That's not what the deal for Davies was. It was 7 or 7.5 million, Beattie went the other way but as part of that 7.5m. I think he was valued at 1 mill in the trade, so we will have paid 6 or 6.5 million, plus Beattie. Ripley was an entirely separate deal the same year for about 2 million apparently. He was nearly 31 at the time so that probably wasn't a bad sale. The Davies deal was a shocker though and always goes down as the worst ever for me. Amplified by the fact that even that same season Beattie had a much better season than Davies, who we sold back for a significant loss whilst bringing the even worse Egil Ostenstad over as part of the deal. And made worse again by the fact that eventually those bastards Bolton got him for free, at which point he went on to be excellent for them. Scored more against us than for us I'm sure, despite all the money wasted.

Your powers are formidable, @Fraserkirky!!

I'm very, very far from a Venkys fan or apologist, but that last part is simply not true.

Well that's exactly the problem, and could be glaringly so once crowds return.

I don't know what you base that optimism on?

It begins... https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19422711.blackburn-rovers-turn-opening-southampton-bid-adam-armstrong/

I appreciate the very specific scenario you're describing, but someone saying in all earnest that Brereton should have been in the starting lineup for Chile instead of Sanchez feels like the most concrete evidence that we are all living in a simulation 🤣 Hell, even on my Football Manager game (a simulation) - where I sold him to Everton for 11 million, which seemed far-fetched - he has ended up signing for Vancouver for just under 1 million, aged 23 now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lancs.live/sport/football/transfer-news/blackburn-rovers-leshabela-leicester-profile-20955280.amp

I would hope you're glad Douglas has left too.

Douglas was an absolute liability at times this season, like Bell was last season and the one before. But he calmed down on that front, started being more effective in the final third and had a few reasonable games. So yeh we will have to just disagree.

Not for me. About the same. In fact if you just took their performances this season and ignore previous ones I'd say Bell was better this season.

Same was said about Douglas.

0-0 half time and the stats suggest a fairly even encounter, though I'm not watching it. No start for BB.

I dunno I think you might wanna fish out some Neymar highlight reels. I used to not see what the fuss was about either from what I had seen, until I watched some. I ended up thinking it was unfair what he did to some of those professionals, embarrassing them like that.

No.

Seems like Pickering has been bought with the same emphasis in mind.

And the way that Dack got two major injuries and never got to play in the Prem. I'm not saying he would have been as good as Grealish, I'm saying we will never know what he would have been.

I've seen less vague things in fogs.

So again, if it was obvious in training that any of them are ready to step up, why weren't they used in the dead rubbers? It's more obvious even in a game with little on the line than it is in training. If he had faith they were going to be ready for this season as legitimate squad players rather than just getting their introductions, they would have played in those dead rubbers. They didn't even come on as subs.

He isn't making the argument that they're not good enough though. Just that we can't assume they are and not make signings in areas we will be short. You don't assign a full squad spot to an untested youth player unless you've seen enough in training to feel really sure they're ready to step in regularly. Our illustrious manager has made it clear he doesn't have that confidence in them yet. So instead that means you drip feed them in. Injury crises, sub appearances when we are winning comfortably, that kind of thing, is the usual approach for blooding youngsters. Not saying we need a new X position player so how about we shove a lad from the u23s in and hope he swims.

I'll never forgive Tony for that. Not the first time he has done it either. He has done more harmful things for sure, but not trying out the youth players on the fringes when there is NOTHING of any importance to play for other than arguably salvaging his own job is up there with Gallagher at RB for pure stupidity that can't be excused in any way.

They played games, so they need replacing. Whether we thought they were hot property is not the point. It's a long season, where rotation is necessary, and our manager's default approach. Depth is required, that's not really up for debate. I'd say we can probably go with 2, maybe 3 less bodies overall than last season but any more is a big risk to take for a side that wasn't far off a relegation battle last season. For returning loanees I'll grant Carter seems a plus, but Chapman looks to be off and nobody else looks likely to get a look in. Our u23s is a similar story - despite all the talk, Mowbray didn't even trust them enough to give any of them a debut in the end of season dead rubbers. It's a huge leap to assume we, and he in particular, can rely on them now. You'd be happy to replace 10 departing players with 2? And not even in the position most required, central midfield, where we have ironically been carrying too many players previously but now are short. Thank god you're not in charge, I'd rather have Mowbray than someone who thinks we only need two new players this summer. My comparison doesn't remotely prove your point. Firstly, highly rated Liverpool youngster with first team appearances for them under his belt and having been bought at 16 for 4 million is an absolute non-starter comparison to Jason Lowe at any age. Secondly my comparison didn't reverse-age Jason Lowe, I was talking about the player of right now, who is absolute dog shit. So basically, if Rovers signed me tomorrow - aged 36, never played professionally, injury prone and entirely out of shape, that would be equally as likely to pay off as if we got Elliott back. You'd be just as happy with it because all signings are a gamble. Got it.

10 first team squad members have left, or am I mistaken? That's close enough to half a squad for me to use the phrase. To illustrate that it's a silly argument - if we re-signed Jason Lowe, that would be an equal signing to getting Elliott back would it? Yes there are risks inherent in any transfer, but the risks can be broadly calculated as better or worse ones. Just because it's not an exact science doesn't mean you can't try to pinpoint good and bad signings before they happen. It's literally what our recruitment department are there to do.

If all signings are essentially equal because they could go well or badly (which is a silly argument btw) then the difference is that they at least seem to be organised and on with it. We have half a squad to rebuild and could do to get a shift on. Normally I'm in the far more relaxed crowd on here when it comes to patience with signings, but this year we have a LOT of work to do. It probably is a little early to actually complain, but all the omens are ominous. We will take some beating. Preston's discarded u18s player was one of our biggest transfer successes last year. Blackpool have a striker we covet that they got for peanuts but would now cost more than we can afford without sales. Of course their signings could turn out well.

And equally, all of them could be mint.