Summer Transfer Window

[Mercer]

10 minutes ago, A Northern Horde... said:

Do we still not know what Budget we have to work with...have our Pune masters spoken down to us yet?

I would be surprised if Waggott and Mowbray hadn't known what their budget was for some time despite their mutterings.

'Difficult news' is rather more difficult to sell.

I posted some weeks ago that, IMO, we would be looking for net transfer receipts and wage savings of getting on for £20million.  I have seen nor heard anything to change my mind.

[Sparks Rover]

16 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I would be surprised if Waggott and Mowbray hadn't known what their budget was for some time despite their mutterings.

Yep, mowbray has had his budget for weeks in my opinion. 

[MarkBRFC]

I think I have said this before, but it's not impossible that our defence for the first game of next season could be - Nyambe, Lenihan, Mulgrew, Williams.

The exact same back 4 that started his first game in charge over three years ago.

The defence will never be sorted under Mowbray, I accepted it a while ago.

[tomphil]

12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Bauer is a basic championship defender. He suited the way Preston played under Alex Neil. 

But we didn't sign him. 

Just like Alex Neil wanting Adam Armstrong at the same time as we signed him

Adarabioyo came here to play. Simple as

You've no idea if he was signed to be a starter or back up. Simple as that.

Neither have your 'sources' the only person who has is Mowbray.

 

[Richard Oakley]

19 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I would be surprised if Waggott and Mowbray hadn't known what their budget was for some time despite their mutterings.

'Difficult news' is rather more difficult to sell.

I posted some weeks ago that, IMO, we would be looking for net transfer receipts and wage savings of getting on for £20million.  I have seen nor heard anything to change my mind.

Venkys have, I think, been rather preoccupied with ensuring their core business does not go under. I can see them not having time or funds to set budgets for their subsidiaries.It's typical for companies in hard times to let go loss making subsidiaries. Whilst the majority shareholder in Venkys London Limited could put his own money to fund transfers, such a move wouldn't be popular with the rest of his family, if the plan is to cut us loose. 

Mowbray shows no inclination to sell the players who would bring in the sum you and others envisage. Venkys aren't going to risk having to pay out for another constructive dismissal or pay up another manager's contract by interfering with Mowbray's control.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

10 hours ago, Feed the Yak said:

Just looking at what kind of side we might put out if we didn't sign or sell anyone at all (and don't retain Downing). It's potentially not actually that bad in my opinion but, echoing what we've all been saying, it is so clear that an experienced Gk and Cb would go so, so far towards improving us.

Hilton

Nyambe Lenihan Wharton JRC

Travis Evans

Brereton Dack Armstrong 

Gallagher

Subs: Fisher, Williams, Bell, Rothwell, Johnson, Chapman, Buckley, Holtby

Extras: Williams, Carter, Bell, Bennett, Vale... 

Bell, so good they named him twice.

[JHRover]

22 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

I think I have said this before, but it's not impossible that our defence for the first game of next season could be - Nyambe, Lenihan, Mulgrew, Williams.

The exact same back 4 that started his first game in charge over three years ago.

The defence will never be sorted under Mowbray, I accepted it a while ago.

Good point. 

And assuming that we are not allowed or are unable to spend on defenders and will have missed any decent free transfers then the only way that scenario will be avoided is by decent loans or promoting youth. Mowbray won't trust youth so loans it is, however these only come available late on in the window after the season has started. 

[G Somerset Rover]

49 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

I think I have said this before, but it's not impossible that our defence for the first game of next season could be - Nyambe, Lenihan, Mulgrew, Williams.

The exact same back 4 that started his first game in charge over three years ago.

The defence will never be sorted under Mowbray, I accepted it a while ago.

Oi, give him some credit. It'll be Bell for Williams...

[Dreams of 1995]

Using Nyambe and Lenihan in that is unfair because I'm certain we'd all like to see them in the first squad next season too.

The rest is a sad indictment of Rovers under Venkys. Defenders will never come because there's no reasonable strategy in place, and money seemingly only available for attacking players.

It is a rather skewed viewpoint that gets peddled on here that this is Mowbray's fault, but just like the Mowbray out mob cite historical tendencies as reasons why he won't achieve anything further than what he already has, they then refuse to acknowledge the historical tendencies of Venkys transfer business.

I have never got myself worked up as to who we will buy in goal, or centre back of left back because I firmly believe that if we do it will be a freebie or loan. Even if we do sign one for a fee I suspect it will be nominal, and then whatever money we may have will be spent on a midfielder or attacking player, with potential for resale.

Should the above not be the case I will happily be proven wrong but Venkys do not spend money on defenders.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Dreams of 1995

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Using Nyambe and Lenihan in that is unfair because I'm certain we'd all like to see them in the first squad next season too.

The rest is a sad indictment of Rovers under Venkys. Defenders will never come because there's no reasonable strategy in place, and money seemingly only available for attacking players.

It is a rather skewed viewpoint that gets peddled on here that this is Mowbray's fault, but just like the Mowbray out mob cite historical tendencies as reasons why he won't achieve anything further than what he already has, they then refuse to acknowledge the historical tendencies of Venkys transfer business.

I have never got myself worked up as to who we will buy in goal, or centre back of left back because I firmly believe that if we do it will be a freebie or loan. Even if we do sign one for a fee I suspect it will be nominal, and then whatever money we may have will be spent on a midfielder or attacking player, with potential for resale.

Should the above not be the case I will happily be proven wrong but Venkys do not spend money on defenders.

The thing is though, Mowbray had claimed full responsibility on transfers so the conspiracy implies that he is an outright liar. It also requires Venkys to have put this rule in place which would require them to a vested interest in what is going on at the club which they clearly dont and a basic knowledge of football to specifically only fund certain positions.

Mowbray has had similar problems at former clubs, he left Coventry after admitting failure to sign a centre back that was needed. His West Brom job became untenable because it was built on flimsy foundations. 

When Venkys came in their main early signing was Scott Dann who obviously was a defender. We had Grant Hanley coming through who obviously established himself at Championship level as a very competent CB and there was no need to replace him at that time. We also then signed Duffy once Dann went, again for a (smaller) fee who established himself alongside Hanley and that was one area which was fine. When we eventually sold them both, that was during a 2 year period (between being in embargo and relegation) in which every player of any value was sold off and there was no budget to replace them. When we were relegated Lenihan (academy graduate) and Mulgrew (one of the higher profile frees Coyle brought in) were more than capable in League 1 so again that wasnt an area that Mowbray concentrated on.

I think it is more circumstantial and it seems farfetched that Venkys have either the knowledge or interest to specifically only spend in certain positions. You might call people pointing out the lack of defensive reinforcements as the "Mowbray out mob" but hes made these same mistakes at previous clubs. It seems like a case of removing any blame.

[47er]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

That as a starting side would be below my hopes, but I think would be reasonable. Personally I would have Bennett on the bench Instead of Bell

Wouldn't get near Top 6 though.

[DeeCee]

7 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Just sign the Charlton keeper ffs. From.the stats above he was one of the best keepers in the division last season. Charlton need the dosh and he will want to stay in the CH. No brainer - get it done!

Then we can move onto CB and LB.

We will dally as usual and he will go elsewhere...you just know it.

Let's just hope he doesn't wear ripped jeans for a start.

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Using Nyambe and Lenihan in that is unfair because I'm certain we'd all like to see them in the first squad next season too.

The rest is a sad indictment of Rovers under Venkys. Defenders will never come because there's no reasonable strategy in place, and money seemingly only available for attacking players.

It is a rather skewed viewpoint that gets peddled on here that this is Mowbray's fault, but just like the Mowbray out mob cite historical tendencies as reasons why he won't achieve anything further than what he already has, they then refuse to acknowledge the historical tendencies of Venkys transfer business.

I have never got myself worked up as to who we will buy in goal, or centre back of left back because I firmly believe that if we do it will be a freebie or loan. Even if we do sign one for a fee I suspect it will be nominal, and then whatever money we may have will be spent on a midfielder or attacking player, with potential for resale.

Should the above not be the case I will happily be proven wrong but Venkys do not spend money on defenders.

I'm very much anti-Mowbray; he's taken us as far as he can and his level is League One in my opinion. You do make a very valid point though, given how Venkys operate, that he'll almost certainly be being told who he can and can't spend money on. Perhaps not specifically but the first two questions will be "which agency?" and "what position?".

It'll all likely be run though that clown they've put in charge over here, I forget his name. So the sad reality is that whilst Venkys are here we're stuck with Mowbray, or an equivalent who is prepared to operate in this ridiculous system. 

[Richard Oakley]

29 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Using Nyambe and Lenihan in that is unfair because I'm certain we'd all like to see them in the first squad next season too.

The rest is a sad indictment of Rovers under Venkys. Defenders will never come because there's no reasonable strategy in place, and money seemingly only available for attacking players.

It is a rather skewed viewpoint that gets peddled on here that this is Mowbray's fault, but just like the Mowbray out mob cite historical tendencies as reasons why he won't achieve anything further than what he already has, they then refuse to acknowledge the historical tendencies of Venkys transfer business.

I have never got myself worked up as to who we will buy in goal, or centre back of left back because I firmly believe that if we do it will be a freebie or loan. Even if we do sign one for a fee I suspect it will be nominal, and then whatever money we may have will be spent on a midfielder or attacking player, with potential for resale.

Should the above not be the case I will happily be proven wrong but Venkys do not spend money on defenders.

That would be the historical precedent that none of Mowbray's teams have been able to not concede goals. Mowbray's historical tendency to only sign midfielders. Mowbray's historical tendency to play players out of position. Mowbray can't set up a team to defend across a season. Yes that makes it Mowbray's fault.

Mowbray has complete control over football. He gets to sign the players he wants, within budget.

The season opener could see 7 Academy products starting, with 3 making their debuts. I'll be slightly more nervous than I normally am about season opener, which we normally lose.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Richard Oakley

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The thing is though, Mowbray had claimed full responsibility on transfers so the conspiracy implies that he is an outright liar. It also requires Venkys to have put this rule in place which would require them to a vested interest in what is going on at the club which they clearly dont and a basic knowledge of football to specifically only fund certain positions.

Mowbray has had similar problems at former clubs, he left Coventry after admitting failure to sign a centre back that was needed. His West Brom job became untenable because it was built on flimsy foundations. 

When Venkys came in their main early signing was Scott Dann who obviously was a defender. We had Grant Hanley coming through who obviously established himself at Championship level as a very competent CB and there was no need to replace him at that time. We also then signed Duffy once Dann went, again for a (smaller) fee who established himself alongside Hanley and that was one area which was fine. When we eventually sold them both, that was during a 2 year period (between being in embargo and relegation) in which every player of any value was sold off and there was no budget to replace them. When we were relegated Lenihan (academy graduate) and Mulgrew (one of the higher profile frees Coyle brought in) were more than capable in League 1 so again that wasnt an area that Mowbray concentrated on.

I think it is more circumstantial and it seems farfetched that Venkys have either the knowledge or interest to specifically only spend in certain positions. You might call people pointing out the lack of defensive reinforcements as the "Mowbray out mob" but hes made these same mistakes at previous clubs. It seems like a case of removing any blame.

People lie, even Mowbray, he's almost certainly towing the party line and will continue to as he knows that he is as high as he will get in the football pyramid.

They've also got the chap over here running things - is it Pasha? Means they're removed from having a vested day to day interest. Annual budgets are probably about as much as they contribute.

I'm very much anti-Mowbray but you cannot ignore Venkys role in our transfer business. 

[Mashed Potatoes]

12 minutes ago, CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber said:

I'm very much anti-Mowbray; he's taken us as far as he can and his level is League One in my opinion. You do make a very valid point though, given how Venkys operate, that he'll almost certainly be being told who he can and can't spend money on. Perhaps not specifically but the first two questions will be "which agency?" and "what position?".

It'll all likely be run though that clown they've put in charge over here, I forget his name. So the sad reality is that whilst Venkys are here we're stuck with Mowbray, or an equivalent who is prepared to operate in this ridiculous system. 

I'm not in the anti-Mowbray camp but for those like you who are I think this is a very fair summary of the situation that the manager has to deal with. It does of course mean that those who believe that in the event of a managerial vacancy there will be a long line of proven in-demand managers wanting to come to Ewood Park will be disappointed.

[Dreams of 1995]

18 minutes ago, CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber said:

I'm very much anti-Mowbray; he's taken us as far as he can and his level is League One in my opinion. You do make a very valid point though, given how Venkys operate, that he'll almost certainly be being told who he can and can't spend money on. Perhaps not specifically but the first two questions will be "which agency?" and "what position?".

It'll all likely be run though that clown they've put in charge over here, I forget his name. So the sad reality is that whilst Venkys are here we're stuck with Mowbray, or an equivalent who is prepared to operate in this ridiculous system. 

Yep. I won't criticise managers too much for their transfer dealings because it is very apparent they have a small pool from which to work in + constraints to deal with. We have a favoured agency that's for sure. Then you have the admission from other chairmen that Rovers are incredibly frustrating to deal with.

[rigger]

24 minutes ago, 47er said:

Wouldn't get near Top 6 though.

If we are just plucking random thoughts out of the ether. 
Wouldn’t be relegated.

[47er]

7 minutes ago, rigger said:

If we are just plucking random thoughts out of the ether. 
Wouldn’t be relegated.

Is that our aim now then? I thought we were improving.

[rigger]

11 minutes ago, 47er said:

Is that our aim now then? I thought we were improving.

No ! The topic was about what Team we could field given no incoming players (which could well be the case) not our aspirations for next season.

[bluebruce]

2 minutes ago, rigger said:

No ! The topic was about what Team we could field given no incoming players (which could well be the case) not our aspirations for next season.

Imagine, someone going off topic in this transfer thread.

[Ruaney]

Right, assuming there is a little bit of money to spend and with the wages freed up from the players we have let go. What would people's realistic starting line up look like next year? 

Obviously this is hypothetical as we have zero money and we will leave any transfers (if any) until the last moment..

[Rover8T4]

Bid in for souttar apparently!

[Tugayisgod]

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1042806302?-11198:839

Seeing not a lot happening arm, just a view from lancs live of potential signings. 

Also saying Whiteman Not held talks 

[MarkBRFC]

I love a Rovers "bid" for a player these days.

Guarantee it will be a ridiculous low ball offer followed by the old shrug of the shoulders and "well, we tried" statement.