Championship season 2019-20

[rigger]

We could be the ones to send Wigan down if Luton beat us last game of the season.

[Dreams of 1995]

On 15/07/2020 at 19:46, roversfan99 said:

I have seen plenty of people with credible reasons to remove the manager. Points tallies year on year, poor recruitment, tactical issues, players out of position etc.

Those wanting the manager to stay seem desperate to avoid making constructive reasons as to why, preferring instead to maybe focus on the manner of some of those more critical or by creating hypothetical disastrous scenarios.

What a load of nonsense.

There has been plenty of posters on here that have made very good posts to as why they want Mowbray to stay. It isn't their fault they are then rounded on by half a dozen replies, and can only really choose one or two to reply to without spending their entire day in a back and fourth with others.

In your post all you have done is what you have claimed others have done - you have focused on the manner of those posters, created a hypothetical scenario and completely ignored some decent content that has posted because it doesn't suit whatever weird point you are trying to get across. If you don't like the people that want Mowbray to stay then come out and say it instead of trying to wrap it up in some convoluted bullshit.

[roversfan99]

15 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

What a load of nonsense.

There has been plenty of posters on here that have made very good posts to as why they want Mowbray to stay. It isn't their fault they are then rounded on by half a dozen replies, and can only really choose one or two to reply to without spending their entire day in a back and fourth with others.

In your post all you have done is what you have claimed others have done - you have focused on the manner of those posters, created a hypothetical scenario and completely ignored some decent content that has posted because it doesn't suit whatever weird point you are trying to get across. If you don't like the people that want Mowbray to stay then come out and say it instead of trying to wrap it up in some convoluted bullshit.

In the last day or two I have seen a couple of genuine reasons.

The main one is the injury one which has an element of truth to it but is not a reason to keep him on and it is a reason with limited credibility. Dack has beem out for half a season, thats undoubtedly unfortunate. Do you not think that spending over 15m on forwards somewhat removes that excuse? One that cost 3m has very much been a success, so fair play there. The 12m duo have been embarassingly short and not even covered a fraction of the shortfall. Then theres Samuel, Rothwell, Chapman etc who havent filled that shortfall either.

Evans has always been in and out under Mowbray and injury prone throughout his time here. The circumstances again, fair play, unfortunate, to misa half the season. But again the argument is unravelled when he signed a player on big wages in Johnson who has not been capable of nailing down a spot even with that injury due to poor performances. He also signed Downing to more success, but who has been also needed in 2 other positions including his natural wide position to cover imbalances that still exist there over 3 years and 20m spent down the line. And has also signed Davenport and indeed Smallwood.

Cunningham is unfortunate again, why didnt Mowbray look for another loan in January considering that Cunningham went back?

Lenihan, hes been fit for most of the season, and for an injury prone player to miss only I think 4 or 5 games injured is very good going. Holtby struggled for fitness initially because he was signed so late, then his major injury caused him to miss a couple of games then lockdown meant he was back as soon as the season resumed. Only to be misused.

Blind loyalty (which has been a reason) is not a reason to stick with a manager. Neither is fear of appointing another Coyle. The latter is one I am continiously seeing and it is almost accepting of the fact that Mowbray isnt the man to take us forward.

You said in the other thread that youd fancy Mowbrays chances if he had a healthy budget. Considering the above, may I ask why? Weve had very competitive budgets and not made the most of them.

Edited July 17, 2020 by roversfan99

[Bigdoggsteel]

Going off some of the videos on Instagram from the players today, it looks like they are happy enough to have the pressure off. 

Anyone surprised?? 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Going off some of the videos on Instagram from the players today, it looks like they are happy enough to have the pressure off. 

Anyone surprised?? 

Holiday camp mentality.

[Blue blood]

51 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

In the last day or two I have seen a couple of genuine reasons.

The main one is the injury one which has an element of truth to it but is not a reason to keep him on and it is a reason with limited credibility. Dack has beem out for half a season, thats undoubtedly unfortunate. Do you not think that spending over 15m on forwards somewhat removes that excuse? One that cost 3m has very much been a success, so fair play there. The 12m duo have been embarassingly short and not even covered a fraction of the shortfall. Then theres Samuel, Rothwell, Chapman etc who havent filled that shortfall either.

Evans has always been in and out under Mowbray and injury prone throughout his time here. The circumstances again, fair play, unfortunate, to misa half the season. But again the argument is unravelled when he signed a player on big wages in Johnson who has not been capable of nailing down a spot even with that injury due to poor performances. He also signed Downing to more success, but who has been also needed in 2 other positions including his natural wide position to cover imbalances that still exist there over 3 years and 20m spent down the line. And has also signed Davenport and indeed Smallwood.

Cunningham is unfortunate again, why didnt Mowbray look for another loan in January considering that Cunningham went back?

Lenihan, hes been fit for most of the season, and for an injury prone player to miss only I think 4 or 5 games injured is very good going. Holtby struggled for fitness initially because he was signed so late, then his major injury caused him to miss a couple of games then lockdown meant he was back as soon as the season resumed. Only to be misused.

Blind loyalty (which has been a reason) is not a reason to stick with a manager. Neither is fear of appointing another Coyle. The latter is one I am continiously seeing and it is almost accepting of the fact that Mowbray isnt the man to take us forward.

You said in the other thread that youd fancy Mowbrays chances if he had a healthy budget. Considering the above, may I ask why? Weve had very competitive budgets and not made the most of them.

Great post. Agree with 99% of it. Very well put. Only thing I would disagree with is the fear of another Coyle or substandard manager. Given the agency choses the manager or limits the options (look at last 3 for.compelling evidence of this) and Venkys history of appointments, and you have to say that it's a very real and genuine fear. 

It doesn't excuse TM or make him a good manager and in a normal club he would have gone three or four times by now. But just as the evidence points to TM being mediocre at best the evidence also points to the very real handicaps we have in appointing a new manager. 

In fact I would say imo the only reason for keeping TM is the extreme likelihood we will appoint worse. 

[Dreams of 1995]

41 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

In the last day or two I have seen a couple of genuine reasons.

The main one is the injury one which has an element of truth to it but is not a reason to keep him on and it is a reason with limited credibility. Dack has beem out for half a season, thats undoubtedly unfortunate. Do you not think that spending over 15m on forwards somewhat removes that excuse? One that cost 3m has very much been a success, so fair play there. The 12m duo have been embarassingly short and not even covered a fraction of the shortfall. Then theres Samuel, Rothwell, Chapman etc who havent filled that shortfall either.

Evans has always been in and out under Mowbray and injury prone throughout his time here. The circumstances again, fair play, unfortunate, to misa half the season. But again the argument is unravelled when he signed a player on big wages in Johnson who has not been capable of nailing down a spot even with that injury due to poor performances. He also signed Downing to more success, but who has been also needed in 2 other positions including his natural wide position to cover imbalances that still exist there over 3 years and 20m spent down the line. And has also signed Davenport and indeed Smallwood.

Cunningham is unfortunate again, why didnt Mowbray look for another loan in January considering that Cunningham went back?

Lenihan, hes been fit for most of the season, and for an injury prone player to miss only I think 4 or 5 games injured is very good going. Holtby struggled for fitness initially because he was signed so late, then his major injury caused him to miss a couple of games then lockdown meant he was back as soon as the season resumed. Only to be misused.

Blind loyalty (which has been a reason) is not a reason to stick with a manager. Neither is fear of appointing another Coyle. The latter is one I am continiously seeing and it is almost accepting of the fact that Mowbray isnt the man to take us forward.

You said in the other thread that youd fancy Mowbrays chances if he had a healthy budget. Considering the above, may I ask why? Weve had very competitive budgets and not made the most of them.

Who decides if they are genuine reasons - you? As supporters we should remember that we are not experts and what we put across are our genuine opinions on the matter. We have no other motive other than support of the club as we have nothing to gain from supporting a manager, or not supporting a manager, or whatever. What is genuine is subjective to each person and this idea that some people are coming out with non-genuine reasons for wanting to stick with Mowbray stinks of self-importance, as if one has the right to determine the genuineness of another mans thoughts.

No I don't. Bradley Dack plays attacking midfield and is a different player to Gallagher, Brereton, Samuel, Chapman or whoever else. His direct like-for-like replacement is Holtby and Buckley, which have both done reasonable jobs in replacing him, but have also been unfortunate with injuries themselves. Why would spending money in a different part of the pitch negate any injury to Dack? Had there not been Holtby or Buckley to replace them then the argument would have some weight about it. The truth is far from that though. If you want to discuss why we spent £12m on attackers but not defenders then in my eyes it is a different case, but one which ends at Pune. 

Again, who are you to unravel an argument? It's an opinion in any case. On the face of it Bradley Johnson was a really good signing, him not performing is down to him just as much as it is Mowbray. He had a good season for Derby the year before and I don't think anybody criticised him coming here. Hindsight is 20/20 and all of a sudden Mowbray is the villain in all of this. Now, the argument exists that Mowbray is the expert, and managers live and die by their signings, but that's not what is being argued here. The argument being put forward is that Mowbray could have done a hell of a lot more to prevent the genuine injury crisis we faced for a portion of the season - that simply isn't true.

Why is blind loyalty a reason? How are you coming to that judgement? I've not seen a single post which would make me think that in truth - unless you are confusing one poster with the other thousands out there who don't want to sack him. You have made the comment that people who want Mowbray to stay are "not attempting to make construction reasons" but you've just made a post trying to dismiss them very constructive reasons for keeping him. Which one is it? Is the actual answer that you don't agree with the other posters' reasons, not that they aren't constructive, and not that they are trying to create hypothetical scenarios due to this blind loyalty you have determined is their reasons for their opinions?

Yes I would. I think the squad now compared to the squad he inherited is a million miles away. We have some good midfield and attacking options, and when you talk to fans of other clubs they all speak of how much improved we are now. Mowbray hasn't necessarily wasted the money as the two "flops" are both still young and have time to develop into the footballers that these experts think they can become. I've considered all of your above but my opinion isn't the same as yours - you're making it out like your post above is fact and should be used as a basis for any Rovers fan to make an assessment of Mowbray. Back to that self-importance again.

We have had average budgets for this league, not very competitive, we should be careful not to rewrite history. They were only weird to us because we went through a couple of seasons with virtually nothing to spend. 

 

 

 

[Dreams of 1995]

https://www.transferleague.co.uk/championship-teams-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/championship-last-five-season

Sorry for the double post but here is the net spend of the Championship clubs for the past 5 years.

Coincidentally our average per season net spend is that elusive -£3.3m, which I'm certain a man with more accountancy experience than myself previously deduced is the amount we need to add into the coffers, on top of owners investment, in order to stick with FFP regulations.

It also takes away the Brentford argument, but clearly Brentford are the outlier in that.

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Who decides if they are genuine reasons - you? As supporters we should remember that we are not experts and what we put across are our genuine opinions on the matter. We have no other motive other than support of the club as we have nothing to gain from supporting a manager, or not supporting a manager, or whatever. What is genuine is subjective to each person and this idea that some people are coming out with non-genuine reasons for wanting to stick with Mowbray stinks of self-importance, as if one has the right to determine the genuineness of another mans thoughts.

No I don't. Bradley Dack plays attacking midfield and is a different player to Gallagher, Brereton, Samuel, Chapman or whoever else. His direct like-for-like replacement is Holtby and Buckley, which have both done reasonable jobs in replacing him, but have also been unfortunate with injuries themselves. Why would spending money in a different part of the pitch negate any injury to Dack? Had there not been Holtby or Buckley to replace them then the argument would have some weight about it. The truth is far from that though. If you want to discuss why we spent £12m on attackers but not defenders then in my eyes it is a different case, but one which ends at Pune. 

Again, who are you to unravel an argument? It's an opinion in any case. On the face of it Bradley Johnson was a really good signing, him not performing is down to him just as much as it is Mowbray. He had a good season for Derby the year before and I don't think anybody criticised him coming here. Hindsight is 20/20 and all of a sudden Mowbray is the villain in all of this. Now, the argument exists that Mowbray is the expert, and managers live and die by their signings, but that's not what is being argued here. The argument being put forward is that Mowbray could have done a hell of a lot more to prevent the genuine injury crisis we faced for a portion of the season - that simply isn't true.

Why is blind loyalty a reason? How are you coming to that judgement? I've not seen a single post which would make me think that in truth - unless you are confusing one poster with the other thousands out there who don't want to sack him. You have made the comment that people who want Mowbray to stay are "not attempting to make construction reasons" but you've just made a post trying to dismiss them very constructive reasons for keeping him. Which one is it? Is the actual answer that you don't agree with the other posters' reasons, not that they aren't constructive, and not that they are trying to create hypothetical scenarios due to this blind loyalty you have determined is their reasons for their opinions?

Yes I would. I think the squad now compared to the squad he inherited is a million miles away. We have some good midfield and attacking options, and when you talk to fans of other clubs they all speak of how much improved we are now. Mowbray hasn't necessarily wasted the money as the two "flops" are both still young and have time to develop into the footballers that these experts think they can become. I've considered all of your above but my opinion isn't the same as yours - you're making it out like your post above is fact and should be used as a basis for any Rovers fan to make an assessment of Mowbray. Back to that self-importance again.

We have had average budgets for this league, not very competitive, we should be careful not to rewrite history. They were only weird to us because we went through a couple of seasons with virtually nothing to spend. 

 

 

 

In my opinion obviously. Obviously it is my opinion, you think they are genuine reasons, I think they are flawed reasons.

Dack is a miss, of course he is and it is bad luck. What do we miss in his absence? Goals. Is it unreasonable to expect a set of attackers, especially the main 2 expensive ones to at least cover that deficit substantially? Of course. They havent touched the sides.

The conspiracies that the owners are refusing to rubber stamp is for me a stretch. We signed Dann for a decent fee, then we had Duffy signed for a fee and Hanley who established himself for a couple of years. Then our assets were sold off piece by piece and we havent spend any substantial fees full stop until the 2 strikers that Mowbray has signed. Gallagher a player he seemingly always wanted back and Brereton a player who took his eye when we played Forest. Its passing the buck suggesting that he hasnt been allowed to spend on defenders.

Average wage budget, very healthy net spend, more time than any other manager. Competitive is fair. The manager himself said he was aiming for top 6 at the start of the season. The captain conceded on Tuesday night that its been a dissapointing season to miss out. But that alone is not why people are skeptical that he can take us forward. Its the points tallies, tactics, poor transfer record etc.

This argument that these are experts is not fair either. Should we just concede any opinions because we arent as knowledgable? Or can we see the The argument is certainly not that he could have avoided these injuries. Its that the players hes signed at noticeable expense should have been able to at least make up a decent chunk of the shortfall of goals. Notably the 2 forwards scoring to compensate for Dacks absence and big earning Johnson (who has been poor, I also dont think his style of play suots the tactical changes Mowbray has gone for) could have covered Evans who has always been in and out under Mowbray.

What do you make to the recent tactics, false 9s, inside forwards, and the tactical direction that the manager is going in? Any concerns? Or totally understand and see positive shoots?

Are you worried that we have collected 9 points in 10 games?

Do you think in terms of results we have progressed from last year? Is it a fair concern? 60 points both seasons, admittedly we might get up to 6 more but the season is over in reality.

 

 

 

[Mattyblue]

Our first choice back line and keeper cost zero in fees. Half a team.

That to me is most strange when compared to the money splurged on just a couple of young, unproven forwards.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Mattyblue

[Dreams of 1995]

25 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

In my opinion obviously. Obviously it is my opinion, you think they are genuine reasons, I think they are flawed reasons.

Dack is a miss, of course he is and it is bad luck. What do we miss in his absence? Goals. Is it unreasonable to expect a set of attackers, especially the main 2 expensive ones to at least cover that deficit substantially? Of course. They havent touched the sides.

The conspiracies that the owners are refusing to rubber stamp is for me a stretch. We signed Dann for a decent fee, then we had Duffy signed for a fee and Hanley who established himself for a couple of years. Then our assets were sold off piece by piece and we havent spend any substantial fees full stop until the 2 strikers that Mowbray has signed. Gallagher a player he seemingly always wanted back and Brereton a player who took his eye when we played Forest. Its passing the buck suggesting that he hasnt been allowed to spend on defenders.

Average wage budget, very healthy net spend, more time than any other manager. Competitive is fair. The manager himself said he was aiming for top 6 at the start of the season. The captain conceded on Tuesday night that its been a dissapointing season to miss out. But that alone is not why people are skeptical that he can take us forward. Its the points tallies, tactics, poor transfer record etc.

This argument that these are experts is not fair either. Should we just concede any opinions because we arent as knowledgable? Or can we see the The argument is certainly not that he could have avoided these injuries. Its that the players hes signed at noticeable expense should have been able to at least make up a decent chunk of the shortfall of goals. Notably the 2 forwards scoring to compensate for Dacks absence and big earning Johnson (who has been poor, I also dont think his style of play suots the tactical changes Mowbray has gone for) could have covered Evans who has always been in and out under Mowbray.

What do you make to the recent tactics, false 9s, inside forwards, and the tactical direction that the manager is going in? Any concerns? Or totally understand and see positive shoots?

Are you worried that we have collected 9 points in 10 games?

Do you think in terms of results we have progressed from last year? Is it a fair concern? 60 points both seasons, admittedly we might get up to 6 more but the season is over in reality.

Ah. Ok. So it's gone from being desperate to avoid making reasons to being flawed - I'm glad your melodrama gets under control eventually.

Why is it passing the buck? It's a genuine trend since Venky's took over that money is not available for defenders, nor is permanent signings. The post where all the finances have been deduced is somewhere on this messageboard, I'd suggest taking a look at it and the money aspect before coming up with the idea it is a conspiracy. Venkys will not sanction money to buy defenders, either that or conveniently every manager they have ever employed doesn't look at bringing them in. They are all either freebies / loans except for Dann. Duffy cost us £400k if I remember correctly, so hardly an outlay on a decent defender, just a very good deal found by Bowyer's dad.

Our net spend over the past 5 seasons is one of the lowest in the league. He also inherited a squad that needed a positive net spend just to get it back to a competitive level. In my eyes you are ignoring all of the context to the situation. If you are taking missing his own objective out of the equation then the stature of the Club under Mowbray has improved, no doubt about it, and the results on the pitch have shown it. I'm not buying his poor transfer record as he has made just as many good signings as bad ones, and ultimately we are hamstrung with who we can and cannot buy. Our owners are known for delaying in accepting any incomings, and our owners are known to spring a surprise outgoing on us throughout their time here. If we want to look at Mowbray's actions in isolation to the managers before him (Ie: ignoring our net spend in the seasons prior to him coming) then we should at least allow the bloke the courtesy of understanding the policy he has to work with. Quite frankly I will not blame a manager that comes through our door for transfers because I genuinely believe the Venkys have a say in practically every player we buy, whether it be through their agent friends or otherwise.

How can he avoid them injuries? We had some freak long-term injuries this season man, this board was RIFE with praise for Mowbray overcoming them, then as soon as they took grip and fatigue of the left-standing came to a head all of a sudden all of that is forgotten. You are rewriting history again. 

We haven't progressed this season, I said as much. We have stood still but it is entirely what I expected at the start, save a brief spell of supporter pie-in-the-sky thoughts about Christmas time or whatever where I genuinely thought a shock play off push might happen. We were on an upward trajectory but our season came to a grinding halt around the same time the injuries really started to show our depth isn't what it should be. That isn't Mowbray's fault though. He inherited a thread bare squad, clearly has very very strict financial restrictions and ultimately has built a starting team that would wipe the floor with every squad we have had since our original relegation season. Which is why I said given a modest budget once again we would improve next season, but given the circumstances I don't think Mowbray is a manager who can get a squad undeserving of promotion up, which is what this squad is.

I'm not saying don't put your opinion of but you post a lot and then try and use your opinions as the basis for all others. I don't need to accept your interpretation of things and then be asked "based on that do you think..". I don't think the same because I don't see it the same. It's the massive problem for football messageboards that every fan thinks their opinion is what should be used to determine all others, and probably the reason why you think people who support Mowbray do so for non-genuine reasons. Quite frankly the way you see football and the way I see football couldn't be more opposite and that's why this sport is so catching and keeps billions enthused worldwide. What I don't need to be told is that I'm saying or thinking something for flawed, non-genuine reasons, or whatever other term you dress it up as. If I'm actually wrong back it up with a fact, if not it is a difference of opinion and that's that.

I don't think Gallagher is the guy to play right wing, or Holtby the man to play as a false 9, but likewise I'm not managing a club mid table in one of the most competitive leagues in the world. I don't particularly buy into Mowbray's style of football and would like to see us play with out and out wingers, an attacking midfielder and use Gallagher up front. Coyle had success with Gallagher playing that exact way. 

No I'm not worried. We are mathematically safe in the league, we are missing some players I think are key to our squad, and I don't particularly feel football should have continued as it has done anyway, not that it might have made much difference. I'm gutted we missed out on promotion but going into this summer transfer window I feel more positive about our squad than last. However, in my eyes no money needs to spend on the mid / forwards - save wingers - but I still don't think Venkys will sanction any money on our goalkeeper, centre half or full backs and ultimately this is why we will always struggle to go up

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Dreams of 1995

[roversfan99]

15 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Ah. Ok. So it's gone from being desperate to avoid making reasons to being flawed - I'm glad your melodrama gets under control eventually.

Why is it passing the buck? It's a genuine trend since Venky's took over that money is not available for defenders, nor is permanent signings. The post where all the finances have been deduced is somewhere on this messageboard, I'd suggest taking a look at it and the money aspect before coming up with the idea it is a conspiracy. Venkys will not sanction money to buy defenders, either that or conveniently every manager they have ever employed doesn't look at bringing them in. They are all either freebies / loans except for Dann. Duffy cost us £400k if I remember correctly, so hardly an outlay on a decent defender, just a very good deal found by Bowyer's dad.

Our net spend over the past 5 seasons is one of the lowest in the league. He also inherited a squad that needed a positive net spend just to get it back to a competitive level. In my eyes you are ignoring all of the context to the situation. If you are taking missing his own objective out of the equation then the stature of the Club under Mowbray has improved, no doubt about it, and the results on the pitch have shown it. I'm not buying his poor transfer record as he has made just as many good signings as bad ones, and ultimately we are hamstrung with who we can and cannot buy. Our owners are known for delaying in accepting any incomings, and our owners are known to spring a surprise outgoing on us throughout their time here. If we want to look at Mowbray's actions in isolation to the managers before him (Ie: ignoring our net spend in the seasons prior to him coming) then we should at least allow the bloke the courtesy of understanding the policy he has to work with. Quite frankly I will not blame a manager that comes through our door for transfers because I genuinely believe the Venkys have a say in practically every player we buy, whether it be through their agent friends or otherwise.

How can he avoid them injuries? We had some freak long-term injuries this season man, this board was RIFE with praise for Mowbray overcoming them, then as soon as they took grip and fatigue of the left-standing came to a head all of a sudden all of that is forgotten. You are rewriting history again. 

We haven't progressed this season, I said as much. We have stood still but it is entirely what I expected at the start, save a brief spell of supporter pie-in-the-sky thoughts about Christmas time or whatever where I genuinely thought a shock play off push might happen. We were on an upward trajectory but our season came to a grinding halt around the same time the injuries really started to show our depth isn't what it should be. That isn't Mowbray's fault though. He inherited a thread bare squad, clearly has very very strict financial restrictions and ultimately has built a starting team that would wipe the floor with every squad we have had since our original relegation season. Which is why I said given a modest budget once again we would improve next season, but given the circumstances I don't think Mowbray is a manager who can get a squad undeserving of promotion up, which is what this squad is.

I'm not saying don't put your opinion of but you post a lot and then try and use your opinions as the basis for all others. I don't need to accept your interpretation of things and then be asked "based on that do you think..". I don't think the same because I don't see it the same. It's the massive problem for football messageboards that every fan thinks their opinion is what should be used to determine all others, and probably the reason why you think people who support Mowbray do so for non-genuine reasons. Quite frankly the way you see football and the way I see football couldn't be more opposite and that's why this sport is so catching and keeps billions enthused worldwide. What I don't need to be told is that I'm saying or thinking something for flawed, non-genuine reasons, or whatever other term you dress it up as. If I'm actually wrong back it up with a fact, if not it is a difference of opinion and that's that.

I don't think Gallagher is the guy to play right wing, or Holtby the man to play as a false 9, but likewise I'm not managing a club mid table in one of the most competitive leagues in the world. I don't particularly buy into Mowbray's style of football and would like to see us play with out and out wingers, an attacking midfielder and use Gallagher up front. Coyle had success with Gallagher playing that exact way. 

No I'm not worried. We are mathematically safe in the league, we are missing some players I think are key to our squad, and I don't particularly feel football should have continued as it has done anyway, not that it might have made much difference. I'm gutted we missed out on promotion but going into this summer transfer window I feel more positive about our squad than last. However, in my eyes no money needs to spend on the mid / forwards - save wingers - but I still don't think Venkys will sanction any money on our goalkeeper, centre half or full backs and ultimately this is why we will always struggle to go up

 

The delays in the summer etc I have been most critical of Venkys. I know that they are dismal owners and I am not saying that they make it easy. But the theory about not signing defenders seems a little far-fetched if fairly possible in terms of our idiot owners are only convinced to make a big signing in an attacking position. Surely Mowbray could come out and say, the owners prefer to spend big on attacking players, if that was the case? And even IF that conspiracy is true, he didnt have to spend that money specifically on 2 really poor attackers who have not contributed. If you refuse to judge the manager on his recruitment due to Venkys (before then defending his recruitment further down) then fair enough but appreciate that others will without proof that Venkys are literally invested enough/involved enough to have such a strong impact. We have only signed 4 players for big fees in Venkys tenure that I can remember, 1 defender and 3 strikers. I suspect that it may just be circumstance (academy graduates Hanley, Lenihan and Nyambe, Duffy a success signed cheap, regulars like Spurr, Kilgallon, Baptiste, Mulgrew and Williams all signed cheap) rather than the disinterested owners poking their nose in too much that has led to imbalanced recruitment.

You go back to the years prior to Mowbray but due to the quick turnaround in players, it is not overly relevant. You mentioned on his thread about how he inherited Lowe, Brown and Greer, all 3 were about to go out of contract so they were easy to move on. Much of the deadwood was out of contract, he had a core of experienced heads of use and of course this batch (Lenihan, Raya, Nyambe and the one he deserves most credit for, Travis) of academy graduates to build around. He also signed a catalyst in Dack, and a few other shrewd additions. His work post relegation to get us back up was very impressive and universally appreciated and praised.

The argument is based around his ability to now push on from the work he has already done which, especially with promotion I appreciate and thus would look back fondly on him. His short term signings have post promotion been eye catching, notably 3 of them, Adarabioyo, Reed and Downing. The first 2 wont be here, the third may, but possibly is on the wane. The longer term recruitment notably the 12m spent, which is something you are happy to not judge him harshly on, ensures that going into our third season, bar the very impressive Armstrong deal being made permanent, have we progressed in terms of our squad? Not really for me.

Your issues with Venkys I wholeheartedly understand and agree, but I feel that many of the criticisms that others have flagged up, you have dismissed for reasons whereby the validity of people may differ on. You wont judge him on his recruitment because of theories regarding Venkys involvement. You wont fully judge this seasons final finishing because of the pandemic. You wont judge his tactical choices because of the pandemic and because its a hard job in a competitive league. And of course the injury situation, which is fair to an extent because it would hinder anyone, but a counterargument would be that his expensive signings should have at least partially bridged that shortfall and that impact, and they havent come close.

[chaddyrovers]

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

why didn't Mowbray look for another loan in January considering that Cunningham went back?

who said we didn't tho? We don't know what goes on behind the scenes do we.

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

who said we didn't tho? We don't know what goes on behind the scenes do we.

If he tried he failed to get one. No use to us.

[chaddyrovers]

Steven Gerrard says he isn't interested in Bristol City head coach job after being linked to the job over the last few days

[MarkBRFC]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Steven Gerrard says he isn't interested in Bristol City head coach job after being linked to the job over the last few days

He was never going there, too much of a risk.

Another few years at Rangers in the top two, pick up a couple of trophys and be in prime position for when Klopp calls it a day.

 

[Norbert Rassragr]

If Gerrard thinks he can be considered as Klopp's successor, he had better start dominating Celtic and winning leagues. Rangers have been a solid second best for a few seasons after the meltdown and recovery prior to his arrival. 

[Tom]

Leeds up, Bielsa is a proper character and manager 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Tom

[oldjamfan1]

3 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

He was never going there, too much of a risk.

Another few years at Rangers in the top two, pick up a couple of trophys and be in prime position for when Klopp calls it a day.

 

If Sellick get a fast start he will get potted I think. They are desperate to stop 10-in-a-row 

[roversfan99]

Bielsa has been an absolutely incredible appointment. Fair play to Leeds for having the ambition to get such a calibre of manager.

I always find it strange when people turn their noses up at paying a manager a decent amount. He is arguably the most important person of all, it makes sense to pay a bit extra for a manager even if it means clipping a bit off the budget to sign players.

[Proudtobeblue&white]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Bielsa has been an absolutely incredible appointment. Fair play to Leeds for having the ambition to get such a calibre of manager.

I always find it strange when people turn their noses up at paying a manager a decent amount. He is arguably the most important person of all, it makes sense to pay a bit extra for a manager even if it means clipping a bit off the budget to sign players.

Exactly why we are where we are! Coyle FFS! 

[BRFC4EVA]

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Bielsa has been an absolutely incredible appointment. Fair play to Leeds for having the ambition to get such a calibre of manager.

I always find it strange when people turn their noses up at paying a manager a decent amount. He is arguably the most important person of all, it makes sense to pay a bit extra for a manager even if it means clipping a bit off the budget to sign players.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a good appointment or anything, but Leeds also have the highest wage bill and xfer spending in the division-which kinda helps!! Surely Brentford would be the model that we would be looking to replicate..

[Mattyblue]

Lovely artwork BBC, presume the other promoted sides will get the same?

[AAK]

Just now, BRFC4EVA said:

I'm not saying that he wasn't a good appointment or anything, but Leeds also have the highest wage bill and xfer spending in the division-which kinda helps!! Surely Brentford would be the model that we would be looking to replicate..

We won’t be replicating any model, the club from top to bottom are incapable of such plans.

[chaddyrovers]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Bielsa has been an absolutely incredible appointment. Fair play to Leeds for having the ambition to get such a calibre of manager.

I always find it strange when people turn their noses up at paying a manager a decent amount. He is arguably the most important person of all, it makes sense to pay a bit extra for a manager even if it means clipping a bit off the budget to sign players.

Pay abit more? They are paying 6 million pounds a season. hardly a bit more is it? How much is Mowbray on? 

Also Leeds pay big wages on players.