Tony Mowbray Discussion

[Sparks Rover]

3 minutes ago, islander200 said:

When the club commited 7 million on Brererton and 5 Million on Gallagher do you think they had a crystal ball that could guarantee we would sell a player to pay for it.

Dack?

[islander200]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Regarding FFP and how close we are to it, there is a lot of conjecture, speculation and assumption. Taking snippets from previous public forums etc from years ago.

The one thing that I dont get is the theory that if it didnt exist, that Venkys would actively invest and be interested in getting us promoted. And the whole nonsense that they will sign any cheque if asked. The reason given for the lack of spending this summer in the LT by Mowbray was the pandemic affecting India, nothing to do with FFP, it just seems to have been assumed that FFP is the main hindrance.

Any theories on top of that of Mowbray not being trusted with money but allowed to carry on can be filed under conspiracy theories.

Name me one club in the division with similar non owner funded income or transfers funded by player sales who are being backed like we have in the last 4 year?

I'm not arguing about the owners lack of care,I'm not saying that they have an open cheque book I am simply saying that the manager has been well backed and wasted a lot of money here.And others with knowledge have explained about FFP, they ain't making rumours from what I can tell they are explaining how ffp works .I have already said I'm not an expert but I don't think it takes an expert to realise that running the wage bill we are etc will put us in trouble.Armstrong fee and the reduction in our wage bill won't give us leeway until next summer is my understanding

[islander200]

5 minutes ago, JHRover said:

No such thing as a crystal ball in football. But I'd say there was a pretty solid expectation that one or both of those players, or Dack/Armstrong, would be potential £10 million+ players and would cover that outlay yes.

Ok and the commitment to contracts for ageing players,some who will have been on good money?

[chaddyrovers]

21 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Lets suppose Armstrong had got injured at Bolton and a sale this summer was made impossible as a result.

What would we have done then and would our transfer business have been any different?

The answer is no. With or without an Armstrong sale it was reliance on cheap young loans.

If Armstrong hadn't been sold where do you think we would be right now re. FFP? Do you think we'd have to magic £15 million out of player sales to avoid sanctions or do you think we'd have just been in pretty much exactly the same position as we are right now?

But Armstrong was sold tho. Fact.

I've explained the FFP situation to you before and you just won't accept it or understand it so I have nothing to add to my original post. 

21 minutes ago, JHRover said:

If there's any truth to the Maja 'deal' 

You seem the Nixon reports in today's paper why the deal didn't happen plus his comments on Radio Lancashire. Bbrovers2288 post on here confirm the deal we were looking at. 

So do you anything that says all that info I'd wrong? 

Edited September 12, 2021 by chaddyrovers

[islander200]

8 minutes ago, JHRover said:

No such thing as a crystal ball in football. But I'd say there was a pretty solid expectation that one or both of those players, or Dack/Armstrong, would be potential £10 million+ players and would cover that outlay yes.

They never sell players easy I can tell you for a fact that Rhodes was wanting out a long long time before sold.Players have been sold in the past on the cheap like Cairney but it is when non owner Money is needed not long after he was sold we were in an embargo

Even if that was the case it's the way we should be operating, a trading club not never selling our players because up until Armstrong when the club was under a barrel only Raya has been sold.

People can speculate about Dack but the previous window 15 million on the table for Dack confirmed by their assistant at the time and we turned it down.Some profit to be turning down.

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Name me one club in the division with similar non owner funded income or transfers funded by player sales who are being backed like we have in the last 4 year?

I'm not arguing about the owners lack of care,I'm not saying that they have an open cheque book I am simply saying that the manager has been well backed and wasted a lot of money here.And others with knowledge have explained about FFP, they ain't making rumours from what I can tell they are explaining how ffp works .I have already said I'm not an expert but I don't think it takes an expert to realise that running the wage bill we are etc will put us in trouble.Armstrong fee and the reduction in our wage bill won't give us leeway until next summer is my understanding

Our wage bill will be fairly low down I would suspect now with our skeletal squad and over Mowbrays tenure, surely the fees spent will be close to a net spend of zero.

I stand by the fact that there is a lot of assumption and speculation as to exactly how close we were pre the Armstrong sale to going over FFP regulations, especially as the published accounts only take us to June 2020, and indeed how much we could have spent of the Armstrong fee whilst staying within FFP. 

The wage bill wasnt necesssarily extortionately high, and of course there would be some wastage, proportionately our income is low and it is very common for Championship teams to have wage bills too high in comparison to their income, that is a fundamental issue beyond our club I think.

My point was that this idea that Venkys are being reigned in by FFP and/or would be spending much more if it didnt exist is total speculation, I suppose it couldnt be proven or disproven as it is hypothetical but there is no sign whatsoever based on their overall reign that they are being held back solely by FFP. None at all.

[islander200]

33 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Sheffield Wednesday were under FFP restrictions last year (we aren't as confirmed by the club) yet they were still able to sack of Garry Monk, Tony Pulis and all their coaching staff and replace them with other proven managers.

So I don't accept the excuse that FFP is preventing us from removing Mowbray or attracting anyone decent.

You'll also remember then that Paul Lambert (on paper our only decent looking appointment since Allardyce) arrived during the time we were under an embargo. Seemingly convinced that we had a plan to get out of it. Not sure why something similar couldn't happen right now and a good manager be brought in on the basis he could get ready for backing next year.

He didn't go to India last year for good reason. The world was locked down and nobody knew what was happening with the football seasons. This summer he could have gone out there or alternative plans could have been made with a conventional summer window. 

How many times do I have to say this? We lost £20 million last year in no small part due to the pandemic. Costs attributable to the pandemic can be discounted from FFP calculations. So that figure should be substantially lower. The massive savings made in terms of the wage bill and Armstrong cash would also be factored into any discussions with the League on restrictions - if they were suggesting restrictions were coming we could show that we had slashed costs down and brought cash in.

I also keep coming back to the Millwalls, Lutons and Barnsleys - smaller clubs who manage to attract decent managers, build squads, finish mid table or push the play offs and all without any FFP trouble. 

Why can't we do that?

When have I ever said it is preventing us from sacking Mowbray?

I said he should be sacked.But I also think with the squad we have and little money to spend this window which could be due to ffp then it would be difficult to attract any one decent.

IV always agreed the way the club is run is a joke my only argument is the manager has had funds that would be the envy of those clubs you mentioned.Thats why it doesn't bother me too much no money spent this window unless on a Maja or Obafemi.Too much money has been spent already for the squad to be in this state 

Would still sack him

Edited September 12, 2021 by islander200

[islander200]

Basically what I am saying is yeah the owners still should have made sure a striker at a minimum was brought in to what we could pay due to ffp but the squad today isn't down to lack of spending the manager has had enough money and time to have the squad in a much better state.The lads who left from the wagebill who were our own didn't contribute enough to warrant what we paid them an awful lot of money wasted.

[JHRover]

10 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Armstrong was sold tho. Fact.

I've explained the FFP situation to you before and you just won't accept it or understand it so I have nothing to add to my original post. 

You seem the Nixon reports in today's paper why the deal didn't happen plus his comments on Radio Lancashire. Bbrovers2288 post on here confirm the deal we were looking at. 

So do you anything that says all that info I'd wrong? 

I know he was sold. I asked what you think would have happened if he couldn't be sold, which might have happened. I don't think it made any difference to our summer - if he wasn't sold we would still have been able to sign the players we did - cheap loans - do you agree?

If you do then you've confirmed my point - that the sale of Armstrong and business done afterwards had nothing to do with FFP and more to do with an unwillingness to spend either way from within Rovers.

To be honest I'm not interested in reports on who we tried and failed to sign. Lets call it Assombalonga syndrome - we have these every transfer window and then all sorts of excuses afterwards about why we couldn't get it done.

[islander200]

47 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Our wage bill will be fairly low down I would suspect now with our skeletal squad and over Mowbrays tenure, surely the fees spent will be close to a net spend of zero.

I stand by the fact that there is a lot of assumption and speculation as to exactly how close we were pre the Armstrong sale to going over FFP regulations, especially as the published accounts only take us to June 2020, and indeed how much we could have spent of the Armstrong fee whilst staying within FFP. 

The wage bill wasnt necesssarily extortionately high, and of course there would be some wastage, proportionately our income is low and it is very common for Championship teams to have wage bills too high in comparison to their income, that is a fundamental issue beyond our club I think.

My point was that this idea that Venkys are being reigned in by FFP and/or would be spending much more if it didnt exist is total speculation, I suppose it couldnt be proven or disproven as it is hypothetical but there is no sign whatsoever based on their overall reign that they are being held back solely by FFP. None at all.

The rules are you can lose 39 million over 3 years is that not the case?If it is then even with the Armstrong sale we are sailing close to the wind yes wage bill been reduced but that doesn't benefit us straight away with the accounts it will help us going forward but doesn't cover the losses already made 

Again name me 1 club prior to Armstrong being sold who has similar income to ourselves that was running as high a wage bill or spending as much in transfer fees, even though so called bigger teams were becoming more reliant on player sales to fund it .Im not saying it's an open cheque book sort of thing but I don't think any argument that he has been well backed in his time .If he is picking the players to be signed and he got those new deals for players who had done a job but there time was up then he Is responsible for the state the squad is in now .

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by islander200

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, JHRover said:

I asked what you think would have happened if he couldn't be sold, which might have happened. I don't think it made any difference to our summer - if he wasn't sold we would still have been able to sign the players we did - cheap loans - do you agree?

well its doesn't matter at the end of the day so its a pointless debate. Armstrong was sold and we signed who we did. 

7 hours ago, JHRover said:

To be honest I'm not interested in reports on who we tried and failed to sign.

well some us want to know and will keep asking the questions into the failing to sign a striker. 

Maja would be very good signing for us

 

[Mattyblue]

19 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

well some us want to know and will keep asking the questions into the failing to sign a striker. 

 

 

But we didn’t sign them, so isn’t still talking about it also ‘pointless’?

[Wheelton Blue]

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

well its doesn't matter at the end of the day so its a pointless debate. Armstrong was sold and we signed who we did. 

well some us want to know and will keep asking the questions into the failing to sign a striker. 

Maja would be very good signing for us

 

The why's and wherefore's as to why we didn't sign a striker matters not a jot. It's just excuses.

The simple fact is that we didn't sign a striker; that lies squarely at the feet of Mowbray, Waggott et al.

[chaddyrovers]

40 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

But we didn’t sign them, so isn’t still talking about it also ‘pointless’?

Well its not pointless at all as we need rectify the problems of the lack of proper and organised transfer planning during the last transfer window for future windows

 

[Mattyblue]

Ah, I see, a topic is only ‘pointless’ when you don’t want to talk about it anymore. Fair enough.

[gumboots]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well its not pointless at all as we need rectify the problems of the lack of proper and organised transfer planning during the last transfer window for future windows

 

The club needs to rectify it. We can discuss it till kingdom come but there's nothing WE can do

[chaddyrovers]

43 minutes ago, gumboots said:

The club needs to rectify it. We can discuss it till kingdom come but there's nothing WE can do

We can keep asking the questions. Get Bayes, Crooke and Sharpe to keep asking questions. Get fans forum members to ask questions at the meetings like Only2garners and K-Hod say they will do

[47er]

11 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Any theories on top of that of Mowbray not being trusted with money but allowed to carry on can be filed under conspiracy theories.

I've read your post twice but I don't follow the logic of it. What is the explanation, in your view, for Venkys not spending?

You've given your view on what it isn't so what is it?

[RoversClitheroe]

It's actually mental how out of touch with Reality Waggott actually is. How can a CEO have zero understanding of the club is actually beyond me.

Could say the same for Mowbray, tactically lost us the game yesterday. You watch Mowbray drop Dolan on Tuesday for a loanee.

 

[simongarnerisgod]

26 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

It's actually mental how out of touch with Reality Waggott actually is. How can a CEO have zero understanding of the club is actually beyond me.

Could say the same for Mowbray, tactically lost us the game yesterday. You watch Mowbray drop Dolan on Tuesday for a loanee.

 

it amazed me that while 11,000 rovers fans could see we needed an extra midfielder on the pitch,our experienced manager could`nt see it,i agree,there will be quite a few  changes on tuesday night imo,i bet buckley,dolan and rothwell make way for the loan brigade

[roversfan99]

30 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

It's actually mental how out of touch with Reality Waggott actually is. How can a CEO have zero understanding of the club is actually beyond me.

Could say the same for Mowbray, tactically lost us the game yesterday. You watch Mowbray drop Dolan on Tuesday for a loanee.

 

I dont get the loanee obsession. Of course based on Saturday, Dolan is part of it but the objective of tomorrow should be to select the team with the biggest chance of winning the game rather than obsessing over the contracts that they are on. We know that the contractual situation in general is piss poor but its a seperate issue going back to the owners. Would you drop Nyambe, Lenihan, Brereton and Rothwell?

Edited September 13, 2021 by roversfan99

[phili]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont get the loanee obsession. Of course based on Saturday, Dolan is part of it but the objective of tomorrow should be to select the team with the biggest chance of winning the game rather than obsessing over the contracts that they are on. We know that the contractual situation in general is piss poor but its a seperate issue going back to the owners. Would you drop Nyambe, Lenihan, Brereton and Rothwell?

If we had a better fitter centre back, I would drop Lenihan in a heart beat. Every time I watch him I think how is he ever a centre back. Everything about his game is wrong, he has just not progressed or developed at all in 4 years. 

I would keep the same team as Saturday, more they play together the more settled the side will become, better understanding of playing with each other and most probably better results. I often think all the chopping and changing we do confuses everyone and results in our poor performances, only being good for 45 mins etc.

He should stick to one formation, 4-3-3 or whatever, pick the best players for that formation and stick to it. Its a simple game, why does he always overcomplicate it?

[Paul Mellelieu]

13 hours ago, JHRover said:

Sheffield Wednesday were under FFP restrictions last year (we aren't as confirmed by the club) yet they were still able to sack of Garry Monk, Tony Pulis and all their coaching staff and replace them with other proven managers.

So I don't accept the excuse that FFP is preventing us from removing Mowbray or attracting anyone decent.

You'll also remember then that Paul Lambert (on paper our only decent looking appointment since Allardyce) arrived during the time we were under an embargo. Seemingly convinced that we had a plan to get out of it. Not sure why something similar couldn't happen right now and a good manager be brought in on the basis he could get ready for backing next year.

He didn't go to India last year for good reason. The world was locked down and nobody knew what was happening with the football seasons. This summer he could have gone out there or alternative plans could have been made with a conventional summer window. 

How many times do I have to say this? We lost £20 million last year in no small part due to the pandemic. Costs attributable to the pandemic can be discounted from FFP calculations. So that figure should be substantially lower. The massive savings made in terms of the wage bill and Armstrong cash would also be factored into any discussions with the League on restrictions - if they were suggesting restrictions were coming we could show that we had slashed costs down and brought cash in.

I also keep coming back to the Millwalls, Lutons and Barnsleys - smaller clubs who manage to attract decent managers, build squads, finish mid table or push the play offs and all without any FFP trouble. 

Why can't we do that?

We have a Cat 1 Academy to pay for too though.

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

We have a Cat 1 Academy to pay for too though.

Net £1.3m p.a.

Less than Ayala's wages or slightly more than we paid Mulgrew not to play for us for each of the last 2 seasons.

Edited September 13, 2021 by RevidgeBlue

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

I've read your post twice but I don't follow the logic of it. What is the explanation, in your view, for Venkys not spending?

You've given your view on what it isn't so what is it?

I dont have an explanation, I just dont think that FFP is the only thing stopping them from being ambitious and engaging in a genuine attempt at moving the club forward. Nor do I leap to the illogical conclusion that Venkys dont trust Mowbray to the point whereby they give him no more money yet allow him to keep his job.

Venkys often lose interest to the point whereby they strip back any investment.