Summer transfer window 2021.

[Oldgregg86]

I think it’s a big season for rothwell. Time to shine and show us what he’s really capable of

[lraC]

On 25/07/2021 at 19:15, roversfan99 said:

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.

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.

 

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.

 

I do wonder if the reluctance to sign anyone, until the Armstrong deal is done, is down to what happened with Dack. He was all but sold, before his first injury and the money was probably, already being counted. 

[simongarnerisgod]

On 25/07/2021 at 18:29, Oldgregg86 said:

I think it’s a big season for rothwell. Time to shine and show us what he’s really capable of

to get the  best out of rothwell he needs to be played just behind a central striker where he can exploit space and use his speed to create chaos,more often than not in his whole time here he`s been to deep and almost in front of the two centre backs at times,i keep maintaining that we`ve got 5 or 6 lads with the speed to make us deadly on the counter attack,play to your best attributes and make the opposition worry about you,not the other way round,our erstwhile manager though is insistent on playing everyone out of position🤔

[bluebruce]

On 25/07/2021 at 18:29, Oldgregg86 said:

I think it’s a big season for rothwell. Time to shine and show us what he’s really capable of

That was last season for him too.

[JohnGo]

On 25/07/2021 at 15:01, islander200 said:

Agreed, very rarely in England anyway do you see a player with a 40% sell on ,it's usually 20 max.

Was stupid to agree such a clause, it wasnt like Newcastle were over run with bids for him at the time.

He had had a poor 6 month spell in the championship with Bolton,and a decent (not brilliant) spell in league one for us

The sell on clause depends on how much you’re prepared up front. From memory Newcastle we’re rumoured to want £4m for Adam. We obviously agreed to a lower fee and a higher sell on percentage. Newcastle knew if he was as successful as he was at Coventry then we would be selling.

[Angry_Pirate]

Did Ivan Toney have a 40% sell on fee when he left for L1?

No? Just us then...

[RoversClitheroe]

On 25/07/2021 at 19:36, Angry_Pirate said:

Did Ivan Toney have a 40% sell on fee when he left for L1?

No? Just us then...

Think it's more the fact in order to get Armstrong in an affordable manor we had to put in the 40% sell on fee.

[ben_the_beast]

We are run in a very, very old school way in that the manager is just left to get on with things. Between the lot of them they have clearly not prioritised proper forward planning. Last seasons squad was beyond huge and large contracts have been handed out as rewards to aging players. 

Non of this has been done for the good of the future of the club. If those in charge had the good of the future of the club at heart making sure Armstrong, Nyambe, Rothwell, Brereton and Lenihan had longer than 1 year left on their deals would have been the number 1 priority. Instead the 'reward' contracts and going all in with last years ridiculous squad size was prioritised.

These things shouldn't have been left solely up to the manager but they were and they have been willfully neglected. Venkys let the clowns run free and they've cocked it up. Through both incompetence and what I can only assume furthering their own careers by spending money which should have been securing the clubs future on extra sweets from the candy shop on players with no long term benefit. 

Mowbray has no respect left from me. He's incompetent, insulting and false. 

Venkys continue to be the joke they've always been, consistently shirking their true responsibilities. 

[J*B]

1 hour ago, Angry_Pirate said:

Did Ivan Toney have a 40% sell on fee when he left for L1?

No? Just us then...

No, but Brentford paid 10m quid for Toney and we paid 3m quid for Arma. 

[EwoodGlory]

£1.75m, it was a great deal. 

[ben_the_beast]

On 25/07/2021 at 20:48, J*B said:

No, but Brentford paid 10m quid for Toney and we paid 3m quid for Arma. 

Brentford paid Peterborough 10m quid not Newcastle. 

Quick Google says Peterborough bought him for about 500,000 plus 30% sell on fee. 

[tomphil]

I would assume it went along the lines of Newcastle saying we want 5 million with half up front.  Rovers saying we can't do that but we'll give you 3 million in installments over his contract and a 25% sell on.

Toon come back, ok it's like this 1.75 now, a further 1.75 in installments and 40% sell on. Take it or leave it Preston and a few others are willing to meet the terms but first come first served.

Ok, we'll do it.

This is Mike Ashley dealing with Venkys pawnbrokers, it's a no contest.

 

[1864roverite]

Rovers are not run in an old school manner, they are run in as an incompetent way that anyone could least imagine🤡🤡🤬🤬🤡🤡

[neophox]

Seems to be a covid outbreak at Swansea that could help us.

[1864roverite]

On 25/07/2021 at 22:30, neophox said:

Seems to be a covid outbreak at Swansea that could help us.

We will still get beaten by their reserve and youth sides

[neophox]

On 25/07/2021 at 23:40, 1864roverite said:

We will still get beaten by their reserve and youth sides

Sadly I would agree 

[neophox]

Newcastle could have had both Toney and Armstrong in the attack but let both go on cheap. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by neophox

[RevidgeBlue]

On 25/07/2021 at 20:48, J*B said:

No, but Brentford paid 10m quid for Toney and we paid 3m quid for Arma. 

Not quite, on researching it, it was £5m plus add ons.

They now have a player worth £25m plus.

We'll be struggling to net £10m for Armstrong if he goes so who got the better deal?

[TheRoversReturn]

On 25/07/2021 at 19:04, Exiled_Rover said:

The owners write off £20m a year to keep us running.

As absent and incompetent as they are, I can't question that they put their hand in their pocket. 

Is it true that they "put their hand in their pockets"? Or do they just add it as debt to BRFC, hence why it remains as debt on the club? Does it actually come from them, or in forms of loans from the bank?

Not sure they're checking for loose change down the back of the sofa, like...

[bluebruce]

On 25/07/2021 at 22:30, neophox said:

Seems to be a covid outbreak at Swansea that could help us.

That was my first thought, but my second thought was that by the time we play it probably won't affect then.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 26/07/2021 at 00:51, TheRoversReturn said:

Is it true that they "put their hand in their pockets"? Or do they just add it as debt to BRFC, hence why it remains as debt on the club? Does it actually come from them, or in forms of loans from the bank?

Not sure they're checking for loose change down the back of the sofa, like...

As far as I'm aware they do put their hands in their pocket, usually by issuing share capital and the vast majority of the debt is not secured against the Club but against the holding Company Venky's London or whatever it is called.

Technically the Club will probably owe the money to the Holding Company but I'm assuming there's an understanding it will never be repaid unless something extraordinary happens.

[lraC]

On 26/07/2021 at 07:09, RevidgeBlue said:

As far as I'm aware they do put their hands in their pocket, usually by issuing share capital and the vast majority of the debt is not secured against the Club but against the holding Company Venky's London or whatever it is called.

Technically the Club will probably owe the money to the Holding Company but I'm assuming there's an understanding it will never be repaid unless something extraordinary happens.

I actually don’t think the debt is the biggest issue here, as they will never get it back. The big issue is, will they carry on with further investment? This is the bit that always puzzles me, as they must know that 10 more years doubles the debt, yet still no sign of them cutting their losses.

In the words of the Grand master Flash, the longer you stay, the more you pay. Why do they do it though?

 

[RevidgeBlue]

On 26/07/2021 at 06:28, lraC said:

 The big issue is, will they carry on with further investment?

In the words of the Grand master Flash, the longer you stay, the more you pay. Why do they do it though?

 

The first paragraph is the 64m (or 200m) dollar question and whilst they have funded us to date I don't think anyone should be under any illusion that this will automatically last indefinitely, They might just get up one day and decide that funding is to cease.

As to why they do it,

a) because they can and

b) I suspect it's because of the stigma attached to having a business go to the wall in Indian culture.

Either way we can't afford to lose any more time failing under the Coventrio. The Club would appear to be at a delicate tipping point as it is.

[J*B]

6 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not quite, on researching it, it was £5m plus add ons.

They now have a player worth £25m plus.

We'll be struggling to net £10m for Armstrong if he goes so who got the better deal?

Add ons to the value of 5m, which you’d assume now they’re promoted are paid up. Doing it the add ones excluded way still works though…

They paid 5m

We paid 1.75m. 

[Ricky]

Tom Carroll may be available on a free which seems an odd one. He only signed for QPR last year but was named in Derby’s team playing Salford on Saturday. If he’s available we should be having a look.