As I said previously - the quote from Waggott about “flexing” budget between fee/wage explains spending more on a fee for a younger less established player. I don’t think wages are too much to worry about either, in terms of room to manoeuvre in January or next summer, but I do think the gap is widening between the top few and the rest.

You think those lads + Nuno Gomes cost less than 7m total? Think again. Comparing to those deals is basically saying it’s crooked. All because he isn’t better than Danny Graham yet... Just read the thread. 78 pages.

Have to disagree. Even if you could get all three for half the 7m, that’s three sets of wages to fit into our wage budget all with necessary taxes! Would agree 1 less expensive/risky lower division addition to play a similar part from the bench would be more frugal - however I would suggest the fee gives more chance of reaching that potential. I am personally mystified by the readiness to suggest this lads a fraud by quite a few posters. We’re all welcome to our own view about him and mine will not be formed before he’s even made a start in the league.

You’re talking about a 19 year old lad who has been valued, sought after and represented his country at youth levels. There is no guarantee that he will fulfill that potential mind, but to be so critical after less than half a season - you must have ridiculous expectation levels. Comparing his signing to a load of unknown free Portuguese players through one agent is a bit of a tangent too. Now, you said there are plenty of options for this level at that rate - now you’re moving goal posts to further debt and FFP...

That’s the going wage for a top championship player, keep up. Without even mentioning Tax/Ni. Who are these strikers that fit into that profile then Blueboy?

You’re talking about their overall impact of their deals, the 8/10 comment is taken out of context, a summary of one transfer window being excellent, exceptional or any adjective meaning “good” or better than anticipated. Do I think they’ll all turn out exceptional signings? No. For instance Davenport has had poor luck with injuries and those are the kind of barriers for ANY signing, young or old. Thats not to say I’m writing him off either! Hopefully the new year will see him get involved, Armstrong to score a few more and Ben to be more involved!

You’re talking about 1 sentence of my views, based on reaction to a thread titled “Transfer window; Success or Failure”. Even still, to add such potential and highly rated/sought after players into the club is quality transfer business - even if they are yet to displace those who (as we’ve been told) earned a crack/shift at this division last year.

I anticipated young cheap premier league or higher championship u23 loans, older cheap free's and more youth progressed into the first 18. We got some exciting loans (even if one hasn't had the impact I would of thought; KP), three cash transfers; particularly highly rated potential players in Davenport, Armstrong and Ben and signed Rodwell and Rothwell - one (at the time of signing) could've been seen as a coup, a future captain if he regains any sort of ability/form of his earlier years. The other (Rothwell) more of what I expected all our signings to be - but particularly impressive early days, and another at 23 that will get better. How can I see that as anything but impressive? I know its a classic football cliche, but if you'd speculated that level of business over a pint after the Oxford game in May, I would've told you - "No chance"

I gave the judgement for that signing for that particular thread in august, like most people. The reason why that thread was dredged up in reaction to a defeat is anyone's guess - and I still think our business last summer was exceptional - even with hindsight. The price tag is only a double edge sword for those prepared to wield it as a criticism, and to up the expectation levels. It makes you look stupid, and it puts more expectation on the player when articles like HITC pick them up for click bait. I am not sure where Nuttall comes into this either. If you are asking me why I wouldn't be over critical from what I have seen so far; We've barely seen what he can do. Not because he has flattered to deceive, but because his time on the pitch has been limited. The reasons for that (in my book) are Graham, our system and his readiness/age. Not some ridiculous contract agreement, Tony not wanting to play players he didn't choose or his limited ability. It isn't a guess to look at Bamford and Celina (two others we tried to get according to reports) and see that their transfer fee + wage is likely a lot more expensive than a structured 7M + add ons, for a 19 year old with no premier league experience. It isn't a guess, it is simple maths. Even Mercer made the point about what 25k actually is including taxes. I'm not suggesting Brereton is on tiny wages either, but I expect (having read Waggotts comments) that his wage was more reasonable to allow that fee. The "I hate tony comment" is just tongue in cheek, but its no coincidence you've returned to this thread to pour more more cold water on any attempt to explain and see reasoning, sensible motives and a long term plan in signing Ben, and others new players. Armstrong is also 21 - mainly looks poor at this level? I do not understand your readiness to simply say someone isn't good enough - remember, he scored last weekend, and is currently in a similar position (behind Conway if it wasn't for injury) as a member of the 18 but not starting 11. He is also like Ben, only 3 and bit months into his championship foray with us. At least give him time to develop? Of course - but I don't think there are as many of them options in the middle that we would want - I also think that when top level championship clubs are paying bigger wages than some lower premier league clubs, the competition to get those established players in this division becomes more difficult. Does anyone remember Mowbrays comments about when Bamford went to leeds? I also think the Dack type of signing is rarer than something to be expected - How many players do you think we could sign from league one for less than a million, and within 12 months have the option to sell of nearly 20m? I reckon there will be some in there but its a difficult method. Ipswich brought a few players we would've loved, but they've ended up poor for changing some of their staff for less established second tier players and a manager. The idea is to have players in position to pick up the mantle with that process. For example, If Dack left in January - we'd potentially have Palmer or Rothwell to get involved in his role, or have the option of changing the system to two strikers (Graham/Ben/Armstrong) . Also, if he did get sold, a large amount of money to add young hungry footballers with room to improve. It's not exactly what I'd call the most "ambitious" or instant route to promotion, but it is a method that a few other premier league clubs have taken to moving from second tier to first, and staying in there. Southampton and Bournemouth are good examples.

All transfers are gambles. Compared to cost of a prem experienced and established player - it’s certainly a lot less of a gamble in value. Whilst you’ll probably get more initially from those experienced/established players - is the 2/3x a week wage a sensible approach for a team that’s just come back from league 1 after being bled dry by “established” players on big wages? Id say putting money into potential is far more long term and sensible than putting 150k a week into 3 or 4 players in an attempt to get promoted first go.

If he doesn’t do what you think he’s a dud? Sorry Stuart, I just don’t understand your view point at all. He could be still looking for a start in March and turn out to be a cracking signing. He could also turn out for the game at Newcastle and then be a flop. Im also flabbergasted that you and others cannot see the difference in cost between signing someone on standard champ wages, and then the more qualified/expected to bag instantly type. The way you say we are skint too - do you realise why the debt is so high? Paying daft wages mate. Hence why it’s sensible to put any money we can spend into fees, younger players, projects we can likely get something back from. Rhodes came from league one (6 years ago!) to us on 40k a week mate. Stupid wages but why did we pay it? We wanted to be at the front of the queue. Assombalonga was coveted by a few clubs when at forest - why do you think he’s now paid 50k a week (and still sitting on Boro’s bench) Waggott himself has said that there was a budget and it flexed between wages/transfers. How you and others can’t see that the gulf between our top earners, and recently relegated from prem and/or city clubs going for immediate promotion, is crazy! Good lord indeed. You’re missing the point again. 7m on a fee for a 19 year old is cheaper compared to spending 3/4m on someone who is 40/50k a week. There is also a problem with this idea we should be able to find better players than our current 11 for a couple of million and standard championship wages. it’s not realistic to just expect that. Why is that so hard to grasp? Its also not difficult to see why some of the better championship players are turning down prem clubs like Burnley, when they’re being given contracts from Villa, Forest, Boro etc that are 3/4m a year wages. 7m is not exactly what I’d call daft money either. Yes, you could’ve arguably paid the transfer fees for Hugill, or the lad who went to Derby from Peterborough- but do we believe they fit into our wage setup? Both went to recently relegated or city teams going for immediate promotion. When this sinks in, you both might be able to start looking at this deal without the “I hate Tony” mindset. Final say on this, signing young/highly rated/potential players is a reason to be excited about the future for me, NOT a reason to criticise the manager, the directors, the overall direction of the club, or Ben himself.

Waggott effectively said that in his article - that the flex between wages and transfer fee was possible. Question is, was their a player we wanted in that position, and in that range? @Exiled in Toronto makes a good point about the money could be only available for a youngster who might triple that cost with improvement, but no cash available for a 27 year old on 25/30k a week for 3/4m, as there is less “capital”. Call it some gambling scam, or call it a more sensible approach to managing a club with expenditure > income. Defending the indefensible? I simply responded with my own opinions and quotes. From my view, I’m not sure what aspect of signing this lad could be argued as “indefensible” either...! Questionable perhaps, although I’d prefer “understandable”. Ive never argued that he is cheap, I don’t agree that his price is an excuse up the expectation levels beyond realistic. Especially when the transfer market at current is looked at ie Celina. I’d like to see more from Ben myself, but I didn’t expect him to come in and win games on his own, perhaps more impact so far in his cameos. I also hadn’t anticipated the Danny Graham championship return to be as prolific and injury free (touch wood) To me, if we can add more potential to the squad with the likes of Ben, or Davenport, Armstrong etc in a transfer window, and if we can continue to do that every summer, I’m quite sure we will develop a team good enough to fight for promotion. Even if it takes a few years.

Don’t tell me you’ve already judged him as poor!

A comparison; Swansea bought Celina - someone mentioned as a target for us. He cost 4m according to transfermarket. Signed a four year contract. Since Swansea are recently relegated, and have players like Bony with a rumoured wage of 125k a week. How much would you guess he is on? Premier league appearances, had a contract till 2020 at city, national team appearances, highly sought, parachute payments... 40/50k? A week? Including NI, (since you don’t pay NI on transfer cost continuously through a contract, only the wage) wouldn’t that make that deal well over 15m? Someone who’d probably cost us twice the amount per week, to sit on the same bench behind Graham? On Ben - 10m is a better approximate (minus your “fake news” 3m, not forgetting you said 15m earlier either) and I’d suggest we’d probably be in a position to get something back even if he takes a long time to really cut his teeth. It’s a risk, but I’m still not convinced there was ever an option to spend 7m on a load of league 1/2 players that would’ve gone straight into the first 11.

1,000,000 a year is 20k a week. I’m not convinced he will be on that. 12.5k a week starting wage would be my estimate, putting him in the Nyambe, Raya, Lenihan category in the club, behind the Mulgrew, Graham, Evans and Dack wages. Confirmed? All say slightly different things. 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45334243 ”up to 7m” 2. https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/football/football-news/hopefully-ben-brereton-not-regretting-2142865 ”7m 3. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6108209/Blackburn-Rovers-complete-initial-loan-signing-Nottingham-Forest-striker-Ben-Brereton.html ”with a view to a permenant” 4. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16984616.rovers-have-big-belief-in-brereton-says-ceo-waggott/ “region of 7m” and “budgeted” The main answer on financing, about why and how is below; (from Waggott) “I just asked whether we could flex it between transfer money and wages accordingly, but not breach it. “If someone came along that meant we had to diminish wages to get that player, or vice versa, could we flex it and they said yes.” So there it is. We could afford a bigger transfer fee, because Ben was a cheaper contract. Potentially due of age or no prem experience, or because he wasn’t courted by a team who are immediately able to offer the higher champ wages that went to Swansea’s, Stokes, Forests, Derby's and Leeds attacking signings.

He’s not been out of the first 18 - I accept I’d like to see more but the point of signing potential is giving time to break into that picture, isn’t it? Paying lower prem wages to someone to wait in the same way would be a far more confusing scenario. For instance, we could’ve spent 7m easily on wages, 7m divided by 52 is 132k approx a week, could’ve (very simplistically) got us; No fees, 4x top end champ wage 30k for 1 season. 3.5m in fees and 2x top end champ wage @ 30k a week for 1 season. 3.5m in fees, 4x lower champ/lower division/less experienced players @ 15k a week for one season. If we’ve spent 7m upfront and a high championship wage to sit someone on the bench, I’d agree. The thing is, I don’t think we’d even be able to do that, especially considering total turnover for last season was just above 10 million. Reasonable wage that fits into the structure and payments over time would be my view. So much is assumption till the finances come out. Let’s not forget though, the 7m+ add ons is also an assumption based on conflicting reports - the line from the BBC “The 19-year-old could make his switch to Ewood Park permanent in January for a fee worth up to £7m.” It certainly suits criticism for him to be on Big dollar and a “record” sum. 15m over 4 years:... 4 years wages another 7m? I don’t think he’s on 35k+ a week Blue boy. If he is, then I’d be more than confused/worried - I’d be convinced something dodgy is going on.

Yes it is their mess, but I don’t simply prescribe to the idea that we’d be in a better position now if they’d simply said enough is enough. It might be hard to accept, but like JHR - the only mild positive I can give for the Rao’s is their readiness to pay bills the club can’t cover on it own. Bolton sold their training ground, Portsmouth and Coventry ended up with changing or poor fixed owners and many others including huge city clubs like Manchester United are completely directed by businessmen and commercial income. As you say - the finance is all owed to the parent, not a bank so it’s ultimatley the owners responsibility since even selling our entire squad, capital land and facilities wouldn’t get near to their total loss.

Not sure what I’ve done to the quote function but the point I was making is you casually missed wages - the main reason why we ended up in so much debt, and continue to require funding. The irony of the last sentence, we’d be long since gone if it wasn’t for “share capital”!

They even had to sell their training facilities to pay a tax bill at that time if memory serves.

Any word on Rankin Costello’s return? Been out injured for a long time.

The bold part, in my view, is the biggest line of lies, rubbish, nonsense, that I’ve read on this website for some time. Congratulations

Aspiration and ambition I can understand but expectation isn’t going to change in 3 months, 2 transfers, even a run undefeated. I also cannot agree with, the notion we’ve played largely awful! I cant state that enough. We are marginally away from being a top 6 team. That’s with some limited players and difficult fixtures. Arguably only certain decisions and mistakes away from being in the play offs, as the drop points from winning positions suggests. The master plan for me seems obvious too. Build a young squad with room to improve, add the right players when they become available. Get an identity back, a team with spirit and fight that the town can be proud of. Tony has already largely achieved that - in 18 months. I’m quite sure the legend Bobby Robson would’ve seen the job TM has done and give him the credit you cannot afford him. Good football “people” like Gary and TM are the sole reason we aren’t languishing in the fourth tier or worse after the damage done by those “managers” who could never be described as “proper football men” messers Kean and Coyle. They aren’t dining out on an image, they’re dining out on our clubs money via contract pay outs.

Now after all the “straw-men” of BRFCS - the first paragraph is a pearler. Ofcourse judgement of transfers is fair cop - it should be accompanied with some level of scope though. For instance - it may escape people’s gaze, we are a recently promoted from league 1 team. How many in your list went to teams in the playoffs or just outside from last season? Or how many went to teams recently relegated with bigger wages to play with? I’m not suggesting our business is perfect but I would say many of the preferred options had suitors before us in the pecking order. WBA, Villa, Stoke, Forest, Derby, Swansea, Norwich, Leeds, Bristol City - all arguably better positioned squad wise to be premier league and therefore wages doubled in 12 months. We should know what agents have done to transfers. The simplicity of which a name and a price is given, belies the facts I’ve mentioned about the transfer market also adding in the extreme level of competition to get into the top flight. .

You call me close minded and say I’m only looking at the bad parts of Souness, what are you doing with Mowbray? What is “being successful” in your eyes? Promotion and consolidation at first attempt is a reasonable target isn’t it? Doesnt have faith in youth? Why have Lenihan, Nyambe and Raya all been in his team then? Also - someone with such lack of confidence in young players surely wouldn’t spend their entire budget on Brererton, Armstrong, Davenport etc. Just because you think Travis and Nuttall are ready! Close minded much? Duff was a top level premier league player and Dunn was on his day. Even Brian Laws would’ve had us sweeping teams aside, Berkovic another “top level” player. Souness did a good job but his approach is archaic, Football has well and truly moved on. Google “Souness Dwight Yorke Training”. Chances of Mowbray signing someone then doing that? What you actually want from that promotion season is to be one of the top budgets in the league again, and I’m with you on that.

You said “record signing” which is neither true or relevant hence the point about comparing the cost to other records; Cole (15 years) or Rhodes (5 years). I think it’s stupid to suggest players are poor without giving them more than a handful of appearances, or poor on the basis they’re 19 and behind two others in a squad like Graham and Armstrong - but you’re welcome to your opinion.