atypical_boro
Well-known member
Possibly. I do think the Athletic guys tend to want to be taken seriously by the people at the heart of football though, they are not 'gutter press' and won't want to be seen as such by making things up.
Deal accepted for Morgan Rogers.
- Thread starter TeaCider
- Start date
Boro_Interlinked
Well-known member
There are quite a few circumstances that can thwart any of these add-ons. I am surprised Boro have accepted a deal where 45pc of the players top valuation has been accepted as optional. I'm guessing its to with Villa not having the wriggle room right now , but they would have had more in summer.
I'm not even trying hard for this one
Emery gets poached by a top Euro club in summer
New guy comes in, doesn't fancy Rogers that much reduces his game time, the squad time then basically hes an unused player just a registered squad place
100% of Boro's add-ons goes south with just that 1 scenario can think of at least another 7 of these type of things
I'm not even trying hard for this one
Emery gets poached by a top Euro club in summer
New guy comes in, doesn't fancy Rogers that much reduces his game time, the squad time then basically hes an unused player just a registered squad place
100% of Boro's add-ons goes south with just that 1 scenario can think of at least another 7 of these type of things
Last edited:
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Agreed, Dieng is more important, as are Jones, Hackney, Mcgree, I think LL and Coburn potentially.
birkbeck_dj
Well-known member
northernrower
Well-known member
Horrendous deal.
Means we will initially pocket £6m after Man City have taken their cut.
Minus the £1.5m we paid for him and that's £4.5m profit.
As for add ons, we have to assume we cannot count them until he hits those milestones.
Just to reiterate, £4.5m profit.
Appalling business.
Means we will initially pocket £6m after Man City have taken their cut.
Minus the £1.5m we paid for him and that's £4.5m profit.
As for add ons, we have to assume we cannot count them until he hits those milestones.
Just to reiterate, £4.5m profit.
Appalling business.
We used to sign players for £7m and sell them for £1m, so I’d say we’re on the right track now
Beverleyred
Well-known member
Personally, I don’t believe a word of it until it appears on the club website 
Leicester , Southampton and Sunderland have been our standout performances this season and Rogers didn't start in any of them. I do like him and think he can improve , but he's certainly replaceable on this season's form.
Last edited:
The Card Cheat
Well-known member
We don't iknow if any of that's true though. There's zero evidence that it was £8 million plus add ons.
Middlesbrough are a private business and have no obligation to release details of the fees they receive or release. We also don't know what the add ons are, at least some of them you'd imagine would be achievable. This is their 4th improved offer, it's not like we were hasty or panicked into selling him immediately.
Of course it might be true, equally it might be complete horlicks but I think all we can do is trust the club. It's a hell of a lot better than massively overpaying for players then selling them for a fraction of what we paid like we used to do.
Alwaysaborolad
Well-known member
I really can't see him breaking into the Villa side, I think he will be sat on the bench for most games.
To be honest I thought once we had everyone fit, and others back from international duties, then he would struggle to start for us.
To be honest I thought once we had everyone fit, and others back from international duties, then he would struggle to start for us.
Blf
Well-known member
Horrendous post.
They are just guessing , none of them know and no one on here knows what the deal is . Sky are saying up to £16 million . 2 other sources ate saying £15 million and one £18 million.
All guessing but hey don't let that stop you bashing the club..
TheBlueButterfly
Well-known member
An hour ago it was a done deal at £10 mil plus up front with add ons.
Exactly my thoughts though I can certainly understand the lad wanting to give it a go. No hard feelings from me.
The Card Cheat
Well-known member
Where we'll miss him is creating chances, there's what 400/450 players in the championship. He was sixth out of those players for when it comes to creating big chances, first per minute on the pitch.
I think some people saying "he wasn't even that good" haven't realised that.
Hopefully Azaz will fill the gap, personally I think he definitely will.
The Card Cheat
Well-known member
He'll play in the Euro Conference league I'd imagine, and I think he'll do well as it's against teams worse than the ones he's done well against in the championship.
I can see him being a bit of a fan favourite as he's a Brummie and an exciting player to watch, I think he'll do ok for them.
Boro_Interlinked
Well-known member
How do we convince M.City it was actually 1m upfront and a large box of Quality street for the executive boardroom( they can have the toffee disc ones ), with 14m add-ons , half of that paid in volatile Bitcoin and the other in wurthers originals
The Card Cheat
Well-known member
Ironically if we hired Man City's lawyers they'd be able to somehow make it so City had to pay us money.
Jonathan
Well-known member
Neither of these were points I was making though? The argument being made was that he was "controlling the midfield at 19 years old" and yet Blackburn have won 1 in 10, and have conceded 3 or 4 goals in half of those games. I'd hate to see what results would look like if he wasn't controlling the midfield. Wondering why the opening bid is as high as £18m isn't the same as actively thinking he should be worth less. If I was a manager of a Premier League team looking for a young central midfielder in the Championship I wouldn't open with £18m for pretty much any of them, Hackney included.
I wasn't saying Villa should pay more because they're higher in the league either. But at best Villa are in a title race, and at worse competing for a European spot, potentially Champions League, and are therefore presumably aiming for a calibre of player befitting of that position, potential or otherwise. Morgan Rogers is the player they identified as their priority target with that in mind, which suggests they view of him as being that calibre of player, and I don't feel like the fee we've ended up with is reflective of their repeatedly stated desperation to sign him.
Merlin
Well-known member
I can’t believe how easily pleased some of you are - this is by no means a good deal for us. If City are getting 25% of the alleged £10m up front that’s only £7.5m profit, or about £5.75m if you knock off what he originally cost plus wages. Ok there may be more to come down the line but that could be some way off. We could have just said no and kept a very good asset who would most likely have increased in value and benefited our squad on the pitch. If this is “the model” it’s not a very forward thinking one. In fact right now it feels more like backwards thinking rather than forwards.