I personally wouldn't go for Obafemi for similar reasons ie he is unproven but we need a senior replacement for when Armstrong goes, we cannot expect a kid who has never played senior football to suddenly come in. His best bet would be a loan spell. We cannot avoid signings for fear of blocking unproven kids, by all means give them chances where appropriate but as well as having that senior experience. If they are pushing enough they will/should get game time regardless.

No way is it purely down to the manager. The embargo for example was unavoidable incompetence above his head. We have also seen this time and time again in summers, everything is so slow because of them, our transfer business is always slow, they usually insist on the manager coming over to beg pre-covid, the embargo is a second one within their ownership, they dont work in a logical way. Mowbray needs sacking but Venkys are the ones to blame, that should never be forgotten and how anyone defends them, I have no idea.

28 goals is right up with the very best tallies at this level to be fair but I don't see even without Elliott why he wouldn't score plenty of goals still, he scored plenty in the second half of the season before without Elliott once he was moved central and I don't foresee the goals drying up, I think he is a goalscorer who will score at this level regardless. That being said, letting him go on a free would be crazy, unfortunately he would be stupid to sign a new deal so we need to sell him as soon as possible. Some absolutely crazy shouts there, Alioski and Bruma are crazily unrealistic, as are Wilshire and Carroll who like Wickham spend 90% of their time on the injury table. From the rest, Stiepermann I suspect may well have better offers so may himself be unrealistic but he played an important role in the first promotion that Norwich achieved in his time there, a really tall and unorthodox attacking midfielder but one who proved very effective in behind Pukki. Moritz Leitner is a deeper lying central midfielder who has also been released by Norwich and I would probably take both if they were realistic. Ribeiro I think is going back to play in Portugal and Reach has been covered but seems to be a target that we have allowed to slip away.

The point about him keeping us up is a valid one, I can't see us surviving really without him, or it will at least be a huge struggle and a dog fight with a team full of kids. But would you loan a player of Armstrongs ability for 15m? As good as he is, surely that isnt economically viable.

I am not convinced about Reach to be honest, there are pros and cons, he does have ability, he can chip in with goals, and he is of a good age to bring some experience, although he is very inconsistent and his attitude especially in a relegation season (ducking out of challenges) really irked Wednesday fans from what I have seen, so perhaps not necessarily what we need ahead of our own battle. Seems like typical dallying will see him go elsewhere though. This is far from the first time that everything from the owners seems to have totally ground to a halt. I can understand working on a small budget or even selling key players, reinvesting some of the proceeds and even keeping some of that amount to offset losses, working to a strategy and proactively. This current shambles, its unforgivable. The result yesterday like al friendlies is fairly immaterial. The team that we put out very much wasn't, it was our strongest possible team with zero senior alternatives. The defence is continuously creaky with Ayala very much the elephant in the room, the midfield 3 would have had any of the 23 other Championship managers licking its lips at how soft and ineffective it is, and our goal threat was totally focused on one (almost certainly soon to depart) player. All the subs are kids. And then you look at the players that we are without, would they make a difference? Rankin Costello and Dolan themselves are kids yet to fully establish themselves. Wharton had a few good games, wont be fit any time soon and himself is not fully established. Neither Brereton or Gallagher have themselves fully convinced, plus the former in particular is very much in the earlier stages of his career. Dack is obviously a write off sadly for the foreseeable, so it just leaves Johnson who would provide experience and character but isn't up to it from a footballing perspective anymore, and Travis, I hope his injury isnt serious, radio silence on that, but again you are looking at a 23 year old to lead. Presumably the most likely type of signing will be young kids, even if they are improvements on what we have like Elliott and Harwood Bellis were, its not only risky but the landscape of our squad has changed, we are dying for know how and experience. Plus any quality frees have surely been snapped up, players like Mowatt and Marcondes were unrealistic, but others such as Vrancic, Woods, Matty James, they have been snapped up now.

There should be no reason or excuse even surrounding Armstrong in regards to freeing up funds for other positions, assuming that it is accepted that those signings need to be free transfers and loanees. We have cut a huge chunk from the wage bill, with senior players such as Holtby, Mulgrew, Evans, Bennett, Downing and Bell all released, as well as Douglas leaving. Even if we brought in 2 or 3 freebies and 2 or 3 loanees we could do so at a fraction of the amount that we have saved. The Armstrong deal could then be independent to that, we could have a list of replacements should he leave with the profit surplus helping the costs, a chunk ideally saved for the future but ensuring that the whole summer window is not waiting for that one sale as otherwise we are in an increibly weak position. Sadly we arent run like an efficient club, hence the unnecessary embargo, random turning off of the taps, incompetent manager and idiotic CEO all still very much present. I think that the Armstrong sale will either go until the last week of the window, leaving no chance for a replacement with people lapping up how the likes of Brereton, Gallagher and the kids can fill the void, or indeed we keep him and let him go for free out of stubbornness/stupidity.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/15683242/watford-adam-armstrong-blackburn-premier-league/amp/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunfootballtwitter&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true Same story as last week. The Armstrong saga could do with concluding sooner rather than later but its no excuse not to use the free agent market in particular. This squad without Armstrong is a relegation one quite possibly. As if a 30k a week conribution for Gray is realistic.

A lot of assumptions have been made, players either to return from injury, those who already have, returning loanees, emerging kids or players who can be moved from different positions, of players being of the required quality. Brereton, Gallagher, Chapman, Rankin Costello, Dolan, Chapman, Butterworth, McBride, Vale, I keep hearing that we have plenty of options there, same as in midfield to a lesser extent with Buckley and Davenport. Of all the players mentioned, how many are fully established and proven? So many ifs, buts and maybes, I don't even agree with the idea that we need players in for depth, our first team isn't particularly great.

It would be true to suggest that the likes of Holtby, Evans and Downing all were not players who would have given us value for money and therefore it was correct to let them all go. That being said, especially the first 2 would have walked into that side today ahead of the likes of Davenport and Buckley based on current ability. People are seemingly expecting breakthrough seasons from both based solely on their age rather than any justified signs in the first team. Same with Butterworth in attack, he needs loaning out really.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2021/july/Minutes-in-the-tank/ “We know we’re a bit short due to injuries at the moment." Well, that and not replacing any of a full team of outgoings.

I presume that in Mowbrays absence, that there will ne no questions aimed at Venus in regards to how urgent they see the fact that we barely have any senior players?

Just watching QPR who have been very proactive in the transfer market and seem to be tipped as a dark horse this season, they are absolutely battering an under strength United side.

Stefan Johansen currently being unveiled to the QPR fans.

The subs bench named for a game 2 weeks before the start of the season is frightening. The starting 11 contains 3 or 4 who are yet to establish themselves also. Mowbray needing to isolate will presumably ensure that it is difficult to get anyone in before Swansea, with a nice excuse to go with it.

It is always a sign of an absence of a constructive response when a poster implies that someone is merely being negative, even if the point put before them is something that has happened time and time again in the last 10 years. Why would anyones default response still be to give the owners or even Waggott or Mowbray the benefit of the doubt?!

As you say, not many cash transfers anymore, teams seem to be more aggressive in letting players go on frees and ultimately the free agent market is possibly the most important of all at the moment. It requires proactivity to master.

This summer was one whereby due to circumstances including expiry of contracts, a good manager, proactive CEO and perhaps most importantly an interested set of owners could have streamlined and improved the squad even without needing to spend on fees, reducing the wage bill in the process. You look at the players who we have lost and we are undoubtedly so much weaker without them as things stand. At centre back, Harwood Bellis and Branthwaite have gone back and Williams and Mulgrew have left. We could probably get away with signing only 1 centre back, making a saving. Yet to happen. At left back, we have lost Bell and Douglas. Pickering has now joined up with the squad so we need one more in, but with scope to again make a wage saving in this position. No left back as of yet. In midfield, we have seen Trybull, Bennett, Downing, Holtby and Evans all depart. We should have released Johnson too. We are undoubtedly far weaker without them but none individually are huge losses. I would say we could even get away with signing 2 midfielders, making a considerable saving on wages. Nothing yet. Elliott is a huge loss and he needs significantly replacing, as would Armstrong of course, probably with 2 attacking players. Its just piss poor all round.

The wage bill for the 20/21 season wont be out until the 2021 accounts are published. I suspect that the wage bill will have slightly increased when we brought in Ayala, Kaminski and Douglas in particular (Trybull was a heavily sponsored loan according to the LT, the other loanees are kids but unsure on finances and I doubt that Pears, Dolan and Stergiakis will be on much) but looking at wages to revenue in 2021, it will be the revenue massively decreasing due to Covid that causes a huge increase in that particular ratio.

Very good question. Whilst attendances are uncapped, surely it is not in the clubs best interest to in anyway discourage getting people into stadiums?

Many transfers at this level are frees and loans so it doesn't have to become a critical blow to rely on those markets, but we dont have the proactivity from the owners down to be efficient and get the best. The season is 2 weeks away, beyond pathetic.

As expected, Johansen is going to QPR.

I understand the financial side but I don't see how the next 18 months becomes an irrelevance as to whether Mowbray is here or not, it is as crucial as ever to replace him ASAP either way.

Is that figure not from the season before, ie the accounts up until 2020? And it will be mainly caused by a decrease in revenue rather than a sharp increase surely? But either way, I dont at all understand the lack of importance placed on 2 of every 3 years within the FFP cycle.

Even if we assume that there is truth in the theories that the plan was to sell Dack and reinvest, and also that the strategy is for 2 years of spending low and one of spending more, which I am unsure of as our net spend last summer was the lowest of all 3 years wasnt it? I do not get that statement in bold at all. It implies that the other 2 years within these 3 year cycles are an irrelevance. Firstly, with poor management and no money, a new manger may be needed simply to keep us in the division. A lower spend doesn't remove any prospect of promotion within those other 2 years either, and even if it did, the point of those 2 years would surely be to build towards year 3 with player development, recruitment etc, in which case surely a new manager would be just as important in the first 2 years as in year 3?

I do think that sacking him 3 years ago following promotion was unthinkable and even 2 years ago would have been incredibly harsh.