Yep, just to repeat what I put on the transfer rumour thread the LT "understands" that Bolton have agreed to pay an initial 750k up front for Dunn with a further 250 k due in August if Birmingham achieve promotion back to the Premiership. (Eh?) They have also agreed to pay a further 1m once he makes 50 Premiership appearances for them. Rovers will have to match these terms to get permission to speak to Dunn. The criteria for the payment of the 250 k can't be right can it? however I suspect the overall figures are right. It seems from Rovers point of view the situation couldn't be simpler, it's a case of put up or shut up. There's absolutely no point fannying around with another bid lower than the one Bolton have put in. --------------------

Couldn't agree more Den, it's one million plus add ons IF he does well we're talking about, not five or ten mill. If he passes the medical can't see the problem at all. What's the alternative, wait until Jan 30th and realise we can't get him until July, leaving us with Savage (tottering on the brink of suspension) and Tugay (37 ish) for the rest of the season?

So, even by your criteria Derbyshire still has another couple of years to make it into a 30 Premiership goal a season striker. In terms of Rovers strikers I can only think back to Beattie's debut when he was fed to the lions (i.e. Bould and Adams) v Arsenal many years ago. Not only was he not getting on the end of chances, he was barely good enough on the day to get a touch of the ball. Beatts never looked as if he was going to make a player in his early Rovers days and I think everyone was pleased to get 1m for him at the time. Probably means nothing at all but I would say Derbyshire is showing far more promise after half a dozen first team appearances than Beattie did.

How many 21 year olds have we had playing regular first team football during our 15 years in the Premiership? Not many at all.

Repeating myself here, but he does seem to have an uncanny knack of getting on the end of chances. You can't teach or learn that imo, you've either got it or you haven't. Not only "chances". But strangely enough virtual shoe ins. Far too soon to write him off.

Aye, well, they aren't Spanish are they? I'm afraid I'd have to call that a 0-0 draw. WE haven't brought through anyone who has become a first team REGULAR either. Yet. I have high hopes for Derbyshire and I do wish Hughes would give Gallagher a fair crack. Emerton was rubbish for 4 seasons before this one yet still kept getting picked week in week out. imagine how far Gallagher would have progressed given that kind of run.

Not a criticism of McCarthy as such but he must have been practically impossible to play alongside yesterday due to him dropping so deep on some occasions and peeling off wide to the touchline on others.

He does seem to have the knack of getting on the end of chances though and once he gets over the nervousness of being in the first team the goals may well start to flow. (If he is given the chance that is) For my twopenneth Nonda didn't look any better than Derbyshire when he came on and Jeffers wouldn't even be capable of getting on the end of the sort of chances Derbyshire has missed in the first place.

You would always expect a high mortality rate like that, the thing is, are the ones that stay going to pull up any trees?

Looking in extremely extremely underwhelmed fashion at the sort of players we've been linked with in the transfer window Warnock/Konchesky/Sherringham/Okkas/Boussabon etc it strikes me that the Academy must be in pretty poor shape if we can't bring through some squad cover equal to or better than that lot. You know you're always going to have to spend to bring in some top quality now and again but it's a shame if we're having to import run of the mill talent from outside. Is it time to take a close look at the scouting? Or if not the coaching once they get here? Or do we need to go down the Arsenal route and start investing a lot more money in getting top youngsters to Ewood at an early age?

A quick trawl through the archives revealed the following: LET 05/09: ROVERS PREPARE NEW NEILL DEAL John Williams: "It's still our intention that Lucas will sign a new contract with us and we will be presenting him with a new variation shortly." "He did turn our first offer down before the World Cup but we will be offering him an improved version." LET 13/10: NEW NEILL DEAL PUT ON THE TABLE Mark Hughes: "We've offered him a new contract and it's gone off this week." Sounds daft but doesn't completely contradict what Mark Hughes said in the article of 13/10 above. He went on to say something about "He won't have seen it yet" I'm sure JW/MH/and LN must have spoken since though!

Not strictly the case Gordon, I'm sure it was specifically reported in summer that although there was already an existing offer for him on the table he was offered another new deal in light of the World Cup. Unless my memory is failing me or I read it wrong.

It's also reported in the LT today. Had a scan in Leeds last night, results of which due in today.

Unfortunately, if that is correct, we're in a much weaker bargaining position than previously now Reidy looks to be out for the season.

Either he or the Club are telling porkies on that one then. As I recall it was clearly reported in the summer in the aftermath of the World Cup that at least one new deal had been put to him. IF (and personally I don't believe it) that was the case he might have a right to feel slightly aggrieved. Of course it depends what "the same money" is. If for the sake of argument he was on 30k p.w. already I don't think the Club would have anywhere else to go with that.

Don't be silly. Many thanks for the confirmation Brownie. Best wishes to Reidy for a full recovery asap. Fate really hasn't smiled kindly on him since he decided to stay loyal to us and sign a new contract.

If this is true (Pleasure's never been right in the past, but I doubt he would make this up about something so serious) it makes the apparent decision not to go for Dunn even more unfortunate and ill timed.

Ta, thought it was but there was some confusion about that above.

Yes but is that 13 quid per seat sold or x 31468 etc

As I understood it from what den said it was an overall average of 13 quid per head and it was 13 quid per seat filled. Does 30m divided by 30 not suggest that senior players will be on 1m p.a. upwards given that there are a number of youngsters included in the squad who bring the average down?

You obviously didn't read a word I was saying. We're obviously at a huge disadvantage financially with the "big four" and a much smaller one with some of the other Premiership Clubs but then again we're at an equally huge advantage as against seventy two League Clubs and countless more clubs European and world wide because of the TV money. There's only a relatively minute percentage of players worldwide who can play for clubs with more dosh than us. Plenty more good un's to go round surely. P.S. Sorry for being so rude Lee, must not post after a couple of gallons of ale. :ph34r: I stand by my original point though, 1.2 or 1.3m on the bottom line is all very nice and a pound is a pound and all that but I can't see that it would transform our fortunes. We must have to allow for more flexibility than that at the start of the season when budgeting where we're going to finish in the League for a start.

Garbage Lee, please don't insult everyone's intelligence on here. Ballpark figures, before the proposed increase in TV money, and before the recent drop in attendances, gate money formed roughly 6m of a 40m turnover. Are you seriously trying to suggest that despite a relatively small decrease in gate revenue, we'll be worse off next season than before, or even that we're in a worse position than the vast majority of European Clubs who don't get anything like the amount of TV money we do. Only 44 players can play for the "Big 4" And only a further 176 can play for the other 16 Premiership sides as opposed to most European sides and worldwide sides with far less income than us. 5000 extra fans every fortnight (x 19) at an apparently accepted average 13 quid per head = 1 235 000 Hardly enough to make a "huge difference to the coffers! It's not even as much as you get for moving up 3 places in the table! A few seasons under Uncle Jack aside we've never had it so good. And we probably never will again once if the TV bubble bursts. Whether there's an average 20k or 30k in the ground.

We carry on with the current pricing policy and have fun counting the minimum 37m TV money next year!

Where else are we going to find a potentially (if he stays fit) top class midfielder 27 years of age, with the ability to step into Tugay's shoes when he retires for as little as 1m? If you want someone of the same quality with an unblemished injury record, fine, but we'd have to be prepared to spend 5m upwards to land him imo.

Interesting that for all the whinging about our attendances, our average gate is under 1800 less than Bolton's who have been doing much much better in the League than we have, prior to the last week or so.