Summer Transfer Window

[Guest]

1 hour ago, unsall said:

Too say Cunningham wasn’t an excellent signing because he only played 10 games, when probably most Rovers fans knew he was, tells me you can’t see a decent player, would love him to come back as we was a very decent acquisition.

To say a player is an EXCELLENT signing after seeing him play for just 10 apps tells me you are desperate to see a decent player?

[Guest]

Just now, rigger said:

Reed worked as a loan, Gallagher and Brereton are our players, how is that going? 

It depends. I don't think Reed, Palmer, Cunningham, Tosin and Walton have "worked" considering we're still sat in the Championship. If we're going to spend such high amounts of money over two seasons, I'd rather it be on permanent players - especially if neither route leads to promotion.

[RoversClitheroe]

2 minutes ago, rigger said:

Reed worked as a loan, Gallagher and Brereton are our players, how is that going? 

Reed was played out of position the whole season and I don't think he made loads of appearances. So I'd disagree.

[Guest]

Route A: Loan three-four players and finish 11th. Spending however much.

Route B: Sign three-four players and finish 14th. Spending the same amount as above.

I'd take Route B. As route B adds potential value to our finances and Route A doesn't. Whilst neither route provides promotion.

Edited August 11, 2020 by JoeH

[Herbie6590]

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

I’d rather spend my £2-3m on players we’re going to own (seemingly as we seem set to do more of this season) than waste money on players who never bring any value to the clubs assets list, and don’t get us promoted. 

Kasey Palmer
Greg Cunningham
Christian Walton
Tosin Adarabioyo
Harrison Reed

I’d estimate over £4m has been spent on those guys, and now, in August 2020, what do we have to show for it? A minus figure in the books.

Whilst I don’t necessarily trust the club to spend £4m well, it would be nicer to have some permanent players to show for such a large sum, rather than another mid table finish having spent high figures on PL youngsters.

 

On a point of accountancy principle....I know, sorry.......?

Loan players cost you wages & loan fees...
If you buy players they cost you wages & depreciation...

Use v Ownership is the conundrum....the policy should be to bring in the best players that you can afford holistically, whether as purchases or loans, to achieve the objective of winning promotion.

“...but we lose loan players at the end of every season...” yes, that is true & potentially disruptive, but equally, if Rovers sign someone decent & we get an offer in that’s deemed acceptable 12 months later, we can easily lose an owned player as well and not always at a massive profit if there is a release clause e.g. Craig Bellamy.

In summary, it’s not always “good to buy” & “bad to loan”. It depends...if you sign players that don’t perform, their value falls. If they are loan players then it’s not your risk or detriment. The moral here is....sign good players...

“This statement of the blindingly obvious is brought to you by BRFCS...” ?

[JHRover]

36 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

But let's not forget that of those 73 seasons in the top division some 44 seasons were between 1888 and 1936.  Since football restarted after the war the majority of our time has been spent outside the top flight.  The Jack Walker/Walker Trust era was very much a golden period in our modern history.  I remember John Williams saying at the time of Big Sam's appointment, that if we got relegated it would be very difficult to get back.  Many of us remember the 25 years in exile after the 1965-66 relegation season.  I would agree that we are not a Third Division club but modern history suggests we are a club that spends long periods in the second tier.

All true but if we are discounting or diluting seasons or achievements pre WW2 then we must do so across the board. 

We can also apply similar approaches to so-called Big clubs outside the top division at the moment. 

Such as Forest. We can say that they had a golden era during the late 70s and 80s but apart from that nothing since way back when.

The point I suppose is whilst I agree we aren't entitled to a place in the top division, we should certainly not feel any less deserving or worthy than anyone else because from what I can see our pedigree both pre WW2 and post WW2 is as impressive as anyone else's around this division. Sheff Wed similar in having the majority of their success way back. I dont think it is any more or less relevant than say Wolves being good in the 50s or Leeds in the 60s. 

Even if it were true that we spent most of our time in the 2nd division that still puts us in a bracket above most at this level who have been regulars in the 3rd and 4th divisions. So even if we accept that we are a regular 2nd tier club that still puts us top end in this league.

[rigger]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

It depends. I don't think Reed, Palmer, Cunningham, Tosin and Walton have "worked" considering we're still sat in the Championship. If we're going to spend such high amounts of money over two seasons, I'd rather it be on permanent players - especially if neither route leads to promotion.

I’d rather the money went on players who improve the team, whatever terms they are on.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

I'm not at all saying loans should be excessively relied upon, but it keeps being framed as an 'either/or' argument, when a smattering of well-targeted, high-quality loans is often a sensible way to improve your competitiveness for a season with limited financial commitment, and we've also seen some recent examples of squads getting promoted with a significant number of loans.

Agreed. It certainly shouldn't be seen as either or, but this notion that we have progressed from 2018 to now is a little silly to me. It's a "fake" progression when the backbone of your team, starting GK and CB both leave the club at the end of the season.

I'd say right now, with no additions at the moment, we're weaker than where we were in 2018/19. The progress we have made has all now gone again due to the loss of loan players back to their permanent homes.

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

On a point of accountancy principle....I know, sorry.......?

Loan players cost you wages & loan fees...
If you buy players they cost you wages & depreciation...

Use v Ownership is the conundrum....the policy should be to bring in the best players that you can afford holistically, whether as purchases or loans, to achieve the objective of winning promotion.

“...but we lose loan players at the end of every season...” yes, that is true & potentially disruptive, but equally, if Rovers sign someone decent & we get an offer in that’s deemed acceptable 12 months later, we can easily lose an owned player as well and not always at a massive profit if there is a release clause e.g. Craig Bellamy.

In summary, it’s not always “good to buy” & “bad to loan”. It depends...if you sign players that don’t perform, their value falls. If they are loan players then it’s not your risk or detriment. The moral here is....sign good players...

“This statement of the blindingly obvious is brought to you by BRFCS...” ?

Loan players are here for one year, and if like we have for two years now, you don't get promoted, you have wasted those wages away.

If Derrick Williams played over Tosin and Leutwiler played over Walton, we'd have probably finished about 18th.

We'd be in the exact same position we are now, but we wouldn't have spent however many millions to get there?

[47er]

1 hour ago, phili said:

I am not sure we have the cash yet to do any signings at the moment even if we want to.

We have £0 season ticket income which we would normally have had £3-4m by now, First batch of TV cash arrives 2 weeks before the season starts so that will be September and not August. We have pretty much the £4m Venky's injected in June to get us through to the TV cash arriving in September. Of that £4m, at least £2.5m will have been spent on wages for June and July.

At the moment we must be living on empty waiting for the next Venky cash injection, so there is absolutely no way we can do any player purchases until that happens, we simply have no available funds in the club to pay for any signing on bonuses etc.

In other words there's no change! We'll be running around like madmen with 5 minutes before the window closes.

Mowbray "we did everything we could but we weren't able to get the deal through in time".

[Guest]

Just now, rigger said:

I’d rather the money went on players who improve the team, whatever terms they are on.

But they don't improve the team at all. We now don't have them. Unless they improve the team so much in the season they're here that we achieve something financially valuable like promotion, then they haven't improved us. We're now in a worse position than we was in 2 years ago... with no first team goalkeeper and one Championship quality centre-back.

[47er]

Just now, JoeH said:

Agreed. It certainly shouldn't be seen as either or, but this notion that we have progressed from 2018 to now is a little silly to me. It's a "fake" progression when the backbone of your team, starting GK and CB both leave the club at the end of the season.

I'd say right now, with no additions at the moment, we're weaker than where we were in 2018/19. The progress we have made has all now gone again due to the loss of loan players back to their permanent homes.

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Very much agree with this.

[rigger]

2 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Reed was played out of position the whole season and I don't think he made loads of appearances. So I'd disagree.

The fact he was played out of position is not Reeds fault. To me he impressed in nearly all the games he played, dispute being played out of position.You don’t endear yourself to the crowd the way he did without showing something.

[Herbie6590]

Just now, JoeH said:

Loan players are here for one year, and if like we have for two years now, you don't get promoted, you have wasted those wages away.

 

Players are paid wages whether loan or permy....no difference there. The difference is Use v Ownership....you want to own an asset if you think it will appreciate. Sometimes you can’t afford to buy assets that will appreciate, but you can loan them. It may be that some loans enhance your team/prospects e.g. Reed, Adarabioyo  & without them, you might be susceptible to a lower placed finish.

its not the case that loan = bad, buy = good...it’s more nuanced than that.

[Guest]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Players are paid wages whether loan or permy....no difference there. The difference is Use v Ownership....you want to own an asset if you think it will appreciate. Sometimes you can’t afford to buy assets that will appreciate, but you can loan them. It may be that some loans enhance your team/prospects e.g. Reed, Adarabioyo  & without them, you might be susceptible to a lower placed finish.

its not the case that loan = bad, buy = good...it’s more nuanced than that.

Loan players leave at the end of a season and have no financial sale value to a club. They only "improve" us if they a) sign permanently or b) help us get promoted.

18th or 7th we're a Championship team in 2020/21, and if we could've achieved that with or without spending however many million on Tosin, Walton and Cunningham, why wouldn't you do that, it makes business sense.

[Theaxe15]

57 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

If you don't try, you don't get.

There's also being realistic and recognising when you would be wasting your time...

[Guest]

Just now, rigger said:

The fact he was played out of position is not Reeds fault. To me he impressed in nearly all the games he played, dispute being played out of position.You don’t endear yourself to the crowd the way he did without showing something.

Very true. I won't deny Harrison Reed his special place in Rovers fans heart. A player with great tenacity and one I'd love to have here. But the simple fact remains, he isn't our player, he didn't help get us promoted, and we could've achieved what we did (survival in the CH) without wasting a chunk of money on him.

From a simply business only sense, Harrison Reed and Kasey Palmer were effectively pointless for us. We'd have stayed up without them, so it was basically just a loss of funds for the sake of extra bodies. Obviously from a footballing sense I think Reed brought a lot to the table, but at the end of the season we achieved what we achieved, and I think we could've easily done the same without him.

[rigger]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

But they don't improve the team at all. We now don't have them. Unless they improve the team so much in the season they're here that we achieve something financially valuable like promotion, then they haven't improved us. We're now in a worse position than we was in 2 years ago... with no first team goalkeeper and one Championship quality centre-back.

Two years ago we had a young unproven keeper , Raya, and an ageing midfielder At centerback, Mulgrew. I know the players we have need strengthening but just maybe we can’t afford it.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

you might be susceptible to a lower placed finish.

There's no big disparity in prize money for finishing 7th in the Championship or finishing 20th in the Championship. At the start of the following season both clubs start again in the same Championship division with 0pts.\

I'd rather Andy Fisher play in net and Rovers finish in the bottom half, than us get another Walton type on loan and us finish 11th again. There's no huge financial benefit to finishing higher in this division, but at least with the Fisher route we'd be improving one of our own.

Just now, rigger said:

Two years ago we had a young unproven keeper , Raya, and an ageing midfielder At centerback, Mulgrew. I know the players we have need strengthening but just maybe we can’t afford it.

I think signings like Stewart Downing show that we absolutely can add quality to this side on the cheap. I also know that signings like Sam Gallagher show we can add absolute dross to this side NOT on the cheap. Balancing act for sure but I don't think another set of loanee's helps the club whatsoever. Let our own young players get development time, for a fraction of the cost and the exact same reward.

[Dreams of 1995]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Loan players leave at the end of a season and have no financial sale value to a club. They only "improve" us if they a) sign permanently or b) help us get promoted.

18th or 7th we're a Championship team in 2020/21, and if we could've achieved that with or without spending however many million on Tosin, Walton and Cunningham, why wouldn't you do that, it makes business sense.

The funny thing is, none of what you are saying is making business sense.

If we don’t have the money to outright purchase that player (asset) then it is common place in business to use a loan system (rental). It happens in all industries - you use free lance professionals to plug a hole because it is risk free in the sense you pay for what you get. Once the contract is up you walk away without any further financial liability (usually). 
 

That is essentially what a loan is. It allows teams to afford players they couldn’t otherwise afford, or plug holes in their squads they couldn’t afford to plug otherwise. It also takes away the risk of depreciation, as is the case with Cunningham had we signed him permanently. 
 

The prize money we received by finishing 11th over 18th probably paid for a portion of them loan players. 
 

As has been repeated several times - loans do not = bad as a general rule of thumb. There are a lot more variables to consider, especially if you are talking financially as opposed to team cohesion or whatever. 

[Guest]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

The prize money we received by finishing 11th over 18th probably paid for a portion of them loan players. 

Untrue. The financial disparity between finishing 11th over 18th is practically non-existent in this division.

[Guest]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

If we don’t have the money to outright purchase that player (asset) then it is common place in business to use a loan system (rental). It happens in all industries

But if they aren't going to help us achieve a goal, then we're simply signing them for the sake of signing somebody.

We don't need bodies to help us finish mid-table... again.

[rigger]

4 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Very true. I won't deny Harrison Reed his special place in Rovers fans heart. A player with great tenacity and one I'd love to have here. But the simple fact remains, he isn't our player, he didn't help get us promoted, and we could've achieved what we did (survival in the CH) without wasting a chunk of money on him.

From a simply business only sense, Harrison Reed and Kasey Palmer were effectively pointless for us. We'd have stayed up without them, so it was basically just a loss of funds for the sake of extra bodies. Obviously from a footballing sense I think Reed brought a lot to the table, but at the end of the season we achieved what we achieved, and I think we could've easily done the same without him.

I totally agree on the business side of things, but The Rovers is not just a business, it is also an entertainment 

[rigger]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

There's no big disparity in prize money for finishing 7th in the Championship or finishing 20th in the Championship. At the start of the following season both clubs start again in the same Championship division with 0pts.\

I'd rather Andy Fisher play in net and Rovers finish in the bottom half, than us get another Walton type on loan and us finish 11th again. There's no huge financial benefit to finishing higher in this division, but at least with the Fisher route we'd be improving one of our own.

I think signings like Stewart Downing show that we absolutely can add quality to this side on the cheap. I also know that signings like Sam Gallagher show we can add absolute dross to this side NOT on the cheap. Balancing act for sure but I don't think another set of loanee's helps the club whatsoever. Let our own young players get development time, for a fraction of the cost and the exact same reward.

But with Mowbray will they?

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, JoeH said:

Untrue. The financial disparity between finishing 11th over 18th is practically non-existent in this division.

 

Just now, JoeH said:

But if they aren't going to help us achieve a goal, then we're simply signing them for the sake of signing somebody.

We don't need bodies to help us finish mid-table... again.

I don’t know for certain the prize pots but I’m going to assume there is at least £2m difference between 18th and 11th. If not, fair enough, but it doesn’t take away from the remainder of the post. 
 

They have helped us achieve a goal. They helped us finish higher than the season before, and their purpose was to temporarily fill holes in the squad. 
 

Again, the conversation was along the lines of loans being a waste of money and not financial sense, or at least my post was, and the statement that loans aren’t financially sensible isn’t true, as the points made by Herbie etc show 

[MarkBRFC]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

 

I don’t know for certain the prize pots but I’m going to assume there is at least £2m difference between 18th and 11th. If not, fair enough, but it doesn’t take away from the remainder of the post. 
 

They have helped us achieve a goal. They helped us finish higher than the season before, and their purpose was to temporarily fill holes in the squad. 
 

Again, the conversation was along the lines of loans being a waste of money and not financial sense, or at least my post was, and the statement that loans aren’t financially sensible isn’t true, as the points made by Herbie etc show 

There isn't prize money in the championship for league placing, so finishing 7th or 20th doesn't make any difference apart from how pretty it looks on a league table.