Tony Mowbray Discussion

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

And yet when O'Neill came in they were bottom of the league. The likes of Ince, Vokes, Afobe, Woods, Etebo, Lindsay who that money was spent have either been moved on rarely used as they weren't what O'Neill wanted. Yet by spending just £2 Million O'Neill has taken Stoke from bottom of the league to top 6 contenders.

 

Close but it was £13 Million.

Joe Allen: Stoke City sign Liverpool midfielder in £13m transfer - BBC Sport

O'Neill has change the squad around but still has a number of players on huge wages 

[RoversClitheroe]

LOL

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

 

Much bigger than ours, Fletcher, Allen, Obi Mikel, Vokes and Ince.

We're not in Stokes league really are we?

The problem with these comparisons is again that it is bloated with players that are on big wages many of whom the manager wouldnt have chosen to use and is stuck with. Having players like Ince and Vokes are not giving Stoke a competitive advantage, if anything they are causing the manager additional issues.

[JHRover]

1 minute ago, Gav said:

The 

Much bigger than ours, Fletcher, Allen, Obi Mikel, Vokes and Ince.

We're not in Stokes league really are we?

I think it is irrefutable that Stoke have a squad that cost more money and have a bigger wage bill. 

The reason for that is they have owners who invest in their club to better it whereas we have owners with a very different agenda.

But suggesting that this financial discrepancy is accountable for results or should put us into a different bracket to them is nonsense.

They've been a calamity club since leaving the Premier League, burning their way through 3 managers in 3 years, twice battling relegation and have had a massive turnover in staff. Mowbray has been able to build us up with stability, time and a blank canvas with no deadwood or cutbacks needed. O'Neill has had all sorts to deal with, players who didn't want to be there and a sinking ship. He's put Mowbray to shame.

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, Gav said:

No chance, sorry J*B, thanks for putting it out there, but thats not true from the website you're looking at.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2001/dec/30/newsstory.sport1

£7.6M according to The Guardian.

Mines from TransferMarkt: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/blackburn-rovers/alletransfers/verein/164

That figure will include all bonuses, agents fees and signing on fees. A signing on fee is usually 10% of the transfer fee to start with. TransferMarkt is very good, it’s usually taken from official club data when the accounts are released. 

[Mattyblue]

Stoke still have a squad full of PL failures they can’t get rid of us due to their daft wages - doesn’t make them a particularly good Championship side - it’s why many a relegated sides struggle in this league, demotivated players and a club with a losing mentality. It’s why the Championship is so competitive and you don’t have the same three bouncing back up each year.

O’Neill is slowly turning them around, but let’s see where they are after this season when the parachutes end.

[DE.]

We're only three points behind Stoke, and finished 4 places and 7 points clear of them last season. We can hardly say they're out of our league in any respect.

They've got a lot of invested money sloshing around the club but it was mostly spent on dross. Much like when we were paying out the arse for the likes of Murphy, Best, Etuhu, Orr, Robinson, Duffy, Hanley, Lowe, etc. It didn't get us very far. 

The reason they've pulled ahead of us this season isn't because they're loaded and bringing in top players at top prices. They just have a better manager than we do. It's pretty simple. 

[JHRover]

8 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

It's definitely not true, they relaid it like 3 seasons ago and posted it on twitter everyday if someone has the effort to go and search

They 'relay' it every summer, or did up until this summer (I'm not sure if they had enough time to do it this year with the unique circumstances).

The problem isn't relaying it, it is the way it is relaid and money spent on it.

My understanding is that there are different levels to relaying the pitch. The cheaper way is to scrape off the top inch or so of soil and replace it with new and plant new grass seeds. 

From what I gather over the last 5+ years the fund available for replacement of the pitch has been bare minimum and significantly less than elsewhere. Compare to clubs like Sheffield Wednesday and Charlton who spent £1 million+ on state of the art desso pitches and we aren't remotely close.

When you look at the lack of care, investment and maintenance at Ewood with filth all on the walls outside the ground and weeds growing I think we can safely see where the blame lies for the state of the pitch. Do everything on the cheap and easy here.

[Ewood Ace]

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

 

Much bigger than ours, Fletcher, Allen, Obi Mikel, Vokes and Ince.

I've no idea what they are on, it is pure speculation but if you want to speculate let's do so. Given that Fletcher and Obi Mikel were free agents in the middle of a pandemic it is entirely possible that they may have lowered their demands especially when you look at Stoke's more modest spending over the last couple of seasons. Allen signed a new contract when they were in the Championship, so whilst he is probably one of their higher paid players he probably won't be on crazy Premiership wages. As for Vokes and Ince they are probably well paid which is why Stoke are struggling to move them on, both have been fringe players for them under O'Neill.

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

We're not in Stokes league really are we?

What a sad comment that epitomises how Mowbray has lowered fans into believing his guff and excepting mid table mediocrity.  

[Ewood Ace]

5 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Stoke still have a squad full of PL failures they can’t get rid of us due to their daft wages - doesn’t make them a particularly good Championship side - it’s why many a relegated sides struggle in this league, demotivated players and a club with a losing mentality. 

As we know only to well.

[Gav]

4 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

I've no idea what they are on.

Once you accept the likes of Norwich, Stoke, Bournemouth, Watford, Brentford and Swansea have much bigger budgets, massive budgets if only in term of wages, you'll be in a much better place EA.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Gav

[roversfan99]

Brentford? Not sure about that. Swansea have massively culled their squad post relegation a few years ago and only Ayew is on big wages having failed to shift him. They sell players for big money and sign loans and frees to replace.

[Mattyblue]

Brentford have no particularly rich benefactor, no parachutes, average crowds of about 10k and are run on a ‘MoneyBall’ basis - they’d be doing it wrong if they paid ‘massive wages’.

[RoversClitheroe]

22 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

LOL

No one calling this out?! Mowbray was banging on about the pitch not being done in 27 years. It was done 5 years ago.....

[Ewood Ace]

20 minutes ago, Gav said:

Once you accept the likes of Norwich, Stoke, Bournemouth, Watford, Brentford and Swansea have much bigger budgets, massive budgets, much more than we do you'll be in a much better place EA.

Of course Norwich, Bournemouth and Watford do I never said they don't so I don't know why you said I don't accept that they do. But it is always the case that the 3 relegated clubs have the biggest budgets, once upon a time that was us and as we know only to well that does not automatically mean success.

Stoke do probably have a wage bill slightly bigger than us but they have trimmed it down a lot over the last few years after doing the same as us and misusing their parachute payments.

Swansea have hugely trimmed their wage bill since relegations. The only big wage they have is Ayew who they have been unable to shift of the wage bill. They have a very small squad made up mainly of cheap signings, freebies and loans. Since they were relegated the most they have spent on a player is £3 Million and in the last 3 seasons they have spent just £8 Million on players, with the current manager spending about £2.5 Million in his two years in charge. 

Brentford do not have massive budgets, what they spend they make through sells, what Mowbray get's to spend is given to him by the owners. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Ewood Ace

[StevenSK]

5 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

No one calling this out?! Mowbray was banging on about the pitch not being done in 27 years. It was done 5 years ago.....

I thought it was re done recently. Pretty sure there was also summer works in L1. TM speaks as much bullshit as Steve Kean. 
Im waiting to see the Pedigree Chum on the side.

[Songman]

23 minutes ago, JHRover said:

They 'relay' it every summer, or did up until this summer (I'm not sure if they had enough time to do it this year with the unique circumstances).

The problem isn't relaying it, it is the way it is relaid and money spent on it.

My understanding is that there are different levels to relaying the pitch. The cheaper way is to scrape off the top inch or so of soil and replace it with new and plant new grass seeds. 

From what I gather over the last 5+ years the fund available for replacement of the pitch has been bare minimum and significantly less than elsewhere. Compare to clubs like Sheffield Wednesday and Charlton who spent £1 million+ on state of the art desso pitches and we aren't remotely close.

When you look at the lack of care, investment and maintenance at Ewood with filth all on the walls outside the ground and weeds growing I think we can safely see where the blame lies for the state of the pitch. Do everything on the cheap and easy here.

This summer they were quoted a figure, id be lieing if I said the figure but it was 6 figures. This was for essential work that needed doing.

They however chose to get a firm from Burnley way to carry out a patch up job for around 10% of what the full job would have cost.

[simongarnerisgod]

4 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

No one calling this out?! Mowbray was banging on about the pitch not being done in 27 years. It was done 5 years ago.....

even if it has`nt been changed  in decades(like he wrongly states)why is it a mess,chorley have one  part time groundsman,train on it two nights  a week,have no undersoil heating and most likely hav`nt changed it in their entire existance,yet it`s a fantastic surface,someone at ewood needs firing and questions need asking,though it`s 1000/1 that it will happen

[Gav]

21 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Brentford? Not sure about that. Swansea have massively culled their squad post relegation a few years ago and only Ayew is on big wages having failed to shift him. They sell players for big money and sign loans and frees to replace.

 

15 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Brentford have no particularly rich benefactor, no parachutes, average crowds of about 10k and are run on a ‘MoneyBall’ basis - they’d be doing it wrong if they paid ‘massive wages’.

Brentford have pulled in £120m over the past 5yrs on player sales, thats some war chest, we could only dream of such riches these days.

Its not hard to do the maths chaps, we've pulled in £1.99 and a couple of packs of Venky chicken.

We can't compete.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Gav

[Mattyblue]

That’s because they are a well run club with a set plan and on a budget they have found a way to buy cheap and sell high. In 2019 they had one of the smallest wage bills in the league. They are not blowing us out if the water due to rich owners or parachute payments.

You are getting in a muddle here, Gav (unless your point is that we can’t compete with all manner of clubs due to being a basket case of a football club - then fair enough).

Edited January 16, 2021 by Mattyblue

[Ozz]

A 1-1 draw at home to Stoke pretty much symbolises Tony Mowbray 2021 at Rovers. 

[Ewood Ace]

9 minutes ago, Gav said:

Brentford have pulled in £120m over the past 5yrs on player sales, thats some war chest, we could only dream of such riches these days.

Brentford never spend all of what they bring in they usually end the window with a healthy profit. The thing for Brentford is that every year they have to replace their best players before they even get on to improving on what they already have. Mowbray never has to do that because he is never forced to sell his best players and he's always given money to improve on what he already has. 

Also had Brentford had the £7 Million that was spent on Brereton and £5 Million on Gallagher they would have spent that on players who by now would be worth more than what they paid unlike Mowbray who spent it on two players who weren't worth it and are now worth significantly less than what we paid. And that is because Brentford have a plan to their recruitment rather than the scattergun approach that Mowbray has.

Also Brentford have just spent £71 Million on a new stadium.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Ewood Ace

[Gav]

5 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

That’s because they are a well run club with a set plan and on a budget they have found a way to buy cheap and sell high. They are not blowing us out if the water due to rich owners or parachute payments.

You are getting in a muddle here, Gav.

You're missing the point again, which was we can't compete with Brentford, for all the reasons stated above.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Gav

[DE.]

If our rich owners cared we could compete. Proper infrastructure in place, a modern manager, a well thought out transfer strategy and people above the manager accurately assessing performance. 

We have none of that because the owners are happy to simply keep the lights on and let the club drown in mediocrity. Mowbray is the symptom rather than a cause, but our issues go far deeper than clubs having more money than us. 

[Mattyblue]

We can’t compete with Brentford because they are a highly functional, professional football club with an effective business model and we aren’t?

That is undoubtedly the case.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Mattyblue