Very good point. We were told the new scouting system would be in place for the summer. Maybe that just means setting it up, and they haven't been able to do much actual scouting yet? I wonder if Mowbray has form for buying abroad at previous clubs, or he just prefers the domestic market for the fact players need less time to adapt? If so, that would be shortsighted.

Fair enough. I'd want more goals from a striker looking to step up a level though, regardless of all round play.

Did he? 6 goals in 42 games? Up front for a top 3 team? So sayeth the Wikipedia anyway

Chaddy mate, roversfan99 went to trouble to talk at length about the concerns with Rothwell. I might not agree, but you can't just reply with 'so what?' and 'lets see where he plays'. He deserves a better reply, and I'm sure you can give one.

He's the spy in the dressing room? Shouldn't think that makes him too popular.

I wouldn't mate. Always wanted him. There will always be some detractors of course, whoever signs. You shouldn't assume that those would be the same people who are now saying he would have been a good signing.

Quite possibly. No links, but that doesn't mean anything these days. I reckon both him and Dack have more versatility than just that one position and could have featured together. Immaterial now I guess, as he's Bolton's player. They've done well there. Hope they get relegated though! Jason Lowe starting every week would help...

Otzumer is hands down a higher calibre signing than Rothwell. They're both only League One experience so far (bar something like 3 championship appearances for Rothwell with Blackpool) but Oztumer has been a huge hit in League One for a few seasons. He was a player we looked at before we got Dack I believe. We should have gone for him this time for free I feel. He is a bit older so maybe less re-sale, but will likely hit the ground running far sooner. Davenport perm is probably a lot better long term than a Wildschuut loan. But the latter is far more established. I have high hopes for Davenport though - even this season. I feel that in a few months he will have proven indispensable. Can't say I've seen more than a few highlights, but nobody has anything but glowing praise for the lad, and it sounds like he will fit perfectly in our system and give us better distribution to the top end of the pitch.

I didn't ask for one, but thanks for it anyway. I know you watch a lot of football, so I do appreciate your views even if I don't agree with a lot of your logic. Which of them, aside from Gally and Armstrong, do you rate most?

Are you warming to the idea now Chaddy? I noticed you didn't answer my earnest question of whether, if Kent was not available and we had the money, you'd like to sign him?

Lol we shouldn't even get into my workplace! Totally different kettle of fish. Aside from the pay being miles apart anyway, at my place you have to work for anything from about 6 months to a year before you even earn a permanent contract. Plenty of people who aren't very deserving get promotions (the only way to get more dosh) ahead of those who are. But I digress. Football is a whole other world to all of our day jobs. I should probably clarify - I don't begrudge him getting more, in relative terms, given his ability and how crazy money is. I just question the timing, and whether it was strategically sound or necessary yet. I'm also not 'unhappy' about it, just ambivalent on balance. When I said I'm not happy, I meant an absence of glowing positivity rather than actual unhappiness.

Very good point, if there was one then it would make tons of sense to increase it a good chunk. Course, could be there wasn't one and now there is. We won't know. Hope you're right.

Did he? I just remember after his iniital deal we gave him a 30k a week one, and then a 50k a week one. He did offer him one more in a desparate bid to stop the Newcy move, but don't recall others. We also had Manure constantly hovering over him, rather than just one club in the last window when we were a lower league. The one thing that makes me think maybe you're right though is we would have had to offer him a new deal next summer if he tore up the Champs....and possibly a much pricier one. But I do think if he does that we are gonna need to sell anyway.

Not the argument I was making though. And all players are rewarded, more than amply at League One upwards, for what they do. No need for us to make it a one way street of huge boosts for one good year when it can't go the other way. I know it's the way football works, but I think it's daft. The other bit about his contract length, yeh I've just seen...so my stance remains after all lol

Oh really? My apologies then, I thought we signed him on a 4 year initially. Fair enough, that makes me feel a good chunk better. Think we should have been looking at 4 last time and this time though. Guess he or his agent don't like to commit that far ahead if it has been 3 both times.

He did what we paid for. Like I said, he delivered a bit above it, but still. You shouldn't award players big increases in pay, which I'm sure it is, every time they have a good or great season. Because you can't reduce their pay when they don't. I don't feel Dack will disappoint in this league, but I wouldn't as he just had a great season in a lower one. Crazier things have happened. New deals should come with extra security for the club, ie another year. I disagree about Smallwood and Williams actually too. Both had one year left on their deals, and are at the very least, good enough squad players for this level. Wouldn't like to lose either for free next year. I can see the argument that it may increase a fee we could get, and deter bidders. That is how the psychology of the market works. Just feel the psychology is a bit flawed as, in real terms, we have the same length of contract as before and that is where the security lies. A bidding club may even wonder why it isn't longer and wonder if he isn't committed and just wanted more money while he waits for a bigger club. I do think it should make Dack a bit less likely to push though, hopefully. Just wonder whether it is worth that, on balance. Guess it depends on the wages and terms we are talking, which as you say, we will never see. I'm relieved though, in the sense that, because the club said ages ago they were giving him a new deal, if he hadn't signed it then it would have been very worrying. I just don't think many people would have insisted we needed a new contract for a player with three years left if we hadn't trumpeted it.

Or more likely given apparent financial constraints, enough of a loss in budget that we don't have the money for any bigger players. If I felt I could take it as a sign of intent that we had a very healthy budget, I'd be delighted (but still questioning why it isn't 4 years), but I just can't bring myself to think that. I do think we have a little to spend, more than some do, but nothing mind blowing and this can only reduce it.

Oh you definitely get flak for having an opinion around here! Perhaps not from you though Biz, and I appreciate that.

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happier but that's the extent of the extra security). Even with him being happier, if a bigger club comes in offering more, he'd be off like they all would. There were also zero rumours, that I've heard, this summer about a move, only last Jan. We didn't 'owe' him a new deal just a year after the last. He got us out of League One, but we got him out of it too. On the pitch, he delivered more than we expected, but not tons more. We bought him as a marquee signing and I'm sure his wage and promotion wage rise matched that. To my mind, all we have done is given away more money on what may be quite a strained budget, raised the club's wage structure which may affect other signings and renewals in future, and made Dack a bit happier so he possibly doesn't leave (lad seemed pretty happy anyway though). The only other possible plus I see is if we are planning to sign someone on a bigger wage, it will be too late for Dack to moan about it. I know I will attract flak for this though. I'm not one of the doom and gloom brigade at all btw, for anyone who hasn't realised.

We won't be signing a central midfielder of any sort I shouldn't think. We have signed two already. One of them is the sort to drive forward with the ball. Buying more isn't happening. We are well stocked with centre mids. Priority is widely known to be wingers, or strikers who can play as wingers a la Armstrong, and, as you say, strikers. After that, we are more likely to add a centre half or goalie than we are to add another centre mid, based on noises from the club.

Ah fair enough. Don't like that one any more though. But if it's normally white then yeh, why not the navy blue which looks better. Maybe once they saw how much the black stood out, they insisted to our detriment.

True (although not quite everyone wants him, I certainly do though at the right price). Although you could also point to 3 goals and 4 assists in that time despite only 4 starts. I think a fair part of it though is we could actually own Chapman, likely cheaply. Kent...not so much. So any development of Chapman we do, we can benefit from.

Which is why the sponsor would never agree to change their logo colour for us! They will want to be seen. They'll be seen on less shirts in Blackburn with that though. Maybe this is all a tactical masterplan. Some of the dumber opposition players may constantly think they're marking our number 10! Which aside from sowing confusion, it will be psychologically unsettling to think that Danny Graham is eveywhere at once.

Your avatar's shirt has a two-toned collar by the way That one was one of our best home shirts too. This, however, is the ugliest home shirt I can remember. It's mostly the sponsor, but I feel like it would look better with the darker blue. I could live with the light blue, as a historical callback, possibly I could live with the sponsor, but the two together just doesn't work. Unless this one grows on me a lot, I think I will skip the home shirt this year. Wish we weren't burdened with this sponsor for three years...the money better be good!

Ok, fair enough. I'm surprised then, that you seem fairly set against a player you've never seen. I'm sure this is something you've criticised other people for before. Would you not agree that his record over 3 seasons in League One, which has been very consistent (something like 8-10 goals every season, and I think it was about 13-18 assists every season) suggests that at 24 he is very well placed to make the step up? Your stance on him confuses me, especially since I've hardly ever seen you act as if you're against signing any player that gets mooted, let alone one with a very promising record who you haven't seen. So for clarity, would you actually be against signing him, assuming Kent wasn't an option? Or do you just seem to be against him because you'd rather have Kent? Just trying to establish what your position is on him.