JANUARY TRANSFER WINDOW

[JBiz]

43 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Again without it wanting to appear to be an episode of Mowbray bashing I'm not sure what the idea was behind Brereton. All this talk about long term projects and one for the future, yet it's the here and now that matters. I'm not sure how or why as a Championship club we are following a process of long term player development so much so that we're short on numbers in games and not focusing on immediate results.

Very odd. I can't imagine the likes of Cook, Parkinson, Rowett etc. spending the majority of their cash on players not ready to play in their teams.

Err, I might sound like a mentalist in your opinion but perhaps he scouted and signed a player he wanted? 

[JHRover]

42 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Look at Mowbray's comments when Brereton signed. Comments like not rushing him, patience, not putting too much pressure on him. Signing Brereton was too much of a good opportunity to miss out on. 

Why keep comparing us and Mowbray to other managers? I couldnt give flying **** about Cook, Parkinson and Rowett. And those managers you named are at clubs below us. Enough said. 

I'm well aware of Mowbray's comments. That doesn't prevent me questioning the logic behind signing someone who he doesn't think is ready to play, especially when the player in question was by far our most expensive signing and cost more than we've spent in years.

I don't think we or anyone else in this league can afford to spend time waiting for players to get ready or develop. All this 'one for the future' stuff is boring. The only aim should be to get promoted asap, not sign players who take 6 months to get up to speed.

[JHRover]

1 minute ago, Biz said:

Err, I might sound like a mentalist in your opinion but perhaps he scouted and signed a player he wanted? 

The mental part is scouting and signing a player he wants, spending 80% of his total transfer spend on him and then refusing to play him for more than 20 minutes.

[Mercer]

55 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I used to watch Rochdale when Rovers were away. I went to see them play Leyton Orient one day in the old Third Division.  Rochdale had a brilliant right winger in those days along the lines of Stuart Metcalfe and Noel Brotherston. He was running full backs ragged most weeks. Orient had a young lad playing left back called Dennis Rofe. He played the 'Dale winger completely out of the game, the winger never got a kick. To cap it all after about 80 minutes Rofe went on a length of the wing run to set up an Orient goal.

I thought this kid can't fail, he's got it all, he was as quick as lightening and really hard in the tackle.

So I wrote to the Rovers chief scout telling about what I'd seen. I got a reply back thanking me for my comments but telling me that Rofe was already signed to the Leyton Orient club !

Well we all knew that, everybody's signed to a club, that's why we have transfer bids. It was just a brush off letter. After that I never bothered writing to the club.

About 15 months later Rofe signed for Leicester City for what was a record fee for a full back in British football.

Was that Fred Don.......can't remember surname.  If it was, response is of no surprise.

[Oldgregg86]

Maybe we have got the striker we need and don't need to strengthen in January. How about giving him a feckin game and finding out

[DE.]

Nothing wrong with bringing in players to develop, but they should be costing the types of fees Rothwell and Davenport commanded, not £7m! That's crazy for any club at our level. You don't throw that kind of money away in this league on future prospects, that's a fee for a first teamer.

I'm struggling to think of any club in the division who's spent that kind of money on a prospect that wasn't expected to go straight into the first team? Are there others? Or is this all very peculiar?

[Mercer]

49 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Look at Mowbray's comments when Brereton signed. Comments like not rushing him, patience, not putting too much pressure on him. Signing Brereton was too much of a good opportunity to miss out on. 

Why keep comparing us and Mowbray to other managers? I couldnt give flying **** about Cook, Parkinson and Rowett. And those managers you named are at clubs below us. Enough said. 

Chaddy, face up to it, we all drop clangers from time to time whether it's in our personal lives or our working lives.

You should not be trying to defend Mowbray.

Mowbray should have the balls to tell the fans just what the feck is going on with Brereton.  Did he personally scout him, was it his decision to sign him, why commit to a £7million deal when we've gaping holes in our squad, why not play him.  I think Mowbray's stance on this one is unfathomable.  IMV, there is something not right here.

I don't know your circumstances but if you went out and blew £20,000 on a car and there was no food in your house nor clothes on your kids' backs, your wife or partner would be fully entitled to play merry hell with you.

[JBiz]

12 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The mental part is scouting and signing a player he wants, spending 80% of his total transfer spend on him and then refusing to play him for more than 20 minutes.

You got the figures on the deal now then? I’m not being flippant either, it’s genuinely interesting how you agree he cannot have cost so much upfront, yet say he’s cost the bulk of any perceived budget!

 

[oldjamfan1]

14 minutes ago, DE. said:

Nothing wrong with bringing in players to develop, but they should be costing the types of fees Rothwell and Davenport commanded, not £7m! That's crazy for any club at our level. You don't throw that kind of money away in this league on future prospects, that's a fee for a first teamer.

I'm struggling to think of any club in the division who's spent that kind of money on a prospect that wasn't expected to go straight into the first team? Are there others? Or is this all very peculiar?

Not having a go at you in particular D.E. but I keep seeing this £7m figure being bandied about. Has this ever been confirmed by anyone? Based on BB's albeit brief appearances so far I cannot believe that such a figure wouldn't include several appearance/goals/promotion clauses and is more likely to be an initial fee of around the £3m mark. 

[Neal]

What I don't get is how Davenport was brought in to challenge for a direct spot in our first team but if we sign Chapman he could likely be loaned out. Mental. 

[JHRover]

16 minutes ago, Biz said:

You got the figures on the deal now then? I’m not being flippant either, it’s genuinely interesting how you agree he cannot have cost so much upfront, yet say he’s cost the bulk of any perceived budget!

 

I think everyone can agree that Brereton was by far our most expensive signing of the summer. The only other one to reach more than a million quid was Armstrong. Lets agree that £7 million is a massively inflated figure and the real price was only half of that. £3.5 million. That's still over two thirds of what we spent.

[Mike E]

The financial weighting of the loan would make sense to me tbh, BUT I fear it may be an excuse.

All I know is that his cameos are improving each time, so perhaps it really is as simple as not disrupting the team that brought us up too much, and making Ben work his way in?

Imagine if he’d played every game up top so far and not scored (because I feel like that would actually justify the reaction on here).

[JacknOry]

8 minutes ago, Mike E said:

The financial weighting of the loan would make sense to me tbh, BUT I fear it may be an excuse.

All I know is that his cameos are improving each time, so perhaps it really is as simple as not disrupting the team that brought us up too much, and making Ben work his way in?

Imagine if he’d played every game up top so far and not scored (because I feel like that would actually justify the reaction on here).

I think the aspect that is the most bemusing though is that we would rather play an AM as a striker rather than this kid. I would imagine that disrupts the team a lot more than giving the kid a game. I think most would be far more patient if they got a chance to see a full game from him to gauge what he has. If he didnt score for a few games i doubt it would be a big deal as one up front is not all about goals (hence why DG doesnt get too many). 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Look at Mowbray's comments when Brereton signed. Comments like not rushing him, patience, not putting too much pressure on him. Signing Brereton was too much of a good opportunity to miss out on. 

Why keep comparing us and Mowbray to other managers? I couldnt give flying **** about Cook, Parkinson and Rowett. And those managers you named are at clubs below us. Enough said. 

All of those comments are the standard claptrap that any manager comes out with when he signs either a young or an expensive player, or both in Breretons case. They dont explain the illogical way that he has been used, and totally dismissed as a player in his natural position despite a lack of alternative to Graham.

Did Mowbray say or did you say that signing Brereton was too good an opportunity to miss out on? Such an attitude may explain why he seemingly doesnt know how to use him properly.

You have many times aired your thoughts that you disagree with Mowbrays treatment of Brereton so youve no need to defend him if that is the case.

I dont think most managers would spend the vast majority of their budget on a player that they still havent started in late November. Its a fair point, its an individual point that you have childishly lashed out at in your second paragraph. 

[BlackburnEnd75]

I think whatever Mowbrays initial plan with Brereton (insert your own theory here) its not working out. He needs a few starts and he should be played exclusively up front.

When Graham gets knackered after 60 mins then Brereton should come on for him up top.

3 games in a week then Brereton should start 1 of them.

Want to go 2 up top then bring in Brereton.

Give the lad some game time in his best position so he can learn the ropes. Then if he still needs to bulk up get him in during the summer when its easier to add mass. If he fails then he fails but I dont think it'll hurt us at least till xmas for him to be used as Grahams deputy, can't be worse than playing an Midfielder up top again.

 

 

 

[G Somerset Rover]

1 hour ago, Neal said:

What I don't get is how Davenport was brought in to challenge for a direct spot in our first team but if we sign Chapman he could likely be loaned out. Mental. 

Where did you hear that? Completely different players and positions. 

[JacknOry]

Just now, OnePhilT said:

No. It looks like a straight-forward case of Mowbray not wanting to give a 19 year-old with a big price tag on his shoulders a baptism of fire, instead gently easing him into the team - rightly or wrongly. I suppose we have to remember that Brereton is only 19.

Age is a number and the kid is a big unit already with 50 previous Championship games under his belt. Ez E at QPR is the same age and he is seemingly being let off the reigns to good effect. 

[JBiz]

39 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

 They dont explain the illogical way that he has been used, and totally dismissed as a player in his natural position despite a lack of alternative to Graham.

Did Mowbray say or did you say that signing Brereton was too good an opportunity to miss out on? Such an attitude may explain why he seemingly doesnt know how to use him properly.

I dont think most managers would spend the vast majority of their budget on a player that they still havent started in late November.  

There is plenty of logic to it, it’s just a few people aren’t prepared to accept other viewpoints - ironically even the opinion of our own manager and backroom team.

Also vast majority is an echo of JHRs assumption. When we’ve nothing to spend in January should we need it, perhaps then you’ll be more justified on that aspect

Edited November 27, 2018 by Biz

[K-Hod]

53 minutes ago, Biz said:

There is plenty of logic to it, it’s just a few people aren’t prepared to accept other viewpoints - ironically even the opinion of our own manager and backroom team.

Also vast majority is an echo of JHRs assumption. When we’ve nothing to spend in January should we need it, perhaps then you’ll be more justified on that aspect

To be fair Joe, it sounds like you’re struggling to accept the viewpoint of JHRover? ?

[Oldgregg86]

What's all this bulk up business. Has anyone seen David Brooks play at Bournemouth. Owen, Jeffers, Calvert lewin , the list is endless. 

Ben's got to be one of the biggest lads in our team

[roversfan99]

57 minutes ago, Biz said:

There is plenty of logic to it, it’s just a few people aren’t prepared to accept other viewpoints - ironically even the opinion of our own manager and backroom team.

Also vast majority is an echo of JHRs assumption. When we’ve nothing to spend in January should we need it, perhaps then you’ll be more justified on that aspect

He may be the manager but that doesnt mean that we should always agree with him, or even that he is always right.

I stand by my assertion that Brereton should be at least in contention to start games, and crucially that he is not being used correctly by playing fleeting cameos, most often as a wide man. Mowbrays quotes about him are of particular frustration in that a change is unlikely in the near future. His reasoning for this is flawed as discussed.

The only logic to any of it is the fact that Brereton has been somewhat (albeit IMO overly cautiously) eased in. My main gripe is to do with positioning, and it seems that is the same with most people.

The budget thing is a two pronged point. I think you would have to be pretty pedantic to not admit that he was obviously the majority of our budget, we signed 2 loans, a free agent and 2 players for nominal fees. The other 2 were Armstrong and Brereton and it was universally acknowledged that the fee for Brereton will be far higher than it was for Armstrong. Also, signing Brereton was as a result of a summer wide, patient search for a much needed striker. Seeing as Mowbray didnt sign a striker, Brereton was presumably seen as that striker, so something has gone amiss in the short term if he is now not considered to be that man.

Just now, Oldgregg86 said:

What's all this bulk up business. Has anyone seen David Brooks play at Bournemouth. Owen, Jeffers, Calvert lewin , the list is endless. 

Ben's got to be one of the biggest lads in our team

It should be clear that he lacks the physicality unlike the titans of Dack and Palmer to play that role, no?

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

The financial weighting of the loan would make sense to me tbh, BUT I fear it may be an excuse.

All I know is that his cameos are improving each time, so perhaps it really is as simple as not disrupting the team that brought us up too much, and making Ben work his way in?

Imagine if he’d played every game up top so far and not scored (because I feel like that would actually justify the reaction on here).

So by that token, Mowbray would have done the same for say Messi or Ronaldo!?

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

He may be the manager but that doesnt mean that we should always agree with him, or even that he is always right.

I stand by my assertion that Brereton should be at least in contention to start games, and crucially that he is not being used correctly by playing fleeting cameos, most often as a wide man. Mowbrays quotes about him are of particular frustration in that a change is unlikely in the near future. His reasoning for this is flawed as discussed.

The only logic to any of it is the fact that Brereton has been somewhat (albeit IMO overly cautiously) eased in. My main gripe is to do with positioning, and it seems that is the same with most people.

The budget thing is a two pronged point. I think you would have to be pretty pedantic to not admit that he was obviously the majority of our budget, we signed 2 loans, a free agent and 2 players for nominal fees. The other 2 were Armstrong and Brereton and it was universally acknowledged that the fee for Brereton will be far higher than it was for Armstrong. Also, signing Brereton was as a result of a summer wide, patient search for a much needed striker. Seeing as Mowbray didnt sign a striker, Brereton was presumably seen as that striker, so something has gone amiss in the short term if he is now not considered to be that man.

It should be clear that he lacks the physicality unlike the titans of Dack and Palmer to play that role, no?

There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and then suggesting their choices are illogical, in my personal opinion.

For example - the assertion he should be in line to start games... I mean just how many should he have started in your view? I’d call regularly in the 18 “in line to start” and despite the “illogical” and the argument about cost - he’s still an 19 year old new signing. 

If your gripe is on his positional use, I’m quite sure you’d find alternative gripes if we’d switched formation to accommodate him. He should be eased into the way we play.

Finally on cost - as you will constantly dodge this point, I don’t think we’ve spent hardly anything up front, and I don’t think he’s earning very much yet. 

I very much feel you constantly mix up expectations and aspirations. We all would’ve loved Brererton to hit the ground like Rhodes, bit the expectation should’ve never been such.

23 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

To be fair Joe, it sounds like you’re struggling to accept the viewpoint of JHRover? ?

I didn’t think you read them, trivial nonsense? Seriously though it might be time to lighten up. I’m off for a “must drink” brew. 

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

No. It looks like a straight-forward case of Mowbray not wanting to give a 19 year-old with a big price tag on his shoulders a baptism of fire, instead gently easing him into the team - rightly or wrongly. I suppose we have to remember that Brereton is only 19.

PSG bought Mbappe for £165millionish at 18 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think it's all codswallop about Brereton.  His age is irrelevant.  He's either good enough for Rovers or he's not.  If he isn't good enough to go straight into our team then it was the height of madness to commit to a £multi million deal.  If a player can't handle the fee whether it's £1, £10 or £100 million then they don't have the bottle and shouldn't be signed.

If Coyle had pulled such a stunt, he would have been castigated and this MB would be in meltdown.

Edited November 27, 2018 by K-Hod

[roversfan99]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and then suggesting their choices are illogical, in my personal opinion.

For example - the assertion he should be in line to start games... I mean just how many should he have started in your view? I’d call regularly in the 18 “in line to start” and despite the “illogical” and the argument about cost - he’s still an 19 year old new signing. 

If your gripe is on his positional use, I’m quite sure you’d find alternative gripes if we’d switched formation to accommodate him. He should be eased into the way we play.

Finally on cost - as you will constantly dodge this point, I don’t think we’ve spent hardly anything up front, and I don’t think he’s earning very much yet. 

I very much feel you constantly mix up expectations and aspirations. We all would’ve loved Brererton to hit the ground like Rhodes, bit the expectation should’ve never been such.

I didn’t think you read them, trivial nonsense? Seriously though it might be time to lighten up. I’m off for a “must drink” brew. 

He should have started the games that Graham was deemed unfit to do so, he should be second in line in my opinion. 

My points are not based on any expectations of him scoring goal after goal like Rhodes did. My main point is not based around the amount of game time he has played, although it has been less than I would have liked. It is based on how he has been used. I expected him to be number 2 behind Graham and to be slowly phased into that position, playing at first when Graham is tiring or unavailable. 

You mention my gripe on positional use and imply that I would moan regardless but that is unfair. I agree he should be eased in, and from the start Graham and Dack were the key partnership. But I feel that shoehorning in Dack (or Palmer) as a number 9 requires far more of a tactical adjustment than playing a striker with experiencing of playing as a lone striker at this level, with someone playing off him.

1 minute ago, Mercer said:

PSG bought Mbappe for £165millionish at 18 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think it's all codswallop about Brereton.  His age is irrelevant.  He's either good enough for Rovers or he's not.  If he isn't good enough to go straight into our team then it was the height of madness to commit to a £multi million deal.  If a player can't handle the fee whether it's £1, £10 or £100 million then they don't have the bottle and shouldn't be signed.

If Coyley had pulled such a stunt, he would have been castigated and this MB would be in meltdown.

Whilst I think that spending so much on someone not ready made is a potentially valid point, his age isnt irrelevant and you have to appreciate that he will improve over time. Constantly namedropping Mbappe (a world class player) just belittles your own point. I am not sure where the suggestions have come from that he lacks the bottle to handle the big money fee either.

Mowbray has been critiqued at length just as anyone else would for the signing of Brereton (correctly IMO) so youve just put that last line in to try and provoke reactions, which I'm sure you will manage to do.