Didn't think you'd find anything wrong with it.

Thank you. In layman's terms what's the difference between the two? Hard to see what involvement these two would have had in fucking up the mechanics of a loan deal.

We might be at cross purposes. I was asking who Mr. Hassan was and he replied Finance Director" He might have thought I meant Cheston?

I thought rhat was Cheston. What is/was his job description?

Can always rely on you for a bit of gallows humour. Please keep up the good work.

You're going through some pretty tortuous mental gymnastics to absolve GB of any blame I'll give you that. End of the day he's ultimately responsible for failures on the football side as DOF. Just as Venky's are ultimately responsible as owners

It's been suggested that these two have left the Club. Why shouldn't we discuss it? Like SG I've never heard of Mr Hassan or what role he holds/held at the Club so I think it's worth clarifying.

Where else did Broughton have to be other than check everything went through smoothly?

Nor sure I believe that if you were looking at screen you'd see it hadn't been sent. Sounds like someone trying to make theomission more understandable to me.

I noticed that. Thought I'd let it slide. Lol.

Obviously it's insanity but in reality it probably wouldn't have mattered if the purchase option was £100m we clearly never had any intention to make the deal permanent. Were maybe hoping he'd see us through this season.

It does seem a stretch at times to believe that this is error When a) It's happened twice b ) It never seems to happen with outgoing deals and c) It only seems to affect the higher profile/ higher cost incoming deals. If you take the view it is sabotage I'm not certain it's the owners agreeing to deals in the first place then pulling the plug on them at the last minute. As bad as they've been as owners and boy do they need to sell up now that particular scenario doesn't make any real sense. I'd be more inclined to think it was one of the bean counters at Ewood like Pasha/Waggott worried about missing their targets and putting a spoke in the works. Either way we either have owners who are agreeing to deals and then pulling them at the last minute and making the Club a laughing stock and the management at Ewood are just going along with it and continuing to draw their salaries or we have rogue employees sabotaging deals either deliberately or by incompetence and no-one neither the owners nor the rest of the management are doing anything about it.

We're trying to convince the dimmer parts of our fan base that really this is only a minor error and that our superslick legal team have got a watertight case and therefore that if there is any justice in the world that the nasty EFL should just wave it through.

*Tumbleweed*

Lack of time doesn't appear to have been a problem. They say all the paperwork had been completed in time, we just didn't submit it. You wouldn't expect this sort of incompetence at Non League level and it's happened twice.

By our standards, not a bad statement. At least it admits an error was made. It is I think though insulting everyone's intelligence to suggest either that the EFL will overlook the error as though it were a minor issue or that we will ever sign the player on a pre contract agreement. He probably breaks out in a cold sweat at the mention of the words "Blackburn Rovers" by now and who could blame him.

Surprised you're still on here after faithfully assuring everyone Saturday lunchtime there'd been a hitch but that he would still be registered as a Blackburn Rovers player. Why do you pretend to be ITK? You just make yourself look silly.

The poor player is back in the US isn't he?

Well, they didn't exactly "throw Broughton under the bus" last year, either he owned up to it because it was his fault like he said or it wasn't his fault in which case it was obviously agreed between everyone that he would front up to it with no comeback for anyone. Either way the failure of a transfer like that is his responsibility as DOF. And its now happened twice.

The Ennis fee would have covered the Mcguire loan fee though which I suspect was why the Mcguire deal was resurrected in that fashion. Its nice of the LT to come sheepishly to the party albeit a couple of weeks late. Remember Jackson originally described people commenting on this as being "sensationalist". Perhaps on balance his paymasters decided it would have made them look very foolish if for instance Rovers had gone into administration and they hadn't even acknowledged any goings on as previously was the case. Good to see that they are finally on board though as it will increase the pressure on the Club and they might not be quite as inclined in future to simply put out the usual offerings of PR fluff from the Club to pacify/mislead the fans. Nothing new in the LT article that we couldn't reasonably deduce from the fact that the original Mcguire deal was pulled mid flight and replaced by a proposed loan deal. And we knew previously the Court hearing had been postponed so financial issues were likely. It STILL doesn't explain though how we managed to fuck up the loan deal (like 12 months ago) after it was authorised. Reverting back to your first paragraph the most sensible move of the window would indeed have been to offload Gallagher and bring in Mcguire permanently at zero net cost. We don't often do sensible though.

Everything been brushed under the carpet today then? JDT refusing to walk without a pay off, owners refusing to shell out to pay him off, our DOF mute as usual on the window in general and Mcguire in particular and as with 12 months ago no obvious accountability for anyone for another calamitous failure?

and Broughton seemingly, as I predicted. But hey - sacrificial lamb slaughtered, nothing to see here, business as normal.

Yes, even if you assume GB is completely blameless in this latest fiasco (and I don't actually believe it's his fault we seemingly had to swap from Permanent deals to loan deals) if he nevertheless doesn't resign and tries to present the window as a success then he is obviously happy working under those conditions and is completely complicit in the entire charade.

So if we're going to afford Sylvester the defence used in support of GB's innocence, wonder why JDT didn't say " I suggest you direct those questions to Ian Silvester" then?

What's BS about that? Waggott is responsible for the Commercial side, Broughton the football side. Ha! on both counts.