Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] The January 2018 transfer thread


J*B

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Like everyone else I'm confused by signing more strikers if we are only playing one up front. We don't need 5....

Maybe it means we will go 442 properly, or 352?

------------------------------Raya

-----------Nyambe----Downing---Mulgrew

Bell-----Smallwood---Dack----Bennett----Williams

-------------------Graham-----Armstrong

I can see that working. 

Bell is a left back so I presume left footed? Isn't an issue with wingers but full backs for me should play on the side of their natural foot. I'd swap Bell into left wing back and then put Nyambe in Bell's place and Williams in the back three if I was too play that. Saying that I'm not keen on that formation, when we switched to a 4-2-3-1 our form changed dramatically in the league so I wouldn't change that. Rotate between Graham and Armstrong up top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

   At Ewood                       

 

                             Raya

     Nyame  Downing Mulgrew Williams

                          Smallwood

    Bennett           Dack             Conway

                Armstrong Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, islander200 said:

So it ends the Lowe interest too?

It means we can't pay a fee for our midfielder you would think. Is Lowe in contract with Big Club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

   At Ewood                       

 

                             Raya

     Nyame  Downing Mulgrew Williams

                          Smallwood

    Bennett           Dack             Conway

                Armstrong Graham

Not an ounce of creativity or pace out wide there Bigdoggsteel. Our lack of it is why we struggle to break down teams at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, benhben said:

I had never heard of Adam Armstrong until around 2 minutes ago. No idea if its a good, bad or nothing signing. I am assuming hes a striker going of what I've quickly read.

 

Good player mate on his day at this level. Smallish in stature, low centre of gravity and has a bit of pace. Good goals record in this league and Newcastle think well of him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J*B said:

It means we can't pay a fee for our midfielder you would think. Is Lowe in contract with Big Club?

Would we have to pay a fee for Gallagher?You wouldn't think it would be much given his age if so?Under contract till end of the season I think.

And we haven't paid a fee for Armstrong?Mowbray been banging on last few weeks about bringing in a pacy Chapman type not saying Armstrong is that, but to be fair maybe your source has the Gallagher link wrong? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

What are you actually talking about? You have no idea what the budget is or how it is being allocated. 

Somebody has told him about potential signings and he lapped it all up, came on here pretending to be itk and now trying to squirm out of it. Chaddy gets a lot of stick but he only says who he thinks should be signed, never claims to have any information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

What are you actually talking about? You have no idea what the budget is or how it is being allocated. 

If you go into the window looking for a left back, winger and central midfielder, then your striker gets injured for 6-8 weeks, the money has to come from somewhere. The budget doesn't change because you suffered an injury.

What i'm suggesting, not saying, is that the money which would put aside for the central midfielder has gone on Armstrong because of Antonnson's injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont get all this talk about all these different formations at all after the run weve been on.

Bennett in right wing back, whilst in essence is something he could do, is something he didnt do even on all of the occasions in the past when we played that formation.

Also, when he did play that formation he played 2 players either side of a striker, rather than a number 10 and 2 strikers.

Surely the idea of ripping up a system that has got us 24 points in 10 games, in order to accomodate a striker on loan, sounds crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, J*B said:

Because it wasn't originally budgeted for that a striker would be needed. Essentially the Armstrong deal has used the midfielder budget.

 

1 minute ago, J*B said:

If you go into the window looking for a left back, winger and central midfielder, then your striker gets injured for 6-8 weeks, the money has to come from somewhere. The budget doesn't change because you suffered an injury.

What i'm suggesting, not saying, is that the money which would put aside for the central midfielder has gone on Armstrong because of Antonnson's injury.

Sounded very definitive to me. 

Anyway it doesn't make sense. Antonnsson has been playing as a winger, Armstrong left Bolton because he was being played on the wing. Saying its a like for like replacement makes no sense. Finally, how much has Armstrong cost? You have no idea :) 

Also, same of the rest of us, you haven't a scooby doo what the budget is, yet you are claiming to know, or at least you are wording it like you know, not that you are suggesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, J*B said:

It means we can't pay a fee for our midfielder you would think. Is Lowe in contract with Big Club?

 

9 minutes ago, J*B said:

If you go into the window looking for a left back, winger and central midfielder, then your striker gets injured for 6-8 weeks, the money has to come from somewhere. The budget doesn't change because you suffered an injury.

What i'm suggesting, not saying, is that the money which would put aside for the central midfielder has gone on Armstrong because of Antonnson's injury.

Antonnson hasn't been playing as a striker though 

Also JB a couple of weeks ago Mowbray was in the let saying he was happy with his central midfield options?It's only really since we have struggled with injuries there that the Lowe link surfaced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, J*B said:

If you go into the window looking for a left back, winger and central midfielder, then your striker gets injured for 6-8 weeks, the money has to come from somewhere. The budget doesn't change because you suffered an injury.

What i'm suggesting, not saying, is that the money which would put aside for the central midfielder has gone on Armstrong because of Antonnson's injury.

But Antonsson has been a winger for the last few months. So hes not a direct replacement.

How do you know we want the players you mentioned? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

Sounded very definitive to me. 

Anyway it doesn't make sense. Antonnsson has been playing as a winger, Armstrong left Bolton because he was being played on the wing. Saying its a like for like replacement makes no sense. Finally, how much has Armstrong cost? You have no idea :) 

Also, same of the rest of us, you haven't a scooby doo what the budget is, yet you are claiming to know, or at least you are wording it like you know, not that you are suggesting. 

Armstrong is on 15k a week at NUFC and Bolton where paying the full amount: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/adam-armstrong-told-can-leave-13340916

The deal with Rovers, as written elsewhere hinged on us not paying his full wages. In speculation mode, lets say we are paying 10k now its been agreed - thats 200k before the end of the season in wages alone. Now put a loan fee on top. 

If Armstrong has been brought in to cover Antonsson - rather than being on the hit list all along - that 200K + will have come out of this windows budget.

That makes sense to everyone, right?

Obviously, if Armstrong/A. Striker was always planned to have been brought in, the budget will have it accounted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Antonsson has been called back to Leeds to get fit and be used there again so this lad is a direct replacement. I think there'll be a little bit of outward movement somewhere to balance the wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, J*B said:

Armstrong is on 15k a week at NUFC and Bolton where paying the full amounthttp://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/adam-armstrong-told-can-leave-13340916

The deal with Rovers, as written elsewhere hinged on us not paying his full wages. In speculation mode, lets say we are paying 10k now its been agreed - thats 200k before the end of the season in wages alone. Now put a loan fee on top. 

If Armstrong has been brought in to cover Antonsson - rather than being on the hit list all along - that 200K + will have come out of this windows budget.

That makes sense to everyone, right?

Obviously, if Armstrong/A. Striker was always planned to have been brought in, the budget will have it accounted for.

From your article above

Bolton Wanderers are keen on signing Armstrong but will have to pay a portion of his £15,000 per week wage packet.

Bolded and underlined for clarity. 

Lets just say you are right and we are paying some of his wages, Feeney going back to Cardiff surely covers this. 

I would imagine Armstrong became available, he is a good player who Mowbray likes, so we signed him. I doubt Antonnssons injury had anything to do with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Agreed. Nothing suggests a drastic change of position is imminent.

Why would a striker signing affect a central midfield one?

Armstrong aint coming here to.wide left when he did at Bolton.and both him and Newcastle werent happy about it. 

We only had a budget so many signings

57 minutes ago, J*B said:

I see more...

----------------------Raya

------Lenihan Downing Mulgrew

Bennett---Smallwood--Evans-----Bell

-----------------------Dack

------------Graham-------Armstrong

I like that system with those players. Give us Dack behind 2 strikers who one is target man and one is a pacey but both goalscorers

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Dont get all this talk about all these different formations at all after the run weve been on.

Bennett in right wing back, whilst in essence is something he could do, is something he didnt do even on all of the occasions in the past when we played that formation.

Also, when he did play that formation he played 2 players either side of a striker, rather than a number 10 and 2 strikers.

Surely the idea of ripping up a system that has got us 24 points in 10 games, in order to accomodate a striker on loan, sounds crazy?

Because you arent going to bring in a quality striker on loan plus wages to sit on the bench are you? 

J*B is right about Armstrong's wages and us not paying them full. Hes right. 

So its either Dack to wide Left or centre mid with Smallwood or its a change of system to 3-5-2 or 4-1-2-1-2 formations

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

But Antonsson has been a winger for the last few months. So hes not a direct replacement.

How do you know we want the players you mentioned? 

Because he has good sources. 

Just like Ive been telling you that Armstrong was signing here since Friday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tomphil said:

Maybe Antonsson has been called back to Leeds to get fit and be used there again so this lad is a direct replacement. I think there'll be a little bit of outward movement somewhere to balance the wages.

Doubt he will be used at Leeds. He is here for the season. 

Perhaps there will be an outgoing or two, won't be anyone we will miss too much I reckon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.