Tony Mowbray Discussion

[islander200]

12 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

well who else would play left back if Pickering got injury? 

Probably not if we had signed a right back allowing JRC to play further forward. 

Bring another left back in on loan,the 500 grand that we spent on the fella at left back should have been added to the kitty for a goalscorer which we are in more need of than a second left back 

[Wheelton Blue]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

We are 9th in the league table currently. Forget the form guide. 

If I was to offer you 9th place finish in May with Mowbray in charge and this squad would you or anyone accept that?

 

Do you honestly believe that if nothing changes, we'll end up anywhere near 9th? The form guide - stretching back now over 30 or so games -  says quite the opposite unless something radical happens.

[islander200]

18 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

it was a loan with view to permanent deal next summer., Cos we could afford within the current FFP rules. 

Not what I heard and know Nottingham forest were trying to sign him permanently, so find it hard to believe that Bordeaux would have given him to us on loan with only a view to a permanent deal when they could have got the money from forest if he didn't have this injury issue

[roversfan99]

19 minutes ago, islander200 said:

The facts are tho he has received plenty of backing in his previous seasons.It isn't gossip to point at what he has had to spend up until this summer.He had had enough money in previous years.

IV always agreed that the Venkys are rubbish owners but they put money in.Clubs with our income ain't paying 7 million and 5 million out on transfer fees.Nor are they giving long term deals out to ageing and injury prone players on the money we were paying.

There were 2 reasonable options this summer, sack the manager if you dont trust him, or give him a reasonable chunk of the Armstrong proceeds to reinvest if you do trust him. Obviously, I would have chosen the first option, well overdue.

A lack of faith in the manager is in no way a justifiable excuse to turn the taps off this summer, as has happened and was my point. I don't think that is the case that they are purposely holding back funds because of a lack of trust in him, that seems a bit too far fetched.

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, Kie_BRFC said:

That comment is childish but you’ve just accused him of not celebrating if rovers players score 😂

Think you need a break chaddy you’re on one today 

I think Roversfan99 is good passionate Rovers fan and good poster on here for the record. but I just found that sort of comment from him strange and unwarranted. 

and by the way I ain't on one at all today

14 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Bring another left back in on loan,the 500 grand that we spent on the fella at left back should have been added to the kitty for a goalscorer which we are in more need of than a second left back 

what about the loan fee that teams want or wages? Instead we sign another left back who can further forward and another asset on the books. 

Money wasn't the problem for not signing a striker. We had Maja in the building until the back injury was found during his medical. Also chasing your a player for weeks who had no interest in coming here but you wanted to give him time to decide. 

13 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

Do you honestly believe that if nothing changes, we'll end up anywhere near 9th? The form guide - stretching back now over 30 or so games -  says quite the opposite unless something radical happens.

Last seaosn form guide doesn't matter. 

Who knows? I can't predict what will end but I did say this squad is mid table quality. Plus you have transfer window to add players to. 

I would be happy with 9th place this season. wouldn't you?

9 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Not what I heard and know Nottingham forest were trying to sign him permanently, so find it hard to believe that Bordeaux would have given him to us on loan with only a view to a permanent deal when they could have got the money from forest if he didn't have this injury issue

The player had chosen Rovers over Forest. Bordeaux would have got their money and thats situation would help us FFP wise. He was set to come here. 

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There were 2 reasonable options this summer, sack the manager if you dont trust him, or give him a reasonable chunk of the Armstrong proceeds to reinvest if you do trust him. Obviously, I would have chosen the first option, well overdue.

A lack of faith in the manager is in no way a justifiable excuse to turn the taps off this summer, as has happened and was my point. I don't think that is the case that they are purposely holding back funds because of a lack of trust in him, that seems a bit too far fetched.

FFP is the problem. 

Where I believe next summer we will allow to spend a reasonable chunk of the Armstrong and I would expect a new manager to be place by then

[Wheelton Blue]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Last seaosn form guide doesn't matter. 

Who knows? I can't predict what will end but I did say this squad is mid table quality. Plus you have transfer window to add players to. 

I would be happy with 9th place this season. wouldn't you?

I'd be delighted with 9th place. However, I'm a realist.

Last season's form guide absolutely does matter, for the simple reason being that nothing has changed for the better, in fact it's got worse. An improvement in form and results won't miraculously happen just because we're in a new season. That's just wishful thinking.

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

I'd be delighted with 9th place. However, I'm a realist.

Last season's form guide absolutely does matter, for the simple reason being that nothing has changed for the better, in fact it's got worse. An improvement in form and results won't miraculously happen just because we're in a new season. That's just wishful thinking.

last season is last season. Plenty has changes including 6 teams, loads of transfers and managerial changes. 

 

[islander200]

37 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There were 2 reasonable options this summer, sack the manager if you dont trust him, or give him a reasonable chunk of the Armstrong proceeds to reinvest if you do trust him. Obviously, I would have chosen the first option, well overdue.

A lack of faith in the manager is in no way a justifiable excuse to turn the taps off this summer, as has happened and was my point. I don't think that is the case that they are purposely holding back funds because of a lack of trust in him, that seems a bit too far fetched.

Its an ffp issue aswell, you may be a disbeliever in ffp then fair enough but I think they are beginning to crack down on it and we have clearly been spending more than what our level of income would allow under those rules.Im not claiming to be ffp expert but my understanding of it is we would be very close to breaching those rules.

They agree on the budget too late yes but when eventually agreed the manager is left too it or would you have me believe the owners signed off on a number of ageing players getting new deals and bringing ageing players who had been on decent money to make profit on it?

The budget was pitiful this summer but every time they turn the taps off there has been a period of financial backing or when we had the embargo.

 

[Wheelton Blue]

Let's turn it around then Chaddy.

What makes you think that we'll improve over last season with Mowbray still at the helm and with a weaker squad?

Just one thing.

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Its an ffp issue aswell, you may be a disbeliever in ffp then fair enough but I think they are beginning to crack down on it and we have clearly been spending more than what our level of income would allow under those rules.Im not claiming to be ffp expert but my understanding of it is we would be very close to breaching those rules.

They agree on the budget too late yes but when eventually agreed the manager is left too it or would you have me believe the owners signed off on a number of ageing players getting new deals and bringing ageing players who had been on decent money to make profit on it?

The budget was pitiful this summer but every time they turn the taps off there has been a period of financial backing or when we had the embargo.

 

I am not a disbeliever, but I also think that it is a huge assumption to imply that we were so far over the FFP guidelines before this summer that such an extreme profit was required in this window to offset it. 

We were always told prior that we were on the edge of FFP as you say, not that we were massively over FFP and needed such vast cut backs and such a huge negative net spend to offset it.

This has all gone away though from my point regarding the theory that the cutbacks were so extreme out of a lack of faith in a manager that they have allowed to continue anyway.

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I am not a disbeliever, but I also think that it is a huge assumption to imply that we were so far over the FFP guidelines before this summer that such an extreme profit was required in this window to offset it. 

We were always told prior that we were on the edge of FFP as you say, not that we were massively over FFP and needed such vast cut backs and such a huge negative net spend to offset it.

This has all gone away though from my point regarding the theory that the cutbacks were so extreme out of a lack of faith in a manager that they have allowed to continue anyway.

If we losing over 20 million each season and over 3 seasons that 60 million pounds when FFP rules say 39 million pounds is only allow in 3 season cycle. So even Armstrong sale we are still on the borderline of breaking FFP. Last season we allow Mowbray a massive squad to get us promote and he failed to deliver. Next season means we lose the first season spend after promotion and we sign Armstrong, Davenport, Rothwell and Brereton for transfer fees(9 to 10 million pounds spent there). So that's give us more room spend money and that's probably why Maja was loan deal leading to permanent deal next season. Helps with FFP rules. 

[Oldgregg86]

8 hours ago, PeteJD13 said:

Mowbray constantly cops the flack, but he’s been left with a wafer thin squad and very little in terms of options off the bench. Also I don’t think it’s the first time deals have been setup then changed last minute and they’ve fallen through. There’s no way Mowbray is happy with this squad any anger should be pointed at waggott and pasha for not getting deals over the line. Should Mowbray have gone in the summer arguably yes, he didn’t and they’ve left him with a wave thin squad and he is expected to work miracles   

Waggott and pasha didn’t bring magloire on and leave Gallagher flapping about why we were in a winning and comfortable position . Everyone is to blame from Mowbray up. There all incompetent at there jobs

Edited September 12, 2021 by Oldgregg86

[1864roverite]

1 hour ago, islander200 said:

Not what I heard and know Nottingham forest were trying to sign him permanently, so find it hard to believe that Bordeaux would have given him to us on loan with only a view to a permanent deal when they could have got the money from forest if he didn't have this injury issue

Forest are skint in fact more skint than Rovers!

[islander200]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

I am not a disbeliever, but I also think that it is a huge assumption to imply that we were so far over the FFP guidelines before this summer that such an extreme profit was required in this window to offset it. 

We were always told prior that we were on the edge of FFP as you say, not that we were massively over FFP and needed such vast cut backs and such a huge negative net spend to offset it.

This has all gone away though from my point regarding the theory that the cutbacks were so extreme out of a lack of faith in a manager that they have allowed to continue anyway.

We get crowds of ten thousand and our sponsorship will be miniscule and as for TV money don't you get more the more times you are on?In our case that is hardly ever .

Like I have said im no ffp expert but I find it hard to believe with our wage bill and the money that has been spent on transfers that we wouldn't be very close to the limit.Could it not be when the club are doing their projections they are factoring player sales at X amount a target we have still yet to meet.Prior to the end of last season we had only brought in 3 million for Raya(now 5) and Armstrong after Newcastle' seen their cut we made 10 or 11 million.

The wagebill has been running at a ridiculous rate and needed to be cut back.And a lot of that money was for nothing.Paying Mulgrew to be at Fleetwood, Ayala to be on the treatment table or for Holtby to go to Germany for a visit 

Edited September 12, 2021 by islander200

[den]

Doesn’t our current plight just show that this “build slowly” approach from Mowbray or any manager is just bullsh1t?

What has he been building towards, - a series of lucrative contracts for himself and his mates from Coventry?

[phili]

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I am not a disbeliever, but I also think that it is a huge assumption to imply that we were so far over the FFP guidelines before this summer that such an extreme profit was required in this window to offset it. 

We were always told prior that we were on the edge of FFP as you say, not that we were massively over FFP and needed such vast cut backs and such a huge negative net spend to offset it.

This has all gone away though from my point regarding the theory that the cutbacks were so extreme out of a lack of faith in a manager that they have allowed to continue anyway.

I am pretty sure Cheston said at the Fans Forum in October 2019 that we needed to sell Dack in order to comply with FFP and even then it would be close and may require more sales. So the Finance Director did explain that we were massively over FFP guidelines. Unfortunately Dack got injured and we then got incredibly lucky with Covid arriving, allowing us an additional 12 months for compliance and also to build a player up to a similar sales level as Dack.

We had last seasons very good squad and should have been challenging for promotion but we regressed. Mowbray received everything and more from Venky's he had asked for in order to mount a promotion challenge and didn't deliver. That squad is likely to be as close as we get to a promotion chasing squad for the next 3 seasons. 

Also this season seems to be a compete retrograde in transfer policy. We should have used our kids and put all of our available cash for a proper forward who can score goals and not bothered with any loans. After what i saw on Saturday at my first visit to Ewood in 20 months I am now pretty worried for the rest of the season. In quite a few games so far this season we have been pretty fortunate to get points from the games, eventually luck turns and we will really struggle. 

[47er]

It really does look like Venkys are unwilling to let TM spend any more money (and who could blame them?), he is not going to resign, so everything is on hold until his contract runs down.

I hope that's the explanation anyway.

[JHRover]

5 hours ago, islander200 said:

Its an ffp issue aswell, you may be a disbeliever in ffp then fair enough but I think they are beginning to crack down on it and we have clearly been spending more than what our level of income would allow under those rules.Im not claiming to be ffp expert but my understanding of it is we would be very close to breaching those rules.

 

Lets suppose FFP is the issue here. 

A few problems I have with this suggestion.

1) Are we suggesting that FFP is preventing us from firing Mowbray? Because if that is the case, what do we do if we are in the relegation zone at Xmas? Just persist with him no matter what to avoid having to cough up to pay him off? No Club in the entire league would do that even those under FFP restrictions.

2) Surely the situation has drastically changed with the Armstrong deal? What I mean is that until that deal was done and dusted there was no guarantee he would be sold. It was always likely to happen but if he had got a serious injury in training or pre-season or no PL clubs had taken a serious interest then we would either have kept him or sold him for a knock down fee. So to be able to sell him for a substantial fee must ha

Are we supposed to believe that we were sailing close to the wind, have sold Armstrong for an 8 figure sum, have demolished the weekly wage bill by getting rid of Bennett, Mulgrew, Williams, Evans, Holtby, Downing - and yet despite all that cannot pay off the manager if we don't like him any more or cannot provide any funds for new players without being in FFP trouble?

I think that is nonsense.

The more logical explanation, albeit one that people seem reluctant to believe, is that Venkys have got bored and fed up of spending but don't have the interest or balls to sack Mowbray, so instead we are back into limbo land like we were in the summer of 2015 when Gary Bowyer was left in the lurch.

I think the only way the owners will sanction reasonable spending is if the manager goes off to India and puts a case to the Desai's to back him. If the manager can't or won't do that then he doesn't get anything beyond what the club itself can generate.

 

[islander200]

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Lets suppose FFP is the issue here. 

A few problems I have with this suggestion.

1) Are we suggesting that FFP is preventing us from firing Mowbray? Because if that is the case, what do we do if we are in the relegation zone at Xmas? Just persist with him no matter what to avoid having to cough up to pay him off? No Club in the entire league would do that even those under FFP restrictions.

2) Surely the situation has drastically changed with the Armstrong deal? What I mean is that until that deal was done and dusted there was no guarantee he would be sold. It was always likely to happen but if he had got a serious injury in training or pre-season or no PL clubs had taken a serious interest then we would either have kept him or sold him for a knock down fee. So to be able to sell him for a substantial fee must ha

Are we supposed to believe that we were sailing close to the wind, have sold Armstrong for an 8 figure sum, have demolished the weekly wage bill by getting rid of Bennett, Mulgrew, Williams, Evans, Holtby, Downing - and yet despite all that cannot pay off the manager if we don't like him any more or cannot provide any funds for new players without being in FFP trouble?

I think that is nonsense.

The more logical explanation, albeit one that people seem reluctant to believe, is that Venkys have got bored and fed up of spending but don't have the interest or balls to sack Mowbray, so instead we are back into limbo land like we were in the summer of 2015 when Gary Bowyer was left in the lurch.

I think the only way the owners will sanction reasonable spending is if the manager goes off to India and puts a case to the Desai's to back him. If the manager can't or won't do that then he doesn't get anything beyond what the club itself can generate.

 

See chaddys post above we are allowed 39 million loss over 3 season we are losing 20 million a season.

They let him spend every other year he had been here.We brought in 11 players last summer Mowbray didn't go to India then.

We were going into an embargo under Bowyer are you forgetting that?

And as for the bit about blaming ffp for them not sacking Mowbray,of course not that is on them he should be gone.But if ffp is preventing us from spending this summer then I can see why it would be a struggle to get anyone decent to join as manager with the squad as it is 

Edited September 12, 2021 by islander200

[JHRover]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

If we losing over 20 million each season and over 3 seasons that 60 million pounds when FFP rules say 39 million pounds is only allow in 3 season cycle. So even Armstrong sale we are still on the borderline of breaking FFP. Last season we allow Mowbray a massive squad to get us promote and he failed to deliver. Next season means we lose the first season spend after promotion and we sign Armstrong, Davenport, Rothwell and Brereton for transfer fees(9 to 10 million pounds spent there). So that's give us more room spend money and that's probably why Maja was loan deal leading to permanent deal next season. Helps with FFP rules. 

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?

If there's any truth to the Maja 'deal' then it was typical Waggott - get now and pay later. I've heard a few things at the club that suggests this is his M.O. Nowt to do with FFP and more to do with having no money but probably hoping to persuade the owners to cough it up in due course or leave someone else to deal with it next year once he's retired.

[roversfan99]

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.

[JHRover]

12 minutes ago, islander200 said:

See chaddys post above we are allowed 39 million loss over 3 season we are losing 20 million a season.

They let him spend every other year he had been here.We brought in 11 players last summer Mowbray didn't go to India then.

We were going into an embargo under Bowyer are you forgetting that?

And as for the bit about blaming ffp for them not sacking Mowbray,of course not that is on them he should be gone.But if ffp is preventing us from spending this summer then I can see why it would be a struggle to get anyone decent to join as manager with the squad as it is 

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?

Edited September 12, 2021 by JHRover

[islander200]

7 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?

If there's any truth to the Maja 'deal' then it was typical Waggott - get now and pay later. I've heard a few things at the club that suggests this is his M.O. Nowt to do with FFP and more to do with having no money but probably hoping to persuade the owners to cough it up in due course or leave someone else to deal with it next year once he's retired.

You will be proven right or wrong next summer.

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.

[JHRover]

2 minutes ago, islander200 said:

You will be proven right or wrong next summer.

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.

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.