Speak for yourself. I know that goalkeeper is the key signing. Not that I expect us to sign one.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/january/23/loan-rovers--gent-grabs-first-senior-goal-/ Gent seems to be impressing at Motherwell.

He wouldn't be teaching them how to suicidally pass it around with the defence, so I doubt his services would be desired here.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24070847.blackburn-talks-advance-hope-third-january-transfer/

I dunno what makes them think a 20 yr old League Two CB who has question marks over his defensive ability even at that level should be going for 2 million. I'm not even convinced it's a profile we should be spending 500k on.

Well I think if we're being technical, he's still on loan but signed to a pre-contract for when his deal expires.

That's what it sounds like to me, if it's true. I wouldn't mind that, bringing in an experienced keeper on loan and sending Leo to League One whilst he adjusts to English football. Or abroad, to see if it can tempt buyers or restore his confidence.

It would do the same thing for Brentford it would do for Arsenal - kick the payment down the line. If they're confident in passing FFP in this period without that injection, it makes sense to receive the payment later to shore them up for future FFP cycles. And it probably did also impact the sell on clause and save them a little.

It was definitely reported as for Arsenal's benefit. Although I imagine it benefits Brentford the same way. Just little old Rovers it shafts.

You know that link is probably made up, right?

A draw would be the worst outcome, I'd fancy us to fuck it up away if we can't dispatch them at home, and the last thing an injury-stretched relegation-threatened squad needs is another midweek game.

That much is true and fair enough. Although when needs have musted before, we have played RBs, CMs and AMLs there instead of him. Though with him and Carter out, I still expect they'll be replaced by one CB who can play LB, or vice versa, almost certainly on loan. And one CB that we were already seeking. I can't see JDT putting up with any less than two CBs. He already wanted two, let alone now (Pickering being one of our CB options in emergencies, you could argue we're now up to 4 short of where JDT wanted us to be, but I'm expecting just 2). If money has to come from another area (like any attacking options we were targeting) to make it happen, then I expect it will. We don't have literally zero money by the sounds of it, just very little.

It's a reference to the film Candyman. He does play left back, but it's abundantly clear the staff (and quite a few who watch the U21s apart from yourself) don't think he's ready for the first team yet. We're sinking into a relegation fight. Think we need an LB who is ready. Batty isn't that, we don't know if Chrisene is yet, and Pickering is out for a while.

You're like some kind of Batty-obsessed Candyman. If people mention left-back (just one time though) you appear and suggest Batty.

Absolutely. Only just turned 22, still time to kick on, wages won't be much, contributes (I'd say we've missed him) and I'm certain he would have a market value. The question is whether he should be given a new contract, and that depends on his wage demands as well as how he performs when he comes back into the team.

Extendable.

Just seen Gally's penalty claim...my god that was blatant! The big giveaway is when the player behind tumbles to the ground as well, it can only mean he has collided. Shocking decision.

I fully expected to see us bottom of that table, but what I find additionally concerning is that apart from the Bristol (14th) win over a month ago, all our points in these 10 games came at home against the other 2 teams with the next worst form. We really are easy pickings at the moment.

No I wouldn't say it is. The owners are shit. They fucked up again. If the manager fails, he was ultimately appointed by the owners and those hired by the owners. If the players aren't good enough, they're the ones the owners signed off on, people the owners appointed scouted and selected, and the owners haven't provided the funding to recruit the better ones we need (or even the numbers, really). It's entirely congruous to blame all parties, as long as the acknowledgement is made that the owners are the ultimate responsible party for this clusterfuck. But no it's not a contradiction to see more than one party has flaws, it's just looking at the full picture. I'd argue JDT is less culpable for his failings due to the lack of support in the transfer market of course. His champagne style is being completely undermined - but he has also lacked the tactical acumen to shore up the side of late by using a different style. Today might have been the first shoots of addressing that, even though it only yielded a point. But the other point you make (no coach could work under this restrictions, but JDT should go) is a bit of a contradiction, not entirely though. For example, it could be someone thinks no manager can bring proper success working under this, but there may be another manager who could achieve better results (ie 12th place rather than what's turning into a relegation fight). Especially since there are signs the players' and manager's heads have dropped. Oftentimes a change sparks a honeymoon period which might at least be enough to make sure we stay up. I'm not advocating that yet, but one can make the argument without it being a contradiction. It's a contradiction if you think the whole reason JDT isn't succeeding is the owners, yet want him to go, but not if you see other issues with him whereby you think another manager could do better (but still not get in the playoffs) under this wanktacular regime.

Let you? I can't exactly stop you. There's nothing wrong with a positive mindset, but a balanced one is better.

Ahhh, the ever reliable positivity train trundles into the station.

No, he said what I already said that he said. I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it though, you've clearly forgotten.

Those actually aren't contradictions, all three can simultaneously be true. Ultimately if the manager and/or players aren't good enough, that all boils down to Venkys.

Give over, he said a lot more than that he turned down strikers on loan. He made claims the owners wanted to spend and they had to be reined in. A couple of times he said there was money left in the kitty but they hadn't seen fit to spend it. Whether he was lying or not is up for debate, or if our whimsical owners changed their minds, but it's hardly a 'nonsensical rumour', it's something the manager repeatedly claimed.

It was Mowbray himself who said he didn't spend money available to him. Repeatedly. Whether it's true or not I think it's fair to criticise him on the basis of something he himself claimed.