bluebruce

I'm 100% aware of that Chaddy. My subsequent posts, talking about fitting the criteria, make it very clear I understand that. I'm not sure if you understand how hard it now is to get that many points. Joe ran the numbers before and showed that Kaminski wouldn't have qualified, for example. A guy who is now currently sat only behind some of the best keepers in the world keeping him from playing for one of the best international sides in the world, and who has just won our Player of the Season. That's why I say the much-vaunted European scouting network is now nearly irrelevant. It will be very hard to find players we can afford who have enough points.

Why? Because they're idiots. I suspect they thought they'd get it set up sooner than they have, and were chancing their arm on what the criteria would be. I'm sure there isn't a way 'around' it, but it's not impossible to sign from Europe or anything. It's just very difficult to do so at a cost effective level for a club like ourselves. The leagues where we could get good value will more or less all be off the table now. We only managed the two keepers from it last season and neither of them would qualify now under the new regs. There will be a very small pool of players available to us that are worth the price to us, and due to the shrunken market there will be a lot more competition for them than before, even if we can identify them. We know we aren't much good at beating other clubs to players. I'm not even sure whether say Lewis Holtby would have met the requirements. German international but no recent caps, second tier in Germany, those things would reduce his eligibility. Although he didn't turn out great, if a player with the kind of cv he had and wages he will have cost can't be acquired anymore, I don't see us signing anyone from Europe this summer. Perhaps someone like Joe will correct me on if he would have been approved.

I was watching a video last night that says FIFA are considering reducing the amount of players clubs can loan out. I think it was from 8 to 6. That means there will be about 25% less Premier League loans available in the market, which dicks one of our main transfer approaches. That could actually be a good thing longer term, as we are forced to rely on actually developing or recruiting our own players instead of constantly borrowing en masse. But combined with our restricted budget and Brexit shafting our brand new European scouting network into near-irrelevance, I do worry even more about the impending season with Mowbray at the helm.

I reckon we would have shifted some 5,000 more season tickets if the price had been reasonable, say 300. Which comes to 1.5 million lost through Waggot's greed. So I'd say that just fills that void (and other matchday revenue lost income), covers that loss, rather than being money for the kitty. Maybe it means we won't need to sell Rothwell to pay for an Armstrong contract extension as has been suggested though.

So it has been said. I don't know how much though. It's an interesting one, which way will work out best for our finances, as there were rumours Arsenal were going to come in for him again. Probably not going to happen if they go up. If he reaches the Prem and stays Brentford's number one, then an excellent season could see him in demand at a very tasty price, and of course we have a sell-on. On the other hand, if he flounders and shows he isn't up to that level, we will probably never hear those figures again that were quoted last summer. At least if they go up, which looks likely, the money is guaranteed. However much that is.

Motherwell supposedly interested in taking Magloire permanently.

Would you give him a 5 year deal in the Prem though?

It does have shades of Rodwell about it...

Yeh, bizarrely due to sign a 5-year deal at promoted Watford. I get that they're going to be flush with cash, but that seems wasteful and like they could do better.

https://glucoseclub.com/2021/03/blackburn-rovers-are-monitoring-a-proven-match-winner-while-former-target-comes-into-play/17447?fbclid=IwAR3Yf_KWr7_mlGtuiNQNS8OuVDDYTYAJ8n2E5IObxO_9PZP8jSnkCKkxaz0 Starts by talking about Ronan Curtis but goes on to talk in detail about Joe Pigott. Second article I've seen link him lately. The basics on him: 27 years old 6 ft 2 Free transfer (his choice) from AFC Wimbledon 20 goals and 5 assists in 45 games last season in a side finishing 19th in League One Only 7 goals in 34 games the season before (his worst goal ratio for them) In total, 47 goals in 137 games over four League One seasons for them Was playing National League when they signed him, but prior to that was playing throughout the pro leagues except the Prem. 12 Championship appearances for Charlton back when he would have been about 19-20 years old The joint-highest match-winning goals in League One across the last two seasons, level with Clarke-Harris at Peterborough I've never seen him play, but on a free with a limited budget and based on those numbers, I probably wouldn't mind him as a backup option.

I'm surprised by the optimism here and on FB for this. iFollow is hardly the bee's knees, but providing a service to so many clubs probably makes it cost effective. I just can't see the club, under the current regime, providing a better or more cost effective service. You can rest assured that Maggot will try to do the latter, but his version of cost efficiency relies solely on the two principles of strip it bare and charge as much as you can for it. Combine that with our current budgetary issues and, as much as I'd like to see otherwise, I can only see it being a disaster. Those who don't like the two commentators (they only bother me sometimes personally) can expect them to still be the go-to guys. I also saw someone on FB say (with a strange amount of positivity about it) that it will allow the club to charge what they want for games. If that's true, you can forget being able to pay a tenner for it. And given how long it took iFollow to be able to put out a halfway decent stream, with that being their business, I can only see ours being even less reliable.

Alright, but you rate quite a few of Preston's youth lads. They don't have an u23s so let me rephrase so we can compare - do you rate any of our u18s? The current u18s and previous ones currently in the u23s have pretty much all performed at a higher level than the Preston kids. Unless you think our youth teams are just very well organised/managed? Which I'm also expecting you'll say no to.

Do you rate any of our u23s?

You would have the same problem spending hours using the eyes of your scouts to get reports. The problem you're describing isn't the way in which reports are accumulated (which will definitely be from data AND scouts btw) but rather the shambolic and lethargic way in which we do business in general these days.

It will also still be the end of the season next week. Feasibly, anything up til say preseason could be end of the season. But I'm sure they got duff info. He's going nowhere yet.

It's not remotely harsh. I'm not criticising him. He's a legend to me and always has been. I'm just saying how I, and clearly others judging by replies quoting me, have seen the change. I never said he spoke of us with disrespect, but he was in the past less glowing than would have normally been expected. As I outlined, I can see why. I'm glad it has healed and he now sees the club with, as Nelsen put it, with 'genuine, uncomplicated fondness'. That rumour sounds extremely unlikely. We were flush with Jack's cash and had no need of money from a departing player who had mostly earned a fraction of Jack's cash. Sounds made up tbh.

Of course he wasn't interested, it's obvious the manager didn't rate him. I wouldn't have been interested either. It was insulting that he was restricted to the ressies given our other options.

Chapman has been on the books of Championship clubs his whole career. With a few League One loans where a combination of incompetent management (in our case at least) and injury have hamstrung him. He was also very young for his first loans. How good they both were at age 19 or whatever isn't really relevant anymore. Apart from saying he is injury prone, which is legitimate to point to as a disadvantage, amount of games is hardly a fair comparison. (Disclaimer, I don't know the other lad at all, he could be class, just saying games played isn't a fair comparison considering Chapman's situation, other than to observe injury issues)

Wow, that surprises me. Tbh, putting on my neutral specs, I can't agree we were the second best ever Prem winning team, but it's great to see we meant that much to him. Our relationship with Al since he left has been complicated. It hurt us so hard when he left, and I think it hurt him when some fans booed him on his return. I think that stung him for a long time and he never seemed to have much good to say about us, at least not as you'd expect with his best years being here. I think it may have changed when we named that street after him tbh. I think that made him realise he was still cherished here by most, and since then he has been more glowing about us in public. That's how I've observed it happening anyway

Hard to produce something when you pretty much never play. Not producing hasn't stopped numerous other players from being regulars either.

He would cost compo. Due to his age and having been offered a new deal. Given what he cost us, I'd imagine you're looking at Championship clubs only and he would be a risk to pay for at this level. We will see what happens.

That hasn't been decided yet.

Unless it has a fairly low release clause of course...

Armstrong's lack of football intelligence isn't anywhere near as severe as Rhodes' lack of pace was. And in the Prem I'd say a lack of pace is seen as a bigger issue than a lack of intelligence.

If it's Adam Armstrong we are laughing 🤣