Mowbray’s Future

[Stuart]

9 minutes ago, Roverthechimp said:

Must admit that my expectations were lower so 7th was massively overachieving. 14th or 17th to me is less important than the buffer to the bottom 3. 

Not directed at you but suspect the Brerton signing is a factor in the frustration. If TM only had Nuttall and AA (Samuel injured) then i wonder if we would be more "understanding?"

I don’t think it’s even just BB, I think it’s that we had £7m to spend and spent it very unwisely. If we hadn’t spent that money I think there would be a lot more patience and understanding. This is pressure (or justifiable criticism) that Mowbray has brought on himself - or someone else has put on him.

If Brereton was only a loan signing, with no agreement, nobody would be saying we should break the bank to sign him permanently in January. He’d be expected to head the way of Gladwin or Hart. People are just putting on a brave face and making excuses.

[JBiz]

18 minutes ago, Stuart said:

I don’t think it’s even just BB, I think it’s that we had £7m to spend and spent it very unwisely. If we hadn’t spent that money I think there would be a lot more patience and understanding. This is pressure (or justifiable criticism) that Mowbray has brought on himself - or someone else has put on him.

If Brereton was only a loan signing, with no agreement, nobody would be saying we should break the bank to sign him permanently in January. He’d be expected to head the way of Gladwin or Hart. People are just putting on a brave face and making excuses.

Agree with the first part - but I don’t understand why 7m is such a “huge fee” or why that’s just fair cop to turn up the heat on manager and player. If we’d signed two or three more freebies instead, the wage cost might’ve been a similar outlay this season, yet no mystical extra expectations!

Comparing him to Gladwin and Hart already is far worse than “putting a brace face on it” in my opinion. At least let the lad start a few games before you’re loaning him to Rochdale.

[Stuart]

7 minutes ago, Biz said:

Agree with the first part - but I don’t understand why 7m is such a “huge fee” or why that’s just fair cop to turn up the heat on manager and player. If we’d signed two or three more freebies instead, the wage cost might’ve been a similar outlay this season, yet no mystical extra expectations!

Comparing him to Gladwin and Hart already is far worse than “putting a brace face on it” in my opinion. At least let the lad start a few games before you’re loaning him to Rochdale.

‘Turning up the heat’ - have a word. He is under pressure for this team to perform having had significant funds to strengthen and not doing. He is still playing his L1 side.

Couple of questions:

Would you want us to sign BB on what you have seen so far?

How would you feel if we could have signed Reed but now couldn’t afford him because the money was already spent on BB?

And I said ‘heading the way of Gladwin and Hart’. But looking at BB yesterday in isolation I can see why you made that inference.

[Roverthechimp]

37 minutes ago, Stuart said:

I don’t think it’s even just BB, I think it’s that we had £7m to spend and spent it very unwisely. If we hadn’t spent that money I think there would be a lot more patience and understanding. This is pressure (or justifiable criticism) that Mowbray has brought on himself - or someone else has put on him.

Agree entirely.

Merry Christmas ?

[Stuart]

Merry Christmas to you too!

[JHRover]

21 minutes ago, Biz said:

Agree with the first part - but I don’t understand why 7m is such a “huge fee” or why that’s just fair cop to turn up the heat on manager and player. If we’d signed two or three more freebies instead, the wage cost might’ve been a similar outlay this season, yet no mystical extra expectations!

Comparing him to Gladwin and Hart already is far worse than “putting a brace face on it” in my opinion. At least let the lad start a few games before you’re loaning him to Rochdale.

Managers are ultimately judged from above by how they perform with the resources they are given. It is a fact that last summer Mowbray used more money on new players than most managers in this league did. If we believe the figure of £7 million for BB that we committed to then that represents a net spend of pushing £10 million on fees.

Irrespective of where we've come from, what the 'plan' is or how much on wages those people cost, that sort of expenditure at this level massively raises expectations. If it were me signing the cheques I'd probably expect to be finishing above half of the division purely on cash paid out. 

If we'd have spent a few hundred grand and sold a few, like Preston or Millwall, then expectations would be lower. If we'd been under restrictions like Birmingham or Sheff Wed then expectations would be lower.

Mowbray has seemingly had a perfect summer transfer window - allegedly he's in complete control of the operation and decides on who we sign, he's had a relative warchest to spend by most club's standards, and he's not had to sell anyone. Most managers will give their right arm for that sort of position not having to contend with a director of football or selling before buying.

So far we've done OK but i have a number of concerns about our recruitment, performances and run of form with fixtures coming up.

[JBiz]

8 minutes ago, Stuart said:

‘Turning up the heat’ - have a word. He is under pressure for this team to perform having had significant funds to strengthen and not doing. He is still playing his L1 side.

Couple of questions:

Would you want us to sign BB on what you have seen so far?

How would you feel if we could have signed Reed but now couldn’t afford him because the money was already spent on BB?

And I said ‘heading the way of Gladwin and Hart’. But looking at BB yesterday in isolation I can see why you made that inference.

1. We’ve already signed him from what I gather, so the question doesn’t need answering. The question id ask on that, do you think the fact it’s “loan then buy” because of the early permenant window closing, is making fans think differently as if there is a way out (even if there isn’t)?

2. Ive said this a few times now - but I don’t think Ben is particularly draining on the resources because of fee/wage flex.

Reed is probably too expensive at the minute, because he made his premier league debut 4 years ago. He’s also played a few times in the prem, had a full season in a first 11 in this tier. 2 years into a 4 and a half year deal too, probably above our highest earners!

The stretch from mid champ to lower prem in wages is vast. The revenue drop is even wider! I’d obviously love to see Reed stay though- lad is a warrior.

 

[Stuart]

8 minutes ago, Biz said:

1. We’ve already signed him from what I gather, so the question doesn’t need answering. The question id ask on that, do you think the fact it’s “loan then buy” because of the early permenant window closing, is making fans think differently as if there is a way out (even if there isn’t)?

2. Ive said this a few times now - but I don’t think Ben is particularly draining on the resources because of fee/wage flex.

Reed is probably too expensive at the minute, because he made his premier league debut 4 years ago. He’s also played a few times in the prem, had a full season in a first 11 in this tier. 2 years into a 4 and a half year deal too, probably above our highest earners!

The stretch from mid champ to lower prem in wages is vast. The revenue drop is even wider! I’d obviously love to see Reed stay though- lad is a warrior.

 

But it’s an important question. It means that people aren’t actually providing their own opinion on what they’ve seen they are just saying “there’s no point crying over spilled milk”. But it’s an expensive bottle of milk and I don’t want another one dropping.

If you think Brereton has shown something that makes him worth the money then fair enough but I’ve seen the opposite and believe it’s been a waste.

You keep using this term “fee/wage flex”. That’s a made up term, it doesn’t exist. Wages have always been commensurate with fees. Agents have made sure of it. Do you really think Mbappe is on peanuts because of the fee/wage flex? I wouldn’t be surprised if Brereton is amongst our highest earners. Maybe you can show me differently.

Now, “Reed is probably too expensive right now”. This is exactly the point I was making. We could have paid £7m for him. Now he’s “too expensive”. (We won’t agree on this point, by the way, because you believe in a equitable fee/wage ratio calculation which presumably means you think Reed would be on significantly higher wages than Brereton despite costing less. I can only assume this is some kind of extension of the wages commanded by PL who move on a free (?) - which is a different discussion entirely. The lack of fee simply means that the player wages become an auction and clubs justify it by saying “well he would have cost £Xm”.)

[JBiz]

20 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Managers are ultimately judged from above by how they perform with the resources they are given. It is a fact that last summer Mowbray used more money on new players than most managers in this league did. If we believe the figure of £7 million for BB that we committed to then that represents a net spend of pushing £10 million on fees.

Irrespective of where we've come from, what the 'plan' is or how much on wages those people cost, that sort of expenditure at this level massively raises expectations. If it were me signing the cheques I'd probably expect to be finishing above half of the division purely on cash paid out. 

If we'd have spent a few hundred grand and sold a few, like Preston or Millwall, then expectations would be lower. If we'd been under restrictions like Birmingham or Sheff Wed then expectations would be lower.

Mowbray has seemingly had a perfect summer transfer window - allegedly he's in complete control of the operation and decides on who we sign, he's had a relative warchest to spend by most club's standards, and he's not had to sell anyone. Most managers will give their right arm for that sort of position not having to contend with a director of football or selling before buying.

So far we've done OK but i have a number of concerns about our recruitment, performances and run of form with fixtures coming up.

Good post and there is definitely a chance that the big signing from last summer will be a flop - however the time to judge is different for every acquisition and any u21s should be given more of that.

I’m not sure you could argue we are spending more than most clubs, but definitley more than the Millwalls and Preston’s - hence the expectation will move further. Those clubs with “restrictions” are in that position because of wage/ffp problems from putting far more “wage” on the pitch than we are currently, Imo.

At this point TM hasn’t had to accept losing any players, but I wouldn’t call his luxuries a “war chest” compared to the money wasted by us the last time we had ambitions of getting out of this league.

OK is a subjective take - I can accept that’s your view, I think the synonym/adjective to describe this season so far is “good”.

Things can change quickly though! 

 

[perthblue02]

48 minutes ago, Biz said:

 

Reed is probably too expensive at the minute, because he made his premier league debut 4 years ago. He’s also played a few times in the prem, had a full season in a first 11 in this tier. 2 years into a 4 and a half year deal too, probably above our highest earners!

 

 

According to this on just over 12k a week base salary

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/southampton-f.c/payroll/

and this from 2017 - 15k yearly salary

 https://sportsmaza.com/football/southampton-fc-players-salaries/

 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by perthblue02

[JBiz]

27 minutes ago, Stuart said:

But it’s an important question. It means that people aren’t actually providing their own opinion on what they’ve seen they are just saying “there’s no point crying over spilled milk”. But it’s an expensive bottle of milk and I don’t want another one dropping.

If you think Brereton has shown something that makes him worth the money then fair enough but I’ve seen the opposite and believe it’s been a waste.

You keep using this term “fee/wage flex”. That’s a made up term, it doesn’t exist. Wages have always been commensurate with fees. Agents have made sure of it. Do you really think Mbappe is on peanuts because of the fee/wage flex? I wouldn’t be surprised if Brereton is amongst our highest earners. Maybe you can show me differently.

Now, “Reed is probably too expensive right now”. This is exactly the point I was making. We could have paid £7m for him. Now he’s “too expensive”. (We won’t agree on this point, by the way, because you believe in a equitable fee/wage ratio calculation which presumably means you think Reed would be on significantly higher wages than Brereton despite costing less. I can only assume this is some kind of extension of the wages commanded by PL who move on a free (?) - which is a different discussion entirely. The lack of fee simply means that the player wages become an auction and clubs justify it by saying “well he would have cost £Xm”.)

I simply disagree on wages.

I know that you’d agree, free signings are often higher wages due to the lack of a fee. Especially highly coveted end of contract players. That isn’t the one of scenario that goes in the face of “wages commensurate with fee” point of view. I’m not arguing that isn’t often the case, it isn’t always the case.

Comparing Mbappe - you’re talking about a player who is world class at 19. 

In our world - the gap in player ability and quality between lower Prem, and top championship clubs is narrower than the cost. When the likes of Burnley are earning 100m+ a year, agents ensure the contract renewals reflect that.

The main director at Ewood - said himself that they had a certain budget for the year, and they could move between fee/wages. That’s better evidence or explanation to how this deal was possible than assumptions to the opposite.

Reed has been in a club with those type of wages for some time. Much like Celina was, Bamford was, Grabban was etc. 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Biz

[JBiz]

5 minutes ago, perthblue02 said:

According to this on just over 12k a week base salary

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/southampton-f.c/payroll/

 

That would be a surprise if Sam Gallagher is on 24k. Do you not think those stats are after us giving them 50% for the loan? 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/birmingham-eye-watering-striker-loan-11060633

Gallagher is listed as 40k P W on that website too

Edited December 23, 2018 by Biz

[perthblue02]

4 minutes ago, Biz said:

That would be a surprise if Sam Gallagher is on 24k. Do you not think those stats are after us giving them 50% for the loan? 

Not sure, but looked up Palmer, and his is about 20k per week  (so think it is their parent club salary)

[perthblue02]

30 minutes ago, Biz said:

That would be a surprise if Sam Gallagher is on 24k. Do you not think those stats are after us giving them 50% for the loan? 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/birmingham-eye-watering-striker-loan-11060633

Gallagher is listed as 40k P W on that website too

In that mirror article it says his wages at Southampton are 10k a week, but Birmingham are paying him 18k a week . The 43k per week includes the "loan fee"

"They are also handing ­Gallagher, 21, a hefty ­increase on the £10,000-a-week deal he banked when signing a new four-year ­contract at St Mary’s last month. He will now earn £18,000 a week ­playing for Harry Redknapp this season."

 

That was just after he signed a new contract at Southampton, the figure stated there (mirror story) and the one on the spotrac site seem so far apart that I wonder if they got that information from the total package price from the Birmingham loan deal  

This recent-ish article saying wages of 24k (taken from a sun article) 

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/07/15/report-southamptons-sam-gallagher-wanted-by-sheffield-united-and/

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by perthblue02

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

I simply disagree on wages.

I know that you’d agree, free signings are often higher wages due to the lack of a fee. Especially highly coveted end of contract players. That isn’t the one of scenario that goes in the face of “wages commensurate with fee” point of view. I’m not arguing that isn’t often the case, it isn’t always the case.

Comparing Mbappe - you’re talking about a player who is world class at 19. 

In our world - the gap in player ability and quality between lower Prem, and top championship clubs is narrower than the cost. When the likes of Burnley are earning 100m+ a year, agents ensure the contract renewals reflect that.

The main director at Ewood - said himself that they had a certain budget for the year, and they could move between fee/wages. That’s better evidence or explanation to how this deal was possible than assumptions to the opposite.

Reed has been in a club with those type of wages for some time. Much like Celina was, Bamford was, Grabban was etc. 

Not comparing Mbappe as a player - even though they are coincidentally the same age, just using the example of wages and fee not being on a flex basis.

We do have some common ground but I do think you are making too close a relation between wage and fee though. To suggest that ‘all in’ we could afford Brereton (£7m plus wages) but couldn’t afford Reed (on the same basis) is not credible.

I go back though to the issue at hand. The real reason anyone is defending the Brereton signing is because it is a done deal. If it wasn’t and it was a loan only and I was sat here saying we should pay £7m for him (because he has potential and will be on cheap wages) rather than try to sign Reed, people - you included - would think I was stupid or just being contrary. I’m afraid we went for the wrong player with the transfer fee money.

[Mercer]

4 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Which is exactly where most people thought we would be - a mid-table position, not with a realistic chance of chasing promotion but with more than enough to stay out of the bottom three.  The first season after promotion is usually a consolidation job but it's the next couple of seasons that the manager will be judged on in terms of where we are with regard to challenging for promotion. 

Think Mowbray is tactically muddled and other than Dack, has failed miserably in the transfer market.  We've had two years of Mowbray and the signs are there for all to see.  I do not believe he is the man to take us forward.  Sadly, watching Rovers these days is an underwhelming experience for me - IMV, there is little excitement, little structure and little style.  I think Mowbray has served up some dreadful football whilst in charge.

Situation is pretty much the same as with Brereton.  Diehards like you tend to bury their heads in the sand hoping that things will improve and can only see the world of Rovers through rose coloured spectacles.  Think Mowbray has either dropped a real clanger with Brereton (if indeed he's Mowbray's choice) or someone else has foisted Brereton upon Mowbray and therefore you would have to ask if Mowbray is really just a puppet who does as he's told. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Mercer

[blueboy3333]

2 wins in 10. We need to improve or we'll start being dragged towards the wrong end of the table. 

Some winnable games in Jan & Feb against Millwall, Ipswich, Hull, Reading, Brentford and Bristol City. You'd hope we'd get a 2 or 3 wins out of those to get us up the table a bit towards the 50 point mark. 

On average about 45 points keeps you up. We were unlucky when went down with 51 and this season looks like not a particularly vintage year. 42 points might even be enough. 

[blueboy3333]

2 hours ago, Biz said:

2. Ive said this a few times now - but I don’t think Ben is particularly draining on the resources because of fee/wage flex.

Haha. Please stop.

We've paid £7m and we're paying him a decent wage. He will cost £10m minimum to a club that normally pays £1.75m tops for someone like AA who won't be on much more wage than BB if at all. Nor will Dack. And BB can't even get in the team and he doesn't even look like a footballer.

You keep going though. It's fun to watch.? 

 

[JBiz]

7 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Haha. Please stop.

We've paid £7m and we're paying him a decent wage. He will cost £10m minimum to a club that normally pays £1.75m tops for someone like AA who won't be on much more wage than BB if at all. Nor will Dack. And BB can't even get in the team and he doesn't even look like a footballer.

You keep going though. It's fun to watch.? 

 

But but but you said 13/15m... will you be down to 8 million if you find out we’ve only paid half upfront?

What story are you telling today Boris? 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Biz said:

But but but you said 13/15m... will you be down to 8 million if you find out we’ve only paid half upfront?

What story are you telling today Boris? 

Do you understand the word 'minimum'. It will still be around £13m. I'm just trying to help you out of that hole you've dug for yourself. ?

[JBiz]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Do you understand the word 'minimum'. It will still be around £13m. I'm just trying to help you out of that hole you've dug for yourself. ?

 

[Ewood Ace]

Does anyone actually enjoy watching us at home? We've had 24 halves of league football at Ewood this season.  I think that there have only been 4 or 5 halves that I have enjoyed and thought that we have played well, the rest has been forgettable boring dross. Waggott says we need 16k to break even bar the odd game with big away support there is no way we are going to get 16k through the gate to watch the sort of football that we are dishing up. Mowbray keeps talking about changing the style but there is absolutely no sign of that.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Ewood Ace

[G Somerset Rover]

7 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Does anyone actually enjoy watching us at home. We've had 24 halves of league football at Ewood this season.  I think that there have only been 4 or 5 halves that I have enjoyed and thought that we have played well, the rest has been forgettable boring dross. Waggott says we need 16k to break even bar the odd game with big away support there is no way we are going to get 16k through the gate to watch the sort of football that we are dishing up. Mowbray keeps talking about changing the style but there is absolutely no sign of that.

4 wins in 12 at home is a terrible return - regardless of us losing just the twice. We’ve also only scored in the first half in 3 of those too. Largely turgid stuff you would have to say.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Gavlar Somerset Rover!

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Ewood Ace said:

Does anyone actually enjoy watching us at home? We've had 24 halves of league football at Ewood this season.  I think that there have only been 4 or 5 halves that I have enjoyed and thought that we have played well, the rest has been forgettable boring dross. Waggott says we need 16k to break even bar the odd game with big away support there is no way we are going to get 16k through the gate to watch the sort of football that we are dishing up. Mowbray keeps talking about changing the style but there is absolutely no sign of that.

Stood in the queue for a pint yesterday and the bloke behind me (obvs not a regular) said to his mate 'Is it always this boring'. His mate said 'yes'. 'Some goalmouth action might be nice' said the newbie. 

It is dull, but that's the way Mowbray plays. Two defensive DM's and nobody getting in the box apart from Dack and Graham. Tony 'two and a half attackers' Mowbray is just a very cautious manager. 

I can kind of understand it this season in a better league, but I think Mowbray is limited. There's no real improvement this season in the way we play even after splurging £10m on new players. We don't even have Chapman to come on anymore. It's still the hoof to Graham as the main tactic and then the MF/AM/WM pick up the pieces. That's fine when Dack has room to play but again yesterday he was mostly marked out of the game by Tettey (?). There's literally no other creativity. It's then left to Bell and Nyambe to work miracles down the wing which never really works because neither is great at crossing. 

We need new players out wide. Until then we won't improve. 

[Mercer]

57 minutes ago, Biz said:

But but but you said 13/15m... will you be down to 8 million if you find out we’ve only paid half upfront?

What story are you telling today Boris? 

The key point is what the Rovers' financial commitment is over 4 years.

It is very likely to be a minimum of £11million when you factor in fee, wages, NI, agents fees etc