That's true I suppose and makes me feel a bit better about it. That said can a reserve keeper really command that much of a wage (relatively speaking)? Also it assumes length of contract in both cases is the same. You're right it is more complex than just the fee - a free transfer may have a signing on fee too for example. Maybe it is just a distraction. Perhaps it's who we are buying - he hasn't had huge amounts of football and had it been £300k for.someone else I'd be less fussed. Maybe it's our general malaise in the market that makes me negative. I would have thought though there were better deals out there though. Still, any port in a storm...

The good news is it's a decent second keeper. The bad news is the fee. Surely there would be a decent back up who doesn't cost a fee. Especially when we really need a centre back and left back.

Transfer update 14/9/20: TM only has 17 players to work with for the game Vs the Barcodes but is relaxed about it. Presumably another 6 need to drop out before we consider this an issue. Swaggot comes up.with a new tasty marketing campaign to entice new players to the club "if you can't get a better offer elsewhere we'll have you." One descerning fan states that Rovers fans may be less critical of TM and Rovers in the circumstances had previous transfer windows not been ballsed up. Given we haven't signed a player in a January transfer window since 1066 and TMs "defenders are coming" speech omitted "but they will be late to the party and bog off after one season" there's plenty of evidence to suggest this theory has legs. However other Rovers fans desperate for signings look to ensure the bar doesnt have to leave the ground. Comparisons with struggling Boro are made (despite them signing more players than us.) The plan is apparently Cunningham and Ayala. Thank goodness for that European scouting network enabling us to come up with this. Meanwhile Chaddy continues to reinterpret what he has posted, our third game is rapidly approaching and of course... ... we still haven't signed any more players!

I know. A lot of games went the opposite way to what I thought. Usually my predictions last a bit longer than week 1 of the season! Think it shows what a tough league this is going to be.

Sounds like typical Rovers. Enough promise and good stuff to keep us in this division but the same basic errors that will prevent us from ever progressing or getting promoted. My worry is the good stuff is spread rather thin, albeit offensively we do better than on paper would suggest. But even so it's a thin, thin squad, which might tip the balance towards more negatives than positives.

Think your dislike of Brentford/Raya is colouring your view of how well they will do. They know how to replace players they lose - they do it year after year. Agree about playoffs, so many teams could make it. Forest for top is a bold prediction but I wonder a) about their lack of stability as a club, especially with managers and b) their mental fortitude - all they had to do was not totally implode and they did. Playoff position for Forest for me. Think you are right about Bournemouth. Managers make all the difference. Fulham would have won the league last year with that squad and a better manager. It's all about managers in this division. Well not all about, but a lot. Agree about Reading struggling and if not them at least one other basket case club, possibly Birmingham, will go down. Of the two I think Reading are weaker and feel.the instability combined with a manager new to championship might cost them. @roversfan99 highlights Wednesdays predicament and 12 points is a lot to make up even if you are a decent team - just ask Wigan. Having a full season of knowing the target will help them but crikey it's a lot of points in a tight league. So what am I saying? Nabbing 99's prediction of Watford for top along with Brentford for second. Going down I will go with Wednesday, Reading and Rotherham although Luton I feel could also go down and not have the resources to survive. Appreciate it's cheating to have 4 but hey! Its only a message board. Barnsley have a bit too much fighting spirit and Coventry have a fair few recruits so should scrape enough to survive. The playoffs are as easy to predict as the lottery numbers but I will go with Derby (hopefully not) Norwich, Swansea and Forest. But who knows on this one. Am sure in 12 months time I'll see how wildly inaccurate I was. And all could change by October with a few key transfers for a team.

Rovers transfer update 11/9/20 - Rovers fans get excitable about the signing of Rathbone which turns out to be false. However no one feels too bad for being suckered by the rumours as he plays in midfield which increased the credibility of the rumour a thousandfold. - The first PR rumblings of operation 'we don't need defenders we have Del and Warton' emerge. This leaves fans a tad bemused as to why we have been hunting defenders if we have the necessary players here already. It also leaves fans a tad bewildered as having seen Del play they know he is not very good. - Hot off last night's clarification of what comparisons with other teams are acceptable (if you missed it, the answer is only those that make Rovers look good) Chaddy published his helpful player character test. If they sign for other clubs they are money grabbing bar stewards mercenary pansies and all round bad eggs that we don't want here. If they sign for Rovers it's due to their admiration of TM and their ambition. - And of course Rovers still haven't signed anyone else. Why would they,? The season only starts tomorrow.

Think this is a very fair summary of the Raya debacle albeit a tad overly kind to Walton.

Sigh. You compared us to someone - kinda spurs given it was their chairman talking about their experience. (Please, please, please look the words inference and implication up in a dictionary.) But even if it wasn't spurs you have been comparing us to other teams. However when I do it with Coventry it isn't a valid comparison. So in short - you compare us to teams and that's ok. I compare us to teams and it's not valid. This is the crux of my issues. Same on other threads - coronavirus. You compared us to Brazil and USA, but someone else compares to New Zealand or France isn't allowed or valid. So can we or can't we compare to other countries? Can you not see the hypocrisy? All I am asking for is that the same standards are allowed for both sides of the debate. As it is you dismiss factors when they are against you and yet use them to champion your argument. That isn't fair. It isnt logical. And it really isn't doing you any favours. I can't make it much clearer than this. Am sure you will pick on some obscure tangent but i have made my issues very clear. You can't not see the issues I have with your posts.

Some good evasion here. Yes I mentioned Coventry. You said it wasn't a valid comparison despite comparing us to Spurs. As I said before you are allowed to use a comparison but I am not. That seems somewhat biased. It's a question of permissibility of comparisons I have an issue with not the quality. I really don't want to knock the club, would love for them to be doing a great job. The difference is I'm honest when they don't. Also it's super childish to switch to motivations and say I want to knock the club. If my points are invalid show it. My motivations are irrelevant (and you have them wrong too!) However this seems a last desperate attempt to deflect from me highlighting some inconsistencies in your stance. But moving it back from motivation to content none of the inconsistencies I have raised tonight have been answered: Are hypothetical/potential transfers or attempts allowed - you used them as evidence for your stance but criticised me for doing so. Are comparisons with other clubs allowed? The Spurs link is but Coventry isn't. It's these things that are detracting massively from your content.

This!!!

Wonders never cease, a criticism of Rovers. Did you say we can do no wrong - yes you did by implicatiin and insinuation. I've explained how the English language works involving implication and insinuation multiple times so won't again. Suffice to say your posts clearly do absolve Rovers of any blame in the transfer market. Again the hypocrisy kicks in. Y'see we wouldn't be in for the big transfers Levy was talking about however this counts as a valid comparison. But Coventry aren't a valid comparison (despite being in the same division) because we wouldn't want any of their players. So help me out here - is comparison with other teams allowed or not allowed even if the players are of a different level? I think you need to refrain from defending Rovers as each day you are tying yourself in knots with contradictions. This is the second or third one from just today!

Yes the only positive thing about it turned out to be the muck up that we got a temporary replacement in. When your mistakes become the only saving grace in a transfer you know you have made a boo boo.

Raya wanting to leave after only one season reflects badly on him. Us letting him go for peanuts when his value has trebled in 1 year reflects badly on us. And that's before we factor in we got Walton as a replacement.

We get it, you think the club can do no wrong and are doing a brilliant job. As you like to say not a fair comparison, but I appreciate that comparisons are only allowed, along with hypotheticals and near misses, if it makes us look good. Coventry (I think they have signed a few) must be miracle workers to get some players in.

Congratulations you have grasped the rules of the debate! Likewise if a hypothetical link is unfavourable for Rovers then it is dismissed as not being concrete. However the possibility Rovers might sign someone must always be held and used as a positive of Rovers approach.

You have totally, totally missed my point on double standards. You've also shifted the goalposts onto selectivism which I will address separately. Chaddy: "we were only linked with those players" inference therefore is unless brought it doesn't count as evidence against TM (debatable but let's run with that ) And in the same post Chaddy "I expect more players to be signed by the European network" inference therefore the network is a good thing. In this case a hypothetical non signing is evidence to suggest something is good. You see the point? You state an expectation that hasn't happened as proof to help your points but limit me to concrete examples only. That's double standards. Onto selectivism and how well we are doing/trying: Yes I've seen a few of the documentaries thanks and am not saying it is easy. That said given half the clubs have made more signings than us statistics alone suggest it's not quite as difficult as you make out! In fact statistics aren't your friend on this one. History isn't your friend either in defending our transfer endeavours. The fact we signed no one last January, missed out on multiple targets last summer - you bleated on about the missing out on keepers a lot as I recall - the fact that so many of our defenders are the same from two or three years ago also indicates we aren't that great in the transfer market or doing all we can. Logic isn't helping you much either. Your suggestion is that I'm assuming it's like football manager. However it's a false dichotomy to say the only choices are it's like football manager (and by comparison we are doing badly) or Rovers are doing brilliantly in difficult conditions circumstances. Actually there are a number of alternatives between these two positions, one of which is that Rovers aren't too hot on transfers. Finally on selectivism I have mentioned targets and signings from the past couple of years. Whilst admittedly not solely those known an uncomfortable amount of them are. The links this summer being one example of this.

A few musings on this. 1) I didn't massively get the magazines as a kid but I did get children's football annuals as a kid. I also got them as an adult due a grandparent not appreciating the aging process until they passed away a year or so ago. What did surprise me was how the current ones have very little writing compared with those I read as a kid. It's all like "Messi hassic skillz" in today's annual, whereas as a child I remember reading full articles on players and their background. I remember reading one on Short and his love of sailing for when he retired, a Coventry defender (Burrows?) on being a brickie and that strengthening his leg muscles, so despite not being the biggest he could out-ump strikers. There were more words in a single one of those articles than there is in the entirety of the annuals these days. A symptom of a decline in literacy, or reading perhaps? I still get the 4-4-2 season preview magazine. I've had them for a number of years now and really rate them. It gives a solid low level insight into each club, what the situation is, who are their better players and what the fans think. It's far from infallible in their predictions but it gives a really good overview of each team, and helps me know a little bit about each team and a sense of what their situation is.

C'mon Chaddy let's not be obtuse. There's plenty of examples form our time at Rovers. Some have worked out ok but some haven't and there's a bigger market out there. To pretend it hasn't happened previously is daft. But here's what really annoys me - the double standards. When we are linked to players or miss out on them, and you are defending the corner of the club stating they are doing all they can to recruit players and are doing a jolly good professional job the links are good and evidence of the club doing a good job. But when I use the links to criticise the club they are meaningless speculation. You can't have it both ways! Actually, and this is the real joke - you say you expect others to come, speculation, not even links just supposition, and use this to bolster your arguments. Yet an actual tangible link to a player is dismissed as non-evidence when it supports my criticism. You treat the same evidence/examples as a valid support of points whilst saying that same evidence is insufficient and poor when used to bolster my points. How is that fair or a reasonable debate? Can you not see how daft and contradictory it sounds? Look I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of our scouting network and expectations of it, but I'm not wild about having this double standard of evidence and these contradictions. Let's aim for a bit of consistency! Nice selective use of examples. Not that I necessarily disagree, but there's plenty of evidence of clubs buying players that weakens this defence too.

Couple of reasons I'm frustrated with it: 1) I'm pretty disappointed its not produced much within two years. Still time to redeem itself but it should have been producing more than it has currently. . 2) I think its that combined with TMs preference to go for the known and safe option. Cunningham link this year, Gally as the striker last year. We've been linked with Pears (sp?) from Boro as a keeper who other than the Boro links/convenience doesn't have much going for it. My frustration is why invest in a European network - which I think in principle is a good idea - if there's a tendency to go with the known. I guess in League 1 that was fair enough, albeit not ideal, given how little time TM had had, but by now we shouldn't be as reliant on known as much as we have been over the past year or two.

The circus continues. With our European Scouting Network in full swing the name Cunningham is offered as a possibility of left back, which seems a rather excessive amount of resources to identify a player we've already had on loan. Of course we are at risk of missing out to those football giants Bristol City, which is understandable. If we do, it won't be Rovers fault. Downing deal is off the table. Well, age makes that not too disappointing a blow. But given he can play three positions to a decent standard and we've lost a lot of players you'd have thought his versatility would have made him a decent signing. Add in that he was actually pretty decent last year and it's all a bit odd we didn't sign him up. Edit seen we are not in competition with Bristol City. Am sure we will find someone else to lose out to. An asthmatic snail moves faster than we do on transfers...

Fun fact (which may be incorrect and my memory playing tricks on me) but last time we started a competition on September 12th we went on to win it at Cardiff. History to repeat itself?

Kaminski, Nayambe, Lenihen, Warton, Bell, Evans, Travis, Holtby, Armstrong, JRC and erm Rothwell. There's still 2 or 3 players I don't want in that team which is a bad way to start. Torn between Rothwell or Gally (up front) for the final spot but figured keep Armstrong to where he is best. Neither Rothwell, Bell, Warton or Evans would be near my first 11 but can't see any better choices at present which is depressing. No idea why people are selecting Bereton. A few decent runs and a missed open goal doesn't warrent it imo. Mind you we are short on options. As for that bench. Horrific.

Another load of bull-twaddle from Waggot. Now don't get me wrong, agents are pond life and a blight on the game. But its not as if they've suddenly all upped their prices and demands. Rather we've decided we won't pay the going rate anymore. Championship players aren't asking for more I don't think, in fact given the uncertainty in football I'm very confident on this, so the costs shouldn't come as a surprise for Rovers whatsoever. However, blaming it on the agents makes a nice deflective excuse away from Venkys, Waggot and TM for their various roles in leaving us not paying the going rate. Also if eight out two in is anywhere near acceptable than we might as well down tools now. We need 2 just to field a solid, championship level, first 11. And that still includes one of our dolloper over-costly strikers in there. To say we need two is like using masking tape to patch up a car. What about a second keeper? Where's the defensive cover? Where's the strikers or wide attackers or whatever you want to call them? Who's going to score the goals? Dack, Armstrong, certainly, a few promising youngsters might and we're into players where the phrase booze ups and breweries come to mind. And that's acceptable? That's the minimum? If the bar got any lower we would be digging it out of the ground. But no its hard luck all round and greedy agents. Hell of a consolation that will be having them scapegoats when we plummet down the league. I hate fiiotball.

So today's conclusions: Who's to blame for the so-far a debacle of a transfer window - Waggot, TM or Venkys - the answer being D all of the above. We're struggling to sell players as well as buy them. At least we show some consistency there. We may have a tenner to spend if King or Raya leave their respective clubs via sell on fees. A Rovers transfer window is enough to drive someone to drink...