Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, philipl said:

OK you live in your reality, I live in mine.

Very Trump-esque quote that, Phil! It's not unreasonable to ask for evidence. Going down the 'I heard it from a source' route is fine, but it's not real proof of anything. 

All I can remember reading from Mowbray is the quote on the £7m burning a hole in his pocket and needing to be spent, and taking full credit for Brereton's signing and saying all responsibility, good or bad, was on him. That's not to say the suggestion that the money was ear-marked for a specific type of player isn't true, as circumstantial evidence points to the owners being more likely to sanction much more money for attackers than defenders, but I just can't recall any specific quotes from TM confirming this. If anything he's inferred the opposite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I suspect what’s happened here is as follows... Brereton has performed poorly, again, and been subbed off. A few people have made ironic cheers, maybe the odd couple have booed, and a few people

Exciting times  

I too would like to see them both under a different manager. Preferably at a different club.

Posted Images

I’m a big, big, happy clapper on the TM and BB front and even I think that theory is a bit silly.

If anything though - spending 6m on a “ready made player” back then to go into a squad that hadn’t been built properly yet and wasn’t near ready to challenge for a couple of years may have been the bigger waste of money -  instead spending it on one of the most highly rated youngsters in the country to mature as we did.

Again, all hindsight though. 

Not my fault none of you can recognise a footballer ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

Its a messageboard to give opinions and it was very fair to question the money spent prior without feeling the need to refrain in case he turns it all around, otherwise this thread may aswell have ceased to exist. Not sure there is scope for any "I told you so" either. People judged on what they saw, individually there wasnt really any flickers never mind signs that he could come good, and the defence was leaking goals when people felt that we could have spent the money or at least some of the money there instead. If the above theory is accurate for which there is no proof, then that would be a poor reflection of the owners and the way the club rather than the manager.

I dont think anything in his first 2 seasons suggested even getting to performances anything like of which we have seen this season, whereby his improvement has been an unexpected positive hence why this thread has recently been littered with us all praising him and rightly so. Lets hope he continues to improve and people can focus on the player rather than looking back and picking out critics throughout the last 2 years.

RF - he had criticism thrown at him after a handful of sub appearances in an unnatural position. That’s not demonstrating no hope to me - it’s not even having the chance to settle.

Even in his second season - he had barely a chance to get up to speed. There is no need to judge players on limited minutes.

 

500k/5m/50m it doesn’t matter who they are or what they cost, all deserve a chance. For context too - 7m plus a standard wage over 3 / 4 years is still about 2 or 3 million less than what the Leon Best debacle cost us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JBiz said:

RF - he had criticism thrown at him after a handful of sub appearances in an unnatural position. That’s not demonstrating no hope to me - it’s not even having the chance to settle.

Even in his second season - he had barely a chance to get up to speed. There is no need to judge players on limited minutes.

 

500k/5m/50m it doesn’t matter who they are or what they cost, all deserve a chance. For context too - 7m plus a standard wage over 3 / 4 years is still about 2 or 3 million less than what the Leon Best debacle cost us.

So as far as you are concerned, should a player thread not be opened until a player hits x number of starts?

People will judge a player on an ongoing basis, you mention the usage of him but that was a regular criticism of the manager rather than the player himself.

The financial side is all guestimates but using Leon Best as a benchmark is hardly productive! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JBiz said:

RF - he had criticism thrown at him after a handful of sub appearances in an unnatural position. That’s not demonstrating no hope to me - it’s not even having the chance to settle.

Even in his second season - he had barely a chance to get up to speed. There is no need to judge players on limited minutes.

 

500k/5m/50m it doesn’t matter who they are or what they cost, all deserve a chance. For context too - 7m plus a standard wage over 3 / 4 years is still about 2 or 3 million less than what the Leon Best debacle cost us.

And Shearer had criticism when he signed because he wasn't Speedie and didn't do an awful lot in pre-season. That's what happens with a lot of players. They then have to get their chance and prove what they can do. 

Brereton had chances and didn't do that for two whole season. I've posted stats on this thread about how may of his appearances were 25minute+ appearances alongside his starts. It wasn't a string of 5 minute cameo's in which he consistently showed nothing.

And yet, whilst people grumbled in the stands to each other about being "a waste of money", he always received support from the Rovers following, so to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. It's going back to the poster who was basically saying "don't state your opinion on a message board if you don't think a player is very good". 

As for playing in an unnatural position, we thought he came in as a striker. There were calls to play him upfront with Dack or Armstrong in behind. There was quotes from inside Ewood about his finishing being superb in training. He simply doesn't have the touch, technique or instinct to play a goalscoring role. What we are now realising is that his strengths lie outside the penalty box, picking the ball up and driving at opposition. He's more of a Rothwell than an Armstrong, and playing him to his strengths is turning his career around at Ewood.  His intentional lack of balance is also proving to be another huge asset too ?

 

 

Edited by Hasta
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roversfan99 said:

So as far as you are concerned, should a player thread not be opened until a player hits x number of starts?

People will judge a player on an ongoing basis, you mention the usage of him but that was a regular criticism of the manager rather than the player himself.

The financial side is all guestimates but using Leon Best as a benchmark is hardly productive! 

Why is it always black and white? just because I suggest someone shouldn’t be written off without a fair chance, doesn’t mean there is no room for discussion at all?

The financial aspect of Best is to show just how expensive wages and pay offs are - to show how criminally we’ve wasted millions. It makes that point that investing 7m in a 19 year old might cost you less than signing a ready made 28/29 year old for 3.5m. 
 

Also for productive input - if you search Kevin Davies BRFCS in google - most recent references to him are in this thread, most compare his price and impact - and that’s more than 20 years ago, in a league where the sponsorship money’s up by about 3000%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hasta said:

Brereton had chances and didn't do that for two whole season. I've posted stats on this thread about how may of his appearances were 25minute+ appearances alongside is starts. It wasn't a string of 5 minute cameo's in which he consistently showed nothing.

And yet, whilst people grumbled in the stands to each other about being "a waste of money", he always received support from the Rovers following, so to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. It's going back to the poster who was basically saying "don't state your opinion on a message board if you don't think a player is very good". 

As for playing in an unnatural position, we thought he came in as a striker. There were calls to play him upfront with Dack or Armstrong in behind. There was quotes from inside Ewood about his finishing being superb in training.He simply doesn't have the touch, technique or instinct to play a goalscoring role. What we are now realising is that his strengths lie outside the penalty box, picking the ball up and driving at opposition. He's more of a Rothwell than an Armstrong, and playing him to his strengths is turning his career around at Ewood.  His intentional lack of balance is also proving to be another huge asset too ?

 

 

Is this fair Hasta? I mean what constitutes a fair crack at the whip? 25 minutes when we’re a goal down or chasing a game is that a fair justification of his potential and talent? Maybe for a Danny Graham with genuine expectation and past example of producing - but not so much a raw young striker in an unfamiliar position.

Also for someone supposedly without the touch or technique to be a goal scorer - I wouldn’t want to judge until he’s had a run playing upfront in the centre. Equally his goals (particularly one vs Watford) suggest there’s ample technique and an eye for goal we’ve still to see.


He’s had one solid run in the team and people think he looks a different player. This to me is just pure irony.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Why is it always black and white? just because I suggest someone shouldn’t be written off without a fair chance, doesn’t mean there is no room for discussion at all?

The financial aspect of Best is to show just how expensive wages and pay offs are - to show how criminally we’ve wasted millions. It makes that point that investing 7m in a 19 year old might cost you less than signing a ready made 28/29 year old for 3.5m. 
 

Also for productive input - if you search Kevin Davies BRFCS in google - most recent references to him are in this thread, most compare his price and impact - and that’s more than 20 years ago, in a league where the sponsorship money’s up by about 3000%.

The flex thing has been done to death, its all speculation, we dont know for sure what Brereton's wages are. The key though is that the only alternative is not a 3.5m high earning 28/29 year old.

Leon Best was a particularly horrendous way to spend money, he would have been a crap signing had he been a freebie on a modest wage. I would like to think that our standards are above displaying more value for money than Leon Best.

His appearances were never within a run of starts mainly because in those cameos he didnt do anything to suggest that he warranted a prolonged run in the team, and even then, Mowbray received plenty of criticism for how he was being used. He may have been written off as a current day judgement back when he had shown nothing by that point, compounded by other flaws in the team not being rectified, but ultimately being "written off" doesnt mean anything because now that he has suddenly come to the party, this thread is absolutely full of praise and optimism from even his most staunch critics from his first 2 seasons. All that refraining from committing to an opinion in 2 years (which is a decent portion of time) does is allow you not to be proved wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roversfan99 said:

The flex thing has been done to death, its all speculation, we dont know for sure what Brereton's wages are. The key though is that the only alternative is not a 3.5m high earning 28/29 year old.

Leon Best was a particularly horrendous way to spend money, he would have been a crap signing had he been a freebie on a modest wage. I would like to think that our standards are above displaying more value for money than Leon Best.

His appearances were never within a run of starts mainly because in those cameos he didnt do anything to suggest that he warranted a prolonged run in the team, and even then, Mowbray received plenty of criticism for how he was being used. He may have been written off as a current day judgement back when he had shown nothing by that point, compounded by other flaws in the team not being rectified, but ultimately being "written off" doesnt mean anything because now that he has suddenly come to the party, this thread is absolutely full of praise and optimism from even his most staunch critics from his first 2 seasons. All that refraining from committing to an opinion in 2 years (which is a decent portion of time) does is allow you not to be proved wrong.

By giving a recent “ish” example of us wasting money, I’m not suggesting we either do this one way (young and big fee) or the other (older ex prem and big wage)... such an obsession with seeing this in Black and White! It’s just example of why (at the time) I felt this “flex” argument is a simple format for viewing the way we can sign players.

Like you say - it’s all speculative without exact figures, but it’s not a stretch (for me at least) to see why we struggle attracting ex prem players, or competing for lower league who have interest from PL teams due to wages. TM seemingly has managed that side well, keeping us competitive but away from the days of Rhodes on 50k per week.

Within that limit - there’s no opportunity to compete with recently relegated teams for players, even more so being recently (at the time of the BB deal) in league 1.

Thus BB was one in our “available players” to buy. The same summer we spent 3m on Armstrong btw and whilst that isn’t an excuse to waste money, it’s an example of how every deal is about weighing up risk / reward for clubs in our position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Is this fair Hasta? I mean what constitutes a fair crack at the whip? 25 minutes when we’re a goal down or chasing a game is that a fair justification of his potential and talent? Maybe for a Danny Graham with genuine expectation and past example of producing - but not so much a raw young striker in an unfamiliar position.

Also for someone supposedly without the touch or technique to be a goal scorer - I wouldn’t want to judge until he’s had a run playing upfront in the centre. Equally his goals (particularly one vs Watford) suggest there’s ample technique and an eye for goal we’ve still to see.


He’s had one solid run in the team and people think he looks a different player. This to me is just pure irony.

I do think it's fair. Until the end of least season, he made 45 appearances for Rovers of which 28 of those were 20 minutes or more game time. I'm sure many of those appearances were weren't always 'chasing a game'. I know its more difficult for an attacking player to show their potential, but I just think in that amount of time on the pitch he should have shown a lot more than he did, regardless of his fee. Regardless, that's history now and he does look a different player, albeit playing in a different role which seems to suit his game far better.

As for irony, the reason he's had a decent run in the team is because he has actually performed well. See Tyrhys Dolan. Get an opportunity, take it and you will keep featuring for the first team.  If you don't perform you will get bombed out rarely to return like Harry Chapman. Brereton ultimately got a lot more game time than most youngsters because of his price tag. Had he cost £500k he would have been shelved a long time ago.

 

Edited by Hasta
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JBiz said:

By giving a recent “ish” example of us wasting money, I’m not suggesting we either do this one way (young and big fee) or the other (older ex prem and big wage)... such an obsession with seeing this in Black and White! It’s just example of why (at the time) I felt this “flex” argument is a simple format for viewing the way we can sign players.

Like you say - it’s all speculative without exact figures, but it’s not a stretch (for me at least) to see why we struggle attracting ex prem players, or competing for lower league who have interest from PL teams due to wages. TM seemingly has managed that side well, keeping us competitive but away from the days of Rhodes on 50k per week.

Within that limit - there’s no opportunity to compete with recently relegated teams for players, even more so being recently (at the time of the BB deal) in league 1.

Thus BB was one in our “available players” to buy. The same summer we spent 3m on Armstrong btw and whilst that isn’t an excuse to waste money, it’s an example of how every deal is about weighing up risk / reward for clubs in our position.

It isnt black or white but equally, you are using extreme examples again when we know that there are good players out there. I am not under the delusion that is is easy to build a good team but a manager puts himself into a position whereby he will accept that he is judged dependant on their success. Dack and Armstrong, especially the former were signed for really low fees compared to what they have given us. Fair play to Mowbray there.

Brereton had minimal impact even had he cost much less than he did, as an individual based on all we could judge him on, it was natural to feel disappointed. If you could remove yourself enough to totally withhold any judgement whatsoever then fair play to you.

The fact that he cost 7m means that even if it wasnt as simple as us going and signing a Bamford (random example of higher earner for a similar fee when we signed Brereton) etc because I appreciate that such a player was unobtainable, but it is not being unrealistic and I refuse to accept that, from a position say this summer just gone before this season in which we undoubtedly have seen a different Brereton, that we couldnt have spent that amount of money more efficiently and more effectively. Even if that was within this unsubstantiated theory in which we could only sign a young English attacker. the fact that it is difficult to sign players within certain parameters and in a competitive market is not enough to absolve a professional football manager of any responsibility/debate/criticism should a player seem to be a poor acquisition, which he did when you refer back to the timing of the comments. And I dont think that even the most positive supporter could claim to have seen his performances this season coming, even if like yourself they withheld judgement.

Playing devils advocate, if Armstrong ran his contract down and left on a free with us in the same League, which is not totally beyond possibility with 18 months left. Would he be deemed a poor signing considering what would have been a fruitless investment, and thus should we withhold judgement on him until he leaves?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Why would I be arsey? I don’t care what the rationale was as long as he does the business.

So anyway, this rationale wasn’t from the Mowbray quotes you thought you’d read, but your line into the regime? You’d think you would have mentioned your inside track to start with...

No both

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hasta said:

I do think it's fair. Until the end of least season, he made 45 appearances for Rovers of which 28 of those were 20 minutes or more game time. I'm sure many of those appearances were weren't always 'chasing a game'. I know its more difficult for an attacking player to show their potential, but I just think in that amount of time on the pitch he should have shown a lot more than he did, regardless of his fee. Regardless, that's history now and he does look a different player, albeit playing in a different role which seems to suit his game far better.

As for irony, the reason he's had a decent run in the team is because he has actually performed well. See Tyrhys Dolan. Get an opportunity, take it and you will keep featuring for the first team.  If you don't perform you will get bombed out rarely to return like Harry Chapman. Brereton ultimately got a lot more game time than most youngsters because of his price tag. Had he cost £500k he would have been shelved a long time ago.

 

What would you describe his role as?

For me, the change out wide suits him but I wouldn’t describe it as his speciality. Part of the reason for investing in players of this age, is the opportunity to develop their potential around specific opportunities and the style of the team.

61 appearances for the us in all competitions equals 2850 minutes. Considering we’ve had around 100 fixtures since he signed, he’s been in around half and only played about 30min a game. Far less before this season.

No supporter could’ve come to a proper judgement in that time, and as far as I’m concerned about the level he can get to, I don’t think any of us have had the time yet to judge or safely say what his full potential is.

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

It isnt black or white but equally, you are using extreme examples again when we know that there are good players out there. I am not under the delusion that is is easy to build a good team but a manager puts himself into a position whereby he will accept that he is judged dependant on their success. Dack and Armstrong, especially the former were signed for really low fees compared to what they have given us. Fair play to Mowbray there.

Brereton had minimal impact even had he cost much less than he did, as an individual based on all we could judge him on, it was natural to feel disappointed. If you could remove yourself enough to totally withhold any judgement whatsoever then fair play to you.

The fact that he cost 7m means that even if it wasnt as simple as us going and signing a Bamford (random example of higher earner for a similar fee when we signed Brereton) etc because I appreciate that such a player was unobtainable, but it is not being unrealistic and I refuse to accept that, from a position say this summer just gone before this season in which we undoubtedly have seen a different Brereton, that we couldnt have spent that amount of money more efficiently and more effectively. Even if that was within this unsubstantiated theory in which we could only sign a young English attacker. the fact that it is difficult to sign players within certain parameters and in a competitive market is not enough to absolve a professional football manager of any responsibility/debate/criticism should a player seem to be a poor acquisition, which he did when you refer back to the timing of the comments. And I dont think that even the most positive supporter could claim to have seen his performances this season coming, even if like yourself they withheld judgement.

Playing devils advocate, if Armstrong ran his contract down and left on a free with us in the same League, which is not totally beyond possibility with 18 months left. Would he be deemed a poor signing considering what would have been a fruitless investment, and thus should we withhold judgement on him until he leaves?

 

Extreme example? A striker our club paid 3.5m for who achieved fuck all and ended up costing us millions to pay off? It’s pertinent to any BRFC debate on signing strikers. Especially when many of the same criticisms (like being a lazy sod) have been nonchalantly placed on Big Ben.

Why do you and others see the pointing out the “over critical” comments as some sort of attempt to shut down debate?

You're welcome to criticise whatever and whoever you want, just like I am allowed to suggest that particular comment is wrong from my perspective.

It applies to everyone - you could take (as many did) umbridge at the notion that I felt a multimillion pound deal for an English 19 year old striker with potential was a good idea.

As for the straw-man on the end of your post, I don’t think anybody needs to be told that the club would be rightfully and heavily criticised if it allows investments like AA slip away for nowt! Speaking of AA - a 3 million pound investment in a player, who at the time was a “risk” because he’d never achieved it in the championship!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Armstrong had some goal scoring pedigree for a few seasons already plus it was obvious TM could fit him in the side. He was barely much older than BB and the fee was 1.75 if he didn't cut the mustard it might not have rose to 3, still might not have.

Not really a good comparison as we were buying on a 'its already doing what it says on the tin' scenario. I don't know about straw man but there's plenty clutching going on trying to score a few points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomphil said:

Armstrong had some goal scoring pedigree for a few seasons already plus it was obvious TM could fit him in the side. He was barely much older than BB and the fee was 1.75 if he didn't cut the mustard it might not have rose to 3, still might not have.

Not really a good comparison as we were buying on a 'its already doing what it says on the tin' scenario. I don't know about straw man but there's plenty clutching going on trying to score a few points.

The criticism at the time was related to a poor spell at Bolton if I recall. Turned out a banger. Now looking more and more top flight.

... and I hope you’re well too Phil 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JBiz said:

What would you describe his role as?

For me, the change out wide suits him but I wouldn’t describe it as his speciality. Part of the reason for investing in players of this age, is the opportunity to develop their potential around specific opportunities and the style of the team.

61 appearances for the us in all competitions equals 2850 minutes. Considering we’ve had around 100 fixtures since he signed, he’s been in around half and only played about 30min a game. Far less before this season.

No supporter could’ve come to a proper judgement in that time, and as far as I’m concerned about the level he can get to, I don’t think any of us have had the time yet to judge or safely say what his full potential is.

Extreme example? A striker our club paid 3.5m for who achieved fuck all and ended up costing us millions to pay off? It’s pertinent to any BRFC debate on signing strikers. Especially when many of the same criticisms (like being a lazy sod) have been nonchalantly placed on Big Ben.

Why do you and others see the pointing out the “over critical” comments as some sort of attempt to shut down debate?

You're welcome to criticise whatever and whoever you want, just like I am allowed to suggest that particular comment is wrong from my perspective.

It applies to everyone - you could take (as many did) umbridge at the notion that I felt a multimillion pound deal for an English 19 year old striker with potential was a good idea.

As for the straw-man on the end of your post, I don’t think anybody needs to be told that the club would be rightfully and heavily criticised if it allows investments like AA slip away for nowt! Speaking of AA - a 3 million pound investment in a player, who at the time was a “risk” because he’d never achieved it in the championship!

So could I flip that and say that because he is not Alan Shearer, Chris Sutton, Matt Jansen, Roque Santa Cruz, Craig Bellamy, Jordan Rhodes, that I am not happy with a player? A reasonable standard to expect lies in between expensive mercenary and brilliant player. No one has made a direct comparison to Leon Best regarding poor application/effort, and indeed I think that at times his effort and work rate did appear to be below the player we see this season charging around everywhere. 

The judgement does not come from where the player comes from, indeed every signing is a risk and the manager has to try and manage and calculate that risk with the resources available and is open for judgement both positive and negative dependant on the success of that player. At the time of the end of the second season, it was very difficult to make a constructive case as to the potential he had, indeed some of the most optimistic posters on here were regularly critical of the signing. If your mentality with a young player is either to praise or withhold judgement that is fair enough but if a player does not appear to be showing much ability or quality then of course I suspect you will be in the minority in withholding judgement indefinitely.

I feel like quite ironically in the last few pages of this thread, widespread praise and optimism is now being drowned out by a need to revert back to prior to this season when Brereton was not doing so well and needlessly bringing up online criticism that was justified in most minds and making out that the fans were unnecessarily harsh to him, werent supporting him etc and it is a narrative that will probably provoke a lot of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JBiz said:

The criticism at the time was related to a poor spell at Bolton if I recall. Turned out a banger. Now looking more and more top flight.

... and I hope you’re well too Phil 

All good thanks, nice to see you in the opposite corner again and fair play for sticking to your guns with Brereton.

As for Arma i don't think it represented much of a risk as he must've had best part of 30 goals to his name by then. Clearly had something about him and if it had flunked it wasn't a massive hit although his 15 grand a week would've taken some shifting.

Edited by tomphil
Link to post
Share on other sites

BB cost 3 times the amount of AA - the latter having a lot more experience. Not sure what this argument is about tbh, player plays well, gets plaudits, doesn't play well gets criticism - been that way since year dot.  Why not just enjoy the fact that most of us now have to eat humble pie - and I DO mean MOST of us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JacknOry said:

BB cost 3 times the amount of AA - the latter having a lot more experience. Not sure what this argument is about tbh, player plays well, gets plaudits, doesn't play well gets criticism - been that way since year dot.  Why not just enjoy the fact that most of us now have to eat humble pie - and I DO mean MOST of us. 

I guess one point of mine regarding this is one came with AA 101 league apps when bought, BB 53...

Newcastle wanted to sell, perhaps Notts Forest less so? I can’t see how 2 years difference, and a minor argument of more Championship apps for BB cost double, and I can understand people’s view on that discrepancy, but transfer deals are never £ for £ the same.
 

All come with an element of risk, more so at 19 and 6/7m.
 

My annoyance with many of the so called “humble pie eaters” (Which sounds more like a problem in Wigan atm) was a lack of patience for his age, to even give benefit of the doubt for certain mistakes or lack of impact. 
 

Arma is 2 years in front of Ben. Experience, maturity of decision making - massive for modern day forwards.
 

Some players like Harvey Elliott have so much ability at young age they’re above Championship standard at 17. Doesn’t mean he will make top level - but I wonder what it would cost to get him on a permanent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

I’m a big, big, happy clapper on the TM and BB front and even I think that theory is a bit silly.

If anything though - spending 6m on a “ready made player” back then to go into a squad that hadn’t been built properly yet and wasn’t near ready to challenge for a couple of years may have been the bigger waste of money -  instead spending it on one of the most highly rated youngsters in the country to mature as we did.

Again, all hindsight though. 

Not my fault none of you can recognise a footballer ?

A joke yes? Faced with an open goal Brereton had 2 options for 2 seasons:

1) hit the woodwork

2) trip over his own ankles

We are all delighted he's come good but there was nothing to suggest it and you pretending you had the greater insight is laughable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Arma is 2 years in front of Ben. Experience, maturity of decision making - massive for modern day forwards.

At 17 Elliott is a far better player than Brereton. Rooney was a regular first team player at 16 and there are plenty of other examples.

They were worth top dollar, Brereton not so. You can argue till you are blue in the face (and I know you will!) but its all about the fee.

We could and should have done much better for that sort of money at that time.

His signing didn't help the team at all. In fact he had a negative effect---we played him when he had nothing to offer.

If the truth is that he was a speculative investment for Balaji then that's how we should judge the success or otherwise of that transfer deal.

Nothing to do with football and all about money for the owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hasta said:

Brereton had chances and didn't do that for two whole season. I've posted stats on this thread about how may of his appearances were 25minute+ appearances alongside his starts. It wasn't a string of 5 minute cameo's in which he consistently showed nothing.

 

This

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderation Lead
9 hours ago, S8 & Blue said:

I’m a big, big, happy clapper on the TM and BB front and even I think that theory is a bit silly.

If anything though - spending 6m on a “ready made player” back then to go into a squad that hadn’t been built properly yet and wasn’t near ready to challenge for a couple of years may have been the bigger waste of money -  instead spending it on one of the most highly rated youngsters in the country to mature as we did.

Again, all hindsight though. 

Not my fault none of you can recognise a footballer ?

We’re Blackburn Rovers, not Man City. When we spend £7 Million on a player, we need them to be ready to get straight in the first team, we haven’t got the cash for that!

I’m glad Brereton has been playing well, I’m dead pleased for him and everyone associated with the club, it’s to all our benefit that he does!

However much game time he had or didn’t have doesn’t matter, he’s doing well now, so what is the issue? Does it really matter what someone nobody has ever met said online two years ago? 

The way people are going on is like fans were regularly sending Brereton those kidnap style letters with words cut out of newspapers. (Obviously red tops, such letter writers would be too thick to read broadsheets). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 47er said:

At 17 Elliott is a far better player than Brereton. Rooney was a regular first team player at 16 and there are plenty of other examples.

They were worth top dollar, Brereton not so. You can argue till you are blue in the face (and I know you will!) but its all about the fee.

We could and should have done much better for that sort of money at that time.

His signing didn't help the team at all. In fact he had a negative effect---we played him when he had nothing to offer.

If the truth is that he was a speculative investment for Balaji then that's how we should judge the success or otherwise of that transfer deal.

Nothing to do with football and all about money for the owners.

I didn’t compare them, you did. I asked how much he’d be in this climate, any input on that?

You’d have to elaborate further on the part in bold because I’ve no idea what you’re on about 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.