Please don't play the 'not really supporters' card. It's divided the fanbase when used from either angle (by those going and by those boycotting), and quite frankly it just isn't your business to tell anyone else whether they're a true supporter. You don't know their history, their passion, how much time and money they spend or have spent on the club, their motivations, or anything about them.

The problem is, if you buy individual tickets instead, you're actually giving the club more money. Which is probably all the wanking lube Waggott needs to be in support of it too.

I think a meltdown is over selling it, but yes, every summer we have people complaining because some other clubs have signed players of varied calibre and we haven't yet. I find it a bit silly when it's this early on, unless we've missed a player of real quality or value. It tends to be the window drags on with us doing bugger all until the point where it does become a valid criticism.

I think this sentiment will pop up quite a few times in this thread yet, and understandably so. But many of us can't help but want to talk about the ins and outs regardless.

I think I'd make an actual Messi in my pants if we signed him...

Scottish Messi, Irish Messi, who was the third?

Rothwell linked with Sheffield United. https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/transfer-news/blackburn-rovers-rothwell-sheffield-united-20645611

30 clubs supposedly interested, we struggle to compete in the market against one or two at a time....I think we are nearly as likely to sign the actual Messi as this 'Scottish Messi'.

Since I watch very little u23s, just the odd streamed game, and no u18s, I couldn't say for sure. But similar I think - Baker is described as an attacker and Burns as a striker in the LT article. It's a minor gripe, and I'm only confused at how short Burns' deal is than having any kind of problem with the length of Baker's, I just find the logic a bit strange and not for the first time with our contract lengths at the club. I'd have thought 2 years guaranteed with a 1 year option in our favour made more sense. Given his age and being a key attacker for the u23s in his debut season for them. I suppose you never know if it came from the player's agent though for whatever reason.

Just think if he had impressed more he should have been in the u23s.

So what?

They're the same age. But one is playing in the u23s and one in the u18s. The former is clearly ahead of the latter, at the same age, yet we have given more security to the latter. It doesn't make sense on the surface.

Another weirdly short contract, this time for Burns. 18, been in the u23s this season, scored 7 in his last 11 I think it is. One year deal with a one year option. Meanwhile, Alex Baker, 18, been in the u18s this season, guaranteed 2 year deal.

Need to crack on though as next year that will be the situation.

Been thinking he might end up at Brentford. They would suit him much better, although their scouts may raise question marks over his consistency. Be interesting to see if that changed in a different system though.

It was better. 'Much' better is maybe a stretch. It was decent apart from the core weaknesses. The terrible two in central midfield, and for much of the time, like today, a flimsy defence. It was briefly solid in the centre of defence at least, but then we promptly lost Hanley and Duffy. I can't recall if that was before or after Cairney left. Cairney wide was a criminal misuse of a player by shunting them wide. TM would have been proud of it. He was actually more effective even there than the current incumbents though. Was fuming when we sold him on the cheap.

Oh and I think it was this thread where somebody said Arma's 28 goals in the league was hardly exceptional or something like that. It happens to be the joint 4th most goals anybody has scored in a Championship season ever.

Could be, although that's on the assumption that there is only really a market for one Championship striker to be bought by a Prem club this summer. Looking at it another way, if Toney was to move for silly money, we would be in our rights to argue that Armstrong should also move for a lot (obviously we've weakened our position with this one year left on his deal thing, unless we have another 1 year extension clause up our sleeves, but a generally comparable player moving for say 35 million should strengthen our hand)

No 30 year old injured CBs please. Got stung on that already last summer.

Another article on Chapman, lancs live seem to have verified it too with a club source if I'm reading it right. I'm now wondering if he had to have played a certain amount of games for us this season or we had to activate it by a certain point or something and nobody remembered that part of the clause. Including his agent, which would be odd. https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/blackburn-rovers-chapman-contract-situation-20612928?fbclid=IwAR1V-EUqkYUoOktGz95DKjNom7g9aAq6mmmcWyYjixFav_FmRg0ZRgFepLQ

Uncle Tony knows, he knows all about the kids and how good they are, so he ignored the excellent opportunities for the rest of us mere peons to see. God I'm really starting to hate this man.

Oh they're terrible at it, and ignore us as soon as its convenient. But if there's one thing that has marked the coventrio era, it's spin.

The LT have previously said there is. Mowbray has said there is, Chapman has said there is. It also makes sense given how short his initial deal was (2.5 years), the age he was, the supposedly 500k ish I believe we were meant to have paid, our love of 1-year extensions and with Mowbray clearly having seen him as one to develop rather than an immediate starter. I'm pretty sure the clause is real. Perhaps what Sharpe has been told is we haven't activated it and have offered him a new deal instead. Potentially this may have been done so that someone comes in for him but has to pay a tribunal fee. Maybe we feel we will sneak out more for him this way, as the tribunal might consider what we paid for him initially. League One suitors won't be intentionally paying in the 500k range, but since the fee was undisclosed they might get taken by surprise in what they're ordered to pay? Just a thought. Or it could be so we can turn around and say 'we tried to keep Harry but his deal was up'. They seemingly only bought him cos of fan pressure so I can see them spinning the optics.

Funnily enough, the playing style described is similar to what we attempt, and we looked good using it at the start of the season. Our problems are numerous though, including our lack of movement, incision, directness and ruthlessness when we win the ball in our own half (or in the centre but with a few bodies to beat). That and having assembled personnel that largely don't suit it and are played out of position. Oh and our absolute lack of spine at the back. And our thoroughly uninspiring manager.

I reckon we are about a month from announcing season ticket prices under this shitshow. As for the letter this thread is about, well sorry to the writers of it, you've clearly put time and effort in, but it isn't very good. Amongst other things I won't go into, it's just unfathomable to write such a lengthy open letter to the owners right now and not ask for the dismissal of Mowbray or Waggott. Especially frustrating as this seems to be the most publicity fan views have been given in a long time, so an absolutely wasted opportunity. Spending that energy and opportunity on asking shit owners that make lethargic decisions to stop being shit owners who make lethargic decisions, when they've fired chief execs for questioning them before, is absolutely pointless. You might as well write to TM and ask him to stop playing strikers on the wing and over-obsessing over possession.