, just as Bamford has done this season (now he's injury free) and he also cost £7m.

Whichever way you paint it the BB deal is lunacy UNLESS Mowbray starts playing him and he starts scoring goals that justify the expenditure. 

[tomphil]

We hope it works out but in no way can this be dressed up as a 'sensible approach' it's an expensive calculated gamble is what it is. Most transfers are gambles but if you have someone with a bit of pedigree then you at least know what you are buying. I'd say buying a player like Rhodes paid for in a similar way to this alleged deal was a sensible approach he started paying his fee back straight away. It only got silly with him when they almost doubled his wages.

This is nothing more than a punt on something that might never materialize because it wasn't really there in the first place.

We have to have one mystery per season at Ewood so this is the present one, won't be long before there's something else.

Edited December 20, 2018 by tomphil

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

For Rovers, £7m does not buy potential. 

The risks involved in that kind of signing are also huge. 

Current fan thinking (as well as the accounts) is that we are skint. Why are Venkys adding to our debt by spending this kind of money on an unproven player?

Early signs aren’t great either. If he doesn’t start against Newcastle we’ve bought a dud.

 

If he doesn’t do what you think he’s a dud? Sorry Stuart, I just don’t understand your view point at all. He could be still looking for a start in March and turn out to be a cracking signing. He could also turn out for the game at Newcastle and then be a flop. 

Im also flabbergasted that you and others cannot see the difference in cost between signing someone on standard champ wages, and then the more qualified/expected to bag instantly type. The way you say we are skint too - do you realise why the debt is so high? Paying daft wages mate. Hence why it’s sensible to put any money we can spend into fees, younger players, projects we can likely get something back from.

Rhodes came from league one (6 years ago!) to us on 40k a week mate. Stupid wages but why did we pay it? We wanted to be at the front of the queue. Assombalonga was coveted by a few clubs when at forest - why do you think he’s now paid 50k a week (and still sitting on Boro’s bench)

Waggott himself has said that there was a budget and it flexed between wages/transfers. How you and others can’t see that the gulf between our top earners, and recently relegated from prem and/or city clubs going for immediate promotion, is crazy!

 

41 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Good lord, spending £7m on a 19 year old is a sensible approach.

 

You're missing the point. BB has never done owt even at Championship level. £7m is ridiculous. 

It's infinitely better spending £4m on a 27 year old and paying him 25K and getting a top quality Championship player who contributes by winning the team points over 3 years whilst he's still in his prime and who will still end up costing LESS than BB (who may never amount to anything) That player may get us in the play-offs. BB can't get in the team. Do you see the difference?????

Saying he may be worth triple down the line is pie in the sky. We need players who can contribute NOW. 

 

Good lord indeed. You’re missing the point again. 7m on a fee for a 19 year old is cheaper compared to spending 3/4m on someone who is 40/50k a week.

There is also a problem with this idea we should be able to find better players than our current 11 for a couple of million and standard championship wages. it’s not realistic to just expect that.

Why is that so hard to grasp? 

Its also not difficult to see why some of the better championship players are turning down prem clubs like Burnley, when they’re being given contracts from Villa, Forest, Boro etc that are 3/4m a year wages. 

7m is not exactly what I’d call daft money either. Yes, you could’ve arguably paid the transfer fees for Hugill, or the lad who went to Derby from Peterborough- but do we believe they fit into our wage setup?

Both went to recently relegated or city teams going for immediate promotion. When this sinks in, you both might be able to start looking at this deal without the “I hate Tony” mindset.

Final say on this, signing young/highly rated/potential players is a reason to be excited about the future for me,  NOT a reason to criticise the manager, the directors, the overall direction of the club, or Ben himself.