KentExile

It feels like Rovers tried to announce his departure via the back door, and had it not been flagged up, they wouldn't have bothered saying anything, being content that they had pulled the wool over our eyes Similar to the minutes from the fans forum Everything about the club we all love now just feels scummy & underhanded

I think it probably comes down Rovers being distressed seller again, and the puttaince in the pre arranged fee is probably a few pennies more than the compensation if he moves to the states at the end of his contract

Sadly, the only chance he comes back in January is if his loan is a disaster

That was my initial thought too

RE Duru https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/25406730.clarity-blackburn-rovers-deal-transfer-confusion/ initial loan does run until December, which is when the MLS play-offs end. However, there is an option to extend that loan deal until June and there is every expectation that will be taken up. The agreement also includes an option for Dan Diego to buy Duru at the end of his deal, understood to be a six-figure sum. The 20-year-old signed a new contract with Rovers in 2024, which runs until the summer of 2026 with the option of a further 12 months. So all in all, San Diego had it right (not Rovers, big surprise), although there is what essentially amounts to a break clause in December Doesn't sound like a great deal for Rovers unless Duru has made it abundantly clear that he will not be signing another contract, which in turn would explain why Dury was not used with the first team in pre/early season

Yep, and then "tested" through legal challenges/court cases etc

That's definitely true I just wondered if the reason for the rules being "fuzzy" was maybe to do with them being created by different depts./organisations

Were GBE work permits & esc regulations & requirements concocted & put into place by the FA? or the home office/civil servants etc Or some unholy alliance of the above? or different origins for each ?

It depends on who the "non esc" option is in both cases

Or he has indicated he wants to move to the US & will not be signing another deal with Rovers beyond his current one (2026 with a years option) Or the option is "silly money" And all of those options assume (probably correctly, based on past events) that San Diego have announced the right details rather than Rovers

Not quite Durus first pro deal was 2023 He signed another deal a year later

I note that our intrepid reporter Elliott Jackson has not yet noticed that there is a discrepancy on how long for, and that the MLS team seem to be claiming there is an option to buy He may not have noticed Duru has left on loan at all, it seems that his collegue Dan Barnes thought it only warranted a sentence at the end of his report on Mafoumbi's release

But likewise June sounds wrong also, surely it would be until the January window?

Duru loaned to San Diego in the MLS Rovers state its a loan until mid October Edit - although they have now changed the wording, but still do not mention the full details of his loan which are as San Diego initially claimed San Diego state "on loan through June 2026 with a permanent purchase option" Wonder if someone messed up paperwork?

Duru loaned out until mid October, slightly strange as they only have 8 games left, but I am pretty sure that since he is U21 , he could come back even whilst the window is shut and play for U21s or even first team as he would not need to be registered as part of our 25 man squad Edit - San Diego state "on loan through June 2026 with a permanent purchase option" Further edit - the loan is as San Diego state, but with a break clause in December

Watch him sign for PSG next week 😉

He did ok for Peterborough a couple of years ago, think he was in their Championship squad with Szmodics etc) cant imagine Rovers would be looking for another centre back unless they lose one (Hyam due to his contract maybe?) though

It "makes sense" now that Gristedes original 5 areas has been slimed down, and a striker is "no longer wanted", Just a RW and Travis replacement Had Brittain/Travis not left/leaving, they wouldn't have been needing replacing, so a striker might have still been on the cards Obviously the sane & sensible thing would have been to see that we had received some transfer income & spent some of it But sales do not impact income for some unfathomable reason

true Doesn't even have to be a minute

The error the club made was not sticking him on the bench in the first few weeks of last season and giving him his debut, therefore meaning he would have earned a standard work permit last January

He didn't look good enough for our U21s in the games he played for them He also never really got above U19 level in France - failing to score above that level when playing for Nantes B team in the French regional leagues There are plenty of players who look ok at U18/U19 level who drop off when they move up an age group Rovers took a chance on him as he had a bit of pace, it didn't work out

Closed for dinner? Or maybe a team building moral sapping session?

Maybe Pasha just advises/dictates which ones "are ready", seeing as he is "responsible for the academy"

It does look like it would take miracle for him to still be employed by the time Christmas comes around, What a shame for the lego haired twonk

Start this evening for O'Riordan - lost 2-0 - gave away a penalty for the second goal, possible was a little a bit harsh but he gave the referee a decision to make Connor O'Riordan 7 - Header tipped over early doors. Weighed in with joint-most clearances in a generally solid performance. So unlucky the penalty call went against him On the bench Olson - drew 0-0 - remained on the bench throughout