That Brighton and Brentford stood out looking at the fixtures and I would have watched that had it not been for the rarity of Rovers playing at 3pm on a Saturday.

Can Brittain be considered a good signing? I am not sure it has worked out very well at the moment. I also don't get why he was brought on in the last 2 games. File that signing under average so far. In and out, often unavailable and not in our best 11. He has something about him but still. Not many good opportunities at all for us.

To be fair, I don't have total faith in Broughton to bring in a good one. The first choice last summer was apparently Hirst and then he fucked it up in January too. Lets hope for third time lucky.

Really, really poor in such an important game. We aren't good enough away from home and our record from losing positions is an absolute embarassment.

Must have been April Fools Day when you wished the same for Szmodics.

Mowbray's men? I very much doubt that Tomasson has such a petty attitude.

Second player this season?

There is no way that them 3 take £80k a week combined! And we would be losing our main goalscorer, our second biggest goal threat and also two huge bits of experience and quality in a young squad, all for nothing.

There is the answer to my question at last, I think. So thank you. You value one season of Brereton as worth more than £8.4m.

The previous years are not relevant to the decision as to whether to accept a bid or allow him to run down his final year. Also, the Brereton situation was hardly a secret in the summer, therefore they would have had the same amount of time to line someone up.

I take your point about instalments and the amount not all hitting the accounts in this financial year, but equally we could fund a new signing in the same way, I think it is probably quite uncommon for fees these days to be paid all at once so we would still have more than a couple of millions worth of leeway even if it is spread across a number of years. In your scenario, offsetting any new players wages against wage savings on Brereton upon departure, we would be able to fund say a £5m new addition across 3 years, saving £333k a year in the process whilst doing so, not factoring in potential add ons. Of course it is all speculative based on the breakdown of any fee, but even so.

I appreciate the fact that his value will have been amortised over the life of his contract and will have a carrying value of £1.4m at the start of the year, so surely there would have been a profit on disposal of £7m which would have then given us wiggle room under FFP? We would also save the expense of a further £1.4m depreciation of his remaining value across that last year, and the wages like you said. It will be difficult to replace Brereton full stop, but the whole premise of the project is surely to replace assets with cheaper players, develop, sell, replace and continue. It is much more difficult to replace with zero funds. The disconnect between player sales and purchases under Venkys is baffling, it's just totally at odds with what Broughton seems to be mentioning and Mowbray said similar before, about developing assets and selling them on and replacing. I would say the same to @Sweaty Gussets that it is simply no way to run a football club. Regarding whether he would have gone, had we accepted and Brereton then rejected the move, a totally different story altogether. And if we go up it pays off but it is an incredibly risky way to run the club financially.

We have to keep Dack with Brereton about to leave. It is already going to be a huge issue replacing Brereton with no money to reinvest. Dack is otherwise our best chance of a goal and the fact that we have Szmodics shouldn't be an issue, it just means that it is a position we don't need to worry about if still at this level.

How is it a strange way of looking at it?! We literally had 2 options, take £8.4m or let him run his contract down whilst having him for this season. The importance we have placed on having him for one year has cost us an opportunity cost of £8.4m. I very much doubt that Mowbray said not to offer him a new deal, just like with Lenihan and Rothwell. It is not comparable to paying people for 6 weeks during covid. The difference between most of the contracts we have agreed this season is that many are to young players. Sometimes we will have cases where more senior/proven players are reluctant to agree to a new deal, testing the waters elsewhere. It is imperative that we get fees for these players in such situations. They had the same amount of time to research the signings we did make in the summer, if the attitude was that we didn't have enough time to do so, then Hyam etc wouldn't have signed. He as a player is much more attractive to clubs as a free agent. Would have made no sense to him to sign an extra year if he is after leaving. We as a club chose to bat off any interest in him so the fact that we won't get a fee for him was avoidable.

It doesn't matter whether either wanted to sell, we have no idea and it doesn't matter because it wasn't down to them either way. Venkys feel it fit to override player sales. And Mowbray was never in charge of contracts, neither is Tomasson. I do think we should have signed Brereton onto a new deal at that time, 100%, but ultimately, in the summer we still had a chance to generate some considerable funds, it might not have been as much as Armstrong and it might not be how much we could have got if Brereton had longer, but over £8m is still a bloody lot of money for us. We lost just over £11m in 2022 and just over £6m the year before, for a bit of perspective. Equally, we have spent about double that potential fee over five whole seasons. You keep avoiding this question but it is a simple 2 options. What is more valuable, one season and one season only of Ben Brereton, or £8.4m? That was the choice right in front of us. I can't fathom how anyone can say the former, and not only that, how people can be comfortable with doing the opposite of what well run clubs that we seemingly want to try and employ a similar model too, and taking huge short term risks that then leave us without funds to reinvest when our "project" is supposed to start really thriving. You mention his calibre, I know he is a goalscorer at this level, I don't doubt his ability. But the above question couldn't be any more correct, it was £8.4m OR one season of him, and we chose the latter as more valuable. Should a similar calibre of player become available on a season long loan for a massive loan fee in the summer, say I don't know, Joel Piroe. If we was to loan him for £8.4m, there would be uproar.

That gamble only becomes worthwhile if we get promoted, not just into the play offs. But even then, I don't feel comfortable in the club making huge short term gambles as opposed to investing as part of a long term approach which allows us to sell at profit and reinvest. Lots of talk has been about how things have changed this season with the new structure. And yes, we have signed new deals albeit most are recent graduates with minimal or no first team experience. That isn't a criticism but Brereton was beyond that in the summer as were Nyambe, Lenihan and Rothwell, all players who were not as easy to sign to new deals, and that will happen again at times. And for all the good any new staff do, Venkys will still intervene and reject offers regardless of what Broughton and Tomasson want. Easy to blame Mowbray now he isnt here, and yes, there was definitely scope for a new deal. But even last summer, we could have generated a substantial amount for us as a club and we turned that down. I don't think you have answered this question. But if Rovers signed on loan a proven Championship forward for a £8.4m loan fee this summer, how would you feel? I would like you to answer this question without going around the houses and avoiding it. Apologies, I meant solely from transfers. Ie before last season.

Or not dismissing bids out of hand when they get into their final year. There are 2 things they have failed to do which would have prevented this so thia helplessness theory is just untrue.

There have been plenty of years in that Venkys ownership that we have either spent nothing and/or made big profits. The way they run the club isn't efficient. £8.4m is a lot to Rovers even if it isnt to Venkys, and it compounds the mismanagement that the question is often dismissed based on the unlikeness of any of that money being reinvested. It should be a continious flow of buying assets, profiting, reinvesting a % as many teams have who have been praised for their approach which led to repeated promotion pushes and eventually Premier League football. Its not even about recouping what we paid in the past, it is about generating money to allow us to reinvest on a player or players that we can have for a number of seasons. It also provides some scope to offset a small part of any losses, crucial within FFP. There were 2 choices, either take £8.4m or take a year of Brereton. Even if his amortised value is £1.4m now, it is irrelevant as we were offered £8.4m. The Lewandowski comparison is massively different with Dortmund being a side regularly in the Champions League, not a Championship club losing money every year. But I can't fathom how one year of Brereton firstly is more valuable than the money, considering potential reinvestment benefiting us for years to come aswell. But also the atttude to risk, whereby in the likely scenario probability wise of not being promoted, that we have no money to directly reinvest. Then come the summer, people will inevitably defend the owners because they supposedly cant reinvest due to FFP.

It wasn't Tomasson and Broughton that decided to reject all offers, infuriatingly like with Rothwell the decision is taken above the managers head at that time. We as a club in the Championship cannot afford to be taking £8m gambles like that considering we have only spent around double that over 5 years. Or if we do, any talk of becoming like Brentford, polishing up assets, projects etc is all bollocks. Fabrizio Romano has said that a deal with Villarreal is agreed. In a literal sense, yes. But there is a clear opportunity cost of £8.4m. Two options, sell for that or let go for free after a year.

The Nice offer was 2 weeks before the deadline so I don't buy that as an excuse personally. The owners won't change IMO so if a similar situation arises (it is good that we are being proactive with deals but not everyone will willingly renew) I can't see that changing.

Even if it does work out, it would still have been a gamble that goes totally against the ethos of trying to develop a club that polishes up and trades assets in the hope of at least being somewhat self sustainable. A club with our resources at Championship level would never dream of loaning a player for over £8m, that is essentially what he has done.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/23423406.blackburn-rovers-tomasson-gives-ben-brereton-diaz-injury-update/ Will be a huge blow if Brereton misses out. Could do with Dack on the bench. Pears is going to start too according to Tomasson.

Had we accepted a bid from Nice and the player then rejected it then it is a totally different situation and I don't criticise the owners in the same way.

I can't fathom this argument that we don't know how much we would be able to spend. Of course, it is dependant on some of those funds at least being reinvested. The Armstrong funds weren't because it needed to be use as a crutch due to the general poor running of the club. We obviously can't be that desperate for the money to plug a hole otherwise the owners wouldn't be so stubborn, therefore there would be no excuse not to reinvest some. Sell him for £8m, even if you reinvest £5m (on top of what we had to spend in the summer again to cover our negligence regarding not just player contracts, but moreso the owners being stubborn, any fee for Rothwell could have basically covered our summer spend, and it was reported in the LT last summer that Stoke had interest in Nyambe) it still leaves £3m on top to help with running costs that we now don't have. I can't look far past the question that is often avoided, whether you would ever consider loaning a player even with the goalscoring threat of Brereton (he is our main goal threat and talk of us being better without him is nonsense) for £8.4m for a solitary season? Obviously, it would be very difficult to replace Brereton, I don't doubt that, just as it was very difficult for Brentford to replace the likes of Watkins and Benrahma when a fraction of those funds ended up going back into the club. But you have to trust that you can find someone new to polish up, otherwise the process will never work. Brereton for 1 year compared to a new £5m striker for 4 or 5 years is a no brainer, as it is, when Brereton goes we have to then find further money externally if we want to replace him, and you can't keep doing that. We have had staff members (Tomasson, Broughton, Mowbray) who have regularly talked about polishing up assets, becoming a trading club, comparisons to Brentford etc and obviously none have perfect judgement but I have sensed a desire to work like that for a while and it is the way forward at this level. The owners intervening to turn down bids for players with contracts running down is totally undermining that process and the ability to ever become successful at it. I dread to think where we would be without a first team packed with graduates from a brilliant academy that they inherited. Regarding Nice moving on from Brereton, if the owners batted off the bid out of hand, it is little wonder.