Summer transfer window 2021.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Listening to Tracy Crouch on Today---a Tory MP I do have time for--our club would be in the sights of the independent Overseer she longs to appoint.

Let's hope the Premier League doesn't start donating to Tory coffers and Johnson listens to her.

I didn’t hear that but I did hear an interview on the radio with the chief exec at Villa who said what a really good report it was and then proceeded to tell us that everything was rosy in the football garden and there was nothing to see here. He finished off by saying all owners have the best interests of their respective clubs at heart !

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

12 hours ago, Mike E said:

Loved the Brazilian goals. Brazil haven't played that style since the 2002 WC imo, gone very bland.

Back then if you turned the tv on without knowing who was playing you’d only need to watch for 5 minutes to realise one of the teams was Brazil. They had a style all of their own. Now they could be anybody, it’s a shame really.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Exactly that. Hibernation season. Staying up with kids is this season's only target.

Probably why they decided not to bother paying Mowbray and his stooges out. Waste of time and money for a dead season. New manager and start over next season.

Doesn't the cycle only 'reset' if you change leagues? Otherwise it's a rolling 3 year period?

[jim mk2]

40 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Back then if you turned the tv on without knowing who was playing you’d only need to watch for 5 minutes to realise one of the teams was Brazil. They had a style all of their own. Now they could be anybody, it’s a shame really.

Blame the Champions League and the wealth of European football which has lured all the best South American footballers to Europe. Apart from 1 or 2 special players it's all robot football now

[J*B]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

If this fiasco is FFP caused then the next question is why this only seems to be a major problem for Rovers. Almost everyone else manages to avoid restrictions or this situation of being unable to do any business. We're in it for the second time in 5 years.

Why?

Because Rovers’ income is so low, our approach is to have a minimum spend for 2 years then a bigger spend in year 3, which means across the 3 years we pass FFP. 

There’s plenty of different approaches all over the league, PNE for example keep their costs level(ish) across all 3 years. 

Clubs with a higher income can afford to do 2 years big spending with 1 year lower - eg Derby. 

The ideal way around it is the Brentford model - where you have high value assets to sell every year and you replace them with well scouted, cheaper replacements. We can’t do that because we haven’t sold anyone. The plan was always to sell Dack, but he did his ACL. We now need to sell Arma and quite frankly we’ve struck lucky that he broke through whilst Dack was injured, otherwise we would have no significant assets. 

To be absolutely clear, last year was our chance - which is why many of us where pushing for Mowbray to be sacked. We now may as well keep him for 18 months. 

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Exactly that. Hibernation season. Staying up with kids is this season's only target.

Probably why they decided not to bother paying Mowbray and his stooges out. Waste of time and money for a dead season. New manager and start over next season.

Agree on the first point.

Second point though i don't think that was on the the cards at all, i think him Waggot & co have sold them this latest reset of the journey to their pensions.

We have to remember Mowbray hinting at it last season when he was coming under the mildest of questioning from the local rag.  They've been drawing this plan up imo as their latest get out of jail and keep being paid card.  

 

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, J*B said:

Because Rovers’ income is so low, our approach is to have a minimum spend for 2 years then a bigger spend in year 3, which means across the 3 years we pass FFP. 

There’s plenty of different approaches all over the league, PNE for example keep their costs level(ish) across all 3 years. 

Clubs with a higher income can afford to do 2 years big spending with 1 year lower - eg Derby. 

Like last time when they spent big in the first two years you mean ?

Main problem there was they threw it all in the wrong direction and there was nothing left for year 3. Which is why we are where we are now although a 15 million sale of Dack would've seen it through.

[G Somerset Rover]

15 minutes ago, J*B said:

To be absolutely clear, last year was our chance - which is why many of us where pushing for Mowbray to be sacked. We now may as well keep him for 18 months. 

IMO we'll be mid table in league one if that happens, so we shouldn't.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Gavlar Somerset Rover!

[bluebruce]

23 minutes ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

IMO we'll be mid table in league one if that happens, so we shouldn't.

Doesn't his contract end in 12 months anyway? Please for the love of god tell me it ends in 12 months...

(Not that Maggott won't get him a new one of course)

[arbitro]

41 minutes ago, J*B said:

Because Rovers’ income is so low, our approach is to have a minimum spend for 2 years then a bigger spend in year 3, which means across the 3 years we pass FFP. 

There’s plenty of different approaches all over the league, PNE for example keep their costs level(ish) across all 3 years. 

Clubs with a higher income can afford to do 2 years big spending with 1 year lower - eg Derby. 

The ideal way around it is the Brentford model - where you have high value assets to sell every year and you replace them with well scouted, cheaper replacements. We can’t do that because we haven’t sold anyone. The plan was always to sell Dack, but he did his ACL. We now need to sell Arma and quite frankly we’ve struck lucky that he broke through whilst Dack was injured, otherwise we would have no significant assets. 

To be absolutely clear, last year was our chance - which is why many of us where pushing for Mowbray to be sacked. We now may as well keep him for 18 months. 

Keeping Mowbray and getting relegated would cost the club over £6m in lost broadcasting monies alone. If we are to go with the current squad I just can't see Mowbray getting enough out of them. In my view it's critical we get somebody new in who can get more out of the players tactically.

[RoverKyle]

50 minutes ago, J*B said:

Because Rovers’ income is so low, our approach is to have a minimum spend for 2 years then a bigger spend in year 3, which means across the 3 years we pass FFP. 

There’s plenty of different approaches all over the league, PNE for example keep their costs level(ish) across all 3 years. 

Clubs with a higher income can afford to do 2 years big spending with 1 year lower - eg Derby. 

The ideal way around it is the Brentford model - where you have high value assets to sell every year and you replace them with well scouted, cheaper replacements. We can’t do that because we haven’t sold anyone. The plan was always to sell Dack, but he did his ACL. We now need to sell Arma and quite frankly we’ve struck lucky that he broke through whilst Dack was injured, otherwise we would have no significant assets. 

To be absolutely clear, last year was our chance - which is why many of us where pushing for Mowbray to be sacked. We now may as well keep him for 18 months. 

This is so depressing to read but you're obviously spot on. It's something a well managed club could overcome but ours is being run into the ground. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by RoverKyle

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, J*B said:

Because Rovers’ income is so low, our approach is to have a minimum spend for 2 years then a bigger spend in year 3, which means across the 3 years we pass FFP. 

There’s plenty of different approaches all over the league, PNE for example keep their costs level(ish) across all 3 years. 

Clubs with a higher income can afford to do 2 years big spending with 1 year lower - eg Derby. 

The ideal way around it is the Brentford model - where you have high value assets to sell every year and you replace them with well scouted, cheaper replacements. We can’t do that because we haven’t sold anyone. The plan was always to sell Dack, but he did his ACL. We now need to sell Arma and quite frankly we’ve struck lucky that he broke through whilst Dack was injured, otherwise we would have no significant assets. 

To be absolutely clear, last year was our chance - which is why many of us where pushing for Mowbray to be sacked. We now may as well keep him for 18 months. 

Our income isn't especially low by Championship standards. At least it wasn't so long ago.

I'd say our 'boom and bust' approach is absolutely senseless.

I could accept it if the 'boom' seasons saw us spend substantial amounts in an attempt to gain promotion and then had to reign it in for a year afterwards by selling a couple of assets.

But this? I mean I know Mowbray has had good backing through his time here, in terms of net spending, wages and time, but we aren't exactly big spenders. Since Gallagher came in 2019 I think we've made a profit on player trading.

In addition, the fact that all these other clubs both outperform us on the pitch, lose less money than us AND avoid this situation of FFP restrictions AND a mass exodus of players suggests they have got it right and whatever we are doing is wrong.

I suspect we are now going to pay the ultimate price of losing our Championship status which I think could be the death knell for this club. If i am expected to believe that the primary cause of that is FFP rules and woe be us for falling foul of them then I don't. The blame lies at home for mismanagement, one way or the other.

[J*B]

6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Our income isn't especially low by Championship standards. At least it wasn't so long ago.

 

[JHRover]

[speeeeeeedie]

5 hours ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

Harrison Reed…?

That's him. I don't know where I got Barnes from. Red head. I remember him being the best player on the pitch against Liverpool. Mowbray wouldn't play him.

[phili]

To really operate in the Championship on a low income model as we have, you really need to operate the Barnsley and Brentford model.

You only buy players who are below 24 years old, who you can develop and sell for a profit as well as developing your own youngsters who you can sell. You also under no circumstances loan players in as that is just a development position in your team being deprived from your own assets!!!

You have got to, and this is very important, explain to your fans that this is the approach you are taking and they must understand you are selling highly prized assets to fund operating costs, buying new players and slowly building the club to fight for promotion. This approach is probably 3-5 seasons to build up for promotion

If you have a larger income such as Leeds or Derby you can fill buy experienced players and sprinkle with loan players who will push you into a promotion chasing side. Its higher risk as you have no assets at the end of a loan period and if you don;'t get promoted you start from scratch the following season but you have the income to cover it.

What you can't do with a small income is operate in the Derby/Leeds way or you will get hit by struggling with FFP all of the time. Which is the approach we are taking. For instance we brought in Elliott when it would have been better to let Dolan and Chapman lose to gain more experience. Bothe of them may now have developed to be sold for £7m a piece this summer.

The season before we brought Tosin Adarabioyo and loaned out Wharton to Northampton, it looks like it would have been much better to have kept Wharton and build him up for that season and we could very well have sold him by now for a substantial sum.

[neophox]

So much talk about Paul Mullin. He's joined fifth tier side Wrexham. 👌 

[Bigdoggsteel]

21 minutes ago, speeeeeeedie said:

That's him. I don't know where I got Barnes from. Red head. I remember him being the best player on the pitch against Liverpool. Mowbray wouldn't play him.

Not entirely accurate. He did play him. On the wing. 

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, J*B said:

Because Rovers’ income is so low, our approach is to have a minimum spend for 2 years then a bigger spend in year 3, which means across the 3 years we pass FFP. 

There’s plenty of different approaches all over the league, PNE for example keep their costs level(ish) across all 3 years. 

Clubs with a higher income can afford to do 2 years big spending with 1 year lower - eg Derby. 

The ideal way around it is the Brentford model - where you have high value assets to sell every year and you replace them with well scouted, cheaper replacements. We can’t do that because we haven’t sold anyone. The plan was always to sell Dack, but he did his ACL. We now need to sell Arma and quite frankly we’ve struck lucky that he broke through whilst Dack was injured, otherwise we would have no significant assets. 

To be absolutely clear, last year was our chance - which is why many of us where pushing for Mowbray to be sacked. We now may as well keep him for 18 months. 

Even if we assume that there is truth in the theories that the plan was to sell Dack and reinvest, and also that the strategy is for 2 years of spending low and one of spending more, which I am unsure of as our net spend last summer was the lowest of all 3 years wasnt it? I do not get that statement in bold at all.

It implies that the other 2 years within these 3 year cycles are an irrelevance. Firstly, with poor management and no money, a new manger may be needed simply to keep us in the division. A lower spend doesn't remove any prospect of promotion within those other 2 years either, and even if it did, the point of those 2 years would surely be to build towards year 3 with player development, recruitment etc, in which case surely a new manager would be just as important in the first 2 years as in year 3?

[islander200]

Yates signed a new deal with Blackpool

[J*B]

30 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Even if we assume that there is truth in the theories that the plan was to sell Dack and reinvest, and also that the strategy is for 2 years of spending low and one of spending more, which I am unsure of as our net spend last summer was the lowest of all 3 years wasnt it? I do not get that statement in bold at all.

It implies that the other 2 years within these 3 year cycles are an irrelevance. Firstly, with poor management and no money, a new manger may be needed simply to keep us in the division. A lower spend doesn't remove any prospect of promotion within those other 2 years either, and even if it did, the point of those 2 years would surely be to build towards year 3 with player development, recruitment etc, in which case surely a new manager would be just as important in the first 2 years as in year 3?

We had one of the biggest squads in the league last season, our wages where 180% of revenue. 

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, J*B said:

We had one of the biggest squads in the league last season, our wages where 180% of revenue. 

Is that figure not from the season before, ie the accounts up until 2020? And it will be mainly caused by a decrease in revenue rather than a sharp increase surely?

But either way, I dont at all understand the lack of importance placed on 2 of every 3 years within the FFP cycle.

[arbitro]

22 minutes ago, J*B said:

We had one of the biggest squads in the league last season, our wages where 180% of revenue. 

A competent Chief Executive would have addressed that long ago. Mowbrays control and autonomy has allowed this to go unchecked with the awarding of contracts to players who should have been shown the door.

It's a amazing how a club like Millwall with smaller crowds than us can manage their finance, not worry about P&S  and still finish above us, even flirting with the play-offs.

[tomphil]

As the team goes nowhere then the income gradually shrinks as a direct result the two are inextricably linked.

Only player sales and trading offer any sort of relevance to alter that. Team goes nowhere, manager spends 12 million, team goes nowhere again, manager keeps stretching the wage bill, team still goes nowhere.

Crowds, merchandise, corporate and tv income dwindle as a result of everybody getting fed up. Prices then get put up which alienates and aggravates more people.

Vicious circle yet in the middle sit the suits and management costing the club a few million and just shrugging their shoulders. 

Then some goons have the nerve to blame fans.

[phili]

36 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Is that figure not from the season before, ie the accounts up until 2020? And it will be mainly caused by a decrease in revenue rather than a sharp increase surely?

But either way, I dont at all understand the lack of importance placed on 2 of every 3 years within the FFP cycle.

you can spend for 2 years and pull back spend in the third year to still be within FFP guidelines.

The guidelines state you can lose £30m in total over those 3 years excluding, spend on stadium maintenance, youth academies, new pitches, new stadium etc.

on average at the moment we are losing £12-14m a season on items covered by FFP.  So for 2 seasons we we lose £24m - £28m and in season 3 we can only lose £2-6m meaning we have to cut costs and sell a couple of players to the tune of £10m.

Now everything that is happening this summer should have happened last summer but Covid pushed it from a 3 year phase to a 4 year phase allowing £40m spend over the 4 seasons. I think it is something like £12m of sales and savings we need to make this summer to comply. We have not renewed contracts to the tune of £5m and then we need player sales to the tune of £7m anything over that we can invest in the squad.

Next year we can start the rebuild again for the next 2 year cycle unless we change and operate to a Brentford/Barnsley approach which is more self sustaining.