bluebruce

Quite possible, but the guarantee condition staying in place during the window gave an excuse for the cost-cutting that the suckers in the fanbase will lap up.

If the club dies, I'm never supporting another club again. Zombie or otherwise.

Just got it from the court case thread and wasn't sure if it had been mentioned here. @wilsdenrover is the one who has been brilliant in keeping tabs on what's been happening with these billion adjournments and caught that this part of things had been resolved. I don't think their court case will affect us anymore, but if I were Venkys my next move would be to get some of that money they've put up for the bond back. Basically the need for more bonds is over because the amount they've paid into bonds already considerably exceeds the maximum fine payable as a result of the case. I think we are talking either 7.7 mill or 8.8 million quid in fines (currency conversions seem to have slight discrepancies) and I think it was something like 25 or 30 million already paid in bonds, but the proper numbers are all in that thread. I expect they'll want that difference back, and then to not pay or minimise the fine, but ultimately I don't think we have to give a shit about that anymore, and thus it's probably be more gratifying for most of us if they suffer as much financially as possible. Some would argue freeing up their constraints on funding us is a bad thing in the long game anyway.

If anyone has missed it, the need for Venkys to give the Indian government a bond equal to 50% of what they send us (previously 100%) has been removed entirely. Obviously this has happened a week after the window closed.

I would imagine this ends the interest we as fans have in this case? Venkys aren't facing any hurdles in sending money, so Blackburn Rovers aren't involved or potentially held back by this case. The only possible future ramification I can see, is that if Venkys succeed in getting the difference reimbursed between securities rendered and the maximum fine (which would be my next move if I were them), there's a vague chance they see that as money provided for Rovers already, since it was budgeted to help us, and might still be willing to put it into the club within FFP or P&S limits. Therefore won't be too stingy with the funds transferred for the next few years. That seems unlikely though, as they don't seem to particularly want to send us money, they just feel obliged.

I wonder how much this case has already cost them in legal fees...

Really, who offered that?

You haven't responded to what I said. Why won't you acknowledge there is a systemic problem at the club with renewing deals and it isn't acceptable? I'm not talking about individual deals, I'm talking about the very clear pattern. We all are. You seem to be the only one who isn't seeing/acknowledging it. Instead you keep resorting to trying to justify each fuckup.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/25447683.blackburn-rovers-sanction-loan-deal-previous-success/ George Pratt, 1 month loan to Chorley.

Why? Free agents can sign outside of a transfer window.

Brownhill is going to have to be made of rice paper to get snapped by Buckley.

He's repeating it because he's right. You must know he is. Why not just accept it's completely unacceptable to be this bad at contract renewals for so long? We can discuss individual circumstances til the cows come home, and some maybnot have been renewable realistically, but no properly functioning club does this badly with so many contract renewals. It's not really up for debate, it's only possible for it to be rank incompetence or excessive cost cutting.

However, the injury is likely only anywhere near as bad as it is because the stupid bastards insisted on continuing to play him whilst he was carrying it last season. That's how you get a recurring injury.

Well nobody knows if he is gonna be any good...

I don't find it too mysterious. It's a financially low risk gamble. We really wanted him, but the injury situation concerned us too much to pay and contract him for years. So now we get to have a look first, at both his injury status and quality. For probably the cost of covering his tiny wages and maybe a fee of about 200k I'd guess, which probably isn't too dissimilar to paying him for a year on an uplifted wage. If we did nothing and waited for his injury to sort itself his price would potentially go up. The mystery is in the status of his injury, and why we thought it was appropriate to sell Travis and bring in an injured player as the replacement - but I expect the latter part is answered by the loanee from Birmingham. So if he isn't any good, or is suddenly needed at RB, it's a bit of a risk in a window of risks, but not that big of one and not that much of a mystery tbh.

Even Montgomery before O'Grady Macken who doesn't seem to be in the management's thoughts anymore.

I'd imagine it's a typo and should say wasn't.

I wish him many more injuries.

Livescore seems to be of the opinion he didnt score. Someone called Gudmondson did, maybe you're getting them mixed up?

The Wrexham that have surpassed our transfer record this summer? The Wrexham that will likely finish above us this year? Yes it probably is why he's gone there.

Feels like he should be on a 5th tier loan now really...

Since we have lost both of them, it's surely a moot point to discuss now.

The idea of the head honchos wondering why everyone is furiously staring at and scribbling on cards whilst they talk, and then someone triumphantly shouting 'Bullshit Bingo!' after the 14th Rovers transfer-window-failure-cliche is churned out, definitely tickles me. Incidentally somebody did already draw up such a bingo card earlier in this thread, I couldn't tell you who or when though.

I'd much rather see a net spend ranking.

It's a big assumption. Spent practically his whole career in the Midlands or further south.