Summer Transfer Window 2019

[Ewood Ace]

I don't think Mowbray has a clue what formation he wants to play, I've never seen a manager change systems so often during games. Someone on here mentioned Sheffield United but they have a clear identity in how they play, we don't despite the fact the Mowbray has been here over 2 years. I doubt he could name his best 11 let alone his best system. Also Sheffield United  have signed players that fit into the system they want to play whereas we have a scatter gun approach to transfers, we seem to sign a player and then decide where he is going to fit into the team, which is usually out of position. Of our signings this season Reed, Rodwell, Armstrong, Brereton & Palmer have all played their majority of game time out of position.  

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ewood Ace

[Don Said]

9 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

I don't think Mowbray has a clue what formation he wants to play, I've never seen a manager change systems so often during games. Someone on here mentioned Sheffield United but they have a clear identity in how they play, we don't despite the fact the Mowbray has been here over 2 years. I doubt he could name his best 11 let alone his best system. Also Sheffield United  have signed players that fit into the system they want to play whereas we have a scatter gun approach to transfers, we seem to sign a player and then decide where he is going to fit into the team, which is usually out of position. Of our signings this season Reed, Rodwell, Armstrong, Brereton & Palmer have all played their majority of game time out of position.  

It's critical he knows going in to the summer. Hopefully he knows in his mind what we will be moving towards, and the lack of consistency at times this season has been purely down to not having players available who can play the desired system.

Back 4 then we probably need to sign a first choice centre back and an old school left back.

Back 5 then we probably need to sign two first choice cenre backs and a totally different type of left wing back.

They're both before addressing non defensive positions.

If we are not precise and decisive, we could end up with further square pegs in round holes which we MUST avoid.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Don Said said:

It's critical he knows going in to the summer. Hopefully he knows in his mind what we will be moving towards, and the lack of consistency at times this season has been purely down to not having players available who can play the desired system.

Back 4 then we probably need to sign a first choice centre back and an old school left back.

Back 5 then we probably need to sign two first choice cenre backs and a totally different type of left wing back.

They're both before addressing non defensive positions.

If we are not precise and decisive, we could end up with further square pegs in round holes which we MUST avoid.

That is exactly what we will end up with. Posters on here are carrying the cross for Mowbray by listing Venkys' poor history of recruitment as a reason to maintain the status-quo. That same logic has to be brought through to TM also. It's actually quite farcical the amount of players he has signed only to shunt them all over the pitch.

Let us not forget that we have endured a season, or at least the majority of it, with Bennett at right back. Meanwhile Harrison Reed, who is a CM by trade but has also played right back for Southampton/Norwich, has played right wing - the very position Bennett is natural in; we have a 6 foot striker either left or right wing; we have a full England international playing centre back whilst our arguably poorer academy product in Magliore is brought through when Downing and Wharton (albeit Wharton has proved about as much as Magliore in his time at Rovers) are out on loan playing centre half for another club WHILST WE HAVE TWO MIDFIELDERS THERE.

I'm actually sick to my back teeth of looking at the team sheet and thinking what the actual fuck have we set ourselves up as here? Some days I think we are going 3 at the back and we aren't, then I think we have 4 at the back and it's 5. I'm not the only one either - aside from Chaddy (.......) I would put money that most fans walk into the ground, see the team and consider a completely different approach to the one that is shown on the pitch. This isn't because Rovers fans have no genuine idea about the game of football but because there has been about as much consistency with our team as there is in Dack's diet. 

The truth about it is we haven't been good enough for 50% of this season. Now whether that is because we haven't got the quality we all think we have or because we aren't settting ourselves up right is irrelevant because either reason places the blame squarely at TMs door. McClaren has paid for his sins and I'd be hugely surprised if he has spent the amount of money Mowbray has.

[Paul Mani]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/

Anyone else thinking we’ve just accepted a bid for Dack?

[blueboy3333]

2 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/

Anyone else thinking we’ve just accepted a bid for Dack?

He's certainly floating the idea that Dack is dispensable if Mogga goes to a new formation.

4-3-3 is all the rage at the moment cos Lpool play it... and England. Its like when everyone started playing 4-2-3-1 when Jose rocked up in England.

 

[G Somerset Rover]

2 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/

Anyone else thinking we’ve just accepted a bid for Dack?

We’d be lucky to get £10+ million if scouts have watched him since December.

[Sparks Rover]

Just now, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

We’d be lucky to get £10+ million if scouts have watched him since December.

Snap their hands off at 10m...hes a lazy lard arse

[Paul Mani]

14 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

He's certainly floating the idea that Dack is dispensable if Mogga goes to a new formation.

4-3-3 is all the rage at the moment cos Lpool play it... and England. Its like when everyone started playing 4-2-3-1 when Jose rocked up in England.

 

I don’t see how Dack could ever be seen as an 8. So maybe the plan is to sell and boost this summers kitty?

[tomphil]

So the first instalment on a 10 mill sale might be about 2 mill ?    So he might get that in next seasons budget if it isn't already committed to further Armstrong and Brereton payments......

I think this boost the kitty talk is a bit hilarious to be honest it never happens that way i'e sell for 10 million then go and spend 5 or 10 million on replacements, new quality in the same or following window.

It'll get swallowed up, spread about or just plain evaporate.

[Don Said]

Obviously Venkys are still our owners and there's every chance they'd swallow any Dack money. But whilst there's a chance we could sell and invest on the playing side there's a discussion worth having. Plenty of situations make it realistic, Tony bluffing to walk if we sell and don't see any money, Venky's having a proper flirt at getting in the big time and so on...

So being totally hypothetical on choosing whether to keep, or whether to sell and buy some new players with that money.... Really tough call.

First half of this season I was firmly of the mindset 'we must keep if we want to progress'. The sell your best player and reinvest idea rarely works - we've had numerous examples obviously with Shearer standing out.

However, In recent months Dack's influence has dropped massively. So much so that I'd argue if he doesn't start on Saturday, we wouldn't miss him on present form. On top of that there's obviously a chance that he could be poor for the rest of the season, not doing any better at the start of next season; that'd be a nightmare situation.

Therefore there's a strong argument to sell and invest whilst he is worth a decent amount, particularly in a time where we're crying out for a few new positions. We aren't going to get the fantasy 20m but we could certainly still get 8-12m for him in the current market. At this level, with say 8 million, I'm sure we could bring in a goalkeeper, a centre back, a full back and a midfielder that would make us in to a much better team than what we currently are. 

On top of us being able to improve the playing squad, selling could also let us play a different differently. First with the 4-3-3 that has been mooted by TM this morning; Dack wouldn't fit in to it. Similarly there has been a number of occasions where we could've gone to 4-4-2 but probably didn't because we've felt the need to keep Dack on the pitch. I don't blame the manager for that. Last year it was imperative in the side and we were always better off keeping him in, however in a much tougher league it's more important to play your best system, to the strengths of the squad, rather than trying to accommodate one player; there isn't a player in the whole league that could break that notion for me.

Don't get me wrong. Dack is still a quality player. I really like him and I want to see him stay and continue on a journey with us. But we've got to be realistic, considering the ambitions and mentality of the modern day footballer. Add to that the fact that his value isn't on an upwards trajectory, he's not on song, with questions regarding fitness and so on, there's certainly a decision that needs to be made for the good of BRFC.

[JBiz]

@Don Said

I agree in some aspects and I guess the biggest area is the lack of impact recently. I think that’s down to a lack of confidence more than ability or fitness. His performances have included quite a bit of over-playing, trying to hard to force a shot or a dribble.

It was always going to be the case he would be isolated by the opposition. I think he has potential to grow into a deeper sitting player, but his finishing is exceptional too. That’s why I’d hope we keep.

If there one guarantee with the Rao’s, it’s signing cheques to cover reasonable annual shortfalls in revenue. Since that’s the case, I don’t see why we’d have to sell anyone without it being a huge bid.

The wage bill to squad quality is at a better ratio than any point in the time we’ve been out of the premier league in my opinion too. I know that’s not difficult when the parachute splurges happened, but it just means this summer I’d like to think we’re in a position to add as opposed to replace.

[DE.]

My biggest concern with selling Dack would be replacing his goals and assists. Hardly anybody else in the team contributes and I'm not convinced Mowbray will bring in a suitable replacement. It would be a lot of pressure on Rothwell's shoulders if he was asked to replace Dack next season. 

[Guest]

If the recruitment is left down to Mowbray I'm in no doubt that us selling Dack results in us being in the bottom 3 next Christmas.

I wouldn't trust him to replace Dack's contribution to the team.

[rigger]

I would say that plugging the leaking defence is more important than a replacement for Dack if he where to go 

[Don Said]

Goals contribution would be very hard to replace. Even a change in system allowing players more attacking freedom or whatever wouldn't do it & you couldn't see Travis banging 10 goals in just because he's a few yards further up the pitch. Even harder when the focal point of our recruitment needs to be further back the pitch. Certainly don't need to sell just would be interesting to know our budget and how valuable the impact of a big sale would be towards bettering it.

For what it's worth I would be keeping Dack; just interested in opinions on two very possible scenarios that will come up in discussion & will have to be thought about.

 

[Boroblue]

6 hours ago, DE. said:

My biggest concern with selling Dack would be replacing his goals and assists. Hardly anybody else in the team contributes and I'm not convinced Mowbray will bring in a suitable replacement. It would be a lot of pressure on Rothwell's shoulders if he was asked to replace Dack next season. 

While I’m not an advocate of selling Dack his goals could be replaced by investing in solid defenders to reduce the appalling goals conceded column

[DE.]

Just now, Boroblue said:

While I’m not an advocate of selling Dack his goals could be replaced by investing in solid defenders to reduce the appalling goals conceded column

Which would be great if Mowbray had brought in any decent defenders during his time here. Instead his best defensive buy was probably Downing? The other thing to consider is that if Mulgrew is a part of that replacement schedule then that's another ten goals or so from this season gone. 

[rigger]

Just now, DE. said:

Which would be great if Mowbray had brought in any decent defenders during his time here. Instead his best defensive buy was probably Downing? The other thing to consider is that if Mulgrew is a part of that replacement schedule then that's another ten goals or so from this season gone. 

Is that goals for or against?

[DE.]

47 minutes ago, rigger said:

Is that goals for or against?

Possibly both. But few other players in our team score - and I wonder how many of Graham's goals came from Dack assists? It's easy to say get rid based on Dack's recent downturn in form, but it's a pretty big risk putting TM in charge of finding adequete replacements imo. Dack has been one of very few genuine successes in the transfer market since he arrived.

[blueboy3333]

Good point about Mowbray. In his time here he hasn't brought in a single good defender. Downing and Bell are average at best, especially at Championship level, and the likes of Hart and Caddis are L1 at best. Unless that trend is reversed and we bring in at least 3 good Championship-quality defenders (and a GK) next season will be painful.

[Bbrovers2288]

Jake Hastie, Jordan jones, Sam Cosgrove would be worth pursuing from Scotland 

[AJW]

As much as it would disappoint me to see Dack leave I concede that the team needs an injection of 4 or maybe 5 new players and that has to be financed somehow ... What concerns me is that we sell Dack and don't get the 4 or 5 players we desperately need we effectively are worse off than were we are now 

[DE.]

1 hour ago, AJW said:

As much as it would disappoint me to see Dack leave I concede that the team needs an injection of 4 or maybe 5 new players and that has to be financed somehow ...

Our owners aren't short of a few quid, so if they genuinely wanted to they could let us strengthen without selling our prized asset to do so. As Derby have shown there are plenty of creative ways to get around the farcical FFP rules if an owner is determined enough. 

[rigger]

14 hours ago, DE. said:

Possibly both. But few other players in our team score - and I wonder how many of Graham's goals came from Dack assists? It's easy to say get rid based on Dack's recent downturn in form, but it's a pretty big risk putting TM in charge of finding adequete replacements imo. Dack has been one of very few genuine successes in the transfer market since he arrived.

My comment was about Mulgrew not Dack.

[DE.]

Just now, rigger said:

My comment was about Mulgrew not Dack.

I answered the Mulgrew point and moved onto another. Maybe I should have broken it into a seperate paragraph?