Summer transfer window 2021.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Suppose the acid test is the difference between League 1 and the Championship which is a vast one, the standard of the Championship is far from brilliant but League 1 is really poor as we saw on a weekly basis a few years ago. Carter looked well out his depth at Championship level last season, now he has seemingly done everything he possibly could during his loan spell but that doesnt prove that he is ready yet necessarily.

I still think that we need another centre back next season, and would personally suggest that we should loan out Carter again for one more year, perhaps again to Burton, because we already have Wharton who had a couple of impressive performances prior to his injury at Championship level, and it would be very difficult to give them both regular game time. If we didnt have Wharton, maybe there would be scope to have Carter around.

The obvious one to bring in would be Harwood Bellis who has done well on loan, who is behind Dias, Laporte, Stones and Ake so nowhere near City's squad. Then again, we have still conceded plenty of goals with Lenihan and Harwood Bellis together, and I suspect that we are going to be in a scrap next season, so maybe not, im unsure.

Yes but this was my argument with Wharton after his L2 successes. I thought the level difference would show but actually I thought Scott Wharton looked great when he was fit and playing alongside Lenihan. Carter is managing to be equally as impressive a level above L2 and I think he's got a place as 3rd choice for us.

[rigger]

18 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

I think the only thing Magloire has going for him is pace. He hardly ripped up tree's at Rochdale.

One major thing he has, is that he is a Blackburn Rovers player. When it comes to the future battle we are no doubt going to have, lets see if he has the bollocks.

[roversfan99]

12 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Thing about relying on Wharton for a slot is his injury. We don't know that it will continue to go to plan for his return date. We don't know if it will recur, or whether the time out might reduce his conditioning enough that something else gets injured. And then we don't know how much difficulty he will have regaining his pre-injury form, or even whether that pre-injury form was just a blip.

I'm not saying any of this is actually the case, just that there are a lot of unknowns.

Of course, wasnt the prognosis that he would miss the start of next season too? But even covering for that, I feel that it is critical that we sign at least one centre back, whether that is Harwood Bellis or someone more experienced, plus Ayala if he can pull himself off the treatment table, so Wharton would only be one of 4.

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Yes but this was my argument with Wharton after his L2 successes. I thought the level difference would show but actually I thought Scott Wharton looked great when he was fit and playing alongside Lenihan. Carter is managing to be equally as impressive a level above L2 and I think he's got a place as 3rd choice for us.

Wharton has far from proven himself just yet but he obviously has a couple of very accomplished Championship performances under his belt to point to. League 1 performances or indeed ones in friendlies are incomparable. Obviously the ideal situation is loan to League 1, stand out and come back, but in this instance, I feel like it would make more sense because we already have a young CB ahead of him, as well as 2 senior ones, and are in requirement of further quality beyond that, that it would make sense for Carter to have a full season at League 1. It is particularly difficult with centre backs because you cant dip them in and out really.

Who is 2nd choice in your scenario? Ayala who can't just be written off as a bad job? Wharton who has not yet recovered and indeed there would be a major chance that Wharton and Carter are needed together? Or a new signing? And if not the latter, surely we only become weaker if Harwood Bellis goes back and we dont replace him?

[Ulrich]

9 minutes ago, rigger said:

One major thing he has, is that he is a Blackburn Rovers player. When it comes to the future battle we are no doubt going to have, lets see if he has the bollocks.

What difference does it make that he is a rover, If he's not good enough for our level we need better. Loan him or get rid and free up space and money for someone who can help us in our 'battle' as ability outstrips balls everytime. Wycombe have 'bollocks'.

[rigger]

29 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

What difference does it make that he is a rover, If he's not good enough for our level we need better. Loan him or get rid and free up space and money for someone who can help us in our 'battle' as ability outstrips balls everytime. Wycombe have 'bollocks'.

Because we may not have the budget to take a risk on a replacement for a player we already have. What you do is play who we already have. Save any budget for replacements for players who are leaving. You say we need better players. Who are these players, and how are we going to afford them? 

Edited April 26, 2021 by rigger

[Ulrich]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

Because we may not have the budget to take a risk on a replacement for a player we already have. What you do is play who we already have. Save any budget for replacements for players who are leaving. You say we need better players. Who are these players, and how are we going to afford them? 

We have a large number of out of contract players who will hardly be on buttons. Evans, Holtby alone must be 20k a week and as always there seems to be money for the right player. The Vs despite their decisions have always stumped up when asked. You cannot be loyal in football just for the sake of it, if they are not good enough, ruthlessness is needed. If (big ask) Ayala, Lenihan, Wharton are fit and say we reloan the city lad, then we'd be OK. Mowbray is too loyal for football.

[Stuart]

10 hours ago, JohnGo said:

Stuart simple mistake of copy and paste, just like Chaddy does with Nixon.

Lol.

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Ulrich said:

We have a large number of out of contract players who will hardly be on buttons. Evans, Holtby alone must be 20k a week and as always there seems to be money for the right player. The Vs despite their decisions have always stumped up when asked. You cannot be loyal in football just for the sake of it, if they are not good enough, ruthlessness is needed. If (big ask) Ayala, Lenihan, Wharton are fit and say we reloan the city lad, then we'd be OK. Mowbray is too loyal for football.

Ruthlessness is all well and good, if you have the resources, but at the minute without using the players we already have, I don't think we have those resources. You will also win a lot more at football with a team that are loyal to each other than a team that isn't. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

7 hours ago, JHRover said:

I very much doubt any serious contract offers have been put to Armstrong or indeed any of those out of contract in a few weeks time.

I have the impression that very little, if anything, has been done about the impending mass exodus. They'll get away with it in the eyes of the majority because most of those out of contract aren't very good but some of them a very useful/handy.

Of course the club would love it if the supporters just believed that they had made multiple offers but greedy players/agents had rejected them and we were steadfastly sticking to our wage ceiling and not being taken to the cleaners.

More likely is that these extensions fall outside of the annual budget and radio silence from India means nothing gets done or can get done until the go ahead comes through.

This time last year I don't think Armstrong's stock was altogether that high. He had been on a good run but was still very much a streaky goalscorer with purple patches. I'm sure he would have signed a deal then with a deserved pay rise and more integral role in the team. 12 months on I very much doubt he would unless we offered big, big  money.

Whilst Rovers may have dawdled on such things you can guarantee the players' agents won't have and most of these, especially someone like Armstrong, will have spent the last few months getting things in place with other clubs.

Dack was offered one, so why would you think that Armstrong wasn't? 

[Ulrich]

53 minutes ago, rigger said:

Ruthlessness is all well and good, if you have the resources, but at the minute without using the players we already have, I don't think we have those resources. You will also win a lot more at football with a team that are loyal to each other than a team that isn't. 

Dude, if they are not good enough it won't matter how loyal they all are. Buy/use league one players and that is where we will end up again. Loyalty, unity whatever you want to call it can be created easily, but you cannot magically make them good enough. Wycombe look like they play for each other, but they are going down, because ability wise they are not good enough. You are free to view it how you want, but unfortunately you are wrong, talent ability is far more important because you cannot create it like team cohesion etc. 

[tomphil]

18 hours ago, Ulrich said:

It's not sense to talk about it when it's too late.

Armstrong should have been sorted before Dack, as you say with a payrise and release fee. He will go for buttons now and when another team bids Armstrong will be in the position of power. Accept the offer or I will run my contract down and leave for nothing. The whole situation is rank bad management and his trivial little words are no more than hot air, so it looks like they tried. If I was Armstrong if would have walked straight into the managers office when dack got his new contract and said something, instead we signed up dack and the moron TM helped make that millions poured down the drain. Our management team are amazing at shooting themselves in the foot and consequently screwing the club over.

I think he was preparing the ground for losing him for nothing and of course exempting himself from any blame at the same time. It was very much a cover all bases description of the situation. Touching on the player power which is partly correct.

I often listen to Mowbray and wonder what the point of having a manager here actually is ? . He seems to concede everything very easily, whether it's the excuses for not winning or players leaving. One thing that does give players power is weak managers.

They also never drive a team forwards and struggle to win games. I wonder what he sees himself as other than someone who thinks he's developing players ?   Because he's certainly no leader players sniff weakness out at a thousand paces. He reeks of it.

[JHRover]

9 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Dack was offered one, so why would you think that Armstrong wasn't? 

Dack's was sorted and teed up prior to the pandemic and his serious injury. They waited until he was fit again to sign and announce it but the deal was agreed and in place.

The others - Dolan and Buckley - were cheap and easy deals to do - essentially converting their deals from youth/u23 terms to senior - and will have been easy to fit into the permitted budget and structure.

The big ones - new terms for senior players - require specific authorisation from India - and they haven't had that. There's also precious little evidence of them being offered to the players - Mowbray throughout has been implying that with his reminders via the press of how important it is to keep your assets under contract - which is why not one contact has been signed by those senior players despite us clearly needing to get them signed. If, for example, we are offering terms to JRC and he is refusing to sign up then we need to seriously worry about the future. How hard can that one be? The fact that not even that one has been done tells me all I need to know - they aren't even trying to sort it.

Believing that this is just down to players demands or Rovers looking elsewhere i think is foolish. Most likely is they just can't do anything. 

Same story as with season tickets. Not approved so can't announce.

Edited April 27, 2021 by JHRover

[rigger]

8 hours ago, Ulrich said:

Dude, if they are not good enough it won't matter how loyal they all are. Buy/use league one players and that is where we will end up again. Loyalty, unity whatever you want to call it can be created easily, but you cannot magically make them good enough. Wycombe look like they play for each other, but they are going down, because ability wise they are not good enough. You are free to view it how you want, but unfortunately you are wrong, talent ability is far more important because you cannot create it like team cohesion etc. 

A couple of points. 1) I am not a "Dude". 2) We haven't got the finances to get better permanent players, and keep getting loans is not progression.

[Ulrich]

11 minutes ago, rigger said:

A couple of points. 1) I am not a "Dude". 2) We haven't got the finances to get better permanent players, and keep getting loans is not progression.

It's a trivial word, keep your pants on. You have no clue as to our finances, our owners pump in 20m a year, have always stumped up for certain players and yet you claim we can only afford players who are not good enough. Your whole argument is based on your assumptions, the Vs will not want another relegation, which will cost even more, than signing a couple of decent players. You are basically saying you would rather get relegated than sign a loan player like the 2 City lads we have had, how is that progressing? Sounds more like regression to me, nevermind 'dude' 👍

[rigger]

3 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

It's a trivial word, keep your pants on. You have no clue as to our finances, our owners pump in 20m a year, have always stumped up for certain players and yet you claim we can only afford players who are not good enough. Your whole argument is based on your assumptions, the Vs will not want another relegation, which will cost even more, than signing a couple of decent players. You are basically saying you would rather get relegated than sign a loan player like the 2 City lads we have had, how is that progressing? Sounds more like regression to me, nevermind 'dude' 👍

As the financial guru of Blackburn Rovers, how much do we have to spend on new players this next window, or is your assumption speculation? You mention the successful loans that we have had, yet no mention of the poor ones.

[chaddyrovers]

38 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Dack's was sorted and teed up prior to the pandemic and his serious injury. They waited until he was fit again to sign and announce it but the deal was agreed and in place

How do you know it was all agreed prior to his injury?

Cos just after the Wigan game it was revealed by someone on here that he was set to join WBA in that January window 2020. So how was a new contract agree?

His new deal was announced on 23rd December 2020

[Ulrich]

27 minutes ago, rigger said:

As the financial guru of Blackburn Rovers, how much do we have to spend on new players this next window, or is your assumption speculation? You mention the successful loans that we have had, yet no mention of the poor ones.

Like you I do not know our financial details, but I have made no claims in that direction. The Vs have stumped up when needed, however and that is exactly what I said, is it not? It is also true, consequently it seems rather logical to assume that they would do so again. Assumption at least based on previous actions, your stance is that they are cutting our budget and no longer stumping up funds, which they have as yet not done.

So because we have had good and bad signings, we shouldn't sign anymore loan players and should just play the kids regardless of ability,which is very much what you are saying. My first desire is to see a winning team on the pitch, if that means having a couple of loan players, then so be it. I could extend your logic to permanent transfers too, which would mean we never sign anyone because we fear getting it wrong, just like everyone does in football, even the mighty Brentford FC. If there is a better player available on loan, that we can afford like the city lads who betters rovers chances of success, we should sign them.

[JHRover]

31 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

How do you know it was all agreed prior to his injury?

Cos just after the Wigan game it was revealed by someone on here that he was set to join WBA in that January window 2020. So how was a new contract agree?

His new deal was announced on 23rd December 2020

I know when it was announced. I dont know the ins and outs or if there was ever any truth in the WBA rumours (i suspect not because they don't spend big money). Maybe the deal was on the table and he decided to sign it after his injury and rehab.

I maintain that at the very least the extension for Dack was approved by India many, many months earlier than the announcement and probably before his injury and so fell under previous approval rather than the batch of extensions we are dealing with now. 

Remarkable coincidence that we have 10 senior players out of contract and all of them we are happy to release or are demanding too much money.

The alternative possibility is the most likely- nothing has been done other than a lot of talking.

[rigger]

2 hours ago, Ulrich said:

Like you I do not know our financial details, but I have made no claims in that direction. The Vs have stumped up when needed, however and that is exactly what I said, is it not? It is also true, consequently it seems rather logical to assume that they would do so again. Assumption at least based on previous actions, your stance is that they are cutting our budget and no longer stumping up funds, which they have as yet not done.

So because we have had good and bad signings, we shouldn't sign anymore loan players and should just play the kids regardless of ability,which is very much what you are saying. My first desire is to see a winning team on the pitch, if that means having a couple of loan players, then so be it. I could extend your logic to permanent transfers too, which would mean we never sign anyone because we fear getting it wrong, just like everyone does in football, even the mighty Brentford FC. If there is a better player available on loan, that we can afford like the city lads who betters rovers chances of success, we should sign them.

Personally I would rather have had Wharton available to play alongside Lenihan than either of the center-halves we loaned. Your assumption that the Venkys will bankroll future transfers is based on what they have previously done. That doesn't mean they will in the future( I hope that they do ).

Edited April 27, 2021 by rigger

[Bigdoggsteel]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

Dack's was sorted and teed up prior to the pandemic and his serious injury. They waited until he was fit again to sign and announce it but the deal was agreed and in place.

The others - Dolan and Buckley - were cheap and easy deals to do - essentially converting their deals from youth/u23 terms to senior - and will have been easy to fit into the permitted budget and structure.

The big ones - new terms for senior players - require specific authorisation from India - and they haven't had that. There's also precious little evidence of them being offered to the players - Mowbray throughout has been implying that with his reminders via the press of how important it is to keep your assets under contract - which is why not one contact has been signed by those senior players despite us clearly needing to get them signed. If, for example, we are offering terms to JRC and he is refusing to sign up then we need to seriously worry about the future. How hard can that one be? The fact that not even that one has been done tells me all I need to know - they aren't even trying to sort it.

Believing that this is just down to players demands or Rovers looking elsewhere i think is foolish. Most likely is they just can't do anything. 

Same story as with season tickets. Not approved so can't announce.

How do you know any of that about Dacks contract? 

I think you have your own narrative on this and you are running with it. Many issues at the club, Armstrong not signing is no more complicated than him and his agent know he is in a position of power. 

On JRC. I think many would have huge concerns over his injury record. Would you not? 

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

I know when it was announced. I dont know the ins and outs or if there was ever any truth in the WBA rumours (i suspect not because they don't spend big money). Maybe the deal was on the table and he decided to sign it after his injury and rehab.

I maintain that at the very least the extension for Dack was approved by India many, many months earlier than the announcement and probably before his injury and so fell under previous approval rather than the batch of extensions we are dealing with now. 

Remarkable coincidence that we have 10 senior players out of contract and all of them we are happy to release or are demanding too much money.

The alternative possibility is the most likely- nothing has been done other than a lot of talking.

Simple question, besides Armstrong, of those out of contract, who would you prioritise offering contracts to? 

[JHRover]

5 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Simple question, besides Armstrong, of those out of contract, who would you prioritise offering contracts to? 

I would have prioritised new contracts for JRC, Nyambe and probably Rothwell as a useful player to have around.

Me saying the above - that the club hasn't even attempted renewals - is no different to claiming that they have but have been knocked back. It might be correct, it might not.

Why would you believe what those at the club say?

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

I would have prioritised new contracts for JRC, Nyambe and probably Rothwell as a useful player to have around.

Me saying the above - that the club hasn't even attempted renewals - is no different to claiming that they have but have been knocked back. It might be correct, it might not.

Why would you believe what those at the club say?

Ok, so the vast majority you wouldn't offer deals to and of the 3 you mention one has MAJOR question marks over injuries and one isn't even out of contract this summer. Does Rothwell not have a year option too? I would probably offer him one too, but he is inconsistent to say the least. 

I doubt they are openly lying about offering deals as the player or their agent could easily refute this , plus Dack got one which would be equal to our highest earner, if not the highest,  I imagine. Particularly if, as you say, this was arranged well before it was made public. So I don't see how Armstrong wasn't offered one on similar terms. He obviously knows he is in a position of power, which he is. Pretty simple really. 

Anyway, I wouldn't blame anyone with better options not renewing whilst Mowbray is manager. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Bigdoggsteel

[Bigdoggsteel]

It's the perfect time for a new manager to come in and be given a decent wage budget to play around with 

[Ulrich]

3 hours ago, rigger said:

Personally I would rather have had Wharton available to play alongside Lenihan than either of the center-halves we loaned. Your assumption that the Venkys will bankroll future transfers is based on what they have previously done. That doesn't mean they will in the future( I hope that they do ).

I agree on Wharton, I think he could have what it takes to be a championship standard player, achilles injuries can be troublesome so we will see hos it has affected him, when he returns.

Yes it is an assumption but they have sunk 200m into us, I would hope that they would not just right that off for the sake of a couple of million more. They are unpredictable, make bizarre decisions so you never know what they will do. I guess time will tell and let's hope they don't just write it off and let us plummet.