Transfers

[Isaw Joeshaw]

With regard to the transfer of David Brooks , one thing that seems to have been overlooked ( or deliberately ignored ) is the role that our manager has had in all this .

Given the fact that he has said on more than one occasion that he must have the final say on all football related matters , including transfers , or to use his own words he would be "off down the road " , then logic dictates that he must have at least consented to this move or even actively encouraged it .

My own feeling is that the latter is the case , since I've always had the feeling that he's never rated Brooks as highly as many on this forum ( including myself ) do. Whether he is right or wrong in this respect , only time will tell but it was clear from his interview on FH last week that he was hardly broken hearted at the prospect of Brooks leaving .

If , as is rumoured , other key players leave then in my book the manager ,not the board , needs to justify this and explain it to fans within the context of his avowed aim to ' take the club forward '

 

[Bashar Al Asaba]

The prospect of top-flight football, combined with agents always puts the player in the commanding position when a transfer bid is tabled. I doubt that Wilder has much power in that situation.

As it stands, no other key player has left us, so it's premature to suggest that Wilder would acquiesce to the team being weakened, or by extension, would allow anybody to go without making the signings he deems necessary to achieve our aims.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

The prospect of top-flight football, combined with agents always puts the player in the commanding position when a transfer bid is tabled. I doubt that Wilder has much power in that situation.

As it stands, no other key player has left us, so it's premature to suggest that Wilder would acquiesce to the team being weakened, or by extension, would allow anybody to go without making the signings he deems necessary to achieve our aims.

Whilst I respect your views , there are several good examples of clubs deciding that , despite the wishes of the player or his agent , the person who is under contract to them is going nowhere .

A good example is that of David de Gea at Man U who 2 years ago was desperate for a move back to Spain but was not allowed to leave and has gone on to give them excellent service .

As others have pointed out , contracts of employment apply just as much to footballers as anyone else.

If Wilder believes he can let a player go and find other better , or even equal replacements then I'm fully behind him but in David Brooks' case , I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen .

 

[nopigfansintown]

If Wilder didn't rate Brooks he would've accepted the January bid. When the deal was agreed for Brooks he wouldn't have prioritised a sell on clause over an extra million or two in the here and now.At worst, he's hedging his bets on Brooks' development; more likely he actively believes that Brooks will move from Bournemouth for huge money, with a large amount of it coming to BDTBL.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Whilst I respect your views , there are several good examples of clubs deciding that , despite the wishes of the player or his agent , the person who is under contract to them is going nowhere .

A good example is that of David de Gea at Man U who 2 years ago was desperate for a move back to Spain but was not allowed to leave and has gone on to give them excellent service .

As others have pointed out , contracts of employment apply just as much to footballers as anyone else.

If Wilder believes he can let a player go and find other better , or even equal replacements then I'm fully behind him but in David Brooks' case , I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen .

Joe, must admit I'm puzzled by some of your conclusions. Can't see much point in comparing us with Man Utd and de Gea's case. There's little comparison between either club, so whatever happens with players at Man Utd almost certainly has a different dynamic attached. Why not use the example of Liverpool as a more realistic case? They've reluctantly had to see highly rated players leave, Suarez and Coutinho being two examples. Both players were loved by Liverpool supporters, but the players in question were keen to leave and eventually this happened. I don't think this makes their manager any lesser or capable, but what it does show is that a player intent on leaving will often get their way.

 

[BushBlade]

Whilst I respect your views , there are several good examples of clubs deciding that , despite the wishes of the player or his agent , the person who is under contract to them is going nowhere .

A good example is that of David de Gea at Man U who 2 years ago was desperate for a move back to Spain but was not allowed to leave and has gone on to give them excellent service .

As others have pointed out , contracts of employment apply just as much to footballers as anyone else.

If Wilder believes he can let a player go and find other better , or even equal replacements then I'm fully behind him but in David Brooks' case , I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen .

From what I recall (and I may be wrong because I support United) a deal was done with Real which fell through as the window closed. There was an argument as to whether it was Real’s fault or ManU’s but it seemed that Real may have pulled the plug at the last minute and deliberately didn’t file the paperwork before the deadline. It also seems De Gea believed it to be the case and was annoyed with Real for messing him about so he signed a new contract with ManU on improved terms.

 

[Davalon]

The idea you can never keep a player when a team from a higher division offering more money comes in, is simply not true.

Yes it can often be difficult depending on a variety of reasons, and some times a club may not want to hold a player back who given good service.

But to say you can 'never' keep them simply isn't true.

 

[BushBlade]

The idea you can never keep a player when a team from a higher division offering more money comes in, is simply not true.

Yes it can often be difficult depending on a variety of reasons, and some times a club may not want to hold a player back who given good service.

But to say you can 'never' keep them simply isn't true.

There aren’t really absolutes in football though. It’s more about the most probable outcome than certainties.

 

[Newbury Blade]

I think the Brooks transfer is similar to DCL and Che from Wilder's point of view: he can reinvest the money (or some, hopefully most, of it) in making the squad stronger all-round.
Surely no one can deny that he achieved precisely that, and by selling players who, like Brooks, weren't even regular starters for the first team.
I realize that Brooks is a better prospect than the other two, which is why we've got a shitload more for him (and probably more to come one day).
But you can see the pattern surely, and despite those who moan that we won't be able to "replace" Brooks for the same money, I think that we will end up with a squad more likely to achieve promotion.

 

[snootyfenooty]

But you can see the pattern surely, and despite those who moan that we won't be able to "replace" Brooks for the same money, I think that we will end up with a squad more likely to achieve promotion.

If we take the same approach as last season then the incomings will not be good enough to take us anywhere. The side that got us off to a flyer last year was essentially our L1 team and the additions made no impact. If our salary cap is £8k pw then we'll be lucky to attract anyone other than average Champ or premium L1 players. However, the glimmer of hope for me is that there is a clearout underway, 8 out with no-one in yet other than a loan. With the Brooks money plus the dross off the payroll it could be we're going for a couple of quality signings instead at no detriment to the balance sheet or the overall wage bill. We live in hope.

 

[Esablade]

With regard to the transfer of David Brooks , one thing that seems to have been overlooked ( or deliberately ignored ) is the role that our manager has had in all this .

Given the fact that he has said on more than one occasion that he must have the final say on all football related matters , including transfers , or to use his own words he would be "off down the road " , then logic dictates that he must have at least consented to this move or even actively encouraged it .

My own feeling is that the latter is the case , since I've always had the feeling that he's never rated Brooks as highly as many on this forum ( including myself ) do. Whether he is right or wrong in this respect , only time will tell but it was clear from his interview on FH last week that he was hardly broken hearted at the prospect of Brooks leaving .

If , as is rumoured , other key players leave then in my book the manager ,not the board , needs to justify this and explain it to fans within the context of his avowed aim to ' take the club forward '

...believe Wilder has stated that he didn’t want anyone to leave ( apart from those he put on the list)

There it is.

 

[Davalon]

There aren’t really absolutes in football though. It’s more about the most probable outcome than certainties.

I'd agree in the main but some people seem to have the attitude that any club in a higher league offering any raise, means we have no choice but to surrender and just sell to the highest bid.

Personally I'm not upset by the Brooks deal but what if we had sold for say 5 million? Would the argument that no one had bid higher still be used to say that we had no choice?

 

[Boxer Blade]

I dont know how much Wilder rated Brooks but I am pretty confident in saying if all our player's were fit and we hadn't brought any new strikers in and the first match was this Saturday, Brooks would be on the bench and wouldn't start.

 

[BushBlade]

I'd agree in the main but some people seem to have the attitude that any club in a higher league offering any raise, means we have no choice but to surrender and just sell to the highest bid.

Personally I'm not upset by the Brooks deal but what if we had sold for say 5 million? Would the argument that no one had bid higher still be used to say that we had no choice?

It may have been by some, I really don’t know. Personally, I’d find it hard to believe no one was prepared to offer more than £5m for Brooks. £12m seems fairly credible. Players and agents aren’t simpletons, they know a valuation has to be matched before they get a move. It’s when a realistic offer is made and turned down that the problems start. Generally speaking of course.

 

[Darthblade]

I'd agree in the main but some people seem to have the attitude that any club in a higher league offering any raise, means we have no choice but to surrender and just sell to the highest bid.

Personally I'm not upset by the Brooks deal but what if we had sold for say 5 million? Would the argument that no one had bid higher still be used to say that we had no choice?

There can only be one logical and acceptable reason for selling Brooks ……. and that is that the proceeds will be re-invested in the first team to buy players who will compete to start in the first 11 and therefore will improve the squad overall to the benefit of the Club.

If that doesn't transpire …… then it was a shit / stupid decision to sell him

UTB & FTP

 

[Gateford Blade]

I think there was an interview with Brooks on SSN earlier - he basically said as soon as he knew they were in for him it turned his head and it was too good an opportunity to turn down.

So maybe Wilder's "I don't want anyone who doesn't want to be here" mantra fits in with this?

 

[snootyfenooty]

So maybe Wilder's "I don't want anyone who doesn't want to be here" mantra fits in with this?

That's not a mantra, it's a cop out. This stuff about them wanting to go being the be all and end all is bollocks, Wilder could just as easily have said to Brooks "the offer isn't what we want, you'll be here a bit longer son".

The same applied to Wilder when he was after Holmes and Leonard. He was after them for a year and was told by the clubs concerned that he was pissing in the wind unless he came up with their valuation, which he did eventually. The players themselves had little say in it until this transpired.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'd agree in the main but some people seem to have the attitude that any club in a higher league offering any raise, means we have no choice but to surrender and just sell to the highest bid.

Personally I'm not upset by the Brooks deal but what if we had sold for say 5 million? Would the argument that no one had bid higher still be used to say that we had no choice?

That's hypothetical though. That no one bid higher is a fact.


On a slightly different note, do the people who think we should have waited until nearer the end of a window still believe we should do our buying business early?

 

[PokerBlade]

It's difficult, if not impossible, to give a proper assessment of a transfer like the Brooks deal. Football clubs aren't open enough and we don't know what the reasons of the people involved were.

Could be that Brooks leaving means we can now have the cash to say no to offers for JOC or Fleck. I'd take that deal. It may mean we can sign a couple of players we couldn't otherwise. We can play the "just suppose" game all day long. I don't know which members of the board thought what, what Wilder's reasons were, or the real current financial situation of the club.

We won't know if the Brooks transfer was any good for us until we see what the side looks like when the season starts. Whether that involves several new signings or not.

Personally I think the money talked about for Brooks, much as I'm a fan of him, was more than fair for a player who's scored three goals.

All I'm interested in is that since Wilder came in we've moved forward where things count: on the pitch.

 

[snootyfenooty]

On a slightly different note, do the people who think we should have waited until nearer the end of a window still believe we should do our buying business early?

Not sure what you're getting at there. We've done our selling early but haven't bought any one yet. The season starts in 4 weeks time by the way, so the much vaunted "pre-season" is gradually slipping away.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I doubt Wilder would have been advocating the move, however with £12m on the table and a conversation with Brooks that must of happened he was abviously comfortable enough that it was the best course of action in the circumstances. I’m pretty sure if the choice was “keep Brooks v lose Brooks” he’d have gone for the former.

 

[Snowman]

...believe Wilder has stated that he didn’t want anyone to leave ( apart from those he put on the list)

There it is.

Well FFS, you expect him to state the contrary? "They're all for sale the lazy shites. Anybody can go, make an offer". If they can leave, he doesn't value them, why should a buying club?

 

[Snowman]

I think the Brooks transfer is similar to DCL and Che from Wilder's point of view: he can reinvest the money (or some, hopefully most, of it) in making the squad stronger all-round.
Surely no one can deny that he achieved precisely that, and by selling players who, like Brooks, weren't even regular starters for the first team.
I realize that Brooks is a better prospect than the other two, which is why we've got a shitload more for him (and probably more to come one day).
But you can see the pattern surely, and despite those who moan that we won't be able to "replace" Brooks for the same money, I think that we will end up with a squad more likely to achieve promotion.

Exactly. I sometimes despair of the "FIFA generation" who bemoan transfer activity for team building, when isn't that part of their game? Wilder's taken a short term position for a potential long term gain. If Brooks flatters to deceive (as he may) then it will be good business. If he turns out to be a world beater then £10 mill on a sell on will be used to get us to the position when we can afford to buy him back. Most free market business is based on risk and reward in capital. Wilder's gamble will be the same as DCL and JET but at a larger scale. I think he's made the correct call on the sale. He now needs to do better than last year on the purchases.

 

[Rodley]

Stoke offering Matt Ritchie £80,000 per week.

 

[BushBlade]

Stoke offering Matt Ritchie £80,000 per week.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....otball-league-finance-money-a8255976.html?amp

 

[Sean Thornton]

Not sure what you're getting at there. We've done our selling early but haven't bought any one yet. The season starts in 4 weeks time by the way, so the much vaunted "pre-season" is gradually slipping away.

The notion that holding on could fetch a higher price, ie Brooks, but getting our business done early thus assuming that same advice doesn't apply to other clubs.

 

[Esablade]

Well FFS, you expect him to state the contrary? "They're all for sale the lazy shites. Anybody can go, make an offer". If they can leave, he doesn't value them, why should a buying club?

No I don’t, do you?

 

[steve26272]

is there any possibility that they had a chat in Jan and agreed to see if we get promoted, and placate him with a new contract?
we go up he's happy and stays.
we don't and he can go, but till then here's a new improved contract.

Brookes gets pay rise and prem football
we get him to hopefully help us up, but if not, a better fee due to the new contract =
win-win

 

[nopigfansintown]

is there any possibility that they had a chat in Jan and agreed to see if we get promoted, and placate him with a new contract?
we go up he's happy and stays.
we don't and he can go, but till then here's a new improved contract.

Brookes gets pay rise and prem football
we get him to hopefully help us up, but if not, a better fee due to the new contract =
win-win

I was anticipating Wilder saying that in the interview he said he was going to do over the weekend /Monday.Essentially, "we bribed Brooks to stay to the summer window but promised him we'd let him go if a certain figure was reached.It was the only way to protect the club and guarantee a transfer fee".This is all I've seen re Brooks so far: Wilder: "We pushed him through and, if he continues to develop and do the right things, then they (Bournemouth) have got a very good player,". "He's got lots of potential as everyone knows. But what Brooksy shows is that here, if you show you've got what it takes and are willing to work hard, then you'll be given chances. That sets the tone and shows others what it possible. We want to keep on seeing these lads come through." I think we might see incomings before he does a big, holistic interview. It would be good pr for the club.

Read more at: https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/she...y-achieving-international-greatness-1-9234930