He did what we paid for. Like I said, he delivered a bit above it, but still. You shouldn't award players big increases in pay, which I'm sure it is, every time they have a good or great season. Because you can't reduce their pay when they don't. I don't feel Dack will disappoint in this league, but I wouldn't as he just had a great season in a lower one. Crazier things have happened. New deals should come with extra security for the club, ie another year. I disagree about Smallwood and Williams actually too. Both had one year left on their deals, and are at the very least, good enough squad players for this level. Wouldn't like to lose either for free next year. I can see the argument that it may increase a fee we could get, and deter bidders. That is how the psychology of the market works. Just feel the psychology is a bit flawed as, in real terms, we have the same length of contract as before and that is where the security lies. A bidding club may even wonder why it isn't longer and wonder if he isn't committed and just wanted more money while he waits for a bigger club. I do think it should make Dack a bit less likely to push though, hopefully. Just wonder whether it is worth that, on balance. Guess it depends on the wages and terms we are talking, which as you say, we will never see. I'm relieved though, in the sense that, because the club said ages ago they were giving him a new deal, if he hadn't signed it then it would have been very worrying. I just don't think many people would have insisted we needed a new contract for a player with three years left if we hadn't trumpeted it.

Or more likely given apparent financial constraints, enough of a loss in budget that we don't have the money for any bigger players. If I felt I could take it as a sign of intent that we had a very healthy budget, I'd be delighted (but still questioning why it isn't 4 years), but I just can't bring myself to think that. I do think we have a little to spend, more than some do, but nothing mind blowing and this can only reduce it.

Oh you definitely get flak for having an opinion around here! Perhaps not from you though Biz, and I appreciate that.

I'm sure people won't be happy with me for saying it, and I will be in a minority, but I'm actually not happy about Dack signing this new contract. Or at best, I'm ambivalent. 3 years is the same period we had him tied down for already. This doesn't really achieve more security (it will make the player a bit happier but that's the extent of the extra security). Even with him being happier, if a bigger club comes in offering more, he'd be off like they all would. There were also zero rumours, that I've heard, this summer about a move, only last Jan. We didn't 'owe' him a new deal just a year after the last. He got us out of League One, but we got him out of it too. On the pitch, he delivered more than we expected, but not tons more. We bought him as a marquee signing and I'm sure his wage and promotion wage rise matched that. To my mind, all we have done is given away more money on what may be quite a strained budget, raised the club's wage structure which may affect other signings and renewals in future, and made Dack a bit happier so he possibly doesn't leave (lad seemed pretty happy anyway though). The only other possible plus I see is if we are planning to sign someone on a bigger wage, it will be too late for Dack to moan about it. I know I will attract flak for this though. I'm not one of the doom and gloom brigade at all btw, for anyone who hasn't realised.

We won't be signing a central midfielder of any sort I shouldn't think. We have signed two already. One of them is the sort to drive forward with the ball. Buying more isn't happening. We are well stocked with centre mids. Priority is widely known to be wingers, or strikers who can play as wingers a la Armstrong, and, as you say, strikers. After that, we are more likely to add a centre half or goalie than we are to add another centre mid, based on noises from the club.

Ah fair enough. Don't like that one any more though. But if it's normally white then yeh, why not the navy blue which looks better. Maybe once they saw how much the black stood out, they insisted to our detriment.

True (although not quite everyone wants him, I certainly do though at the right price). Although you could also point to 3 goals and 4 assists in that time despite only 4 starts. I think a fair part of it though is we could actually own Chapman, likely cheaply. Kent...not so much. So any development of Chapman we do, we can benefit from.

Which is why the sponsor would never agree to change their logo colour for us! They will want to be seen. They'll be seen on less shirts in Blackburn with that though. Maybe this is all a tactical masterplan. Some of the dumber opposition players may constantly think they're marking our number 10! Which aside from sowing confusion, it will be psychologically unsettling to think that Danny Graham is eveywhere at once.

Your avatar's shirt has a two-toned collar by the way That one was one of our best home shirts too. This, however, is the ugliest home shirt I can remember. It's mostly the sponsor, but I feel like it would look better with the darker blue. I could live with the light blue, as a historical callback, possibly I could live with the sponsor, but the two together just doesn't work. Unless this one grows on me a lot, I think I will skip the home shirt this year. Wish we weren't burdened with this sponsor for three years...the money better be good!

Ok, fair enough. I'm surprised then, that you seem fairly set against a player you've never seen. I'm sure this is something you've criticised other people for before. Would you not agree that his record over 3 seasons in League One, which has been very consistent (something like 8-10 goals every season, and I think it was about 13-18 assists every season) suggests that at 24 he is very well placed to make the step up? Your stance on him confuses me, especially since I've hardly ever seen you act as if you're against signing any player that gets mooted, let alone one with a very promising record who you haven't seen. So for clarity, would you actually be against signing him, assuming Kent wasn't an option? Or do you just seem to be against him because you'd rather have Kent? Just trying to establish what your position is on him.

That's depressing

No 'evidence', no. The only reasons he is being discussed so much is because the Peterborough chairman is answering questions about him from fans of every single club except ours (and we know the clubs likes to keep its business under wraps these days), and because whoever is in for him is trying to pay in installments, which sounds like us.

Chaddy. Do you honestly feel that Kent is a better player than Maddison, at this point in time, taking money completely out of the equation? Please don't rehash why you rate Kent, I've seen every single point you've made about him. If you have something new to add, feel free, but otherwise I'm just asking for a yes or no answer. I'm also curious if there is a reason you don't rate Maddison, apart from that he hasn't played in the Championship? Again, without considering the finances at all, and without comparing to Kent (let's assume Kent went elsewhere). Also, have you seen much of him? I will freely admit myself I haven't seen him, or if I did I don't remember.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2 For those wondering what business other clubs have done, this is a pretty comprehensive list. Surprising amount of clubs that haven't spent anything, at a glance, although where a fee was undisclosed they are counting it as 0. Ours says no expenditure too, but we have spent somewhere from 800k - 1 mill we believe.

Ahhh, that might explain why they think 2 million for Bauer is fair! Who was that then?

A Fleetwood supporter I work with isn't remotely flattering about Cole, so I hope not. Those who said their Liverpool supporting friends speak well of Kent, have those friends watched him regularly on loan? Do they watch the youth team? Genuine question.

Well after I posted it I saw I had a warning for my original post! Honestly wonder why I bother here sometimes.

I'm sorry Chaddy, I don't know you so I don't consider it 'personal'. It's not like I said you're ugly or something. But it is seriously frustrating, when probably about 10% of this thread is you, to continually see you ignore, misunderstand, misquote, or take the wrong way the comments of umpteen different posters. As well as seeing you repeat the same thing a ton of times. People have repeatedly tried to point all of this out - some politely, some impolitely - and yet you just don't seem to digest it. I'm sorry but it gets very frustrating to read. And I don't want to feel like I shouldn't read anything you post, as you do post decent stuff sometimes. You're clearly a very passionate Rovers fan who watches a lot of football, knows about a lot of non-Rovers players, and keeps an ear to the ground for rumours. I just wish you'd comprehend what people are saying better. Maybe try posting less, but reading and thinking more. If you want to take that personally, that's up to you. But I'm not here to pick fights, just getting tired and frustrated from seeing the same patterns all the time.

You do know you can't use 'Nixon reported it' as your justification that Nixon reporting it was accurate, right?

You can tell, saw him laughing all the way to the bank!

No worries, I'm not here to pick fights with fellow fans! I think with Bauer it is simply that our valuations are miles apart. I doubt we will pay anything like 2 million for him because it's not the best allocation of it unless our total remaining budget for fees is upwards of 6 million (which is highly unlikely) in my view. Any big spend should go on a winger, followed by a striker. I'm sure the first LT article on Bauer said he was valued at 500k. Whether that was by us, Charlton, Bauer's agent, or some other source, if that's what you think a player will cost, 300k is a fair opening gambit. Clearly, to our surprise the game changed completely and we have either abandoned it, or (given the LT is still talking about it) we are focussing on other business before re-assessing what we can and will pay.

If, in theory, we had 2.5 million to spend on a player in a position we really need to strengthen, it doesn't mean we have an EXTRA 2 million to spend on a central defender with 12 months on their deal. There's two things at play there. Prioritising - if our budget was say, 3.5 million, you can't buy both and the other players we need, but you could probably get one and fill the other positions acceptably. Also, value for money. We might feel one just about represents it, and the other doesn't at all, for the prices asked. Spending 2.5 mill on one player wouldn't mean we can spend that on everyone.

Why? Just because they've valued him irrationally high? I wonder if a League One CH has ever moved for 2 million, let alone with 12 months left on their deal. Indications around the time our interest was first reported suggested to me that Charlton hugely upped their price suddenly. Just the impression I got reading between the lines.

I feel there is a difference between being priced out of the market at 2 million for any player, and not being willing to pay 2 million for a League One centre half with 12 months left on their deal.

Mission accomplished there.