M_B

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

He certainly didn't have any bad luck with the squads he had at his disposal.

Well no, he didn't have any bad luck, just the good stuff, ask Upside Down and his rabbits foot. 

1 hour ago, ... said:

Any joy mate?

Yeah sorted, ta

Don't know about anyone else but we've been struggling getting  on to buy.

Daughter rang up and sorted it over the phone this morning, don't know the problem yet but we did want 9 together. 

11 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I suppose you can when you don't understand basic life concepts like luck and chance.

Luck is the football fans' get out of jail free card, when things don't go as they predicted.

Ie, Southgate did better than I predicted, I'll just say he was lucky and that makes it all OK.

Strange thing being, I don't actually remember him him having any bad luck, funny that. 

18 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Ive not got a specific number in mind. Its more of a case of, dont force him out, in January, out of desperation, and instead give him at least half a season more to accelerate in value. Hes obviously going to generate more, you wont get true value under those conditions.

If you don't have a specific figure In mind, then surely you can't really have an opinion on the final figure, whatever it is. 

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

You keep fixating on that, different situations, there will be other players with different clauses. Its like defending Venkys because they at least pay the players unlike Chansiri did. 

Its simple logic. We sold desperately, in January, before he had time to further play and appreciate in value. Logically, regardless of structure, his value with us being distressed sellers was lower than it should have been.

I'm not fixated on anything, it seems a good example to me. 

I suppose the question is, how much do you think we should have got for him? 

22 minutes ago, Gav said:

What point are you trying to make? I’ve no idea at this point, but I’ve not read all the thread?

That a smaller fee usually means a higher sell on, and vice versa. 

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Do you think less than £10m was good for Raya?

It's not 1995.

It wasn't less than £10 million. There's not a chance anyone AT THE TIME expected us to get anywhere near that amount. 

57 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

But that implies that the total of any package is always the same. Ie, he is being sold right at that moment, and its just a question of structuring.

His value regardless of structuring was limited. We had to sell, we were desperate, we sold him in January when theres less money around, clubs less willing to spend money, and we sold him early as opposed to letting bis value continue to appreciate.

Theres no reason to suggest that if all of the above factors werent in play, and if we had waited, that we couldnt still have the add ons AND a higher fee.

Big sales will contain sell on fees. If that player goes to the very top, it doesnt justify the sale because of potential add ons down the line, its not something our board have done really well to include, its standard. Its not either or.

It's 10%higher than Bellingham's when he left Birmingham. 

17 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Its a bizarre argument.

People presumably think we should have got a bigger initial fee ASWELL as add ons. Those add ons arent part of a masterplan as opposed to a higher fee.

And had we waited longer and not been as desperate, chucking him out the door in the less busy winter window, then he would have been worth more, however it was structured.

It isn't really difficult to fathom, the lower the fee, the higher the sell on and vice versa.

 I don't know what's so bizarre in waiting until the final amount until forming an opinion. With Raya, some of the criticism was both premature and way off the mark. 

4 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Don't forget the dark days when he dropped Raya for Leutwiler

Forgotten all about him. I do remember Raya wasn't getting a chance until Mowbray picked him. 

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Ok. I thought the Arsenal sell on was widely reported as £4m.

Point still stands though, as with Wharton we gave him away ridiculously cheap initially, in that instance primarily because Mowbray didnt really rate him.

Thought it was Mowbray who gave him his chance? 

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

No, because there's nothing to suggest that we have anything other than the standard sort of 15% sell on clause so we should have had a lot more to start with plus that.

Same with Raya.

Not one Rovers fan thought we'd get anywhere near £10 million for Raya. Bellingham was a higher fee when he left Brum, but only a 5% sell on. 

22 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

People were rightly extremely annoyed we virtually gave him away to keep the lights on.

But nobody knows how much we'll end up with?

Same with Raya, all the complaints but we ended up with more than expected.

Maybe wait and see ? 

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Not sure you are getting very far with Dan Burn playing behind it though. Sure it will be ok against poor opposition today.

Unfortunate that more money lines Venkys pockets never to be seen.

And yet, the Adam Wharton thread is a 139 page argument about how much we got/will get/should have got for him. 

10 hours ago, ... said:

I dunno mate look at his extension 😄 I'm not saying it was an easy one but I favour Toths reactions over pears

So do I but come on, the ball's past him in a flash, whoever I'm blaming, It isn't Pears. 

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Well, thank God they're all "aligned" or we might end up losing nearly all our home games or something. Oh errr..... hang on!

What do you define as "it succeeding"?

Cutting costs but going down?

Cutting costs but scraping up in at best 19th?

I'd define "it succeeding" as cutting costs yet still managing to maintain a similar League position to last season. Imo there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of that happening, they can be as aligned or onboard as they like.

Don't know why you use the word aligned with such sarcasm,it's the most important thing.

As for what success looks like, promotion has to be the ultimate aim. Whatever success looks like to different people,it definitely won't happen with any coach unless he's on board with what's happening recruitment wise. 

13 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

He's never quitting, he seems full square on behind the "transition".

Good,it won't succeed otherwise. 

10 hours ago, ... said:

I think pears could of done better on that second goal his little rabbit flap was ineffective and no where near the ball

He, or anyone else, had no chance. 

1 hour ago, aletheia said:

Disagree. Bristol were dreadbul first half - so scared of conceding - and allowed us to play in their half so easily - and we took advantage well (and agree, we should have scored more.) The defending to allow Albeiousu to get in to set up a goad was really poor (but full credit to Ryan). We didn't sit  back second half - they forced us back by being far more aggressive (half time team talk?) but agree we dealt with it really well (just like Derby today) and was really pleased with no-nonsense defending.

Just thought we made a team in 5th look poor on their own patch.

Twine hardly got a kick,they created very little, just a pity the win was at such a cost. 

1 hour ago, aletheia said:

So short sighted Rev. Derby defend far far better than Bristol. We were allowed to play first half against Bristol and took full advantage. Derby are well drilled and made life very difficult -doulbed up on de Neve and Albeiousu. 5 across the back, 3 in front  of that and no space to play in. Got their goals, and just sat in, worked extremely hard to nullify us. You have to have special players or sheer physicality to open up a side like that.

Also, Bristol played far better in the second half, pressed us more and did not allow us to play as well as the first half.

Thought we took it to Bristol first half and could have had more than one, sat back second half and defended well,hardly gave them a sniff. 

Even the 10 minutes extra were seen out comfortably. 

33 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Runs from Dec 21st to Jan 18th I think.

You'd expect Nigeria to go deep in the competition as well. 

16 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

I prefer to look at his 13-14 year managerial record when deciding on his footballing acumen. He got in to playoffs during the covid season with Barnsley and got into the playoffs in German regional football about 13 years ago. That's all he has achieved. During that time he's had more clubs than Tiger Woods.

 

Edit - sorry. sounds like I'm being an arse with you there when I read it back. Basically, I made my mind up about him before we ever appointed him, I never wanted him, have struggled to warm to him, see him as a journeyman and average at best. I haven't booed or jeered him at Ewood like some parts of the fan base, but I don't think he'll ever get us anywhere. Would love to end up with egg on my face but I won't.

To me it's pointless getting rid of him cos whoever Gestede appoints won't be wanted.

I'm prepared to see how we go. For now at least there's no doubt the players are with him. 

3 hours ago, roverblue said:

You think he always planned to play a back 3 and 2 up front but was just waiting all this time for Cantwell to get injured to deploy it?

I've no idea what he was thinking. Any manager needs to adapt to losing any player, would City play the same without Haaland? Would any win without Haaland mean that Pep would have stumbled upon a way of playing ?

The signing of De Neve and Alebiosu would suggest that wing backs were always on the cards. The return of Wharton will also have made it more of a possibility. 

To win the last 3 under the circumstances to me says more about Ismael's footballing acumen than luck. 

44 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

But would Ismael have changed the system if the Cantwell injury hadn’t have forced his hand ?

No idea, does it matter? 

Was he going to change it anyway? I'm not bothered either way to be honest, it's turned out well up to now.