RevidgeBlue

100%.

Christ - while that makes sense to a degree, Travis has gone and we haven't actually properly replaced him. When was the last time we exercised an option to buy?

Also if Baradji's arrival is imminent it would tend to indicate the only real reason we couldn't sign him before now is financial and we had to offload Travis first.

Exactly what I was thinking. Don't think people are making enough of this. We're replacing our captain and someone who is the lynchpin of the side with another player who is currently injured. Of course the injury may not turn out to be a problem long term but on the other hand........ Id say he'd have been OK as a punt as an out and out addition to the squad. But if he's seen as the direct Travis replacement it's a massive risk and more barrel scraping of the highest (or lowest) order.

Well done those two guys. EJ floundering like a fish out of water when subjected to any actual scrutiny.

It's a very fair assumption Id say given how transfers are usually structured. Rather than trying to score points off me, Id have thought you might have been more worried about how after several weeks of negotiation we potentially appear to have ended up with a lower initial fee than the one which was originally offered but one which has no doubt been sweetened up with the possibility of increased add ons at the back end.

VI is talking some absolute cobblers there. "We are a little bit closer than the last time you asked me" "But not so close that we can tell you he will be here" "the minute is some light in the tunnel but not completely bright." Strewth - he must want this job badly!

Jackson recycling Club propaganda again - the "up front" fee will only be the £1.2 - £1.5m mentioned elsewhere and as Rudy never tires to remind us, that's only paid in installments anyway. The balance up to the mythical £3m we were supposedly after will only be forthcoming if he hits various add ons.

Great post. Nail, hammer, head.

I think it was reported we were paying £10k p.w. at the time but your point is still perfectly valid, it was ridiculous.

A lot recently. If there is an actual event taking place presumably they'll all be going off elsewhere.

Is it hard back or paperback? Difficult to tell from the photo.

From a purely playing perspective, if we hadn't have needed to spend fees on replacing Brittain/Travis and could therefore have brought in a striker it makes it even more ludicrous that we won't give all these players the going rate to stay in the first place.

Agreed. The guys at the last FF did a sterling job of getting Suhail to reveal his true feelings and put his foot in it in general. "Wasnt aware" Lowe had left." "Spending doesn't guarantee success" "The owners aim for the Club is to be "sustainable" "Never asked the owners if there can be an arrangement to reinvest a percentage of transfer income back into the side" "It was the owners decision to disband the women's team"

This has already been widely discussed on here by our 2 resident experts Wilesden Rover and KentExile and that seems to be their consensus. We're less sure if anyone at the Club is aware of this but they should be by now if they keep tabs on this Forum.

It is insane, without wishing to defend them maybe that batshit crazy policy was imposed to cover situations where we had the windfall sale of a particularly valuable player like Wharton or Szmodics with the thinking being the budget for the following season could be upped slightly. It's a bit different when at least half the starting X1 are just walking out for relatively modest fees. There has at least been some acknowledgement now that we need a RW and replacements for anyone else who leaves albeit we're still waiting and anyone who comes in will probably be a lot cheaper and theoretically inferior.

I dont know so I'm speculating but the way Gestede described it, it sounds like the transfer budget is "X" regardless of whether we make any sales or not. If we do happen to make any sales those funds go back to the owners and are not made available for reinvestment in the side. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever but then what does under this regime?

Underneath the ad for the book another message informing us "Club shop to close early at 12p.m tomorrow for "staff event". Yep celebrate Blackburn Rovers in it's 150th year folks!

It's appears to have gone so quiet on the RW position it's untrue. Indeed the only real link we've had all summer was an out of date one to the Japanese lad. Even for this lot, not having any form of contingency plan for Dolan leaving seems negligent beyond belief. We must have known he was going for months and months.

I can't believe casual staff are expected to pay £15 for parking. What's the point working there for next to nowt? Wonder if we'll at some point this season be the first League Club in the Country not to offer any food or refreshments in the concourse and /or Struggle to fulfill any fixtures due to a lack of stewarding. I wouldn't be surprised given the direction the Club is heading in.

Of all the things you could accuse the Club of "lying" is possibly a bit strong in that context. "Economical with the truth" maybe? I think it's a lot worse that they're dressing up this latest and frankly quite pathetic round of costcutting as an attempt to look after the fans and provide "great value" when I assume the reality is: 2024/25 Blues Membership fee £X p.a. Sky Sports available 2025/26 Blues Membership fee STILL £Xp.a. but no Sky Sports "Great value" indeed.

Good to hear it. Mine were never substantially altered as I recall but there was a strong Burnley influence on the Sports Desk at the time and I think they deliberately edited in some mistakes to make them read badly. Burnley counterpart Stephen Cumming's columns always read perfectly and were mistake free. I was also rebuked by e-mail once off someone on the Sports Desk for cracking an "obtuse reference" to relaxing with a can of 7 up (on a weekend when Burnley had coincidentally lost 7-0) which I took great exception to. They might have actually meant "obscure" but hey ho.

The bit about Travis refusing to play is probably bollux anyway - but If we suspended him for say a month and in the meantime he said he was willing to play again and we refused Id say that would be a fundamental breach on our part entitling Travis to treat his contract as null and void and to walk out for nothing.

If he refused to play, we could simply refuse to pay him. If he has refused to play (which Im not sure I belive anyway ) and we suspended him for a fixed period and then he said he wanted to play again but we said "No you're suspended" we'd be the ones in the wrong.

Thanks. Is there still a membership fee for Blues and is it the same cost as last year?