Date: 16th November 2009 at 6:03pm
Written by:

Blackburn Rovers’ desire to keep hold of Franco Di Santo isn’t exactly a secret is it, however, merely extending Di Santo’s loan might not be all we try to do??

It’s understood that Rovers’ intentions for the Argentine striker go beyond the end of the year and even beyond the end of the season?! Di Santo is scheduled to return to Stamford Bridge in January, however, Di Santo has himself said that he’d prefer to stay at Ewood Park if he isn’t going to be given an extended run with Chelsea (and not just used during the African Cup of Nations). The idea of extending the striker’s loan until the end of the season is understood to be something that negotiations will discuss (starting next month) but the possibility of signing the 20-year-old permanently at the end of the season is also something that could happen?? The Lancashire Evening Telegraph is reporting this, however, they also understand that this option isn’t going to be explored at all until the end of the season but extending the loan is something that Rovers are very much hopeful of.

Personally I think that Di Santo has a superb future ahead of him but I can’t see him getting into the Chelsea side regularly, particularly this season so if we can extend the loan until the end of the season who knows what might happen as players do become accustomed to playing regular first time football and if we continue to offer that to Di Santo who knows what the future might bring??


For information on how to join the VBer Fantasy Football Mini League Click Here.


13 Replies to “Rovers Seeking Di Santo Extension”

  • I know it’s not exactly new news, but if the LET is right then we’re showing our first indication that we could try and keep the dude!! I’d settle for extending the loan first though.

  • If the guy isnt gonna score i say let him go back to let our own strikers into the sqaud. Yes he may have a huge FUTURE ahead of him buty at the present time if he doesnt start baggin goals he can go back

  • He has been a good addition for sure! I think from a realist point of view he may well stay here till May but we wont sign him permanently!

  • Id sign him if we could… but you know in 5 years time one of the big boys will come in for him… and i wouldnt be supprised if there isnt a “buy back price” included in the deal if it goes ahead…

  • We need goals, FDS is not at the level at the moment to get us those goals. In a few years, yes, but we need goals like….um…now?

  • Signing Di Santo means we’ll have to jettison someone else. Anyone can drop the players who aren’t up to snuff. I want to see John and Sam sell high and buy low. If Diouf and Andrews can show some form in the next 2 months, I wouldn’t mind seeing them off in January.

  • Solcal… you make no sense in that… id diouf and andrews show form? why the hell would we want so sell our inform players?????? sell the likes of pedersen? who are way off form?

  • I think socal means that if the players who wont be so good in the long run show a run of form they will be worth more by the time Jan rolls around and we can sell them for more!

  • Mikey gets it. There are two sides to the issue. First, who buys bad players who are out of form (except Portsmouth)? No one with any money to spend. Second, if it looks like we’ll steer safely clear of relegation, why not focus on players that will be our future? As much as I love an in-form MGP, if he’s blocking the path of Hoillett, then maybe he needs to go. If Andrews is keeping Van Heerden and Nzonzi off the pitch, then he too needs to go. I wouldn’t make the same argument for Samba/Nelson/Givet holding back Jones because those three are productive starters whereas the aforementioned Pederson and Andrews haven’t been. This season is obviously not built around a title run. Our goals are to do well in the cups and finish mid-table. If we can do this while developing the future talent of our club then that would be the best case scenario.

Your Comment