2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[Emerald Isle Rover]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

De Neve signed as a winger (where he played mostly for his last club) who can also play wing back.

Anyhow, the key point is, if he hasn't been signed as Weimann's direct replacement, we have neither replaced Batth nor Weimann yet and bear in mind Batth was an outstanding performer for us last season and Weimann had excellent impact and delivered when we needed it with both goals and assists.

Age is irrelevant - it's the quality and ability to perform - Cowans, Moran, Gale etc and presently for other clubs Messi (38), Ronaldo (40), Modric (39) etc

Age is irrelevant shall I repost your thoughts on that from last year mercer 

anyhow to respond to your original post de neve isn’t the weimann replacement as said so by val him self who directly compared him to Owen beck 

[alexanders]

I have seen the type of thing we are discussing now unfold at my local team (which used to play in the top division). We had a manager who loved to play the old and reliable and didnt give the youth much playing time. One by one they left for other clubs.

3 of them played in the Europeal League seminfinal for Bodø Glimt. Only one we got money for, the other two we didnt get a thing.

A.Wharton is what it is. We should be proud and happy that we get to see these talents evolve at the might blue and whites. To stop giving playing time to young prospects will lead to them going elsewhere and develop there instead without getting big money. 

The balance is important, but looking. at Montgomery for example; Just chucking in a body on RB to have some and then reducing his playing time is not a very strategy in my opinion. And all players comes with risk. Some of the biggest investments in the top clubs have been flops. Lots of money chucked at a players doesnt guarantee success.

What I dont like, but fully understand is that we are buying from relegated teams such as De Neve. History has thought us that it would be better to bring in bodies that are used to promotion instead of relegation, but then again we dont have the negotiation power needed. 

Edited 6 hours ago by alexanders

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

You are the one that suggested that Ismael would be happy going into the season with Alebiosu and Montgomery as right backs.

Therefore, surely if we had Brittain aswell, that would be too many?

I was talking if Brittain was to leave but given Boro haven't put a new bid in all week and he is training this week. 

If Brittain or leaves, I would play as Centre midfielder for his ability to get box to box and energy,

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

I have made it very clear that it is imperative that Brittain is replaced by a first team right back when he goes.

If Ismael is "happy" with just the 2 including a rookie midfielder filling in, then more fool him. But I suspect he is not. Considering he isnt blind and knows how good Brittain is, I am confident that he is aware that when he goes, we need a replacement.

Travis started as right back before Johnson and Dunn moved into centre midfielder..

You suspect Ismael is not? Based on what? A chat with him? 

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I was talking if Brittain was to leave but given Boro haven't put a new bid in all week and he is training this week. 

If Brittain or leaves, I would play as Centre midfielder for his ability to get box to box and energy,

Travis started as right back before Johnson and Dunn moved into centre midfielder..

You suspect Ismael is not? Based on what? A chat with him? 

Equally, you are the one saying that if we sold Brittain and didnt replace, its because he is happy with Alebiosu and Montgomery.

He wants Brittain to stay so he clearly wants Brittain AND Alebiosu. So if (well, when) he goes you imagine he would want a replacement.

[BankEnd Rover]

Hull city live saying McLaughlin is signing for 500k...Bargain price if you ask me, hull fans can't believe it. 

[roversfan99]

Seems like we have gone for him having been unable to afford our main targets.

[JBiz]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Seems like we have gone for him having been unable to afford our main targets.

Well done pointing out an issue already, I thought your biggest issue with the others was championship experience.

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Equally, you are the one saying that if we sold Brittain and didnt replace, its because he is happy with Alebiosu and Montgomery.

He wants Brittain to stay so he clearly wants Brittain AND Alebiosu. So if (well, when) he goes you imagine he would want a replacement.

Maybe Ismael given his comments post game on Saturday. He is also big fan or Montgomery also. 

[MarkBRFC]

8 hours ago, Fraserkirky said:

McLaughlin, Al Sahafri and the baradji bloke if the medical works out, plus a premier league striker loan. Not a million miles away.

I don't think we can sign both of these as we only have one ESC spot left and they would both require one I think. (Al Sahafri was 50/50 depending if the Belgian side he was on loan at or his current Saudi side is classed as his last club)

10 hours ago, Ossydave said:

I do wonder if Kortrijk are part of some weird shit owners pact with us, maybe there's just a WhatsApp group and they tell us players we can have. They're owned by Vincent Tan who's obviously a cunt, managed to relegate not 1 but 2 teams he owns in a year with Cardiff going down too. He's pretty despised in Belgium from what I gather, predominantly because he is never around, presume he has a Pasha type 'running things' for them......

Believe it or not Burnley's owners are close to buying them to add to there portfolio of clubs.

1 minute ago, JBiz said:

Well done pointing out an issue already, I thought your biggest issue with the others was championship experience.

True though, spent all summer chasing targets that are financially out of reach, and have now found one they can afford.

For what it's worth I am more at ease with this signing than any of the others, good to have some championship knowledge back there.

[BankEnd Rover]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Seems like we have gone for him having been unable to afford our main targets.

Which is fine, if we see decent fees on other siginings ( I won't hold my breath)

 

[alexanders]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Seems like we have gone for him having been unable to afford our main targets.

Complete BS. We were after him last summer as well. He has been highly regarded by our staff for at least one summer. 

[JHRover]

32 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

They didn't want to stay here. 

@JHRoverDeveloping 3 young players within the first team squad isn't going to sacrifice results is it? Michalski and Tyjon are highly rated and Montgomery has shown enough he can made an impact at this level, so why wouldnt you develop them given we already invest in our academy and why we have category 1 status 

Yes you are quite right - we spend on the academy and have category 1 status - so that is the place for young players to play and develop, not the first XI, where the ONLY focus should be on winning games and trying to get promoted.

Far too much talk these days of projects, pathways, development. 

It is a way of lots of people making lots of money. These owners and their goons in the shadows will NEVER allow us to benefit from such a model in any event. It needs stability, reinvestment, good management, all in short supply here. 

Selling Adam Wharton did not, as far as I can see, benefit Blackburn Rovers in any way. It didn't release important funds for facilities or new players, it didn't lead to a better future, it just meant the revolting owners saved themselves the need to transfer their own funds from India. Whoop de doo. 

Remember that we aren't a club that offers Championship level wages or even makes an effort to keep important players like our academy developed captain. So what's the point? 

Even when they make the grade and go on to become Championship standard players we will either sell them and see none of the cash or release them because we can't be bothered paying them the going rate. 

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Well done pointing out an issue already, I thought your biggest issue with the others was championship experience.

You are fixated on policing specifically on my "negativity." Another poster literally described the player as terrible yesterday.

I think its a decent enough signing and the above "issue" was simply a neutral observation. He wasnt the first choice.

The comment about experience was more across the board, experience going out and none before this coming in. I said when the link came out that McLoughlin will help to address that.

[JHRover]

22 minutes ago, alexanders said:

 

A.Wharton is what it is. We should be proud and happy that we get to see these talents evolve at the might blue and whites. To stop giving playing time to young prospects will lead to them going elsewhere and develop there instead without getting big money. 
 

So we should be proud and happy that a lad developed through our academy, a Rovers fan, is ushered out the back door in the dying days of January for a relatively small fee to what was a smaller club until this lot took over, and then none of that  money is used to improve or advance Rovers in any way?

I'm pleased for Adam and his family and delighted he's developed but totally ashamed of Rovers' conduct before and since his sale. 

[Exiled_Rover]

41 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

They didn't want to stay here. 

@JHRoverDeveloping 3 young players within the first team squad isn't going to sacrifice results is it? Michalski and Tyjon are highly rated and Montgomery has shown enough he can made an impact at this level, so why wouldnt you develop them given we already invest in our academy and why we have category 1 status 

He's played like 2 games and got sent off in the game he started.

I think you're overstating how much of an impact he can make...

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, alexanders said:

Complete BS. We were after him last summer as well. He has been highly regarded by our staff for at lepast one summer. 

It isnt bullshit at all.

We have been bidding for Kapuadi for ages, before considering the likes of Sagnan and Nade.

Doesnt mean that they dont rate McLoughlin or that he wont be a good signing. Never said he isnt well regarded by our scouts. We clearly had a top target whose price was too much for us. If you cant get your main targets you work down your list.

[roversfan99]

Just now, Exiled_Rover said:

He's played like 2 games and got sent off in the game he started.

I think you're overstating how much of an impact he can make...

Indeed. We cant just build a smaller squad and assume numerous graduates can have a breakthrough season similtaneously. It puts far too much pressure on them when we have no idea if they are currently ready, and its very unlikely that they all will be.

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

Venky losses? Could you explain that for me.

Every year Venkys have to find somewhere between 10 and 20 million to keep their regime going here. 

Adam Wharton's sale meant that they saved that money. 

And yes, a large chunk (not all) of Rovers' losses are a direct result of Venkys and their continuing mismanagement and neglect, which is another reason it wouldn't cost £20 million a year to fund Rovers under proper owners.

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You are fixated on policing specifically on my "negativity." Another poster literally described the player as terrible yesterday.

I think its a decent enough signing and the above "issue" was simply a neutral observation. He wasnt the first choice.

The comment about experience was more across the board, experience going out and none before this coming in. I said when the link came out that McLoughlin will help to address that.

You make a lot of content, it’s difficult not to see your stuff first. It’s invariably revisionist, goal post moving stuff that just irks, and as you know, has done for probably a decade.

Decent signing, we’d agree - that’s the neutral observation. We needed and wanted a left sided centreback, he’s at peak, cheaper than he’s probably worth. I don’t see any issue.

[Jimmy612]

48 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

 

Don't know much about the guy, but on the face of it this seems sensible.  Decent age, plenty of champ experience, and by the sounds of it, £500k. Have to see how he does, like all players we sign, but it seems low risk and logical to me.   

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Seems like we have gone for him having been unable to afford our main targets.

That's why you have different lists. That's how football works. Experience Championship centre defender for low fee is a bargain. Still think we need another centre back in. 

Kapaudi has been not available for weeks.

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, JBiz said:

You make a lot of content, it’s difficult not to see your stuff first. It’s invariably revisionist, goal post moving stuff that just irks, and as you know, has done for probably a decade.

Decent signing, we’d agree - that’s the neutral observation. We needed and wanted a left sided centreback, he’s at peak, cheaper than he’s probably worth. I don’t see any issue.

Again, your first paragraph suggests that the reason you keep posting stuff like this is because you have an issue with my posts and a preconceived idea as to what I think of everything.

Ive tried to point out positives and negatives of the deal and consider both sides. Overall I think its a decent enough signing.

[JBiz]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Every year Venkys have to find somewhere between 10 and 20 million to keep their regime going here. 

Adam Wharton's sale meant that they saved that money. 

And yes, a large chunk (not all) of Rovers' losses are a direct result of Venkys and their continuing mismanagement and neglect, which is another reason it wouldn't cost £20 million a year to fund Rovers under proper owners.

Rovers losses makes sense, I assumed you meant Venkys own business losses, and taking money out of the club, not putting it in. Commercial is the obvious one, aka overall income / turnover. Better management would improve that - I’m not sure it would be enough to put us into a position to have a lot more competitive salaries though.
 

 

 

[RoversClitheroe]

 

 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, RoversClitheroe said:

 

 

Seeing as you posted before this, and avoided my question, why did you say this was a terrible signing?