Thursday deadline.

[Bigdoggsteel]

How have Nottingham forest managed to just spend 13 million on a midfielder? Are they rolling the dice 

I reckon we should have 2-3 in by the end of next week. 

Did any of you watch the show last year that follows wilder, the Sheffield utd manager, during the window? It's bonkers. I don't think some fans realize just how difficult it is to sign players. So much stuff going on with agents, players saying one thing, then doing another. As Mowbray said, the thing is getting players to sign on the dotted line. 

 

[Leonard Venkhater]

29 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Are folk from Ormskirk Scouse these days? ?

It certainly seems so- in the last 20 years anyway.

My nephews are from Ormskirk and...talk like dat, don't de doh...

[JHRover]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

How have Nottingham forest managed to just spend 13 million on a midfielder? Are they rolling the dice 

I reckon we should have 2-3 in by the end of next week. 

Did any of you watch the show last year that follows wilder, the Sheffield utd manager, during the window? It's bonkers. I don't think some fans realize just how difficult it is to sign players. So much stuff going on with agents, players saying one thing, then doing another. As Mowbray said, the thing is getting players to sign on the dotted line. 

 

Because FFP is nonsense and they know it, and also because their owner wants to get promoted. Just like Wolves, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and all the others, none of whom have been sanctioned despite tens of millions spent.

No doubt some will say 'but poor Rovers only get small crowds and they get bigger crowds than us' as though an extra 5,000 a week turning up in the Championship equates to that sort of money.

The only ones incessantly bleating about FFP are those who want to hide behind it and not spend.

[Mattyblue]

Just now, Leonard Venkhater said:

It certainly seems so- in the last 20 years anyway.

My nephews are from Ormskirk and...talk like dat, don't de doh...

Been a big influx from the city of Liverpool into the surrounding areas in recent times.

Southport’s another example.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JHRover said:

Because FFP is nonsense and they know it, and also because their owner wants to get promoted. Just like Wolves, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and all the others, none of whom have been sanctioned despite tens of millions spent.

No doubt some will say 'but poor Rovers only get small crowds and they get bigger crowds than us' as though an extra 5,000 a week turning up in the Championship equates to that sort of money.

The only ones incessantly bleating about FFP are those who want to hide behind it and not spend.

You make some fair points, but the reality is, that for whatever reason, we did get hit with restrictions. As you say though, I don't see how having a few extra thousand going to games makes up the difference between us and the teams you mention. 

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, Mattyblue said:

Been a big influx from the city of Liverpool into the surrounding areas in recent times.

Southport’s another example.

Winsford in Cheshire too...but we digress. You know  the process  for the LT getting articles from famous ex Rovers like Mr Ormskirk.

Someone just phones said ex player. They have a bit of a chat..and that becomes an article.... on a no news day.

 

[G Somerset Rover]

Shows just what we're up against when one of the expected-to-be poorer teams in the division shell out £13m on a player.

Our pot really does need to be more extensive than a couple of million or we're in for a dogfight. Of course Sheff Utd/Milwall etc. have shown it doesn't need to be big bucks, but Mowbray needs some firm financial backing, which hopefully he's got.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Gavlar Somerset Rover!

[RoverCanada]

6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Because FFP is nonsense and they know it, and also because their owner wants to get promoted. Just like Wolves, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and all the others, none of whom have been sanctioned despite tens of millions spent.

No doubt some will say 'but poor Rovers only get small crowds and they get bigger crowds than us' as though an extra 5,000 a week turning up in the Championship equates to that sort of money.

The only ones incessantly bleating about FFP are those who want to hide behind it and not spend.

Setting aside what clubs have or haven't flouted FFP, out of curiosity, are you advocating for Venky's/Rovers to incur, say, £20m+ losses again, under the assumption that FFP is unenforceable/if we get promoted it doesn't matter/the resulting fines will be pithy?

The latter may be true to an extent, but it is certainly a gamble... While the likes of QPR (still in the courts...), Bournemouth, maybe Wolves this past year, etc. have escaped with relatively light FFP sanctions, there have been quite a few transfer embargoes of varying severity (us, Bolton, Cardiff, Nottingham, Fulham). I think some can be a bit brazen in their hand-waving of FFP restrictions.

(And the clubs you cite do have base turnovers of £25m+ compared to ~£15m for us, so even many non-parachute payment receiving clubs have a significant leg up on us)

[K-Hod]

In fairness to Forest, they had an embargo along with Leeds around the time we did.

I honestly expect the powers that be to give up on FFP, given how many teams have admitted to blatantly ignoring it.

[JBiz]

36 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Because FFP is nonsense and they know it, and also because their owner wants to get promoted. Just like Wolves, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and all the others, none of whom have been sanctioned despite tens of millions spent.

No doubt some will say 'but poor Rovers only get small crowds and they get bigger crowds than us' as though an extra 5,000 a week turning up in the Championship equates to that sort of money.

The only ones incessantly bleating about FFP are those who want to hide behind it and not spend.

What have you done with the real JHR? 

[unsall]

3 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

You would like to think that something might be in place for being announced tomorrow with the season ticket deadline coming up.

Looks doubtful though!

Hope you’re right,believe TM away on holiday again next week,be nice to get a signing in before deadline for early bird.

[JHRover]

11 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

Setting aside what clubs have or haven't flouted FFP, out of curiosity, are you advocating for Venky's/Rovers to incur, say, £20m+ losses again, under the assumption that FFP is unenforceable/if we get promoted it doesn't matter/the resulting fines will be pithy?

The latter may be true to an extent, but it is certainly a gamble... While the likes of QPR (still in the courts...), Bournemouth, maybe Wolves this past year, etc. have escaped with relatively light FFP sanctions, there have been quite a few transfer embargoes of varying severity (us, Bolton, Cardiff, Nottingham, Fulham). I think some can be a bit brazen in their hand-waving of FFP restrictions.

(And the clubs you cite do have base turnovers of £25m+ compared to ~£15m for us, so even many non-parachute payment receiving clubs have a significant leg up on us)

I'm advocating that we stop incessantly banging on about FFP rules as a club when another club (not in receipt of parachute money) is on the verge of spending £13 million on one player.

'If we get promoted it doesn't matter' is another myth - there's no evidence of any club being sanctioned even if they miss out - Villa are rumoured to be in trouble but lets see if anything actually happens.

Bolton were sanctioned because they failed to produce their accounts because they were going bust - not because they overspent or were found guilty of overspending

Cardiff and Fulham had embargoes that lasted a matter of weeks/only impacted on one transfer window and both have since won promotion so it clearly didn't do them much harm.

The only others were ourselves, Leeds and Forest, one of which is spending 8 figure sums on players so they clearly haven't learnt much of a lesson from it.

The extra revenue that the likes of Forest may have over us does not account for them spending £13 million on one player whilst we deal in loans and frees. Chuck in their January business and other signings this summer and I reckon they'll be pushing £20 million before wages are factored in.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, unsall said:

Hope you’re right,believe TM away on holiday again next week,be nice to get a signing in before deadline for early bird.

Are people really holding off on buying a season ticket until someone signs? 

Genuine question 

[unsall]

47 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Because FFP is nonsense and they know it, and also because their owner wants to get promoted. Just like Wolves, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and all the others, none of whom have been sanctioned despite tens of millions spent.

No doubt some will say 'but poor Rovers only get small crowds and they get bigger crowds than us' as though an extra 5,000 a week turning up in the Championship equates to that sort of money.

The only ones incessantly bleating about FFP are those who want to hide behind it and not spend.

But Rovers Leeds,Forest have had embargo’s already,very complicated ffp,it’s a gamble to throw big money and not get promoted as Villa are finding out,

[unsall]

6 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Are people really holding off on buying a season ticket until someone signs? 

Genuine question 

No I don’t think so,just might make someone’s mind up who thinking of getting a season ticket,to get in and save a few quid,before the deadline.

[gumboots]

Increases the feelgood factor which is important. A decent signing might push one or 2 who are wondering whether to buy or not 

[davulsukur]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

How have Nottingham forest managed to just spend 13 million on a midfielder? Are they rolling the dice?

Their owner is  (allegedly) proper dodgey. No doubts he's seen Wolves go up last season and now has got Mendes on board to do the same for Forest.

Seems unlikely that he'll be spending his own cash (although i have no idea of his wealth).

If it works, FFP might as well be officially scrapped as this is just a blatant mockery of it. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, davulsukur said:

Their owner is  (allegedly) proper dodgey. No doubts he's seen Wolves go up last season and now has got Mendes on board to do the same for Forest.

Seems unlikely that he'll be spending his own cash (although i have no idea of his wealth).

If it works, FFP might as well be officially scrapped as this is just a blatant mockery of it. 

I have read about him actually,  so edited the above.

Ya, the Leeds owner has basically said they will do similar. Going to be a roller coaster season  

[Pedro]

21 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I'm advocating that we stop incessantly banging on about FFP rules as a club when another club (not in receipt of parachute money) is on the verge of spending £13 million on one player.

'If we get promoted it doesn't matter' is another myth - there's no evidence of any club being sanctioned even if they miss out - Villa are rumoured to be in trouble but lets see if anything actually happens.

Bolton were sanctioned because they failed to produce their accounts because they were going bust - not because they overspent or were found guilty of overspending

Cardiff and Fulham had embargoes that lasted a matter of weeks/only impacted on one transfer window and both have since won promotion so it clearly didn't do them much harm.

The only others were ourselves, Leeds and Forest, one of which is spending 8 figure sums on players so they clearly haven't learnt much of a lesson from it.

The extra revenue that the likes of Forest may have over us does not account for them spending £13 million on one player whilst we deal in loans and frees. Chuck in their January business and other signings this summer and I reckon they'll be pushing £20 million before wages are factored in.

What was the massive fine QPR got? Was that FFP?

[JHRover]

Just now, Pedro said:

What was the massive fine QPR got? Was that FFP?

Pretty sure QPR haven't paid a penny as yet. They were given a fine because they broke the rules and won promotion, only they refused to pay up and have since been in a multi-year long legal battle. When they do have to pay up we can be sure it will be considerably less than the £40 million it could have been.

[chaddyrovers]

20 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

 

How can you make a judgment on the PNE players if "you don't know much about them" ?   Nonsensical.

Nothing  negative except we've re-signed 2 old codgers who are likely to struggle next year. 

 

Graham Burke? didn't cut it at Villa. 

the other 2 signings aren't great and shows the PNE policy. 

don't see them improving the PNE 1st 11 but squad players next season for them

20 hours ago, islander200 said:

Would be seriously dissapointed if we are the club.He really isn't good enough 

fair enough. expect him to join Rotherham 

20 hours ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

Time to get Dack and Lenihan tied down, then get on with some real business.

both should be given 4 years contract

19 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

“Where you spend the money in your team is important. Who’s the really talented free transfer who might be touching 30"

Looks like theres potential for disagreement between yourself and Mowbray...

Anyway regarding Conway, really disappointing to see him given a new deal. His legs have gone and hes too old to contribute anymore.

Only 3 things I can possibly put anyone putting a positive spin on the move down to; an ignorance to his performances last year (perhaps not seeing him that often live), a reluctance to be negative about someone whose been a very good servant, or a reluctance to be negative about any decisions made by the manager.

His first 2 and a half seasons, he was excellent, he did have Gestede to aim for during alot of that, and he was never fast, but he had enough in his legs to get that yard, often cutting back, and his assist tally was competitive with the best in the division.

He did have spells of decline during his last 2 Championship seasons, he had times in both seasons where he wasnt in the team, and last season, importantly against far inferior players, his attacking output was almost zero. And him being a good character/influence is not a reason to give him a new deal alone, we needed to be ruthless, Mowbray needed to be ruthless and I dont feel he has been.

Sadly, not only is he taking a space up in the squad and a wage (however big or small )up that could have gone to someone external capable of having an impact, but we now also risk having a good servant to the club becoming that player who people dont want to see on the team sheet for another 1 or even 2 years.

 

what disagreement? I used Mowbray previous comments about the age bracket he was looking at. That's what I used to suggestion some possible signings. 

I amazed that you are really disappointed Conway got a new deal. 

Here is Mowbray's reasons for keeping him and his role for next season(similar to my opinion of his role). http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16290061.Tony_Mowbray_on_why_Craig_Conway_was_offered_new_Rovers_deal/?ref=mac

You 3 reasons are laughable as I've seen Conway played lots last season, the other 2 reasons are just bizarre. 

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

How have Nottingham forest managed to just spend 13 million on a midfielder? Are they rolling the dice 

I reckon we should have 2-3 in by the end of next week. 

Did any of you watch the show last year that follows wilder, the Sheffield utd manager, during the window? It's bonkers. I don't think some fans realize just how difficult it is to sign players. So much stuff going on with agents, players saying one thing, then doing another. As Mowbray said, the thing is getting players to sign on the dotted line. 

 

Yes I did watch that TV show. it is very bonkers and so much going on. 

I don't see Forest challenging for top 6 this season anyway. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

If Conway is a regular starter next season I'll eat my hat.

[Bigdoggsteel]

A few accounts on twitter saying we are trying hard for Jack Wilshire. 

Welcome to the silly season of the internet age 

What kind of saddo runs these accounts and what do they gain from doing so? 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[RoverCanada]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

I'm advocating that we stop incessantly banging on about FFP rules as a club when another club (not in receipt of parachute money) is on the verge of spending £13 million on one player.

'If we get promoted it doesn't matter' is another myth - there's no evidence of any club being sanctioned even if they miss out - Villa are rumoured to be in trouble but lets see if anything actually happens.

Bolton were sanctioned because they failed to produce their accounts because they were going bust - not because they overspent or were found guilty of overspending

Cardiff and Fulham had embargoes that lasted a matter of weeks/only impacted on one transfer window and both have since won promotion so it clearly didn't do them much harm.

The only others were ourselves, Leeds and Forest, one of which is spending 8 figure sums on players so they clearly haven't learnt much of a lesson from it.

The extra revenue that the likes of Forest may have over us does not account for them spending £13 million on one player whilst we deal in loans and frees. Chuck in their January business and other signings this summer and I reckon they'll be pushing £20 million before wages are factored in.

Villa's potentially making some pretty drastic cuts this year... yes, something to keep an eye on... But they appear to be a case of gambling for a couple years with parachute payments and losing. I'm not sure why you're so confidant they won't be making such cuts.

I think our embargo was only the summer window, no? Missing out on any transfer window is a pretty significant penalty. I wouldn't be so dismissive of the possibility given it's happened here before and in multiple other cases.

(You're right about Bolton, my mistake mentioning them)

Yes, Forest did just make a significant transfer splash, but that's after net transfer spend of -~£7m in 15-16 and -£11m in 16-17, and they sold Assombalonga for £15m this past year. They've cushioned their post-14-15 losses with player sales. FFP is over 3 years - they just squeezed under the FFP limit in 16-17 and that was largely due to the large losses in 14/15 - they've built up a fair amount of headroom for the next couple years.

Forest's underlying revenue is about £5m more than us. Suppose they're willing to average £13m losses a year and stay just under FFP. If we're looking to only lose, say, £3m this year, that roughly gives them a £15m advantage over us (and maybe even more than that for the next couple years as they only had a loss of £4m in 16/17). Also, transfer purchases aren't booked entirely within the year they're incurred. They are amortised over the length of the contract, giving them further flexibility this year.

Hence, lessening my original number, I was curious if you were advocating losses of, say, £10m-£13m/year, just staying under FFP, rather than the the single digit losses Venky's appears to only be comfortable with now. We only had an accounting loss of £5m over 15-16 and 16-17 due to our significant player sales. Barring whatever our League One losses were, we theoretically could spend quite a bit this year and stay within FFP. (and potentially even more so due to FFP allowing for excluding academy expenditures). But it obviously wouldn't be sustainable for multiple years.

However, those advocating for that (and it's a fair proposal!) shouldn't then afterwards complain about how further indebted we'd become under Venky's...

Edited June 14, 2018 by RoverCanada

[AdamRochina]

Jack Wilshire ? oh my days hahaha on his day when fully fit he could walk into any prem side and run the midfield