.

Sidnei Taveres next through the door by a few posters

He’s meant to be on £20k at Stoke and we were rumoured to be paying Siggurdon a good whack (£12k to 15k) due to how we got him from the Russian club. With Dennis and Woodrow there clearly was money to target a better midfielder. We just didn’t identify replacing Baker as a priority and ultimately it cost us massively.

Would nobody else rather us Garrett have a go than Foreshaw?

Sidnei Tivares next through the door by a few posters

Survival obviously the target. Two underwhelming really cheap signings so far. If that frees up money for someone else, then so be it, but think we're running on survival mode and we're skint with the never-ending Venky's trial. Hope they sell.

Nicko claims we are signing a Portuguese midfielder for £2 million. I’ll believe it when I see it!!

Not sure from what I read Stoke were covering a certain percentage of bakers wage how true that is I’m not sure.

That is the only ending, I can see!

How much did their agents get?

Whether he has final say or not isn't the most important point, the main thing is that they're all on the same page. We don't want another coach throwing his toys out.

There is only one thing I want too happen in the 150th year of Blackburn Rovers. Venkys Fuck Off!

It's looking like the summer of 2016 all over again and we know what at the end of the following season.... All part of the Venkys plan to downsize and reduce losses with relegation to L1.

All I said before was replacing baker with Forshaw was “fully on rovers”. However Pompey reportedly paid £6500 per week for Isaac Hayden. What were Baker and Siggurdson costing us combined? £18k? How much did Dennis and Woodrow cost us? So there clearly was some money to play with. Once Baker left, that should have been a priority.

We will never know either way but I am happy to assume that Ismael did approve. My point is, although Ismael should have final say. Even if he does, it doesn't automatically justify any decisions he chooses. Eustace wanted Bamford in January who wasn't imminently going to come back from injury. I wanted Eustace to have final say too, didn't mean I had to agree with that particular choice. I also don't get why any player as 3rd or 4th choice has to have Championship experience. Having it doesn't offset no longer being a competent Championship player in terms of being able to play from the start.

They never have done from day one!

I've no idea, but with no end of cheap squad fillers knocking around, would it seem logical to you that Gestede would have signed Forshaw against Ismael's wishes?

The restraints are fully self inflicted but we didn’t have the wages/wage structure for any of the 3 you mentioned so again I ask the question within our pathetically low structure who would have fit the mould. It’s not a defence of them it’s unequivocally pathetic but when debating these topics we have to keep it in line with the ambition or lack of the club are showing and I think forshaw was the exact replacement that ticked all those boxes we could go all day about why we shouldn’t be in that market etc but the facts are venkys aren’t funding us for player trading like they should be

I wish he could 😁 Oh for the days of Simon Garner, Scott Sellars, Howard Gayle and Simon Barker. Somewhere in the midst of time we signed Alan Ainscow not fuckin Forshaw. Jesus wept and those days were before Jack Walker! We are worse of now than we were in 1979.. Venkys Out!

Also Forshaw comes without a settling in period so they're saving on time too. What was it? 11 days til preseason and he wanted 90% done deals? 😕

I don’t know as I’m not paid to find them as a job. The club surely knew recalling Baker was an option so you think they would have had a plan. But if rovers had any state to of intent with the position they are in then pay the matched bond and bring Hamza Choudery in. Middle ground would have been Lewis O’Brien Failing that be cheaper and get Isaac Hayden. All three moved on loan to the Championship in January. The ‘restraints’ we are operating under are fully self inflicted.

Not that it makes it automatically a wise move if Ismael wanted it. But why did we initially disclose that he had been released if he was totally happy? There is the problem. Our squad players obviously won't be as good as the first 11, but having to downgrade so much when a replacement comes in, that lack of depth has commonly hindered us post Xmas.

No I wouldn't be happy, I said first or second replacement. Obviously we might get stretched and he may have to start, there are cup games to consider as well, but without taking it to the nth degree and seeing he knows what Ismael is after, it has some logic to it.

Rather play Garrett OR, use the wages to tie down one of Travis or Trondstadt...