Tony Mowbray Discussion

[RevidgeBlue]

38 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Why would he not mention that though? 

Probably to protect the player.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Mowbray has a lot of form on being ok with signing injured players and those with known and likely recurring injuries.

Ayala being just one but a prime example.

Yes but there are injuries and injuries.

I.e. recurring but fairly minor ones  which wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker and more serious conditions which would result in the player being unable to get medical insurance.

If you want to question however why we are trying to do all our business in the last hour of the last day of the transfer window I think that's a valid argument.

By doing business in a timely fashion you can overcome any unexpected last minute curve balls and move onto an alternative.

[islander200]

33 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Wherever the AA money has gone it is most certainly a benefit to the owners.

If it has gone into the Club to pay running costs then its money Vs do not need to stump up. Other scenarios give the same outcome.

The one place it most certainly has not gone is replacing AA.

It pays for Gallagher and Brererton and helps to balance the books.

We have had hardly any income in the last 18 months.

If it is coming across that I am defensive over the owners being criticized then I apologize, I am completely in agreement that they are incompetent and have no business running a football club.

However, they are putting in what they can ,our wages to turnover is ridiculous.They are losing money not making it on us.They are billionaires do you honestly think they care over a few million profit made on Armstrong which doesn't even put us in a positive transfer spend since Mowbray had been at the club if you take signing on fees on ageing players Into account?

If we are ever to see the back of the Venkys then the club needs to start becoming more sustainable,they will not be putting us into administration like what happened at Wigan and Bolton.

A striker should have been brought in to make our stay in the league more secure but we can't spending money like we have been doing ,throwing money down the drain.Yes high transfer fees have been kept for forward players but some of our free transfers ended up costing the club a lot of money.

There must have been some money  as why would you choose to spend what little you have on all these similar type player loans and spend a transfer fee for a full back a position you had last paid a transfer fee for and then loaned him back (ridiculous stuff) nothing against the players in question but no way to go about things. Surely that comes down to people on the ground being wasteful with the playing budget.

Incompetent people on the ground with no sort of plan except putting prices through the roof and making it a struggle for many to afford to go.

On the ground needs a complete overhaul and we have to start cutting our cloth and being more clever with the little money we have.

Am I confident that after so many years the owners will suddenly change tact and employ both a competent CEO and a management team no I'm not and want the Venkys gone as much as anyone but they do spend (waste) money and hang onto assets that want out for too long,unless the club stop appointing yes men and start working to a strategy both on and off the field any money we spend will be wasted like the rest.

Maybe Maja didn't fancy competing for a wide Striker role with Gallagher and Brererton whilst Poveda or Dolan played through the middle?

 

 

 

[JHRover]

2 hours ago, islander200 said:

How do the owners benefit from the Armstrong deal?

Pay them back for Gallagher and Brererton?Pay toward wages?

They have no clue how to run a football club but they won't be rubbing their hands together over the fact they made 9 or 10 Million on Armstrong.

This is not a post defending the owners, without a doubt they are totally clueless and agree with the majority of what you have said apart from the owners benefitting from the Armstrong sale.

Which ever way you look at it the club needs money being brought in.We had sold Raya and Nuttall previous to Armstrong.We still are not in player trading profit during Mowbrays tenure.

Also you keep saying "it's the same as every summer".Last summer 11 players were brought to the club,12 if you include Pickering.Granted 6 loans 

I think it is obvious how the owners benefit from not spending the Armstrong cash. You've explained it yourself - it covers the cash they put in for deals previously, or alternatively can be used to fund the club for the next 12 months saving them the trouble of pumping other cash in.

Of course that's their decision and their right to decide but most billionaires desperate to see their club succeed would ensure funds were reinvested to rebuild, strengthen and go again. Conveniently we haven't done. Just like we didn't after the Rhodes dosh came in. Lightning strikes twice it seems.

I'm not saying they'll be cracking open the champagne about Armstrong going or spending the cash on themselves, but it certainly helps them in terms of getting back the cash they 'invested' previously or at the very least saves them the trouble of having to fund losses for a while.

Again it comes back to ambition and what they are in this for. If their interest is solely to balance the books, keep the club as a going concern then some would say it is sensible to spend next to nothing and use it to plug losses. But if there's any ambition to grow assets, improve, get promoted then cash needs reinvesting and excuses really won't cut it no matter which version of events is believed. 

I'm not going to credit them for signing so many players each window when one of the main reasons for that is the chaotic and short term approach they have chosen to take. Next summer is another - we will have to sign double figures just to have a squad at our disposal. I will not be hailing the owners if those are all cheapo loans and frees cobbled together with little strategy other than to grab whoever is easiest and cheapest like the policy this summer seems to have been.

The Armstrong money, coupled with the Raya cash and other bits and pieces - compensation fees - see us in profit now for the last 4 years on transfer fees. Which I think has always been their intention - they seem happy or comfortable with sustaining a wage bill and annual losses on the debt mountain but when it comes to coughing up cash for investments it seems to only be on the basis they are going to be able to get it back in the not too distant future. 

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, islander200 said:

It pays for Gallagher and Brererton and helps to balance the books.

We have had hardly any income in the last 18 months.

If it is coming across that I am defensive over the owners being criticized then I apologize, I am completely in agreement that they are incompetent and have no business running a football club.

However, they are putting in what they can ,our wages to turnover is ridiculous.They are losing money not making it on us.They are billionaires do you honestly think they care over a few million profit made on Armstrong which doesn't even put us in a positive transfer spend since Mowbray had been at the club if you take signing on fees on ageing players Into account?

If we are ever to see the back of the Venkys then the club needs to start becoming more sustainable,they will not be putting us into administration like what happened at Wigan and Bolton.

A striker should have been brought in to make our stay in the league more secure but we can't spending money like we have been doing ,throwing money down the drain.Yes high transfer fees have been kept for forward players but some of our free transfers ended up costing the club a lot of money.

There must have been some money  as why would you choose to spend what little you have on all these similar type player loans and spend a transfer fee for a full back a position you had last paid a transfer fee for and then loaned him back (ridiculous stuff) nothing against the players in question but no way to go about things. Surely that comes down to people on the ground being wasteful with the playing budget.

Incompetent people on the ground with no sort of plan except putting prices through the roof and making it a struggle for many to afford to go.

On the ground needs a complete overhaul and we have to start cutting our cloth and being more clever with the little money we have.

Am I confident that after so many years the owners will suddenly change tact and employ both a competent CEO and a management team no I'm not and want the Venkys gone as much as anyone but they do spend (waste) money and hang onto assets that want out for too long,unless the club stop appointing yes men and start working to a strategy both on and off the field any money we spend will be wasted like the rest.

Maybe Maja didn't fancy competing for a wide Striker role with Gallagher and Brererton whilst Poveda or Dolan played through the middle?

 

 

Again, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it but there are a few things I don't fully agree with here. I do think we agree on several things but:

I don't accept that the club has had 'hardly any income' for the last 18 months. In the period affected by Covid - March 2020 to August 2021 - we had a reduced income - as did everyone else in the country. But people need to recall that as a low end attended Championship side the bulk of our income comes from media, commercial and sponsorship, rather than people buying match tickets. As I understand it Sky Sports covered their full payments due under the media deal through that time, grants were also provided. Rovers also had full season ticket money for the 2019-20 season which they refused to refund people on whereas almost every other club offered the option of refunds. 

Given we sell so few matchday tickets the impact of losing that income ought to have been less than say a Derby, Forest or Norwich able to fill their grounds most weeks. 

So not ideal but I fail to see how this has affected Rovers more seriously than any other club. It is also something that Rovers have chosen to do nothing about - for example not selling season tickets for 2020-21 until September when rivals were busy selling them through the summer and then callously increasing prices.

Again - our wages to turnover ratio is high but that is the case at every club at this level. The real way to resolve this is to increase turnover, not slash wages right back and hope for the best whilst cobbling together a squad built on loans each year.

I don't think the club can be run more sustainably under these owners as I don't think they have the capability to do it.

[islander200]

45 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think it is obvious how the owners benefit from not spending the Armstrong cash. You've explained it yourself - it covers the cash they put in for deals previously, or alternatively can be used to fund the club for the next 12 months saving them the trouble of pumping other cash in.

Of course that's their decision and their right to decide but most billionaires desperate to see their club succeed would ensure funds were reinvested to rebuild, strengthen and go again. Conveniently we haven't done. Just like we didn't after the Rhodes dosh came in. Lightning strikes twice it seems.

I'm not saying they'll be cracking open the champagne about Armstrong going or spending the cash on themselves, but it certainly helps them in terms of getting back the cash they 'invested' previously or at the very least saves them the trouble of having to fund losses for a while.

Again it comes back to ambition and what they are in this for. If their interest is solely to balance the books, keep the club as a going concern then some would say it is sensible to spend next to nothing and use it to plug losses. But if there's any ambition to grow assets, improve, get promoted then cash needs reinvesting and excuses really won't cut it no matter which version of events is believed. 

I'm not going to credit them for signing so many players each window when one of the main reasons for that is the chaotic and short term approach they have chosen to take. Next summer is another - we will have to sign double figures just to have a squad at our disposal. I will not be hailing the owners if those are all cheapo loans and frees cobbled together with little strategy other than to grab whoever is easiest and cheapest like the policy this summer seems to have been.

The Armstrong money, coupled with the Raya cash and other bits and pieces - compensation fees - see us in profit now for the last 4 years on transfer fees. Which I think has always been their intention - they seem happy or comfortable with sustaining a wage bill and annual losses on the debt mountain but when it comes to coughing up cash for investments it seems to only be on the basis they are going to be able to get it back in the not too distant future. 

The money will be spent again tho this is where we disagree that money will be put on the field again.

Why agree to 40% sell on in Armstrong's case if it is about profit or covering losses?I'm not buying the argument that we agreed to it so we could get him so cheap in my opinion it was market value for the player he was and what he had done at the time but even if that wasn't the case we had no problem over paying for Brereton and Gallagher so why not Armstrong.

The Bradley Johnson's,Holtbys ,Downings Ayala's, long term deals for Bennet,Mulgrew and Evans.That money was spent with profit in mind ffs?

The Armstrong money will reappear like the Rhodes money eventually did.Every time spending stops it is the third year when they have pushed us to the hilt.

Name me one club that carries our wage budget and spends decent enough money on transfer fees with similar non owner funded income as ourselves?There ain't any and when they do spend it is reliant on player sales.

Not being argumentative either and I am unhappy with many things at the club but believe we should be in a lot more secure position with the finance that has been available to Mowbray.

Edited September 9, 2021 by islander200

[TheRoversReturn]

TM on his way out?!? Hmmmm....I'll believe it when I see it. I suppose if people keep saying it's gonna happen enough times for long enough that when it does happen they can say, "See! I told you so!" Not advisable to hold one's breath under these owners, however...

Don't worry guys, once Venky's realise that they've been badly advised for...oooh, 10, 11, 12 years or whatever it is now, they'll pot Tony and start to run the club in the way it should be run.

Edited September 9, 2021 by TheRoversReturn

[Sparks Rover]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

By doing business in a timely fashion you can overcome any unexpected last minute curve balls and move onto an alternative.

He's lying. You can tell, no names, no real information.   

He has no personality that a young lad would buy into. His attitude is old fashioned and I bet IF there was any potential last day arrivals, his slow miserable drone and his mate Ming looking shifty will have frightened em off.  No inspiration or anything, the young lads won't know Mogadon was a player or anything like that.  Just some grey old fart in tracksuit

Need a clear out of management quickly.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Sparks Rover

[Ulrich]

7 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

He's lying. You can tell, no names, no real information.   

He has no personality that a young lad would buy into. His attitude is old fashioned and I bet IF there was any potential last day arrivals, his slow miserable drone and his mate Ming looking shifty will have frightened em off.  No inspiration or anything, the young lads won't know Mogadon was a player or anything like that.  Just some grey old fart in tracksuit

Need a clear out of management quickly.

I have highlighted this point before, when you listen to TM talk, he just talks gibberish. If the latest LT article contains direct quotes, then I can understand why players would not be interested in coming here. He just doesn't make sense and training etc with him giving the instructions must be so confusing.

[OldEwoodBlue]

Don't worry folks...

In today's episode, Dack is on the cusp of back... lyca new signing.

[Gav]

7 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

He's lying. You can tell, no names, no real information.   

You leave Revidge and Mercer alone, have some respect please Sparks 😉

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Don't worry folks...

In today's episode, Dack is on the cusp of back... lyca new signing.

Much ado about nothing apart from yet again telling us how hard he and his BF Park work.

This man gives tripe a bad name.

Dack comments a red herring thrown to the FB fanboys.

[roverandout]

25 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Much ado about nothing apart from yet again telling us how hard he and his BF Park work.

This man gives tripe a bad name.

Dack comments a red herring thrown to the FB fanboys.

And they lap it up

[tomphil]

An eternal defeatist whose very first thought on everything is to get the excuses in first.

[G Somerset Rover]

3 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Don't worry folks...

In today's episode, Dack is on the cusp of back... lyca new signing.

Wait til Trav gets injured and then it'll be "Wait til Dack and Trav are back" once again. 

[Wheelton Blue]

53 minutes ago, tomphil said:

An eternal defeatist whose very first thought on everything is to get the excuses in first.

Exactly.

It's all about why things can't or didn't happen, rather than making sure that they can or did happen.

[tomphil]

Hes constantly blamed the finances in the past when these alleged advanced efforts to sign some have fallen down. Can't really do that this time after a big sale so now it's not financial.

Well what is it then ?   Probably more worrying hearing that for once it isn't money.

[arbitro]

Mowbray has an honours degree in talking a lot without actually saying anything. What is the point of saying all he did about potential new players being 'in the building' without giving reasons for them not signing? And once again I question all this last minute panic trying to bring players in when the clock is certainly against him.

 

[tomphil]

Not sure how serious they actually are with some of these players they so called go for on permanents.  Seem quick enough to guarantee other clubs loanees game time and of course would he have let an ex boro boy leave the building without signing ?

[Bigdoggsteel]

6 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Not sure how serious they actually are with some of these players they so called go for on permanents.  Seem quick enough to guarantee other clubs loanees game time and of course would he have let an ex boro boy leave the building without signing ?

I think the loans who played deserved to though and Braintwaithe wasn't guaranteed game time. The only one you could argue didnt was Douglas and then you remember his competition was Bell. Elliott is starting for Liverpool now and THB will be playing in the Champions league. I don't think any loans were unfairly given game time. Who do you think was? 

[RoversClitheroe]

11 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

The only one you could argue didnt was Douglas and then you remember his competition was Bell.

Bell who's doing better than our left back for a team that's worse than ours?

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Bell who's doing better than our left back for a team that's worse than ours?

Was Bell shite when here, yes or no? 

Whats the metric you are using to say Luton are worse? Didn't they finish above us last season? 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Bigdoggsteel

[tomphil]

12 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I think the loans who played deserved to though and Braintwaithe wasn't guaranteed game time. The only one you could argue didnt was Douglas and then you remember his competition was Bell. Elliott is starting for Liverpool now and THB will be playing in the Champions league. I don't think any loans were unfairly given game time. Who do you think was? 

I'm thinking more that there might be issues regarding game time in talks with permanent players. Like some lad coming ready to sign having agreed terms to be then told he'll be behind a loanee kid in the pecking order initially.

When the recruitment team, agents, the ceo, owners and all that have done their bit in getting the player there terms agreed it's the managers job to bag him.

Not sure how many options someone like Bell had but he mentioned the drive and ambition of the selling job Lutons manager did. Remarking he'd never come across that before which i thought might have been a bit of a ref to Mowbray.

Of course it could be down to medical but that kind of thing usually leaks out pretty quick.

[Bigdoggsteel]

7 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I'm thinking more that there might be issues regarding game time in talks with permanent players. Like some lad coming ready to sign having agreed terms to be then told he'll be behind a loanee kid in the pecking order initially.

When the recruitment team, agents, the ceo, owners and all that have done their bit in getting the player there terms agreed it's the managers job to bag him.

Not sure how many options someone like Bell had but he mentioned the drive and ambition of the selling job Lutons manager did. Remarking he'd never come across that before which i thought might have been a bit of a ref to Mowbray.

Of course it could be down to medical but that kind of thing usually leaks out pretty quick.

I can't imagine Mowbray is saying this to any players, why would he? I would say it's just a case that they have better options. We have a wage cap and we are competing with so many clubs for the same players. Plus I'm sure some players are swayed by the managers personality, but this works both ways and many players have said they have signed because of Mowbrays love for the game. 

[AllRoverAsia]

45 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Mowbray has an honours degree in talking a lot without actually saying anything. What is the point of saying all he did about potential new players being 'in the building' without giving reasons for them not signing? And once again I question all this last minute panic trying to bring players in when the clock is certainly against him.

 

I think those 'players' were in the unfinished and deteriorating 'building' of Mowbray's mind.

A story based on fantasy and fiction cobbled together to fool the foolish.

I mean all those players in the building and not one signs and no reason given.

I'd rather believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.