RevidgeBlue

The fact that it's been done simultaneously with Travis's expected departure would indicate we couldn't bring him in any earlier for financial reasons. But you're right, it would have made a lot more sense to get him in earlier and sort out any medical issues then. If he needed any surgery why wouldn't his current Club have had it done?

You can't really see if that comment relates to a specific question about the size of the fee. He does say his "information" is that the fee "will" exceed £3m. Which makes it seem extremely odd that he earlier wrote online that it "could" do so. Also relies on his "information" being truthful as well I suppose.

Ah, ok. Always wondered about that.

If he did, they must have ripped it up which would suggest they think the injury problem is worse than let on.

Pretty much. Happy times.

Can we enforce the deal against the player's wishes, if by that time the player has other interest and doesn't want to join us permanently?

100%.

Christ - while that makes sense to a degree, Travis has gone and we haven't actually properly replaced him. When was the last time we exercised an option to buy?

Also if Baradji's arrival is imminent it would tend to indicate the only real reason we couldn't sign him before now is financial and we had to offload Travis first.

Exactly what I was thinking. Don't think people are making enough of this. We're replacing our captain and someone who is the lynchpin of the side with another player who is currently injured. Of course the injury may not turn out to be a problem long term but on the other hand........ Id say he'd have been OK as a punt as an out and out addition to the squad. But if he's seen as the direct Travis replacement it's a massive risk and more barrel scraping of the highest (or lowest) order.

Well done those two guys. EJ floundering like a fish out of water when subjected to any actual scrutiny.

It's a very fair assumption Id say given how transfers are usually structured. Rather than trying to score points off me, Id have thought you might have been more worried about how after several weeks of negotiation we potentially appear to have ended up with a lower initial fee than the one which was originally offered but one which has no doubt been sweetened up with the possibility of increased add ons at the back end.

VI is talking some absolute cobblers there. "We are a little bit closer than the last time you asked me" "But not so close that we can tell you he will be here" "the minute is some light in the tunnel but not completely bright." Strewth - he must want this job badly!

Jackson recycling Club propaganda again - the "up front" fee will only be the £1.2 - £1.5m mentioned elsewhere and as Rudy never tires to remind us, that's only paid in installments anyway. The balance up to the mythical £3m we were supposedly after will only be forthcoming if he hits various add ons.

Great post. Nail, hammer, head.

I think it was reported we were paying £10k p.w. at the time but your point is still perfectly valid, it was ridiculous.

A lot recently. If there is an actual event taking place presumably they'll all be going off elsewhere.

Is it hard back or paperback? Difficult to tell from the photo.

From a purely playing perspective, if we hadn't have needed to spend fees on replacing Brittain/Travis and could therefore have brought in a striker it makes it even more ludicrous that we won't give all these players the going rate to stay in the first place.

Agreed. The guys at the last FF did a sterling job of getting Suhail to reveal his true feelings and put his foot in it in general. "Wasnt aware" Lowe had left." "Spending doesn't guarantee success" "The owners aim for the Club is to be "sustainable" "Never asked the owners if there can be an arrangement to reinvest a percentage of transfer income back into the side" "It was the owners decision to disband the women's team"

This has already been widely discussed on here by our 2 resident experts Wilesden Rover and KentExile and that seems to be their consensus. We're less sure if anyone at the Club is aware of this but they should be by now if they keep tabs on this Forum.

It is insane, without wishing to defend them maybe that batshit crazy policy was imposed to cover situations where we had the windfall sale of a particularly valuable player like Wharton or Szmodics with the thinking being the budget for the following season could be upped slightly. It's a bit different when at least half the starting X1 are just walking out for relatively modest fees. There has at least been some acknowledgement now that we need a RW and replacements for anyone else who leaves albeit we're still waiting and anyone who comes in will probably be a lot cheaper and theoretically inferior.

I dont know so I'm speculating but the way Gestede described it, it sounds like the transfer budget is "X" regardless of whether we make any sales or not. If we do happen to make any sales those funds go back to the owners and are not made available for reinvestment in the side. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever but then what does under this regime?

Underneath the ad for the book another message informing us "Club shop to close early at 12p.m tomorrow for "staff event". Yep celebrate Blackburn Rovers in it's 150th year folks!

It's appears to have gone so quiet on the RW position it's untrue. Indeed the only real link we've had all summer was an out of date one to the Japanese lad. Even for this lot, not having any form of contingency plan for Dolan leaving seems negligent beyond belief. We must have known he was going for months and months.