Tony Mowbray Discussion

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

Some have suggested the owners will only sanction significant transfer fees for youngish players with potentially significant sell-on value and that that does not extend to defenders ?

Well I hope they're really pleased with their two latest big money " investments ", 

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

Some have suggested the owners will only sanction significant transfer fees for youngish players with potentially significant sell-on value and that that does not extend to defenders ?

But there's absolutely no evidence to back this claim up?

[jim mk2]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

Some have suggested the owners will only sanction significant transfer fees for youngish players with potentially significant sell-on value and that that does not extend to defenders ?

Leicester paid £12m for Harry Maguire and sold him for £80m. 

No sell-on value there then. 

[Mashed Potatoes]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

But there's absolutely no evidence to back this claim up?

Apart from us not ever spending money on defenders, agreed

[Mashed Potatoes]

Just now, jim mk2 said:

Leicester paid £12m for Harry Maguire and sold him for £80m. 

No sell-on value there then. 

Correct - just shows how daft such an approach would be.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

Apart from us not ever spending money on defenders, agreed

Scott Dann

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I've only seen the highlights but I think most of them have given up playing for him to honest. If I can see it surely Mowbray can.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Scott Dann

That was donkey's years ago. I am not saying that it is slam dunk true but it's not impossible is it ?

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

That was donkey's years ago. I am not saying that it is slam dunk true but it's not impossible is it ?

It seems more likely to me that it's a a fictitious "stick"  made up to beat the owners with and absolve Mowbray from any responsibility.

[Miller11]

19 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It seems more likely to me that it's a a fictitious "stick"  made up to beat the owners with and absolve Mowbray from any responsibility.

I’ve been very vocal about the fact I believe this sort of policy to be the case for a long time. Before Mowbray came along. The last couple of years have just made me believe it even more.

I’ve gone into detail before about the fees involved in signing defenders. Scott Dann is rightly pointed out as the one major fee that has gone on defensive reinforcements. He was a last minute buy in silly season following N’Zonzi starting the season at centre half, and they lost a fortune on him. Perhaps the approach was a little different when Kean and his agent were around. Since then we haven’t paid more than £250k for a defender. We have picked up several freebies, converted several midfielders, borrowed, and relied heavily on the academy, and since Samba, Nelsen, Salgado, Jones and Givet were jettisoned for varying fees and in various farcical circumstances, we’ve had a defence lacking in both depth and quality. 

Add to this the early claptrap the lunatics came out with about “exciting attacking young players”.

It also ties in to things I hear from people who work at the club. If anyone believes that Venkys or their “trusted advisors” haven’t had input in signings, you’re deluded. If you believe this isn’t still happening you are, in my opinion, naive.

I’m not suggesting there is a written rule that states “DEFENDERS SHALL NOT BE PURCHASED”, but there is plenty to suggest that funds are not made available for players who don’t fit a certain profile. I’ve asked Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston about this pretty directly. Of course they denied it.

Probably the thing that convinced me there’s something to this more than anything is having heard Mowbray at the last consultation meeting. He ridiculed his defenders and spoke so passionately in the now infamous “defenders are coming” speech. I honestly can’t see how anyone who witnessed that (nevermind the additional conversations at the end of the meeting) can believe for a minute he just changed his mind.

There are plenty of reasons to despise Venkys without the need for a fictitious stick. I’d call this a theory with a fair bit of evidence to suggest it’s true.

Oh, and from what I hear, it extends to goalkeepers too.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Miller11

[47er]

8 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

I heard that the deal fell through at negotiations with Tesco and Tony completely failing to tie the deal up when it was there to be done. 

Preston have a direct line to the decision maker with no delays and that’s what happened 

Shameful whatever way it happened.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Miller11 said:

I’ve been very vocal about the fact I believe this sort of policy to be the case for a long time. Before Mowbray came along. The last couple of years have just made me believe it even more.

I’ve gone into detail before about the fees involved in signing defenders. Scott Dann is rightly pointed out as the one major fee that has gone on defensive reinforcements. He was a last minute buy in silly season following N’Zonzi starting the season at centre half, and they lost a fortune on him. Perhaps the approach was a little different when Kean and his agent were around. Since then we haven’t paid more than £250k for a defender. We have picked up several freebies, converted several midfielders, borrowed, and relied heavily on the academy, and since Samba, Nelsen, Salgado, Jones and Givet were jettisoned for varying fees and in various farcical circumstances, we’ve had a defence lacking in both depth and quality. 

Add to this the early claptrap the lunatics came out with about “exciting attacking young players”.

It also ties in to things I hear from people who work at the club. If anyone believes that Venkys or their “trusted advisors” haven’t had input in signings, you’re deluded. If you believe this isn’t still happening you are, in my opinion, naive.

I’m not suggesting there is a written rule that states “DEFENDERS SHALL NOT BE PURCHASED”, but there is plenty to suggest that funds are not made available for players who don’t fit a certain profile. I’ve asked Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston about this pretty directly. Of course they denied it.

Probably the thing that convinced me there’s something to this more than anything is having heard Mowbray at the last consultation meeting. He ridiculed his defenders and spoke so passionately in the now infamous “defenders are coming” speech. I honestly can’t see how anyone who witnessed that (aside from the additional conversations at the end of the meeting) can believe for a minute he just changed his mind.

There are plenty of reasons to despise Venkys without the need for a fictitious stick. I’d call this a theory with a fair bit of evidence to suggest it’s true.

Oh, and from what I hear, it extends to goalkeepers too.

hear from where? 

I cant see any owners saying we cant see a defender or keeper for cash

[Miller11]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

hear from where? 

I cant see any owners saying we cant see a defender or keeper for cash

From people in the club. Don’t ask who, because I’m not enough of a dick head to tell you.

Cant you? I’m not surprised.

I can’t see that our entire defence and all our goalkeepers combined cost as much as Dominic Samuel.

[Blue blood]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

hear from where? 

I cant see any owners saying we cant see a defender or keeper for cash

I can. 

In fact (stupid and suicidal as it is) it's one of their more rational decisions in the grand scheme of their decision making...

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Miller11 said:

From people in the club. Don’t ask who, because I’m not enough of a dick head to tell you.

Cant you? I’m not surprised.

I can’t see that our entire defence and all our goalkeepers combined cost as much as Dominic Samuel.

I wouldn't ask Miller who for reasons that are clear. 

[JHRover]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

hear from where? 

I cant see any owners saying we cant see a defender or keeper for cash

We don't spend money on defenders even when it is obvious that we should do. That has been the case for 8 years under 6 different managers. Quite a coincidence that all those managers have decided to avoid spending on the defence. Meanwhile Rhodes, Brereton and Gallagher money appears from somewhere.

One constant is the ownership who appear to need to be persuaded to release extra cash for new signings. I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that there are people advising the owners on what to provide money for and part of that is a belief that strikers are better investments than defenders.

[Wegerleswiggle]

This type of drivel coming out of his mouth makes me want to kick my cat. Poor fuckers only got 3 legs!!!

[Amo]

"I felt an equaliser was coming... but we weren't making any clear-cut chances"

He gets bored of his own b*llshit after 30 seconds.

[Stuart]

Looks like the tide is turning...

Facebook groups are the safe haven for Rovers managers yet nearly half on this poll feel that Tony’s time is up.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, JHRover said:

We don't spend money on defenders even when it is obvious that we should do. That has been the case for 8 years under 6 different managers. Quite a coincidence that all those managers have decided to avoid spending on the defence. Meanwhile Rhodes, Brereton and Gallagher money appears from somewhere.

One constant is the ownership who appear to need to be persuaded to release extra cash for new signings. I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that there are people advising the owners on what to provide money for and part of that is a belief that strikers are better investments than defenders.

Defenders go for alot of money just as much as strikers. 

Look at Konsa who cost 15 mil for Villa a year after Brentford paid 5 mil for him. 

John Egan or Joe Worrall who I thought we should have gone for when we got promoted. 

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

But there's absolutely no evidence to back this claim up?

Not sure i buy that either although i could well see their 'advisers' influencing it.  Such is TMs stock with them though that i think if he said it was a good idea to shell out a package of 2.5 million on a four year deal for Bauer they'd have signed it off.

It's down to him this surely a couple of experienced centre half loans would have helped. Don't tell me if he sourced a couple on the bench of a Prem / big Champ club and we only had to pay half whack for them in wages they wouldn't jump at that.

Edited November 10, 2019 by tomphil

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, Amo said:

"I felt an equaliser was coming... but we weren't making any clear-cut chances"

He gets bored of his own b*llshit after 30 seconds.

So he brought on Evans and basically put a stop to that !

Edited November 10, 2019 by tomphil

[frosty]

30 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

since Samba, Nelsen, Salgado, Jones and Givet

Now that's a proper list of defenders. Can we set the clocks back ten years please?

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Miller11 said:

I’ve been very vocal about the fact I believe this sort of policy to be the case for a long time. Before Mowbray came along. The last couple of years have just made me believe it even more.

I’ve gone into detail before about the fees involved in signing defenders. Scott Dann is rightly pointed out as the one major fee that has gone on defensive reinforcements. He was a last minute buy in silly season following N’Zonzi starting the season at centre half, and they lost a fortune on him. Perhaps the approach was a little different when Kean and his agent were around. Since then we haven’t paid more than £250k for a defender. We have picked up several freebies, converted several midfielders, borrowed, and relied heavily on the academy, and since Samba, Nelsen, Salgado, Jones and Givet were jettisoned for varying fees and in various farcical circumstances, we’ve had a defence lacking in both depth and quality. 

Add to this the early claptrap the lunatics came out with about “exciting attacking young players”.

It also ties in to things I hear from people who work at the club. If anyone believes that Venkys or their “trusted advisors” haven’t had input in signings, you’re deluded. If you believe this isn’t still happening you are, in my opinion, naive.

I’m not suggesting there is a written rule that states “DEFENDERS SHALL NOT BE PURCHASED”, but there is plenty to suggest that funds are not made available for players who don’t fit a certain profile. I’ve asked Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston about this pretty directly. Of course they denied it.

Probably the thing that convinced me there’s something to this more than anything is having heard Mowbray at the last consultation meeting. He ridiculed his defenders and spoke so passionately in the now infamous “defenders are coming” speech. I honestly can’t see how anyone who witnessed that (aside from the additional conversations at the end of the meeting) can believe for a minute he just changed his mind.

There are plenty of reasons to despise Venkys without the need for a fictitious stick. I’d call this a theory with a fair bit of evidence to suggest it’s true.

Oh, and from what I hear, it extends to goalkeepers too.

Sorry, think this theory is absolute nonsense. It would indeed be naive to think the owners had no input whatsoever into transfers and if they said any major expenditure had to be on younger players with a sell on value that wouldn't surprise me one bit. Strikers are also in general a lot more expensive than defenders so if successive managers have decided to concentrate the majority of a limited budget into forwards that wouldn't surprise me either.

I don't believe however that the owners would interfere with transfer policy to the extent of saying you can spend decent money on forwards but not defenders. If the argument was put forward that at times during Venky's tenure  the overall budget hasn't been big enough then it would be hard to disagree with that but I actually think TM has been well backed financially since we were relegated.

We've also had numerous managers under Venky's stewardship and not one has ever said or hinted that they were prohibited from signing a certain type of player. As far as we know TM wasn't precluded from going after Bauer either, he decided he didn't want to pay Charlton's original asking price and hung around for 12 months hoping to get him on a free before on his own admission cocking up the negotiations with the spiel about Bauer  coming in as a squad player.

As far as keepers are concerned as well, Walton would presumably be very expensive at his age were we to sign him permanently and if only he was any good. We weren't to know that he would as another poster memorably put it "make Alan Fettis look like Dino Zoff" so that doesn't necessarily tie in with the theory either.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, MCMC1875 said:

But what do you know?

The same as anyone else. Nothing.