bluebruce

About the same as Mowbray and Waggot resigning tomorrow with a statement that Tony knows playing 6 ft 5 strikers on the wing is stupid but he just can't help himself.

So is this a guess based on the above, or have you heard something specific about us?

To be fair, he's meant to be absolutely class.

He was 17 when we signed him I think? Maybe 18. That's a fair age to take a punt on someone's potential. The weird ones were White and Lyons.

I wonder which Premier League academy he belongs to... (If Nixon weren't frequently full of shit)

It probably isn't worth 8 million to have Armstrong for one season. Or even the 6 million ish we would probably have after the Toon's cut. But I'd still reject any such bid out of hand on sheer principle, it would be a ludicrous price. Hopefully the Mail don't know what they're talking about, and it contrasts sharply with the 25 million that has been reported as our price previously. I doubt even this lot are bungling enough to set the price for the league's player of the year at 8 mill.

If I were them I'd offer us a bit less than that, knowing that we will value not having to pay 40% of profit to them. A 12 million bid from them, waiving the sell on, is worth more to us than a 15 million bid from someone else.

Even if we assume he had been signed on a free, yes I'd be unhappy to lose him on a free. He was pretty good for most of the last season and we missed him when he was injured. Whilst he's not worth 7 million as yet (and never should have been bought for that at the time even if he goes on to be worth 20 million), he is still worth money and still a useful member of the first team. With everyone we currently have fully fit, he starts for me. Fortunately even if his contract runs down, then as long as we offer him a new one on the same terms I think we would be eligible for compo. I think he would just about be the right age for that. Given what we paid for him, I expect the compo would be pretty high and therefore clubs might be put off trying to snatch him anyway.

If someone had told you a couple of years ago that Ben Brereton was going to be sharing a pitch with Messi in 2021 (or, ever, really) you'd have called them a damned dirty liar!

It'll be especially irritating if we get a crap fee for him now. Buendia didn't win this, Toney didn't win this. Buendia just moved for 33 million, same age as Arma and doesn't carry the English premium. Toney moved to a Championship club (bigger risk for them than a Prem team) for 10 million at 24, same age as Arma now, when he had only played at League One level. If we end up selling him for 10-15 million, which is looking increasingly likely, we have really done ourselves by letting this contract run down. And that's before Newcastle take a huge chunk of it. Hopefully this award adds a couple of million or so to his market value.

It sounds like this might not be the thread for you.

There's no guarantee he will be playing. Kipre didn't.

Some scars never heal.

Yep I agree, this goal was unreal and definitely one of his very best.

I didn't question you on whether it has a place in this thread, that's why I only pointed out it's got nothing to do with politics, just heart. It was off topic like 90% of the topic, but that's not what I took umbrage at. I'm not twisting anything, you are. It wasn't political, you twisted it to being political. I suggest you rethink what politics is, or you could take the word of someone who has a degree in Politics. I'm sure you won't do either so I'll leave you to the various misapprehensions you harbour.

Gone full Ben Marshall.

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. It's not politics. Whatsover. It's 96 dead people. It's not posturing or sanctimony, it's basic decency. Grow up, or grow a heart, you need to do one of the two.

Having a heart about 96 people dying at a football match is not political. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise, frankly.

*sigh* I wasn't chiding you for posting it. But it does matter to some people, me included, what publications they give money to (clicking it grants them money from advertisers). Usually because of something that paper has done, or its toxic (in the eyes of some) social agenda. I'm aware the Daily Mail, along with the Sun, are two such publications so I gave people an alternative option if they prefer. It's not a big deal. Post whichever sources you like, I'm not having a go or looking for an argument.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19361251.blackburn-rovers-receive-efl-cash-boost-academy-productivity/ Cash boost (unspecified amount) for having played more of our homegrown players than anyone else. In a separate article, LT are acknowledging the Thomas link, but they don't really appear to think there is anything in it at this stage.

I'm reluctant to click on Daily Mail stories, and I doubt I'm alone, so here's a different link for anyone who would prefer: https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/transfer-news/blackburn-barnsley-sunderland-transfer-news-20781234.amp I'm noticing that this window, people seem barely interested in discussing any links. There have actually been a fair few and hardly any discussion on them. Perhaps because they haven't hit the LT too, but they're hardly on the pulse these days. Or perhaps because we all know we will drag our feet for weeks yet, whether we are looking at these players or not. This particular one does have a bit of the three club rule about it. Although it makes sense for us and Sunderland to pursue the same targets at times, with our head of recruitment moving there. I don't mind being in for the same player as Barsnley either, they seem well ran nowadays. That said, it's not an inspiring link. League One defender freebie who missed the second half of last season. But there are hidden gems down there.

@JoeH Comparisons to other sides only confuse the matter, because as you say, each side is different. I've already stated my point here and in other threads like the one I linked you to, but I'll reiterate. Our current style with a hyper focus on possession doesn't work for us. We do better with less of the ball, because we are a better counter-attacking side than we are a tiki-taka side. We have plenty of pace up top to catch out teams who overcommit to breaking us down. Our central defenders are also not the quickest, so are vulnerable themselves to counter attacks if we over commit our fullbacks. It's not so much that I'm saying possession intrinsically sucks so aim for 40%, more that our counter-attack is our best weapon and we don't get to use it enough because we have the ball most of the time. If we invite teams on a bit more, sitting with enough depth to give them the same problem they've been giving us, then spring the trap with a rapid front three, I think it would bring more dividends. Looking at how other sides do with possession and points is just a side curiosity, because there are many variables at play from side to side. It does however emphasise how ill-suited we in particular are to it, because only one other side (Huddersfield) had possession in the same ballpark as us and yet finished worse. I thought that was where you were going with it at first, but (and sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're driving at) at the end you seem to suggest possession makes no difference. I don't think that's true, the approach to it and personnel used in that approach make a difference. Not the possession stat itself. When we so consistently do worse with more possession, contrary to past conventional wisdom and the manager's 'wisdom', I don't think the correlation can be overlooked. One big caveat in my suggesting more counter-attacking though - if we lose Arma, which is likely, our main threat in that approach is gone. I can't say how effective it would be without him.

I think what the data more suggests is that when we absolutely and utterly control possession, yes it tends to work. If teams can barely get out of their half it's hard to score on the counter attack, and the pressure eventually tells. You can't expect to do this very often though. It may also more be a symptom of the teams that we are able to achieve that against being poorer teams. Even then, DE's figures showed that even when we absolutely hog the ball in the high 60's, it's still far less of a points return than when we actually see less of the ball than the opposition. It just keeps backing up what we see with our own eyes, that we are a better counter-attack side and we don't get results when allowed to retain the ball. Last season's data showed it too, or it did up to the point I was tracking it. That's a long time to maintain a trend like this, especially backed up by what we see - I more than expected the numbers were going to say what they said. I know you were being facetious but obviously nobody is suggesting we aim for a specific percentage, and it's not realistic to aim for the high 60s every week even if that was the better approach, which it isn't. A different manager and players and maybe it could work, but this has always been more of a blood and thunder league anyway.

One of the craziest things I've heard. Maybe they were still high off sticking to their guns over Jones etc. They accepted less than that, many years later when the market prices had gone up, for Raya, who was and is a far better keeper and prospect. Madness. Kean has gone on to move clubs 4 times since, and as far as I can see has never commanded a fee for doing so.

I think it was a mad tackle more than it was a mad ban. Regardless of which part he ended up connecting with, the whole technique of how he flew in was highly dangerous. It isn't just 'unlucky' he got injured badly, it was made likely by him flying in like a loon. Tackles like that are why the high foot got banned in the first place. Rather be missing six games than what the lad on the other end got.