bluebruce

His agent's son? I thought it was just his friend's son. Which is bad enough.

Any new Armstrong deal will presumably contain a release clause, no higher than 25 mill in a best case scenario. More than we would get now, but could still end up triggered. I see the logic in loaning Pears out for experience, but I don't see the logic in making a 4th keeper signing in two summers without selling any of them. I hope if this happens our replacement keeper is either a loan or a one-year deal for some old experienced head.

Why would he be a no brainer? Have you seen a fair bit of him? What kind of player is he?

Thanks, wasn't clear from Sharpe's article whether he was out of contract, which I initially wrote, or just turned one down but still had a year or two left. I imagine you're right that if he turns 24 before 30th June he would be completely free (apart from signing on, agent fee and wages obviously). It doesn't inspire, like Sparks said, that we might shop twice from the same midtable League One side, who already had two (Pickering and Ng) players move up to the Championship. He could be a good un for all I know, but how many Championship level players can one midtable League One side possibly have on their books?

A few players suggested for midfield at the bottom of this article: https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19319614.blackburn-rovers-midfield-transfer-plans-focus-creativity/ Ryan Gauld, already mentioned but described here as having been 'offered' to us. Dylan Levitt, Man U youth player. Cameron Branagan from Oxford, described as not coming cheap. Ryan Wintle, from Crewe, turned down a new deal from them. The poncily named Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, decent Leicester player who was at Luton on loan last season. Sharpe might know things he can't let on, but the only one of these he is presenting as tangible is Gauld. The rest sound like suggestions.

Sadly that would suit Mowbray's laborious slow passing game down to the ground. Why counter attack with pace and intent when you can win the possession stat?

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.