RevidgeBlue

Great work everyone.

Best of luck to him if he gets it. He'll be like a breath of fresh air for them in their current predicament breezing in with his schoolboy like grin and cheeky chappy persona. All good unless something happens he doesn't like, he gets the hump, and they start conceding 3 or 4 goals a game.

Do they get any benefit from playing at that sort of level? Genuine question as I've no idea.

How did he manage to score 27 in all comps for City season before last then? Im sure they weren't all 30 yard screamers. It's a matter of personal preference really. Myself, I can't get my head round any manager picking a team without Foden in it. However I'm getting a very 1966 vibe off Tuchel. Sir Alf chose a system and picked the 11 players who best suited playing to that system rather than necessarily picking the best 11 players in their individual positions and then choosing a style of play to suit them.

I thought he was being serious for a long time but he's on a wind up surely.

We're not the Judean People's Front, we're the People's Front of Judea. They're different types of player so its fairly pointless comparing them like for like. All players have slightly different attributes. If you ran a poll I reckon 90% of neutral fans would say Wharton was the better player and arguably Anderson only got into the side in the first place because Wharton was injured. On the other hand - you can't blame Tuchel for not changing something which is currently working. I do have full confidence in him where the opposite was true under Southgate. Anderson might get injured at some point though and/or Tuchel might change things round slightly and/or there may come a time in the Tournament against better opposition where Wharton's unique talents are required. We'll have to wait and see.

That's always assuming Jackson got it right. So as I alluded to last night, shocking negotiation by Rovers if true. So hypothetically, he could come on as sub throughout the WC and be a difference maker off the bench in many of the games, and score the winner in the Final, and it wouldn't count!

Im not particularly interested in us developing players for other Clubs, however old, I only want to see players doing well in the blue and white halves and us winning football matches as a result. Selling someone for a huge fee gives me as a fan no benefit or enjoyment whatsoever. Quite the reverse. Then there's the added factor to be taken into account that unlike at any other normally run Clubs it doesn't appear to make any significant difference to our transfer budget anyway. Obviously, I want Adam Wharton to do as well as possible as he genuinely loves the Club and it wasnt his fault he left, he was pushed out of the door way before his natural time to pay the bills. In the case of say Phillips Id be completely neutral. I dont wish him any harm, but at the same time Id get no enjoyment out of him playing for England whatsoever. It'd only be a brutal reminder of how badly we were shafted on him.

So if he came on during the World Cup final and scored the winner it wouldnt count? That's ridiculous. The add on should be triggered by an appearance in a competitive match, not a start.

Is that a minor add on activated?

Not seen this site before, is it strictly for charitable purposes? Poor form from the donors of the shirts otherwise.

"Sorry Sir, this is a private facility not for use by members of the general public."

Interesting. Cheers.

The miserable defeat to them at Ewood in the pissing rain under JDT shortly after the heavy Derby Day defeat at the Turd still sticks in my craw. Players like Tyler bloody Morton looked like they'd rather be anywhere else.

It's the 64m dollar question that everyone has been asking for years isn't it (or rather the 300m dollar one by now). Why do they still bother? The only people who seem to obviously benefit from the arrangement are agents, from the very early days right up to present day with signing people like Dennis and Baradji. Im absolutely none the wiser as it wouldn't seem to be in dispute that the liability for everything rests with Venky's - on the face of it there seems to have been no upside for them whatsoever for them out of ownership of the Club. Other than negative publicity and losing a shit ton of money. On the other hand, it just seems to have been all jam and no potential downside for the people they've continued to allow to rip them off and leech off the Club down the years. Why didn't they simply cut ties years ago? Is it just a matter of honour and was the organisation as a whole doing so well up until recently that we were just an insignificant little pimple on their backside? The only thing I've noticed relatively recently is that despite considerable budget cuts year after year the posted losses always seem to remain constant at around £20m p.a. no matter how many cuts we make. You'd have thought that taking Sky Sports out of the Blues Bar would start to have a positive impact on the balance sheet sooner or later. Bringing things up to date and looking forward there seems to be absolutely no point in a Club which simply seems to exist to pay the likes of Suhail, Gestede and Ismael (and formerly Waggott Mowbray and Venus) a huge wage with no aspirations whatsoever of promotion whose only stated aim is to be self sustainable by hoping to develop a few players in due course to sell on for profit. Could we simply be a mechanism for moving money out of India as the Authorities over there have already taken exception to on a couple of occasions?

Well I agree with Alebiosu and at the other end of the scale, Henriksson and Tavares. If you were being generous you could maybe call Mcloughlin and Hickman average after which I dont think it's too much of a stretch to describe the rest as poor and the signing of Baradji as ludicrous.

Broughton negotiated such a bargain deal for him as well - Loan with a view to purchase for around £6m.

Don't be so patronising. Im not misunderstanding anything nor did I ever say "Mowbray wasted £100m." However whilst he was here they put funding into the Club to a higher level than now and to a much better level than JDT and Eustace had to get by on. Whether the exact figure during Mowbray's tenure was 80, 90 or £100m is irrelevant. The support was greater than is available now and Mowbray wasted it on his road to nowhere and by handing out contracts like sweeties to players who didnt warrant it or who were past it whilst not extending the contracts of key players. .

It's unlikely that anyone who accepted the invitation to participate in the day has any sort of beef with the Club. We don't know how many if any turned the Club down. If there were some, they'd be more likely to speak out presumably.

Devil's advocate mode on again: Bearing in mind the crap we signed in the summer is it any great loss? Or, is it yet another sign that the environment at Ewood and Brockhall is so toxic we can't hold onto significant non playing staff for more than a month or two?

As I've said all along - they COULD have provided guarantees and similar levels of funding to previously - they just didnt want to.

Agreed. Wasn't trying to defend them in any way. That incoming transfer money vanished into the ether on running expenses like it never existed because at the time they seemed to begrudge providing a guarantee for any money sent over. I suppose the acid test would be if we ever made a couple of really big sales in future (as unlikely as it seems at present) whether or not a substantial amount would be reinvested. Seemingly not according to Gestede. Which from a fan's point of view begs the question - what's the point of it all? There isn't one.

Devil's advocate mode: We spent £10m on players but sold better ones for £12m. So its almost exactly the same percentage. Funny one that. Who'd have thought that selling good players and bringing in inferior replacements wouldn't work for either Club?

Wow, didn't realise that. Is that a net or gross spend?

If you're not planning on sending any money over it doesn't matter does it. Not even the minor inconvenience of a bit of extra paperwork.