Summer transfer window 2021.

[J*B]

10 minutes ago, TruRover said:

Doesn’t look v reliable has to be said

There’s a genuine chance he thinks we’re signing Luca Toni. 

[JHRover]

Middlesbrough lining up loan deal for Cameroon international midfielder James Lea-Siliki from Rennes - having missed out on Heerenveens Mitchell van Bergen, who opted for Stade Reims. They also still believe a deal for Sporting Lisbon striker Andraz Sporar is on track (Graeme Bailey).

No FFP or Brexit issues for mighty Middlesbrough who aren't going cap in hand for injured Brighton reserve players.

[Gav]

How about the time we were in discussions with Real Madrid’s Raul and we ended up with David Goodwillie.

Bad advice?

Edited August 26, 2021 by Gav

[islander200]

4 hours ago, JHRover said:

What about them?

I firmly believe that the cash buys you refer to were only sanctioned on the basis that all 3 players were expected to turn around substantial profits quickly. Armstrong did, could have been much more but suspect they are happy with their £10 million on him or whatever we ended up getting. The other two less likely but it is clear what the intention was/is with them.

I don't think any of those cash purchases were sanctioned because Venkys believed those players were going to immediately improve the team or club.

 

We were so desperate to get a profit out of Armstrong we gave up 40% of the deal to get it done?That doesn't make sense.

And Brererton cost 7 million and Gallagher 5 is it beyond the realms of possibility that we have stupidly agreed to such a clause in their contracts aswell?With the best will in the world they would have to have seriously hit the ground running to have made a quick profit on those 2.But I don't think selling players is a bad thing anyway if some of the profit is reinvested. 

You can argue with me till you are blue in the face but Jordan Rhodes wanted out of here a long time before he agreed to sell him and we had offers of similar to what we eventually got for him.Im not one to make out I'm itk but this is one thing I know to be true and it's from the Rhodes end.They do not sell players easy, but for me that is a black mark because sometimes you just have to see the bigger picture and you have to sell an asset to strengthen other areas.We never sell players and when we do we don't get what we should.

He brought 12 players to the club last season ,half of them loans but still add them all together and it will still have cost the club a pretty penny especially when you are committing to a 4 year deal for Ainsley Pears.Dont you find that odd, that everyone else gets a 2+1 year deal but a son of an ex teammate of a manager gets this deal.

They have no interest in us but if the manager asks for something he gets it.But after bringing 12 players to the club last season and to have as poor a season as we did then I don't blame them from pulling back a bit.I blame them for not sacking him.

I still think they will allow him to bring a striker in permanent 

 

[Bbrovers2288]

8 minutes ago, islander200 said:

We were so desperate to get a profit out of Armstrong we gave up 40% of the deal to get it done?That doesn't make sense.

And Brererton cost 7 million and Gallagher 5 is it beyond the realms of possibility that we have stupidly agreed to such a clause in their contracts aswell?With the best will in the world they would have to have seriously hit the ground running to have made a quick profit on those 2.But I don't think selling players is a bad thing anyway if some of the profit is reinvested. 

You can argue with me till you are blue in the face but Jordan Rhodes wanted out of here a long time before he agreed to sell him and we had offers of similar to what we eventually got for him.Im not one to make out I'm itk but this is one thing I know to be true and it's from the Rhodes end.They do not sell players easy, but for me that is a black mark because sometimes you just have to see the bigger picture and you have to sell an asset to strengthen other areas.We never sell players and when we do we don't get what we should.

He brought 12 players to the club last season ,half of them loans but still add them all together and it will still have cost the club a pretty penny especially when you are committing to a 4 year deal for Ainsley Pears.Dont you find that odd, that everyone else gets a 2+1 year deal but a son of an ex teammate of a manager gets this deal.

They have no interest in us but if the manager asks for something he gets it.But after bringing 12 players to the club last season and to have as poor a season as we did then I don't blame them from pulling back a bit.I blame them for not sacking him.

I still think they will allow him to bring a striker in permanent 

 

Don’t think the armstrong deal would have got done without us giving up so much on the sell on fee. Without it newcastle were looking for 6 mill odd which we didn’t have. In the end we got the player, the goals, and they got the 4 mill in the end. Don’t have a problem with how that’s played out tbh. Rather that than loans 

[islander200]

9 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Don’t think the armstrong deal would have got done without us giving up so much on the sell on fee. Without it newcastle were looking for 6 mill odd which we didn’t have. In the end we got the player, the goals, and they got the 4 mill in the end. Don’t have a problem with how that’s played out tbh. Rather that than loans 

My argument is he wasn't bought purely to make a profit on him.I still think 40% was too much.20% standard, he wanted to leave and Newcastle weren't trying to stop him.A player is worth what someone is willing to pay and although I know Preston were in for him there wasn't that much interest in him at the time.His last loan spell in the championship with Bolton hadn't gone well and he wasn't spectacular for us in league one either 

[JHRover]

10 minutes ago, islander200 said:

We were so desperate to get a profit out of Armstrong we gave up 40% of the deal to get it done?That doesn't make sense.

And Brererton cost 7 million and Gallagher 5 is it beyond the realms of possibility that we have stupidly agreed to such a clause in their contracts aswell?With the best will in the world they would have to have seriously hit the ground running to have made a quick profit on those 2.But I don't think selling players is a bad thing anyway if some of the profit is reinvested. 

You can argue with me till you are blue in the face but Jordan Rhodes wanted out of here a long time before he agreed to sell him and we had offers of similar to what we eventually got for him.Im not one to make out I'm itk but this is one thing I know to be true and it's from the Rhodes end.They do not sell players easy, but for me that is a black mark because sometimes you just have to see the bigger picture and you have to sell an asset to strengthen other areas.We never sell players and when we do we don't get what we should.

He brought 12 players to the club last season ,half of them loans but still add them all together and it will still have cost the club a pretty penny especially when you are committing to a 4 year deal for Ainsley Pears.Dont you find that odd, that everyone else gets a 2+1 year deal but a son of an ex teammate of a manager gets this deal.

They have no interest in us but if the manager asks for something he gets it.But after bringing 12 players to the club last season and to have as poor a season as we did then I don't blame them from pulling back a bit.I blame them for not sacking him.

I still think they will allow him to bring a striker in permanent 

 

Sorry if I've missed something but I'm not sure what Rhodes has to do with what I was on about. 

I was merely stating in my original post that in my opinion the only substantial fees Venkys have paid out on players in recent times have been on three strikers who they were persuaded or convinced were projects - young, English, likely to score goals - and thus would be most likely to attract big bids and big profits on their investments.

Some might say that is a sensible way to operate - and I agree - to a limit. Of course signing people expecting them to improve and grow in value is sensible - but that has to apply across the board and be secondary to the priority of getting a squad for promotion.

Since 2018 I think we are now looking at a profit on transfer fees with Armstrong and Raya out and Armstrong, Gallagher, Brereton, Pickering and Kaminski in. So it's really only the wages they've lost on - a lot of money - but they never seem to be too bothered about that.

There have been a couple of other insignificant fees - a few hundred grand on Pickering, Kaminski and Davenport - find me a Championship club that hasn't at least found those sort of fees from time to time.

The rest have all been loans or frees. Yes - I've credited the owners for allowing larger wages than they have to and larger than many rivals could afford.

It seems to be the cash outlays that they don't like. This includes expenditure on facilities and  The wages can get heaped onto the payroll or the debt mountain and doesn't require them to agree to sanction extra spending. 

[roversfan99]

Not a player we need, but one linked with us and a number of clubs.

[islander200]

3 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Sorry if I've missed something but I'm not sure what Rhodes has to do with what I was on about. 

I was merely stating in my original post that in my opinion the only substantial fees Venkys have paid out on players in recent times have been on three strikers who they were persuaded or convinced were projects - young, English, likely to score goals - and thus would be most likely to attract big bids and big profits on their investments.

Some might say that is a sensible way to operate - and I agree - to a limit. Of course signing people expecting them to improve and grow in value is sensible - but that has to apply across the board and be secondary to the priority of getting a squad for promotion.

Since 2018 I think we are now looking at a profit on transfer fees with Armstrong and Raya out and Armstrong, Gallagher, Brereton, Pickering and Kaminski in. So it's really only the wages they've lost on - a lot of money - but they never seem to be too bothered about that.

There have been a couple of other insignificant fees - a few hundred grand on Pickering, Kaminski and Davenport - find me a Championship club that hasn't at least found those sort of fees from time to time.

The rest have all been loans or frees. Yes - I've credited the owners for allowing larger wages than they have to and larger than many rivals could afford.

It seems to be the cash outlays that they don't like. This includes expenditure on facilities and  The wages can get heaped onto the payroll or the debt mountain and doesn't require them to agree to sanction extra spending. 

My point with Rhodes Is Venkys are not in this to make a few million pound off player sales.There is no evidence to suggest they are.

Mate the "frees" you go on about were not free they were expensive deals as you even said yourself last season regarding Ayala.And you know that Holtby ,Rodwell ,Johnson and Downing would have done well

When you ain't selling any player then transfer fees of 7 million and 5 Million with our level of income is going beyond what we should be spending.The owners are putting that money in and there is no evidence to suggest that they are in this to make a bit of profit.Even last January we could have sold Armstrong if we wanted to.

The stuff about the ground I agree but that isn't the part I'm arguing, I'm arguing the owners spend money on the squad but they appoint the wrong people to spend it.

Like IV said I think they have no interest in us but if the manager asks he gets and they don't sell players unless they are practically forced too.

I just don't get why they pay Waggott 300 grand a year and he doesn't even have the authority to clear up around the ground.These guys have loads of businesses and they want to be bothered with such trivial matters?

If it takes months for a simple thing like that to be sorted out then inside the ground must have no chance of being sorted.

 

 

[Bbrovers2288]

14 minutes ago, islander200 said:

My argument is he wasn't bought purely to make a profit on him.I still think 40% was too much.20% standard, he wanted to leave and Newcastle weren't trying to stop him.A player is worth what someone is willing to pay and although I know Preston were in for him there wasn't that much interest in him at the time.His last loan spell in the championship with Bolton hadn't gone well and he wasn't spectacular for us in league one either 

Where we are , I’d say 90% of our incomings are for profit later down the road. We are a selling club until we are an established premier team- if that ever happens 

[islander200]

45 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Middlesbrough lining up loan deal for Cameroon international midfielder James Lea-Siliki from Rennes - having missed out on Heerenveens Mitchell van Bergen, who opted for Stade Reims. They also still believe a deal for Sporting Lisbon striker Andraz Sporar is on track (Graeme Bailey).

No FFP or Brexit issues for mighty Middlesbrough who aren't going cap in hand for injured Brighton reserve players.

Chaddy did a breakdown not too long ago of the profits they have made from player sales I can't remember the exact figures but they were well in Boro's favour.And yeah it will help signing players from abroad if you can pay what they are paying 

[JHRover]

24 minutes ago, islander200 said:

My point with Rhodes Is Venkys are not in this to make a few million pound off player sales.There is no evidence to suggest they are.

Mate the "frees" you go on about were not free they were expensive deals as you even said yourself last season regarding Ayala.And you know that Holtby ,Rodwell ,Johnson and Downing would have done well

When you ain't selling any player then transfer fees of 7 million and 5 Million with our level of income is going beyond what we should be spending.The owners are putting that money in and there is no evidence to suggest that they are in this to make a bit of profit.Even last January we could have sold Armstrong if we wanted to.

The stuff about the ground I agree but that isn't the part I'm arguing, I'm arguing the owners spend money on the squad but they appoint the wrong people to spend it.

Like IV said I think they have no interest in us but if the manager asks he gets and they don't sell players unless they are practically forced too.

I just don't get why they pay Waggott 300 grand a year and he doesn't even have the authority to clear up around the ground.These guys have loads of businesses and they want to be bothered with such trivial matters?

If it takes months for a simple thing like that to be sorted out then inside the ground must have no chance of being sorted.

 

 

The fact you mention Rhodes brings me back to another relevant point to this discussion though. 

Cast our minds back to 2012. There was some horrendous business done with Murphy, Gomes, Etuhu and co. coming in on free transfers but substantial wages (sounds familiar). Then all of a sudden, unexpectedly, out of the blue, late on in the window they suddenly spend a club record £8 million on Rhodes. A welcome addition who over the next 3.5 years would prove his value in goals but nonetheless an eyebrow raising deal for someone with little pedigree and none above League One.

Plenty would argue that £8 million and his wages would have been better spent on 3-4 other positions signing decent players, but it seems that was never realistically going to happen and the Rhodes cash just materialised late on, either through change in circumstances or someone deciding to have a spend.

Certainly similarities with the Brereton deal. After we got promoted from League One a sensible approach would have been to invest sensible fees in multiple positions to prepare and improve us for the Championship. Armstrong was a good one to get done and a decent fee but had already shown his qualities in his loan spell. Other than that what did we do on incomings? Little as I can recall. 

Then again, just as deadline day approaches we seem to have a big pot of cash that all goes out on one young British 'up and coming' CF, this time Brereton. Eyebrows raised, Forest can't believe their luck, yet all the hard currency goes on one player when it would probably be more sensible to spread it around.

I'm not saying the owners are in this to make a profit, that will never happen due to their mismanagement, but I am saying that the only times they have stumped up the cash for significant transfer fees has been when someone at their end is persuaded or is confident that the player in question is going to quickly increase or at the least hold their value. To be fair it worked well with Rhodes and Armstrong. But they don't seem willing to spread that around the pitch. Like buying a couple of solid quality CBs or a game changing force in CM. People we can build a team around for a few years. Those positions have received pitiful investment regardless of who the manager has been.

 

15 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Chaddy did a breakdown not too long ago of the profits they have made from player sales I can't remember the exact figures but they were well in Boro's favour.

A bit like the figures are in our favour now we've just sold a player for £15 million+ and cut the wage bill massively?

Edited August 26, 2021 by JHRover

[JBiz]

5 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The fact you mention Rhodes brings me back to another relevant point to this discussion though. 

Cast our minds back to 2012. There was some horrendous business done with Murphy, Gomes, Etuhu and co. coming in on free transfers but substantial wages (sounds familiar). Then all of a sudden, unexpectedly, out of the blue, late on in the window they suddenly spend a club record £8 million on Rhodes. A welcome addition who over the next 3.5 years would prove his value in goals but nonetheless an eyebrow raising deal for someone with little pedigree and none above League One.

Plenty would argue that £8 million and his wages would have been better spent on 3-4 other positions signing decent players, but it seems that was never realistically going to happen and the Rhodes cash just materialised late on, either through change in circumstances or someone deciding to have a spend.

Certainly similarities with the Brereton deal. After we got promoted from League One a sensible approach would have been to invest sensible fees in multiple positions to prepare and improve us for the Championship. Armstrong was a good one to get done and a decent fee but had already shown his qualities in his loan spell. Other than that what did we do on incomings? Little as I can recall. 

Then again, just as deadline day approaches we seem to have a big pot of cash that all goes out on one young British 'up and coming' CF, this time Brereton. Eyebrows raised, Forest can't believe their luck, yet all the hard currency goes on one player when it would probably be more sensible to spread it around.

I'm not saying the owners are in this to make a profit, that will never happen due to their mismanagement, but I am saying that the only times they have stumped up the cash for significant transfer fees has been when someone at their end is persuaded or is confident that the player in question is going to quickly increase or at the least hold their value. To be fair it worked well with Rhodes and Armstrong. But they don't seem willing to spread that around the pitch. Like buying a couple of solid quality CBs or a game changing force in CM. People we can build a team around for a few years. Those positions have received pitiful investment regardless of who the manager has been.

 

A bit like the figures are in our favour now we've just sold a player for £15 million+ and cut the wage bill massively?

Just on the (sounds familiar) part - I think signing Etuhu, Murphy, A bucket full of Portuguese nobody’s, Edinho Junior et al and then big cash and wages on Best and Rhodes, probably signing away 50/60m in cash just in contracts (most paid off)…

In the history of Blackburn rovers, there’s nothing that sounds as familiar to that abject criminality of sewing up parachute payments.

Let’s be honest with history if we’re relying on it 

[islander200]

10 minutes ago, Bbrovers2288 said:

Where we are , I’d say 90% of our incomings are for profit later down the road. We are a selling club until we are an established premier team- if that ever happens 

 

4 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The fact you mention Rhodes brings me back to another relevant point to this discussion though. 

Cast our minds back to 2012. There was some horrendous business done with Murphy, Gomes, Etuhu and co. coming in on free transfers but substantial wages (sounds familiar). Then all of a sudden, unexpectedly, out of the blue, late on in the window they suddenly spend a club record £8 million on Rhodes. A welcome addition who over the next 3.5 years would prove his value in goals but nonetheless an eyebrow raising deal for someone with little pedigree and none above League One.

Plenty would argue that £8 million and his wages would have been better spent on 3-4 other positions signing decent players, but it seems that was never realistically going to happen and the Rhodes cash just materialised late on, either through change in circumstances or someone deciding to have a spend.

Certainly similarities with the Brereton deal. After we got promoted from League One a sensible approach would have been to invest sensible fees in multiple positions to prepare and improve us for the Championship. Armstrong was a good one to get done and a decent fee but had already shown his qualities in his loan spell. Other than that what did we do on incomings? Little as I can recall. 

Then again, just as deadline day approaches we seem to have a big pot of cash that all goes out on one young British 'up and coming' CF, this time Brereton. Eyebrows raised, Forest can't believe their luck, yet all the hard currency goes on one player when it would probably be more sensible to spread it around.

I'm not saying the owners are in this to make a profit, that will never happen due to their mismanagement, but I am saying that the only times they have stumped up the cash for significant transfer fees has been when someone at their end is persuaded or is confident that the player in question is going to quickly increase or at the least hold their value. To be fair it worked well with Rhodes and Armstrong. But they don't seem willing to spread that around the pitch. Like buying a couple of solid quality CBs or a game changing force in CM. Those positions have received pitiful investment regardless of who the manager has been.

 

A bit like the figures are in our favour now we've just sold a player for £15 million+ and cut the wage bill massively?

Is it massively in our favour?If I live in your world maybe yes, where the likes of Ayala and Holtby took massive wage drops with no signing on fees to join us Brereton and Gallagher were 12 alone.Armstrong would have hit a few clauses so we will say conservatively 2 million.Kaminski we paid a fee for ,Pickering,loan fees.Signing on fees for others.Plus as our wages show we are spending a lot more than we are bringing in which the owners are covering.

The club must also be psychic that Armstrong was going to be worth that sort of money, he went up a level for 18 months and again through gross mismanagement we ended up getting a poor deal because of the length in his contract, but a good deal in the circumstances

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, JBiz said:

Imagine comparing a transfer who was a very good replacement for someone who wanted to leave, in the last 3 years, to a good transfer in 1992….

Im not sure how to respond without utter disbelief tbf

It wasn't me that initially tried to deflect attention from this appalling transfer window by mentioning a player we signed 12 months ago but please do carry on - you're the one making yourself look foolish with your unstinting everything is fine campaign and making out everything ludicrous Mowbray and Waggott do can be rationally explained away.

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It wasn't me that initially tried to deflect attention from this appalling transfer window by mentioning a player we signed 12 months ago but please do carry on - you're the one making yourself look foolish with your unstinting everything is fine campaign and making out everything ludicrous Mowbray and Waggott do can be rationally explained away.

“Everything is fine” campaign is literally hilarious.

Can see that in “the thick of it” style comedy, bit of post disaster slogan politics… 

Reality of my actual opinion is probably best summed up as less “extreme”. I can’t remember the beginning of the quoting now but I do recall it being about Raya leaving. I just think being fair that’s an area of the pitch that they’ve justified the decision- even if people manage to froth at the mouth due to Pears being A) raw as fuck and  from Boro.

 

In terms of “everything ludicrous rationally explained” that’s never difficult. Generally people who fail either don’t care, don’t try hard enough or aren’t good enough (or a mix of the lot)

Whats the opposite of that? Irrationally Explained? Gladly put Mr opposites pants on with that argument.

 

[47er]

4 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Reality of my actual opinion is probably best summed up as less “extreme”. I can’t remember the beginning of the quoting now but I do recall it being about Raya leaving. I just think being fair that’s an area of the pitch that they’ve justified the decision- even if people manage to froth at the mouth due to Pears being A) raw as fuck and  from Boro.

Reality of your position is "remorseless optimism"!! Abbey had it right!

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, 47er said:

Reality of your position is "remorseless optimism"!! Abbey had it right!

I might change my darts name to “The Remorseless Optimist” it’s got a ring to it.

[47er]

1 minute ago, JBiz said:

I might change my darts name to “The Remorseless Optimist” it’s got a ring to it.

I like it!

[Oldgregg86]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not quite as good as Raya but has proved a solid enough signing.

i thought about this the other day as maybe a seperate thread.

Who do people think is the better goalkeeper now and in a rovers shirt ?

If both players where free transfers and you had to take one who would you pick

I think i may be in the minority in this and dont get me wrong i was one of those who was annoyed he sold Raya and rated him highly but i think Kaminski might slightly edge this debate for me. I wouldnt swap Kaminski for Raya

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, islander200 said:

Chaddy did a breakdown not too long ago of the profits they have made from player sales I can't remember the exact figures but they were well in Boro's favour.And yeah it will help signing players from abroad if you can pay what they are paying 

Yes I did do a breakdown and if I recall there are massive profits over the 4 years so no FFP problems at all. @JHRoverforgets this when talking about Boro FFP.. Rovers are losing millions each season simple. Its based over 3 years so even with Armstrong sale and wage cutbacks we are Still on the boardline of breaking FFP rules as I understand it from people posts on it

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

 Armstrong was a good one to get done and a decent fee but had already shown his qualities in his loan spell. Other than that what did we do on incomings? Little as I can recall. 

 

We signed Rothwell, Davenport, Brereton, Armstrong and Rodwell on permanent contracts and loaned in Reed and Palmer. 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, JBiz said:

“Everything is fine” campaign is literally hilarious.

Can see that in “the thick of it” style comedy, bit of post disaster slogan politics… 

Reality of my actual opinion is probably best summed up as less “extreme”. I can’t remember the beginning of the quoting now but I do recall it being about Raya leaving. I just think being fair that’s an area of the pitch that they’ve justified the decision- even if people manage to froth at the mouth due to Pears being A) raw as fuck and  from Boro.

 

In terms of “everything ludicrous rationally explained” that’s never difficult. Generally people who fail either don’t care, don’t try hard enough or aren’t good enough (or a mix of the lot)

Whats the opposite of that? Irrationally Explained? Gladly put Mr opposites pants on with that argument.

 

I'd say it's fairly plain that Waggott, Mowbray and Venus  aren't good enough and everything bad that has happenened at Ewood over the last few seasons stems from that as up to press the owners have given them free rein within an agreed budget.

You generally however seem to try to ignore the evidence that is unravelling in front of our own eyes and present everything that happens at Ewood as being perfectly normal and the sort of thing you would expect at a "normal" football Club run by competent employees.

Or do as you've done above and  latch on to an isolated success like the signing of Kaminsky as evidence that all is rosy in the garden.

"Less extreme" hmm..........Is it really that extreme to want to see the back of a manager and CEO who over the last 3 years have spent well over £100m of the owners money and revenue generated in producing finishes of 15th/10th/15th, who despite that level of investment have left us struggling to meet FFP requirements and facing the prospect of most of our better players walking out for nothing, and who underhandedly tried to flog off part of the Club's infrastructure to boot?

[JBiz]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'd say it's fairly plain that Waggott, Mowbray and Venus  aren't good enough and everything bad that has happenened at Ewood over the last few seasons stems from that as up to press the owners have given them free rein within an agreed budget.

You generally however seem to try to ignore the evidence that is unravelling in front of our own eyes and present everything that happens at Ewood as being perfectly normal and the sort of thing you would expect at a "normal" football Club run by competent employees.

Or do as you've done above and  latch on to an isolated success like the signing of Kaminsky as evidence that all is rosy in the garden.

"Less extreme" hmm..........Is it really that extreme to want to see the back of a manager and CEO who over the last 3 years have spent well over £100m of the owners money and revenue generated in producing finishes of 15th/10th/15th, who despite that level of investment have left us struggling to meet FFP requirements and facing the prospect of most of our better players walking out for nothing, and who underhandedly tried to flog off part of the Club's infrastructure to boot?

As I’ve said plenty of times, SW / TM haven’t been good enough. You don’t need me to tell you that do you?

As I’ve said plenty of times we aren’t  owned by “normal” invested, thoughtful professionals who care about their money

As I’ve said plenty of times, out transfer business has been hit and miss. Latching on to hits isn’t ignoring anything. Simply dismissing good signings is however 

Less extreme in reactions; doesn’t mean I’m happy with our current scenario, it means when someone says an OTT, I’ll thought out and extreme comment like; “this is the worst football I’ve seen for 50 years” I just remind them that they’re talking guff and point them to the facts.

Don’t like it? 
Don’t read it.

[chaddyrovers]

LT striker article

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19540799.venkys-will-sanction-funds-blackburn-rovers-striker-search/

Venkys will sanction a permanent striker transfer

[JHRover]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yes I did do a breakdown and if I recall there are massive profits over the 4 years so no FFP problems at all. @JHRoverforgets this when talking about Boro FFP.. Rovers are losing millions each season simple. Its based over 3 years so even with Armstrong sale and wage cutbacks we are Still on the boardline of breaking FFP rules as I understand it from people posts on it

We signed Rothwell, Davenport, Brereton, Armstrong and Rodwell on permanent contracts and loaned in Reed and Palmer. 

Middlesbrough are losing millions a year too.

When they came down from the PL they squandered their parachute cash under Garry Monk, spending tens or millions largely on dross. This was in 2017 so not long ago.

Then they fired Monk and his staff, brought in Pulis for a year or two. Then he left and they had Woodgate then sacked him and got Warnock. 

I think the reality of the situation is they have an owner with a desire to spend and ambition to back his manager as much as possible. We have excuse makers, liars, charlatans who will hide behind any excuses they can find and FFP is a blessing for them to do so.

I simply don't accept that Middlesbrough are able to do business as I identified above yet despite selling Armstrong, spending very little on fees for players in the last 2 years and slashing the wage bill that we are still treading carefully on FFP.

Does it not occur to you that Venkys might have just got fed up of spending and turned the taps off again?

Thanks also for confirming my point which was that the transfer fees are always reserved for the strikers. Rothwell a free agent, Davenport a minimal fee, Rodwell free, Palmer and Reed loans

Mowbray now saying he will only get funds if it is on a striker. More reason to believe the owners will only sanction cash on a player if certain requirements are met.