Summer transfer window 2021.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, RoversClitheroe said:

The more I look at our dealings the more I think there is little to no planning from the Coventrio? 

Are they only bothered about selling Brockhall?

I am not sure how much planning you can do when you are given such a low budget that your only option is to beg Premier League teams for kids on loan.

Make no mistake, the problem is in India. The "Coventrio" are underperforming symptoms.

[davulsukur]

So, to sum up.

Mowbray is basically a really good u23's manager, so now prem clubs charge us extortionate fee's to develop their players.

Blackburn Premier League Under 23 Rovers. Not much of a ring to that.

[JHRover]

It seems the stumbling block is the club offering any sort of lump sum or contractual commitment.

Unable to extend players contracts. Unable or unwilling to pay out any fee.

I find myself hoping that the reason for this is that Venkys are at the end of their tether and are packing their bags. Or, a slightly less exciting prospect, that Mowbray is on his last legs and they are refusing any further backing for him (albeit risking our Championship status and squad in the process).

We should be so lucky. The more likely scenario is they just haven't bothered picking up the phone or having a meeting about Rovers recently so in the meantime the club limps along on its own meagre resources.

Shambles.

 

[tomphil]

5 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Echo what Tomphil said .He hasn't done much in terms of numbers since he has been here and can only really be described as a regular in his time here.We got him on. Free transfer and he is likely to leave here the same way 

He's a good player i like him and would prefer to keep him on a modest contract. 

It's a fair enough example to flag up ( because there is little else ) but i don't think he's developed at all. He had injury issues and recently hes had more first team involvement but never a regular and the team isn't set up around him.

Mowbray has more or less admitted he's shoehorning him in to try and make him look good. If he was still on a 3 year deal who is coming in now and offering good money going off what they've seen in the last 3 years ?

Nobody i'd say, he'd still just resemble a cheap punt for another club there isn't many championship teams he'd walk straight into at the min.

[roversfan99]

This window is shaping up to be up there with some other horrendous windows under these owners.

To lose such a key player in Armstrong as well as plenty of experience and some added quality in Elliott and Harwood Bellis and having to sign so many kids on loan.

Perhaps on par with the other window in which we had an embargo and sold Gestede/Cairney but brought in Koita/Akpan/Delfouenso, the window under Coyle in which our centre backs were sold and we had to again make the numbers up with dismal loans, although in Graham, Mulgrew and Williams we did at least get some experience in, and of course the first summer following relegation when it wasnt a summer of scaling back but we just saddled ourselves with expensive rubbish.

At least Balaji 'wrote' a statement faking an interest as they run us into the ground, which to be fair has turned some of the deserved wrath away from him. The one thing they are capable of delegating is blame.

[tomphil]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I am not sure how much planning you can do when you are given such a low budget that your only option is to beg Premier League teams for kids on loan.

Make no mistake, the problem is in India. The "Coventrio" are underperforming symptoms.

Far be it for me to offer defense to the ownership but as far as the budget goes we don't know who has recommended what.

They could have slapped the brakes on Mowbray after hes inflated the wage bill with all sorts of bits and bats over the last few years.  Or as has been alluded to this could be the Coventrio trying to extend their stay by presenting a low budget plan to the owners and saying they can reset things again.

Or it could just be a simple case of the only way to sort the FFP and not risk anymore sanctions is to slash and burn and hope for the best.

However it's dressed up the last few years come back firmly and squarely to Waggot and Mowbrays doorstep. Venkys own the vehicle and pay for it but these lot are in charge of the keys and the steering wheel.

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Far be it for me to offer defense to the ownership but as far as the budget goes we don't know who has recommended what.

They could have slapped the brakes on Mowbray after hes inflated the wage bill with all sorts of bits and bats over the last few years.  Or as has been alluded to this could be the Coventrio trying to extend their stay by presenting a low budget plan to the owners and saying they can reset things again.

Or it could just be a simple case of the only way to sort the FFP and not risk anymore sanctions is to slash and burn and hope for the best.

However it's dressed up the last few years come back firmly and squarely to Waggot and Mowbrays doorstep. Venkys own the vehicle and pay for it but these lot are in charge of the keys and the steering wheel.

They should always be in control. There is no way that they should run the club in a way whereby it is possible for Mowbray to inflate the wage bill out of proportion, even if we make that massive assumption that he has. They give him the budget every year, he always talks to the owners for his budget, usually in India. There is no evidence or suggestion that he spends beyond that budget, risking the financial future of the club in the process.

Mowbray shouldnt be here which is on them again but these theories about them not trusting him to spend money, if that was the case, again there is no logic to use that reason as if they dont trust him, sack him.

Again, assuming that it is a strategy to stay safe of FFP is giving them far more credit than they deserve, but we have massively cut the wage bill this summer and made a huge profit on a Mowbray signing.

And again, the assumption that they have pleaded for their futures by offering to work on the cheap is a huge one. And again, if that was the case, more fool them for being tricked, but I very much doubt such a conspiracy.

I find it incredible that after all of these years, that as this is far from the first mess that we have found ourselves in, that anyone but them get the blame.

I personally think that people focus so much on "the Coventrio" because its somewhat putting heads in the sand, maybe the problem is fixable, remove them and maybe there is a bright future. They are the common denominator. 

[arbitro]

48 minutes ago, JoeH said:

But what Nyambe and his agent think he's worth and what everyone else thinks he's worth might not currently be matching up? 

There's nothing concrete to say that the reason the likes of Nyambe and Brereton aren't done is because we can't afford them.

There isn't but isn't it fair to assume it's down to the money we are offering when you read what Mowbray has said. The truth is nobody knows but joining the dogs indicates it's financial.

[harryhealless1928]

They may not have potted Mowbray cos no one they want will take the job.

The fiscal mismanagement is breathtaking. Yes its easy to be critical,but to deliberately waste all available funds on nonsense loans so we have too many players in certain positions is ridiculous. Tie down the saleable assets that you can,with the promise they can go if a big offer comes in. Plan. Instead of blind hope wasting money.

Barcelona over a billion in debt(apparently) with injury-prone superstars(?) yet the dingles comfortably solvent.

[phili]

11 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

They should always be in control. There is no way that they should run the club in a way whereby it is possible for Mowbray to inflate the wage bill out of proportion, even if we make that massive assumption that he has. They give him the budget every year, he always talks to the owners for his budget, usually in India. There is no evidence or suggestion that he spends beyond that budget, risking the financial future of the club in the process.

Mowbray shouldnt be here which is on them again but these theories about them not trusting him to spend money, if that was the case, again there is no logic to use that reason as if they dont trust him, sack him.

Again, assuming that it is a strategy to stay safe of FFP is giving them far more credit than they deserve, but we have massively cut the wage bill this summer and made a huge profit on a Mowbray signing.

And again, the assumption that they have pleaded for their futures by offering to work on the cheap is a huge one. And again, if that was the case, more fool them for being tricked, but I very much doubt such a conspiracy.

I find it incredible that after all of these years, that as this is far from the first mess that we have found ourselves in, that anyone but them get the blame.

I personally think that people focus so much on "the Coventrio" because its somewhat putting heads in the sand, maybe the problem is fixable, remove them and maybe there is a bright future. They are the common denominator. 

If you look at it, FFP is £39m loss over 3 years. We at present lose £20m a year. Minus things we can deduct means we probably have £16m that goes towards FFP over 3 years that is £48m. The wage savings this year so far are around £100k a week, which is a £5m saving, we apparently have a £30k a week wage budget, so net saving will be £3.2m a year, knock that off the £16m puts us dead on FFP requirements per year going forward.

There is no mystery just we are now operating inline with FFP.

Edited August 24, 2021 by phili

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, phili said:

If you look at it, FFP is £39m loss over 3 years. We at present lose £20m a year. Minus things we can deduct means we probably have £16m that goes towards FFP over 3 years that is £48m. The wage savings this year so far are around £100k a week, which is a £5m saving, we apparently have a £30k a week wage budget, so net saving will be £3.2m a year, knock that off the £16m puts us dead on FFP requirements per year going forward.

There is no mystery just we are now operating inline with FFP.

Lots of assumptions and guesses to be fair, for example we wont make as big a loss this year because of the return of fans, we have just sold a major asset too.

But as I said, abiding by FFP is Venkys responsibility and the people that they delegate to.

[arbitro]

43 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

But do any of us know the numbers?

I don't think any of us do apart from making assumptions. What I do know is that we could lose millions of pounds worth of players soon and there doesn't seem to be much concern by our management. With Mowbray being out of contract at the end of the season and potentially not here I am starting to wonder if he is as concerned we are. 

[JHRover]

4 minutes ago, phili said:

If you look at it, FFP is £39m loss over 3 years. We at present lose £20m a year. Minus things we can deduct means we probably have £16m that goes towards FFP over 3 years that is £48m. The wage savings this year so far are around £100k a week, which is a £5m saving, we apparently have a £30k a week wage budget, so net saving will be £3.2m a year, knock that off the £16m puts us dead on FFP requirements per year going forward.

There is no mystery just we are now operating inline with FFP.

There is a mystery- like how we can sell a player for 8 figures, demolish the wage bill by releasing 15 players and yet still not be in a position to even be able to sign a few free agents, restricted instead to a handful of teenage loans.

Operating in line with FFP also means ensuring assets are under contract, not what is happening here.

Red herring this FFP stuff. This is on the owners and management not the rules.

 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Echo what Tomphil said .He hasn't done much in terms of numbers since he has been here and can only really be described as a regular in his time here.We got him on. Free transfer and he is likely to leave here the same way 

Question was has Mowbray done any shrewd business. The answer is not much. Kaminski and Rothwell are both examples in his favour though. I never claimed he was incredible or anything, but a very good addition for the price we paid.

[roversfan99]

The following is on Sky Sports Transfer Tracker. At that price, and at Stanley, you would think he might fit the bill here, perhaps not though.

BRISTOL CITY EYE ‘VARDY-TYPE’ STRIKER

Bristol City are in talks to sign Northern Ireland striker Dion Charles - as boss Nigel Pearson eyes a new ‘Jamie Vardy-type’ for the Robins.

Pearson is said to see similar characteristics in the Accrington forward in terms of his pace and ability to stretch opposition defences with his running. 

And Charles’ similar pathway in the game, coming through Non-League football to become an international, also gives him an edge that Pearson admires. 

Nottingham Forest and Barnsley are also very interested in the 25-year-old who - like Vardy - played for Fleetwood before spells at Fylde, Southport and Halifax. 

He scored 19 goals in League One last season, as he  earned his first cap for Northern Ireland earlier this year, and he has again been called up to Ian Baraclough’s squad for this September’s internationals.

Accrington do not want to lose him but are said to value him in the region of £700,000, as he has entered the final year of his contract at the Wham Stadium.

[phili]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Lots of assumptions and guesses to be fair, for example we wont make as big a loss this year because of the return of fans, we have just sold a major asset too.

But as I said, abiding by FFP is Venkys responsibility and the people that they delegate to.

I have excluded all of Covid in those calculations, the figures were our normal average loss. The figures i quoted were for our 2019 financial year to june 2019, to June 2020 we lost £22m, this year just gone will be at £28m+ loss.

 

[phili]

6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

There is a mystery- like how we can sell a player for 8 figures, demolish the wage bill by releasing 15 players and yet still not be in a position to even be able to sign a few free agents, restricted instead to a handful of teenage loans.

Operating in line with FFP also means ensuring assets are under contract, not what is happening here.

Red herring this FFP stuff. This is on the owners and management not the rules.

 

You have around £30k-33k a week to play with, two frees and spend the rest on new contracts would be a better approach.

We seem to be spending everything on loans, Mowbray's decision.

[Boroblue]

It’s just one major league cock up. Totally financial mismanaged over the last few years. Mainly because Mowbray had been allowed to operate unregulated. Big contracts to older players he never used. Keeping players on because it was the right thing to do. Buying potential for the finished product price. 
So here we are players refusing to sign contract because they’ve seen what’s been handed out previously.

Bringing in younger players from premier clubs who in reality are not going to make an iota of difference to the outcome eexcept to the money going out.

it’s all really desperate stuff masked by a good start to the season. I would not however regardless of the outcome give Mowbray another single penny. We also need to bring someone in from Venkies world to secure those assets and get that responsibility away from waggott and Mowbray 

 

[roversfan99]

I cant accept that Mowbray is actively in preference of wanting kids on loan over more experienced players. He has said so many times that he doesnt like loans in general and that he cannot afford anything else this summer. Why does he keep suggesting that he wants experience then?

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19519380.blackburn-rovers-transfer-search-set-go-wire/

Tried to get Ben Davies, couldnt get close to his wages. Bemoans lack of experience.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19514336.blackburn-rovers-set-make-first-summer-signing-monday/

“Some of them are really young so here I am talking about looking to bring some experience in but the ones you can get from the clubs we’re loaning from we can’t get anywhere near."

[Paul Mani]

15 minutes ago, phili said:

You have around £30k-33k a week to play with, two frees and spend the rest on new contracts would be a better approach.

We seem to be spending everything on loans, Mowbray's decision.

Best way to save his own ass!! Short term approach….doesn’t want a relegation on his CV if he’s off next year, right? 👀

[roversfan99]

Implies that otherwise, he wouldn't be as averse to relegation if he was here for the longer term.

Lots of lovely conspiracies, lets hope that one of the rare benefits of Mowbrays evil plot to maintain his CV is that we dont go down.

 

[JohnGo]

Mowbray talks the same shit every transfer window. Get in early, 5 to 6 transfers, targets identified bla, bla, bla. Tell the fucking truth, you’ve no idea, and the recruitment is done by agents. Kermit and Miss Piggy would do a better job. Although Waggo looks like a fat pig!

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, islander200 said:

He signed for them when they where a championship club, has not extended his contract in that time.I just don't believe we will be paying the majority of his wages.

Orta from Leeds said the move is about gametime and they wouldn't have had many takers if they expected the majority of his wages paying.

Besides weren't you saying earlier in the summer we have hardly any money and can't spend and now you are saying we have brought in a Leeds under 23 and had to make him one of the best if not the best paid player at the club to make it happen?

 

He's made 14 appearances in the PL for Leeds (in the main as a sub) and featured in 30+ match day squads.

I think it would be naive to think it's a 'cheap' loan signing in terms of loan fee and wages.  PL clubs like Chelsea, City etc make very substantial monies from loans and I don't think Leeds will have done this out of the kindest of their heart.   

[imy9]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

I think your figures are very wrong.

My understand is it is an expensive deal (loan fee and wages) for Rovers.

You may be right but I doubt it.

We are cutting costs with salaries so I can’t see us paying a loan fee plus making him our highest paid player. 

[Mr. E]

I mean as far as Tony goes the situation is crystal clear. He hasn't got some huge motivation to be pushing us for the Premiership, he is content to keep plugging holes in the squad with temporary loan players, fully aware that the financial status of the club is getting worse and worse, but he will continue getting paid until retirement and won't have a care in the world about us when he goes. I'd be shocked if even his biggest defenders would argue he has great ambition or drive. He simply clocks in do the minumum, clocks out and that's that. Little town effort for a little town club - in his eyes.

He puts absolutely no pressure or expectations on Venkys, and so they are more than happy to have him.

The big decade-old mystery remains what do Venkys want with the club, and what if any are their plans now and for the future - that I have no clue about.