Summer transfer window 2021.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:07, tomphil said:

Iv'e no issue with it and think if he's sold they should pay up properly. Do business in the right way and it stands you in better stead than trying to worm out of things or shaft people.  Newcastle didn't sting anyone they put their terms on the table, we agreed them.

 

There's absolutely no suggestion we wouldn't pay the 40% if we did sell him is there?

I have to respectfully disagree on whether Newcastle had us over on the deal, I think they saw us coming and shafted us accordingly but it's our fault for agreeing to it in the first place. No surprise with these buffoons on the ground at Ewood.

[Crimpshrine]

On 25/07/2021 at 14:28, Bigdoggsteel said:

Im actually of the belief that our current plight is purely down to the manager. The owners backed him and gave him time, he spoke of "journeys", yet here we are with 11 players gone, no clear direction on our style of play and no signings in 

They backed another clown, unfortunately

 

They backed another clown and let him run amok without supervision. The owners have the ultimate responsibility but don't take it seriously.

The club is in chaos and, as you point out, the clowns are being allowed to run the whole circus.

Venky's out

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:08, roversfan99 said:

I personally wouldn't go for Obafemi for similar reasons ie he is unproven but we need a senior replacement for when Armstrong goes, we cannot expect a kid who has never played senior football to suddenly come in. His best bet would be a loan spell. We cannot avoid signings for fear of blocking unproven kids, by all means give them chances where appropriate but as well as having that senior experience. If they are pushing enough they will/should get game time regardless.

It may happen but under no circumstances SHOULD our prize asset  be replaced by anyone on loan.

He will just end up not being replaced after that.

[tomphil]

I'm not advocating bringing him in or saying he's a great manager but what would the likes of Alex Neil have done with the kind of backing Mowbray and his crew have had ?

His side have finished above us every season and probably beaten us more that we beat them.

There are plenty other examples although of course not taking into account working for Venkys.  If they like you though then it's probably the best job in the championship. 

[booth]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:08, roversfan99 said:

I personally wouldn't go for Obafemi for similar reasons ie he is unproven but we need a senior replacement for when Armstrong goes, we cannot expect a kid who has never played senior football to suddenly come in. His best bet would be a loan spell. We cannot avoid signings for fear of blocking unproven kids, by all means give them chances where appropriate but as well as having that senior experience. If they are pushing enough they will/should get game time regardless.

He’s played senior football and played well, but not much. He actually has a lot of potential, very quick, confident, can finish etc, but we’ve so many players with potential at the moment it would be frustrating waiting for yet another youngster to slowly “develop” under Mowbray. If we sell Armstrong we need quality.

He may turn out great but there’s also a decent chance that he wouldn’t. Especially under Mowbray.

If we didn’t have a squad full of young developing “talent” he might have been an interesting signing.

[tomphil]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:14, RevidgeBlue said:

There's absolutely no suggestion we wouldn't pay the 40% if we did sell him is there?

I have to respectfully disagree on whether Newcastle had us over on the deal, I think they saw us coming and shafted us accordingly but it's our fault for agreeing to it in the first place. No surprise with these buffoons on the ground at Ewood.

Only the rumours of player swaps which i reckon is more likely to come from people at the club rather than the owners.

The club imo really wants a deal of some sort but the owners aren't playing ball. 

[arbitro]

Two years ago (I think) we paid some business consultants a reported £750k to give their recommendations on the non football side of the business. After the recent accounts and Venkys putting in another Kings ransom it appears it was money well spent.

😠😠😠

[roversfan99]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:12, Bigdoggsteel said:

If we had given say the WBA manager the time and money Mowbray has had, we would more than likely have achieved something. Or any other number of managers. 

Don't put words in my mouth saying I am defending them, but they have given him everything needed to be succesful here and he has arguably brought us backwards at this point. 

He has muddled tactics and lowered moral to rock bottom. Ultimately of course they should sack him, but in theory giving a manager time is the correct thing to do. However there is a point when this isn't the case anymore and we smashed that down last season. He is the issue right now. 

Your words were that "Im actually of the belief that our current plight is purely down to the manager."

A manager should only continue be given time if that manager is showing signs of progression and improvement, something which stopped quite a while ago, so I would disagree that in this instance, it was even in theory the correct thing to do.

Mowbray has been given plenty of time and reasonable resources, although sometimes the latter is slightly exaggerated, the key reason why it is obvious that his time has been up was the obvious and significant regression last season compared to the previous one. The play offs during the last 3 years I think would have been, whilst feasible, an overachievement. That is what we need, a quality manager utilising comparatively limited resources to the max and getting more from the team than the sum of its parts. The bug bear for me has been that we haven't ever been close, and the key is that we are getting further away rather than closer.

This summer has a feeling of deja vu to it, one of which spans well before Mowbray's appointment. The embargo was totally unnecessary and the result of incompetence above his head, something which happened before when Bowyer was manager and we spent that summer losing key assets and scrambling around beyond the bottom of the barrel to fill spaces in the squad, who can forget Nathan Delfoeunso, Danny Guthrie and Fode Koita. Mowbray will have undoubtedly been hindered by the embargo and the radio silence from Pune, I have no doubt that he wanted to get players in by now and he has struggled to do so at least partially if not predominantly because of people above his head. Mind you, I don't have any sympathy for him in that if the owners were interested and competent, then he wouldnt be here.

[tomphil]

Seems a few are forgetting Preston were in the hunt for Armstrong so presumably they'd have been prepared to meet the same terms.

I remember they moaned we blew them out the water on the contract we offered him.

More great backing Mowbray received compared to others and possible evidence the 40% wasn't putting others off.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:21, tomphil said:

Only the rumours of player swaps which i reckon is more likely to come from people at the club rather than the owners.

The club imo really wants a deal of some sort but the owners aren't playing ball. 

Well yes, IF that happened then if I were Newcastle I'd be arguing that the value of any player taken in part exchange should be factored into the deal.

[roversfan99]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:17, RevidgeBlue said:

It may happen but under no circumstances SHOULD our prize asset  be replaced by anyone on loan.

He will just end up not being replaced after that.

Totally agree. Once Armstrong leaves, we have to buy a replacement, of course I am not expecting one for an equal fee.

Loans do have their uses, signing a couple of loans that are better than what we have can be a very effective way of improving the quality of our team. But replacing our sole asset would need to be done by a permanent signing.

On 25/07/2021 at 15:20, booth said:

He’s played senior football and played well, but not much. He actually has a lot of potential, very quick, confident, can finish etc, but we’ve so many players with potential at the moment it would be frustrating waiting for yet another youngster to slowly “develop” under Mowbray. If we sell Armstrong we need quality.

He may turn out great but there’s also a decent chance that he wouldn’t. Especially under Mowbray.

If we didn’t have a squad full of young developing “talent” he might have been an interesting signing.

100%. The average age of our team is far too young, and I fear will be lessened further by a handful of kids on loan.

There seems to be an unhealthy dependency on a clutch of essentially unproven young players all breaking through together this season, we are crying out for experience. In the past I have seen calls for the new Craig Short, the new Mark Hughes etc, veterans at the end of their career, for me it is probably a bit extreme to get players in of that age, but we definitely need more experience, maybe late 20s or even early 30s.

[islander200]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:24, tomphil said:

Seems a few are forgetting Preston were in the hunt for Armstrong so presumably they'd have been prepared to meet the same terms.

I remember they moaned we blew them out the water on the contract we offered him.

More great backing Mowbray received compared to others and possible evidence the 40% wasn't putting others off.

Mid/lower placed championship sides in for him.

He had had a poor 6 months at Bolton in the championship prior to joining us in on loan in league one and he wasn't anything special for us at the time either.

Agreeing to 40% was too much and I'd be saying the same if we were fielding 30 million bids for him now 

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:24, tomphil said:

Seems a few are forgetting Preston were in the hunt for Armstrong so presumably they'd have been prepared to meet the same terms.

I remember they moaned we blew them out the water on the contract we offered him.

More great backing Mowbray received compared to others and possible evidence the 40% wasn't putting others off.

Depends whether you think £3m was a fair price for Armstrong or not.

Which at the time I think it was. Newcastle haven't been paying 40% of his wage for the last 3 years have they. They got a fair price and get 40% of any profit.

Ridiculous.

[booth]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:28, roversfan99 said:

Totally agree. Once Armstrong leaves, we have to buy a replacement, of course I am not expecting one for an equal fee.

Loans do have their uses, signing a couple of loans that are better than what we have can be a very effective way of improving the quality of our team. But replacing our sole asset would need to be done by a permanent signing.

100%. The average age of our team is far too young, and I fear will be lessened further by a handful of kids on loan.

There seems to be an unhealthy dependency on a clutch of essentially unproven young players all breaking through together this season, we are crying out for experience. In the past I have seen calls for the new Craig Short, the new Mark Hughes etc, veterans at the end of their career, for me it is probably a bit extreme to get players in of that age, but we definitely need more experience, maybe late 20s or even early 30s.

The other worry is if Mowbray used him as an undroppable replacement for Armstrong. Resting our hopes on a 21 year old who has scored only 5 senior goals would be another gamble for the club, overseen by a manager who is no stranger to dropping a bollock or two.

I mean let’s face it he’d be playing centre half by Christmas.

[Mercer]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:37, RevidgeBlue said:

Depends whether you think £3m was a fair price for Armstrong or not.

Which at the time I think it was. Newcastle haven't been paying 40% of his wage for the last 3 years have they. They got a fair price and get 40% of any profit.

Ridiculous.

Not ridiculous but savvy!

Sadly, I think a bit of that type of nous would be welcome at Ewood!  Instead, I think we've spunked away £millions on transfer fees for likes of Brereton and Gallagher and extended deals for likes of Mulgrew, Smallwood and Hart - you could go on and on and on.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:45, Mercer said:

Not ridiculous but savvy!

Sadly, I think a bit of that type of nous would be welcome at Ewood!  Instead, I think we've spunked away £millions on transfer fees for likes of Brereton and Gallagher and extended deals for likes of Mulgrew, Smallwood and Hart - you could go on and on and on.

Ridiculous from our end, savvy from Newcastle's end!

[tomphil]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:35, islander200 said:

Mid/lower placed championship sides in for him.

He had had a poor 6 months at Bolton in the championship prior to joining us in on loan in league one and he wasn't anything special for us at the time either.

Agreeing to 40% was too much and I'd be saying the same if we were fielding 30 million bids for him now 

Who was in for him doesn't alter the terms of the deal.

He was coveted by a few lower down clubs, he was proven in league 1, still only 21 but Newcastle although happy to hold onto him were equally happy to let go for the right deal.

I wouldn't trust any football brokers with fresh air let alone anyone here but to get him here that's what they had to do.  Rovers backed their judgement on that and for once it proved correct.

Non of it alters the fact that they've now completely cocked it up and that has fook all to do with any 40%.

[tomphil]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:37, RevidgeBlue said:

Depends whether you think £3m was a fair price for Armstrong or not.

Which at the time I think it was. Newcastle haven't been paying 40% of his wage for the last 3 years have they. They got a fair price and get 40% of any profit.

Ridiculous.

Maybe for balance consider if it hadn't worked out ?

We would've been quite well covered there only looking to recoup or maybe lose 1.75 million, 3 at a push.

Now contrast and compare to Gallagher - 3 mill down 2 in add ons.

Brereton about the same down plus add ons up to 7 mill

Both have been here a while now and both will have had a large dollop of the entire fees paid up.

That is shite business.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:54, tomphil said:

Non of it alters the fact that they've now completely cocked it up and that has fook all to do with any 40%.

Well, yes again, that's the other side of it, for me we should never have agreed to the 40% to start with but once it had been done and knowing it was in place our absolute number one priority should have been to ensure AA always had plenty of time left on his contract.

Sheer incompetence all round but like I say no surprise with these bozos running operations.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:57, tomphil said:

Maybe for balance consider if it hadn't worked out ?

We would've been quite well covered there only looking to recoup or maybe lose 1.75 million, 3 at a push.

Now contrast and compare to Gallagher - 3 mill down 2 in add ons.

Brereton about the same down plus add ons up to 7 mill

Both have been here a while now and both will have had a large dollop of the entire fees paid up.

That is shite business.

Three wrongs don't make a right though!

[SuperBrfc]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:17, tomphil said:

I'm not advocating bringing him in or saying he's a great manager but what would the likes of Alex Neil have done with the kind of backing Mowbray and his crew have had ?

His side have finished above us every season and probably beaten us more that we beat them.

I'm in no doubt we'd be a much more solid outfit under him and closer to those play off places. Neil has something about him. Can you imagine him coming out with half of the crap that Mowbray has, or trying to gloss over a run of 2 wins in 17? He would be kicking backsides in the dressing room to snap us out of it.

His work at Norwich shows him to be a winner and I thought he did a decent job at Preston with limited resources. He realised that they needed a centre back and got Bauer in. No messing about, he went out and addressed what their squad needed. I'd like to think he would have made better use of the £12m that Mowbray blew and our higher wage budget.

We don't even need a brilliant manager to get us up the table or even out of this division. We just need a half decent one possessing the right mentality and attitude. Mr nice guy rotating everybody just to keep them happy, whilst waving the white flag is the last kind of manager you would want at your club. Yet we're stuck with him!

[Tugayisgod]

[Bigdoggsteel]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:22, roversfan99 said:

Your words were that "Im actually of the belief that our current plight is purely down to the manager."

A manager should only continue be given time if that manager is showing signs of progression and improvement, something which stopped quite a while ago, so I would disagree that in this instance, it was even in theory the correct thing to do.

Mowbray has been given plenty of time and reasonable resources, although sometimes the latter is slightly exaggerated, the key reason why it is obvious that his time has been up was the obvious and significant regression last season compared to the previous one. The play offs during the last 3 years I think would have been, whilst feasible, an overachievement. That is what we need, a quality manager utilising comparatively limited resources to the max and getting more from the team than the sum of its parts. The bug bear for me has been that we haven't ever been close, and the key is that we are getting further away rather than closer.

This summer has a feeling of deja vu to it, one of which spans well before Mowbray's appointment. The embargo was totally unnecessary and the result of incompetence above his head, something which happened before when Bowyer was manager and we spent that summer losing key assets and scrambling around beyond the bottom of the barrel to fill spaces in the squad, who can forget Nathan Delfoeunso, Danny Guthrie and Fode Koita. Mowbray will have undoubtedly been hindered by the embargo and the radio silence from Pune, I have no doubt that he wanted to get players in by now and he has struggled to do so at least partially if not predominantly because of people above his head. Mind you, I don't have any sympathy for him in that if the owners were interested and competent, then he wouldnt be here.

I don't buy the embargo made that much of a difference to be honest. We always leave it late and really we should have been good to go straight away when we got out of it. Mowbray has overall done a bad job in my eyes. If you look at it as a project, he has got us into this mess. We are going to be overly reliant on the Armstrong fee, let's be honest, it's nothing to do with embargos. Last season was a disaster and the manager showed how completely unadaptable he is. His stubbornness and viewpoints, in his eyes, trump what's best for the club. 

I take your points on the owners, but at the end of the day, they own it,it's their money and they don't appear to be going anywhere. I suppose it's all the one really though when they are the ones who leave him in situ, although that's what they appointed a CEO for, surely? The club is rotten at the minute and without defending the owners ,they have again, ended up with clowns running the show. They put money in and trusted them. They just aren't attached to the town,or the club. That's the problem. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:08, roversfan99 said:

I personally wouldn't go for Obafemi for similar reasons ie he is unproven but we need a senior replacement for when Armstrong goes, we cannot expect a kid who has never played senior football to suddenly come in. His best bet would be a loan spell. We cannot avoid signings for fear of blocking unproven kids, by all means give them chances where appropriate but as well as having that senior experience. If they are pushing enough they will/should get game time regardless.

He has played senior football and he has scored at Premier League level. Is he better than McBride? It would seem to be the case. 

I would obviously have other targets before him, but we potentially could end up with a LOT worse 

 

[roversfan99]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:38, booth said:

The other worry is if Mowbray used him as an undroppable replacement for Armstrong. Resting our hopes on a 21 year old who has scored only 5 senior goals would be another gamble for the club, overseen by a manager who is no stranger to dropping a bollock or two.

I mean let’s face it he’d be playing centre half by Christmas.

Agreed. I look at Brereton and Gallagher ie both of our other most senior (and that is saying something) attackers and neither is a natural goalscorer likely to get into double figures very often, that can be worked around if they accompany a prolific striker but take Armstrong out of the equation, and then so much reliance is on them 2, and beyond that, we only have promise without much real evidence of further goal threat, players like Chapman, Dolan, Butterworth and Rankin Costello. We need to replace Elliott with someone already, if Armstrong goes we will need a new striker and then at least another player beyond that, perhaps a goal scoring wide man to help to make up that worrying deficit.

On 25/07/2021 at 17:52, Bigdoggsteel said:

I don't buy the embargo made that much of a difference to be honest. We always leave it late and really we should have been good to go straight away when we got out of it. Mowbray has overall done a bad job in my eyes. If you look at it as a project, he has got us into this mess. We are going to be overly reliant on the Armstrong fee, let's be honest, it's nothing to do with embargos. Last season was a disaster and the manager showed how completely unadaptable he is. His stubbornness and viewpoints, in his eyes, trump what's best for the club. 

I take your points on the owners, but at the end of the day, they own it,it's their money and they don't appear to be going anywhere. I suppose it's all the one really though when they are the ones who leave him in situ, although that's what they appointed a CEO for, surely? The club is rotten at the minute and without defending the owners ,they have again, ended up with clowns running the show. They put money in and trusted them. They just aren't attached to the town,or the club. That's the problem. 

I don't doubt that the manager is not fit to continue and I share many of the same issues with him, I don't doubt him as a person but tactically he is trying to build based on massively flawed principles, his recruitment is at best hit and miss etc, ultimately results show regression. But I don't see how you can possibly say that the literal impossibility of being able to register players up until recently will not have affected him, he did say that targets went elsewhere and it makes sense if other clubs could offer security in the form of a contract from that moment that we simply couldn't offer. It is undoubtedly a genuine problem that he shouldn't have had to deal with but did. Of course, we have been out of an embargo for a few weeks now and still haven't signed anyone, so that is on him.

They haven't "ended up with clowns running the show," they have yet again hired clowns to run the show, it is on them. They cover the losses that are unnecessarily massively increased based on their own incompetence. They shouldn't need to be attached to the town or the club, if they want to view it as purely a business and indeed the nonsense about the club being "their baby" that they have spouted in the past was indeed as expected not genuine, then they should still try to run that major business as efficiently and as effectively as they possibly can.

We do always leave it late, again that is a common theme beyond just Mowbray's tenure, they usually dally around waiting for the manager to fly to India after the season and thus do not know the budget until weeks after the season has ended. We have had 2 transfer embargos under their tenure, and they seem to never be far away from turning off the taps suddenly and without warning.

I dont think that at the moment, we should be waiting on the Armstrong funds with such reliance. Many teams we are competing with are dealing solely in free transfers and loanees, thats fine, the key is to be proactive and get the best ones before other teams do. The embargo robbed us of the ability to do that, and even now, Mowbray and whoever else is negotiating have seemingly continued that precedent of incompetence in the weeks that have followed. If Armstrong goes, we should have a list of players ready to go, as it is I am sure that it will be a panic loan.

I do think that Armstrong being our only sellable asset is again a bad reflection on Mowbray's trading, bad luck on Dack aside. If you put Gallagher, Brereton or indeed any of the cheaper purchases that he has made in his time here, Rothwell, Chapman, Davenport etc, I don't think we would raise much money at all.

 

On 25/07/2021 at 17:56, Bigdoggsteel said:

He has played senior football and he has scored at Premier League level. Is he better than McBride? It would seem to be the case. 

I would obviously have other targets before him, but we potentially could end up with a LOT worse 

 

For me, McBride should not be considered or indeed we certainly shouldn't demand or expect him to be a member of the squad to be depended upon, not yet, not until he has proven it. My choice would be for him to get some game time in League 1 or 2, but even if he sticks around, I am not saying that we shouldn't give him chances if and when appropriate, but any impact should be considered a bonus rather than a given.