I think people are mostly talking about youth players under our current gaffer. Of the 4 you mention, only Travis was given his debut by TM, the others were already features of the squad if I remember rightly. Travis was about to be loaned out, and given how he has performed, clearly got his chance later than he should have. TM has given a fair few young players their debuts, that much is true. But then (so far) they're barely seen again. Hopefully that changes this season, but if we bring in the four more players we want, it's hard to see who will be given a real chance (ie, a run) in favour of which old guard member. Tony is very conservative about shaking up the established lot. Even when he signs players himself, ones older than our youth players, he has a tendency to take a long time to brave integrating them fully on matchdays. I think the best youth players should be sent out on loan until January if squad needs will allow. All of them, except the established ones (I'll count Nuttall, Brereton and Chapman in that, although I wouldn't be too fussed if one or both of the first two went on loan to League One if we end up with enough proper cover). As for who we bounce and the careers they go on to have...if you keep hold of a player until he's about 21, barely play him, then release him, you'll never truly know what that player might have been capable of. Just because they don't go onto anything special doesn't mean they weren't capable if handled right. Those years before players reach 21 are critical to their development, and sometimes the harm done can't be reversed.

I'm not convinced by the Downing signing, and I certainly haven't been by the Brereton signing either. But I must say, this logic that a few people have put out, of it mattering what our 'first' signing is...I find it strange. Sure, if you got to pick which order things will land, you wouldn't ideally make the 35-year old winger your opening gambit, due to temporarily affecting fan morale. I do get that. But why should we gear our transfer policy around selling season tickets? If you don't want to make Downing your first signing, but you do intend to sign Downing, what do you do? Tell Stewart "Sorry mate, we're going to sign you but we can't have you be the first one, it'll be a bit embarrassing and stop us selling season tickets"? He sure as hell won't sign then (possibly a good thing in this case, but management obviously don't think so). Or do you suddenly throw more money at one of your other targets to get him over the line first? That could easily cost more than the small increase in season tickets will recoup. You have to sign players in the order you finalise the deals. It's the only practical thing to do. On top of which...let's just assume (I'll exaggerate to make the point clearer) that our business this summer was to be Downing, Assombalonga, Stones and Cristiano Ronaldo. If you sign them in that order, or you start with the big names, is it going to really make any difference to how many we sell? I doubt it would do much more than dictate the times at which the tickets were sold. Nobody is going to reach the end of the window, contemplating whether to buy a season ticket, then when the big names rocked up in the last week go "Actually nah I'm good, they signed Downing at the start of the window and now my soul is dead to football". The season ticket sales which are dependent on names signing will make the same decision regardless of when the names are signed (not accounting for chaos theory of course). Some clarification since people on here like to take things out of context to fabricate an argument: I know our big names won't be as grandiose as that, and possibly won't come at all. I know we need defenders and I only listed one. It was just for illustrative purposes. I also know how it looks when we badly need defenders and the first name in is another aged winger. I'm not inspired either. But the point is, as long as the right players get in during the window, that's all that really matters. The only reason to hold off on one deal for longer is if the resources for it might affect another target, and frankly we'll never know the ins and outs of that dance (unless a Brereton-level fee is used up early, which would obviously impact other signings). And another clarification - yes I know getting players in earlier means they get more time to bed in, but I doubt that tends to be worth the extra money. I'm also not expressly talking about you, Fraser, just this particular notion I've seen a few times. Agree with you on your other points, including that maybe it will transpire our budget is limited.

Brentford apparently interested in Gallagher too: https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/brentford-looking-to-beat-blackburn-in-race-to-land-23-year-old-striker/ Interesting bit in the 'verdict' at the end. They seem to think Brentford can do better thanks to their extensive scouting network! Looks like their story is initially taken from the Sun though, Nicko again I believe. This transfer roundup contains the first actual fee I've seen quoted in regards to O'Neil (maybe others here have already mentioned it though, dunno), at 350k : https://www.lep.co.uk/sport/football/preston-north-end/pne-news/championship-rumours-blackburn-rovers-in-350-000-move-for-australia-international-sheffield-wednesday-target-former-arsenal-youngster-middlesbrough-manager-eyes-charlton-athletic-defender-as-first-signing-1-9831307 Also interesting to see another Charlton defender, the pornstaresquely-named Dijksteel, being linked with Boro. Charlton are going to have no defence at this rate. This article in the Bristol Post says Bristol City, Ipswich and Portsmouth are interested in O'Neil too. It also quotes the 350k offer from us (which both links seem to have got from the Daily Mail originally).

Did I gloss over that fact, or did I explicitly state it? Have another read. Yes, damn right they should put their money in. I'd rather piss on them than thank them. You seem to have somehow mistaken my post as having a pro-Venkys agenda.

Yep, absolutely. That's why I was sure to say recent. We've had quite a few good old signings just in my lifetime, even though I've usually been sceptical of them when they happened. We just don't seem to do it under Venkys at all. Closest I can think is Graham? I wouldn't have considered him massively old when we got him though, what was he 29? Within a few months or so we will probably know whether we can finally buck the trend again.

Narrative? It's a cast-iron fact. We owe them what, about 150 million? That's a lot more than they've recouped in transfer fee profit. Sure, it's a mess entirely of their own making, but the fact is they've spent a sizable sum of their own money on the club. It's also an interest-free loan so it's not some money-maker for them. They'll never see it back but they're not making us strip everything to the bone to cut losses (any more anyway). It's only a narrative if you're talking about the 'we should be thankful' vibe I occasionally detect from people.

Doesn't look like it, no. We don't have much recent joy with these old heads who have just had decent enough seasons. In theory, Whittingham and even Murphy were both good signings at the time, having just played important parts for teams at a higher level. PW had just scored 7 from midfield in the Champs. Both really should have done well for us for at least a season. Any transfer has a risk of going tits up though, the difference when it happens to older players is it just gets attributed to their legs going or loss of appetite. Then there's all the older dross that was clearly dross right away, your Greers and Browns. Downing falls into the first camp, hopefully this one turns out differently and he has a real Indian summer. A possible plus might be that he played in this league last season not a higher one, as odd as it sounds. It means he won't have to adapt to the league, and he won't come thinking it's gonna be easy street compared to last season.

Here's what he said about Whittingham: https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2017/june/mowbray-delighted-with-whittingham-deal/ Definitely some recurring themes there. No comment on his mobility though (maybe he didn't think it was fair to mention PW's scooter).

It wasn't the previous year, it was the one before that. He had just come off a decent but far more indifferent season. 750k is peanuts for a club like ours though yeh.

You can be 'had' cheaply? I guess that's one kind of value to have...

TM did explain what he means by the A, B, C lists etc though. It's not just in order of player quality. Some people are on a lower list simply because we're less sure they're available or the finances are harder to do.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.footballinsider247.com/sources-blackburn-plot-swoop-to-sign-scottish-ace-wanted-by-newcastle-hibs-also-keen/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/the72.co.uk/135983/blackburn-rovers-to-rival-newcastle-united-for-wantaway-norwich-city-youngster/amp/ Jon McCracken (sounds like the punchline to a joke), 19-year old Scottish goalie at Norwich. The second link is essentially quoting the first one.

If he's even half the player his dad was...

That's not the sort of thing I like to toss about.

Hmm. If this is on modest wages (say, 5-10k but I bet it isn't), the player won't get in the way of Rothwell, Chapman and Arma's game time unless he is really firing (I bet he does) and it won't interfere with more urgent signings in other areas (again, doubt that highly) then this seems a perfectly adequate short-term squad signing. My biggest concern is it slowing the development of other assets and the fact that TM apparently wants 'up to 5' signings. That's one down. He has said he wants one or two centre halves, goalkeeper competition and a fullback or two has been mentioned previously. That's all of the remaining four signings, and the defence needs that. We need that. But he's also talked about a new central midfielder to change our style and weren't we looking for a striker last window? Doubt we suddenly don't want one. Which bit will give? I'm anxious about any of them not seeing reinforcement.

Just read that we haven't won on the opening day of the season since 2010/11 season. That's a couple of months or so before Venkys bought us. I don't reckon that's entirely a coincidence. It's likely at least partly down to the shambolic transfer approach we've had over these years under them. From signing utter dross due to agents, to repeated slow starts to windows thanks to needing to fly to India to get the budget finalised.

Dunno, we could easily end up with a tosser or two.

Biz mate, that's the 1919/1920 info. Don't know why it shows the current Championship teams, but if you click the names of the players who moved clubs, you'll find they're dead. So no, it's not up to date. These are the 2019/20 details, though be warned the vast majority of the 'ins' are actually players coming back from on loan to their parent clubs: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2/plus/?saison_id=2019&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1

I remember his best goal as being one he scored after his injury (someone with better memory might correct me on either count). Liverpool. Sublime skill and smashed it into the corner from the edge of the box. I truly thought the real Matt Jansen was back that day and he would still go to the top. I was delighted for him and for us. I truly don't understand why it never happened. I guess the mental problems were too severe and it wasn't enough, or maybe as someone alluded to earlier, his brain physiologically couldn't do everything it used to, just little touches of genius like that, sporadically.

He has played a bit in the Championship.

We could also do better.

He tried that. Why doesn't Hanley play for Scotland anymore and Mulgrew does?

It's too much worse, the article seemed to imply. Definitely played a lot less games anyway.

Quite possibly. We are definitely slower out of the blocks than we should be due to the system of Pune approval. It does boggle my mind why those meetings aren't done sooner, especially this year where we knew our status next season very very early. But we can only speculate what went on behind the scenes in that transfer. His agent could easily have known at the time that Villa, and maybe other clubs like them, were also monitoring McGinn. If TM's comments are to be believed, agents in that situation ask for very high wages early in the summer until they see how the interest from various clubs pans out. You could be right though.

I do think weakness of management probably comes into it, in a sense, although some might argue it's just Mowbray's philosophy. He clearly likes to have a happy dressing room, and we shouldn't pretend that doesn't have its benefits. I feel like he goes a bit too far to maintain that though at times. I reckon there are players who would ask for more if we are paying a newcomer beyond what our wage structure suggests, or their agents would anyway. I think in TM's mind, when this happens, we either authorise better deals (and once you start that, others who were silent at first suddenly do expect more) or you piss those players off and upset the harmony. Not saying I agree with various aspects of his approach, I don't, but the point is it's a more complicated balancing act than just approving 5k (or 10k, etc) more. If it weren't, then yes it would always be the right call to pay one excellent player a bit more instead of using that bit more to buy a squad player. Not sure what you mean by stuff like that being written into contracts? I didn't mean player contracts stipulate wages have to go up if a new player's are high, that'd be madness. The only one I can think could potentially have a clause like that is Dack, but I hadn't even considered that until now and he probably doesn't. As for the last sentence there, we shouldn't underestimate the greed of players and their agents. Everyone in this league is on superb money relative to the real world but it never stops them trying for more.