Brilliant stuff, sam!

Anyway... I just finished reading through this entire thread and wound up with little more than a splitting headache. Good to hear Matteo and de Pedro made their debuts, though I question exactly where the so-called mystery trialist (Volpato as we are led to believe) disappeared to.

Thompson, Emerton (switching inside and out as they see fit)

I think that's a great point that many people have failed to consider. Assuming that Thompson is fully fit and both he and Emerton start, it's not such a bad idea for them to shift back and forth to alternately provide attacking impetus (Thommo) and solid defensive cover (Emerton) from the center.

And American, I wouldn't hold your hopes out for Ronaldo... apparently Burnley have the inside path to signing him... again.

Anyway, this XI has already been suggested a ton of times but I'll post it again anyway:

Friedel

Neill, Amoruso, Matteo, Gray

Emerton, Thompson, Ferguson, de Pedro

Stead, Dickov

Bench: Enckelman, Gallagher, Johansson, Tugay, Douglas

I'd really like to see Nissa given a fair run in the side, but as of now I'm not sure whose expense it should be at. Tugay is certainly still capable of a decent run of games in the center of midfield, but I think that he and Gally could each do a fantastic job as game-changing substitutes.

Whatever the case, I hope that this talk is premature--and that there will be at least one more signing to come (Butt please) that could shake things up a bit.

Morph... apparently it turned out to be the latter option I suppose.

Seriously, maybe I'm just not getting it, but how would a bid to sign this Volpato kid be jeopardized by the fact that we know who he is now?

I thought that when I heard it on SSN. Wonder if that means we paid up his contract, and they paid the difference, so he could sign a 2 year deal rather than just take on his current contract? Might be plausible if the loyalty bonus was date-based, rather than playing for X years at the club.

Or even better, Fulham took over the last year of the contract and chipped in money to pay off the loyalty clause that Rovers will probably end up owing Cole as a result of his "willingness" to stay.

What I think is quite amusing is the fact that everyone was blasting Rovers for not getting any type of fee for Cole, and while the little money they got is probably going toward Rovers' golden handshake with Andy, the fact remains that the club did manage to pry some money away from the Cottagers in the deal.

The truly fascinating thing to see now would be a detailed listing of the club's wage bill.....

No dobut one of the big clubs will try and buy him now and we'll lose out.

Riiiiiight... Real Madrid will be incredibly impressed by his two goals against German powerhouse SG Schorndorf and will nick him before we get the chance.

Interesting that so many "Cole is crap and we're well rid" opinions have suddenly appeared from nowhere - and such passionately held views as well! These opinions must have been festering for a very long time, given that there has been no new news about Cole's ability since the end of the season.

Did I miss the "Cole must go" thread at the end of last season? Oh, there wasn't one. I wonder why?

A very fair point, Exiled, and I think that a lot of Rovers supporters have maintained complete (and some might argue almost blind) faith in Souness throughout the latter part of his tenure. I'll readily admit that I fall in that camp. Let me, however, explain why I think you've seen such a shift in opinion.

As I said before, I am still tentatively in the "Cole should stay" camp--the negatives involved with Cole leaving are obvious enough, as it seems to leave our strikeforce woefully thin. As time has worn on, however, I've begun to seen some of the reasons (positives, if you will) in Cole's imminent departure.

First off, it's become painfully obvious in recent days that the relationship between Souness and Cole has become completely untenable... I know the concept of "team morale" gets overhyped at times, but the fact is that keeping a player around who clearly has beef with the manager is detrimental to the rest of the squad. Cole was (allegedly) not going to be first choice, and while I think that he should certainy have been picked over Dickov, it does appear that instead of choosing to fight for and win a first team place, he decided to sulk and moan about it. It seems to me that for all his footballing skills, Cole possesses absolutely no intangibles--whereas Dickov, for all his technical shortcomings, possesses the latter in abundance.

Perhaps the most obvious impact of Cole's departure is the financial aspect. Reports of Cole's wages have steadily been increasing, and while we can't really know for sure how much he's on a week, it's becoming clear that he is seeing out the end of an absolutely juggernaut contract. Assuming that he's on £40,000 a week--and that's probably a low estimate given recent reports in the press--he would have earned £2 million in wages had he seen out his contract. If FourLaneBlue is right (and what he's saying makes sense), Rovers will still have to fork out £1 million to cover the loyalty clause, but £2 million saved on a player who has a terrible relationship with the manager is not such a bad thing.

All that being said, I will still be upset about Cole's departure unless Rovers use the money saved to substantially improve the squad. I have my doubts about the club bringing in a striker to replace the departing Cole, and I think this is potentially a big mistake. However, if the £2 million saved is beneficially reinvested in the team--ideally, a loan move for Nicky Butt (after offloading Flitcroft) or the purchase of a striker--then I will have at least understood the reasons behind Cole's departure.

Let's remember that this is a big gamble on Souness' part--if the Stead/Dickov/Gally/Jansen/Yorke five-headed monster can produce the goods up front, the fiery Scot comes through this episode looking okay. If, however, his revamped strikeforce lets him down, his job is most certainly on the line.

I hope that sorts things out a bit, Exiled... I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that at least for me, there are more complicated reasons behind my shift in opinion than there first appear to be.

I'm sorry but this is beginning to ###### me off a little... there's like a club of insiders who claim to know who the mystery striker is and are making everyone who doesn't know feel stupid.

Will someone--be it an individual, the club, or anyone--just spill the friggin beans already?

Let's make sure Rovers are done their offseason moves before we pick an XI for the season.

Saunders is too busy planning a biological attack during the upcoming US election, eating babies, and having sex with your wife (and your pets). Dean Saunders is too busy being the source of all evil to teach technique.

Forgot to mention, Billy, that while I disagree with you on the above, I couldn't be in more agreement over Demon Saunders.

I'm annoyed he went on a free. We may have got a bit of cash for him.

Have to disagree with you there, Billy. The more and more I think about it, Cole's current contract (and thus wage demands) make him an expensive venture for a club even without a transfer fee. Follow me on this...

Let's assume Cole is on £50,000 a week--a fair estimate given the escalating projections of his salary in the press. If his contract runs through the end of June next year, that's roughly fifty weeks left, and then he apparently gets the £1 million bonus. That's a grand total of £3.5 million they owe Cole over the next year if he stays on. Now if they were to demand a transfer fee for him, Fulham would inevitably insist that they provide Cole with a substantial payoff in order to temper his wage demands from his new club. Say, for instance, that as a severance package, Rovers agreed to pay Andy half of what he would gain from fulfilling his contract--£1.75 million. Even if they got a £1.5 million fee from the Cottagers (which is highly unlikely anyway), they would still be losing money on the deal.

The better option would, of course, be to get Fulham to take over Andy's contract. It states in the BBC article:

Since there is no fee, Fulham have agreed to take over Cole's £60,000-a-week Blackburn contract, which still has one year to run.

If that's true, Rovers are essentially free of their financial obligation to Cole, and they've lost no money in the deal. Of course, it would look better to the public if they got a fee for him, but if letting him walk on a Bosman frees them from the cost of a golden handshake, then it will ultimately be beneficial for the club.

I'm not happy he's going but if he's fallen out with Souness and has no interest in helping Stead and Gally develop it will be for the best.

Precisely.

Paul, you've managed to nearly sum up my feelings in one sentence. But for those of you who are interested, I've finally collected my thoughts on the matter:

I still find myself tentatively in the "Cole should stay" camp because I fear that the club will be too thin up front without him. Add to this the fact that Yorke should also be on his way out and that leaves Rovers with only four strikers--unless of course Souey is willing to gamble that Jemal Johnson is ready for first team action, which is something I somehow doubt.

That being said... the more I've thought about a Dickov-Stead partnership, the more the idea grows on me. Bear in mind that it wasn't an inability to score goals that hurt Rovers last year... it was a penchant for conceding them. I can understand Souey's thinking--a settled defense and a true left-sided player in de Pedro will cut back on the goals conceded and make the side more effective as a whole. Odds are that Rovers won't score as many goals as they did last year, but if things go according to plan, they won't need to.

I'm still worried because I feel that while Dickov is solid, he shouldn't be able to walk into a first team place for a quality side (as he will be able to when Cole departs)... and the inexperience of Stead and Gally as well as the Jansen's complete loss of form makes me very nervous. Still, if offloading Cole saves the club the £1 million loyalty bonus as well as £60,000 per week (or whatever the press have decided he's earning now) and allows Rovers to go after other targets (a loan move for Butt, anyone?) then it's not all bad news.

My current thinking is that I'll trust Souey on the matter for the time being... but if the strikeforce fails to produce the goods then a big-time move must certainly be made in the transfer window.

Oh, so it's £60k now? Christ almighty.

Yes. Apparently, apart from the loyalty bonus, there was also a little known clause in Cole's contract that bumps up his salary an extra £5000 per week for every day that he's the subject of transfer speculation.

At this rate, Kluivert will look like a bargain before we know it...

With the signing of Dickov, plus Stead and Gallacher, we also have Matt Jansen who I'm sure Souness beleives in 100% for the coming season.

I would almost be inclined to believe you, but your name makes you lose any credence you might have saying that.

do not worry he is only here as a squad player,or that is what most of the blue ans white eyes on here thought when he signed.

          we will have no problems if we start with gally ans stead,if sourness sticks with dickov ala lucas niell,we will be in the mire after 10 games.

Great idea, waggy, let's throw a 21 year old and a 20 year old with 23 Premiership starts and 9 Premiership goals between them into the fire and place our whole Premiership existence on their shoulders.

While we're at it, let's throw Fitzgerald, Donnelly, Johnson and Garner into the first team and see if they sink or swim. Youth is the way to go right?

Oh, dear... Alan would you like to break the news to him or should I?

So no-one has come forward with the players name proving once and for all that nobody on this website has genuine inside information or contacts from within.

I wouldn't say that.

Have you ever thought that people might know information--or at least be able to find it out--but not always be able to share it on this website?

Kamy would be an excellent example.

good news if you ask me,let the king sulk-sulk on the kings road,pity we will be paying for it though,another master stroke by sourness

i aint a cole fan -to me he has been stealing his 55k for the last 2 season's,this is though another nail in sourness's coffin.

You just quoted yourself for no apparent reason, and then slated Souness for getting rid of a player who you say has been "stealing" from the club.

What are you on about, Captain Contradiction?

I'll now shamelessly quote myself from more than a month ago in the Paul Dickov thread:

If Dickov is being brought in as a replacement for Cole, then yes, a mistake is being made.  If, as it seems, Dickov is being brought in to take Yorke's place, then it is an excellent move.  End of story.

And so I'll stick by my original statement... Dickov is a nice squad player and a great replacement for (as well as the antithesis of) Yorke, but he should not be charged with the responsibility of filling Cole's boots.

The only two things that would prove to me that Souness hasn't lost the plot are: (1) a move for a (relatively) big-time striker, e.g. Beattie; or (2) the total resurgence of Matt Jansen. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath for either one.

But see Rev, that's looking at the glass as if it's half-empty.

It's true that Souness has a habit of falling out with players, but to sum up his managerial career with Rovers in that manner certainly belittles his efforts for the club as a whole.

The "glass is half-full" view? Personally, I'd sum up "the Souness years" by saying: Promotion; survival, a cup victory and Europe; sixth place and Europe; and survival.

...If Cole is to be adequately replaced then big money needs to be spent. Do we really have this money? On other threads people have mentioned the likes of Beattie and Kluivert. Can we really afford Beattie?...

Bingo.

We can't pretend to know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but no matter what the case, the fact remains that the club is offloading its most natural goalscorer and best (still) best striker. The only way this is not an absolutely horrible move is if a top notch replacement is lined up--e.g. Beattie. This is, of course, another reason that this move should have been made much earlier... in order to replace Cole, Rovers should have been in for Kezman, or Mikael Forssell, or even Alan Smith or Mark Viduka. Paul Dickov, as tough of a player as he is, is not the answer: he is (or at least should be) the replacement for Yorke, not Cole.

Can't help but thinking that Rovers are doing this because they want to cut back on the wage bill and can't offload Yorke.

Interesting to read on Sky Sports that Fulham are apparently in for Mido. Good news in my opinion... if they're pursuing other strikers in the transfer market then it just might prove that they don't feel too confident about their chances of landing Cole.

How much is John Williams paid then Waggy? And what else should he be doing to justify his "massive" salary? Why does he not come across as a "football man", should he do some ball-juggling at Brockhall? His job doesn't really allow him the scope to demonstrate his football knowledge, chief execs are involved with teh business aspects, not the football aspects.

There is far too much involved in this debate for me to wade in now, but I wanted to say a quick piece in response to the JW question. What Bryan says is absolutely balls-on accurate... whether Williams is a "football man" or not is wholly irrelevant, since he deals with the business aspects of the club.

A quick look at American sports shows that people with little to no sports knowledge can be the best executives. The San Francisco 49ers became a powerhouse in the 1980s and 1990s under the leadership of Carmen Policy, a lawyer who didn't know that much about football but understood how the system worked. My Philadelphia Eagles have been good year in and year out for the past couple years thanks to Joe Banner, a businessman with no football background who analyzed the economics of football and used his knowledge to turn the Eagles into the model franchise for the rest of the NFL.

For those who don't get the American sports reference, I apologize, but my point remains the same: sometimes it takes a "non-footballing man" to do the best job for a club. So don't discount what JW is doing for Blackburn Rovers.

*deleted*

BBC Five Live have just reported Elland Road is for sale on a lease-back deal. Can it get worse for them?

Anyone who thinks we have reasons to be down in the mouth should just read these headlines change a few names and imagine how we'd all be feeling. 

Perhaps most telling among those articles, just from a purely footballing standpoint, is this one: Three on Trial in Sweden

Yup that's right... Leeds are taking Steve Guppy, Brian Deane and our old buddy Craig Hignett on trial during their preseason preparations. Presumably they're there to replace James Milner, Alan Smith and Dominic Matteo, respectively?

Oh how the might have fallen.

Personally I think Hasta's post says it all: the story is BS.

Or better yet, perhaps The News of the World confused one aging ex-Manchester United striker for another...

<-- Bye-bye Yorkie