Summer transfer window 2021.

[DeeCee]

Wanker Walton

 

[47er]

We'll be getting any young players on loan we can now from Premier league clubs----whether they're any good or not, simply to make the numbers out and to distract from the fact we haven't signed anybody. They won't be significantly better than our youngsters but they'll keep them out.

 

[Leonard Venkhater]

4 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

Wanker Walton

 

The winner!

[JHRover]

2 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Even if all that isn't true you can't say that we don't spend money when we clearly do.

The owners have been putting in the max they are allowed to.According to you they brought Gallagher and Brererton in as they knew in a couple of years Armstrong's contract would be down to 1 year and we can sell below market value.

One question Iv asked you ,you haven't answered is what do we do next summer if Armstrong stays this year?As much as you want to keep denying it we are on the threshold of breaking ffp rules and without a big sale could very well end up in an embargo next summer.So what's the plan for next summer if we stupidily let Armstrong leave for nothing?

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I don't think the owners have been putting the maximum in they are allowed to. And even if they have been we are completely hamstrung by a limited income and poor commercial operation brought about by their mismanagement. So this attitude of 'they're doing all they can' I don't accept.

No, I didn't say that about Gallagher and Brereton. What I said was that the funds for their signings were authorised by the owners because they saw them as project signings expecting to recoup their money with a sale down the line. Due to Mowbray's mismanagement the chances of recouping that money is remote, so instead they will use the Armstrong windfall to cover it instead.

I believe the owners only authorised the fees on Brereton, Armstrong and Gallagher in the first place because they were confident of getting their money back and turning a profit - not because they believed it would catapult us to promotion or because it was the missing piece of the jigsaw. What they get for Armstrong will probably just about cover the fees for those players so they will probably be satisfied.

We've (allegedly) already been under an embargo this summer due to failing to get accounts submitted in time. So it can happen irrespective of any player sales.

IF we end up in an embargo next summer, and I think that is a big IF and the club are skillfully deflecting blame with this one - then we end up in a state similar to now - we struggle to sign players.

You do realise we've signed nobody this summer? So what difference would an embargo make? Nobody comes in, we play the kids. Oh yeah, that's happening anyway.

The club and team will not benefit from the Armstrong money. It will not strengthen the squad, at best we will get some youngsters on loan, which we could do even under an embargo.

 

[phili]

26 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I didn't say we haven't spent money. Mowbray has had good backing and certainly better than any of his 5 predecessors Berg, Appleton, Bowyer, Lambert or Coyle.

More important than any cash or wages he has had is the time, freedom and lack of forced sales. Most managers at this level get a couple of transfer windows or so to do their work, or have to sell before they can buy, or have to contend with interfering chairmen or directors of football. He's had none of that and this is his 9th transfer window. Absolutely outrageous that we have this squad after that.

I disagree that providing wages for free agents or loans constitutes spending. This is where Venkys' operation of the club and my view on things split apart. Of course there are costs involved in signing free agents or adding loans to the payroll. But this is not the same as coughing up transfer fees to recruit good players.

Every other club in the league also sign free agents and loans. It doesn't make us special or big spenders because we do the same. It is a basic part of football recruitment that every club takes part in. Admittedly though the manager has done poorly on this and we have been overly reliant on loans which now leaves the squad a mess.

And I think there is a gross exaggeration as to how much loans such as Elliott, THB and Branthwaite cost the club. I reckon people would be surprised by how cheap they were. We've already had rumours that the Trybull deal was massively subsidised by Norwich and it is fair to assume the teenagers will have been heavily sponsored by their parent clubs to get them here and give them game time.

Our issue with signing Free's is that we like to give them a big signing on bonus for a lower wage.

I think Ayala's sign on bonus may well have been approaching £1.5m in order to agree to a wage of £15k a week over 3 years as he was on close to £28k a week at Middlesborough. So you would be pretty foolish to ignore the costs of signing Free's here.

Tosin the previous year cost £1m no idea on Elliott, THB and Braithwaite last year. What normally happens is if you guarantee to play them in the first team each week you get them at a lower price. If you want to play them as a normal squad player then you have to pay more.

[islander200]

8 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I don't think the owners have been putting the maximum in they are allowed to. And even if they have been we are completely hamstrung by a limited income and poor commercial operation brought about by their mismanagement. So this attitude of 'they're doing all they can' I don't accept.

No, I didn't say that about Gallagher and Brereton. What I said was that the funds for their signings were authorised by the owners because they saw them as project signings expecting to recoup their money with a sale down the line. Due to Mowbray's mismanagement the chances of recouping that money is remote, so instead they will use the Armstrong windfall to cover it instead.

I believe the owners only authorised the fees on Brereton, Armstrong and Gallagher in the first place because they were confident of getting their money back and turning a profit - not because they believed it would catapult us to promotion or because it was the missing piece of the jigsaw. What they get for Armstrong will probably just about cover the fees for those players so they will probably be satisfied.

We've (allegedly) already been under an embargo this summer due to failing to get accounts submitted in time. So it can happen irrespective of any player sales.

IF we end up in an embargo next summer, and I think that is a big IF and the club are skillfully deflecting blame with this one - then we end up in a state similar to now - we struggle to sign players.

You do realise we've signed nobody this summer? So what difference would an embargo make? Nobody comes in, we play the kids. Oh yeah, that's happening anyway.

The club and team will not benefit from the Armstrong money. It will not strengthen the squad, at best we will get some youngsters on loan, which we could do even under an embargo.

 

I give up your right and the accounts and everyone else is wrong ffs 

This is like your belief that the Venkys wouldn't allow defensive signings to be made.At the time on the match thread you would be criticising and blaming Mowbray for our defensive frailties and on the transfer thread you were saying that the owners don't allow money to be spent on the defence.

 

 

 

The club is mismanaged but the level of finance being put into the club has been adequate

 

[islander200]

5 minutes ago, phili said:

Our issue with signing Free's is that we like to give them a big signing on bonus for a lower wage.

I think Ayala's sign on bonus may well have been approaching £1.5m in order to agree to a wage of £15k a week over 3 years as he was on close to £28k a week at Middlesborough. So you would be pretty foolish to ignore the costs of signing Free's here.

Tosin the previous year cost £1m no idea on Elliott, THB and Braithwaite last year. What normally happens is if you guarantee to play them in the first team each week you get them at a lower price. If you want to play them as a normal squad player then you have to pay more.

Why bother. Ffp isn't real and signing on fees shouldn't be included in transfer spend according to JHRover

 

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Why bother. Ffp isn't real and signing on fees shouldn't be included in transfer spend according to JHRover

 

Signing on fees are paid over the period of the contract so I would say that is wages rather than transfer spend.

[islander200]

3 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Signing on fees are paid over the period of the contract so I would say that is wages rather than transfer spend.

Whatever way you look at it , wages, signing on fees,transfer fees we are on the threshold of breaking ffp rules and we have had a healthy budget since our return to the championship.

Mismanaged yes but money has been spent 

[phili]

27 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I don't think the owners have been putting the maximum in they are allowed to. And even if they have been we are completely hamstrung by a limited income and poor commercial operation brought about by their mismanagement. So this attitude of 'they're doing all they can' I don't accept.

No, I didn't say that about Gallagher and Brereton. What I said was that the funds for their signings were authorised by the owners because they saw them as project signings expecting to recoup their money with a sale down the line. Due to Mowbray's mismanagement the chances of recouping that money is remote, so instead they will use the Armstrong windfall to cover it instead.

I believe the owners only authorised the fees on Brereton, Armstrong and Gallagher in the first place because they were confident of getting their money back and turning a profit - not because they believed it would catapult us to promotion or because it was the missing piece of the jigsaw. What they get for Armstrong will probably just about cover the fees for those players so they will probably be satisfied.

We've (allegedly) already been under an embargo this summer due to failing to get accounts submitted in time. So it can happen irrespective of any player sales.

IF we end up in an embargo next summer, and I think that is a big IF and the club are skillfully deflecting blame with this one - then we end up in a state similar to now - we struggle to sign players.

You do realise we've signed nobody this summer? So what difference would an embargo make? Nobody comes in, we play the kids. Oh yeah, that's happening anyway.

The club and team will not benefit from the Armstrong money. It will not strengthen the squad, at best we will get some youngsters on loan, which we could do even under an embargo.

 

When you are in an embargo, the maximum you can offer for a weekly wage is £10k for a new signing as well as a contract renewal.

You also have rules on signings and existing players not going above a certain Wage to Turnover ratio.

So if we do end up in another embargo soon you can kiss goodbye to every player whose contract comes to an end next summer. Also we won't have any assets to sell to get out of the embargo.

 

[JHRover]

8 minutes ago, phili said:

When you are in an embargo, the maximum you can offer for a weekly wage is £10k for a new signing as well as a contract renewal.

You also have rules on signings and existing players not going above a certain Wage to Turnover ratio.

So if we do end up in another embargo soon you can kiss goodbye to every player whose contract comes to an end next summer. Also we won't have any assets to sell to get out of the embargo.

 

No we don't have to kiss goodbye to anyone. We pre-empt the possibility of an embargo by getting the decent players tied down to long term deals (a novel idea I know) so that IF we are put in an embargo we have a good squad to get through it with OR have the option of selling a few to get out of it.

This would of course require us to spend the coming months sorting out new deals for our assets. Our failure to do so and complete lack of any indication anything is happening on that front, the fact that none of our senior players have signed new deals (other than options in the clubs favour) since last year all suggest the club is doing nothing or is well off the required pace on this.

Our lack of action on contracts is the cat out of the bag in all this - because if the club was struggling to sign new players and was worried about FFP it would be dealing with the contracts to protect its assets, so to ensure that there was a solid core there for the next few years and players who could be sold for decent fees if needed.

The complete silence and lack of action on both new signings and new contracts speaks volumes. Especially having already waved off 11 players many of whom were on big money.

No point whinging about FFP and then allowing all your players to run their deals down and walk away.

As I said before - even if we were limited to £10 a week under an embargo - what would that change given our 'activity' this summer?

Edited August 5, 2021 by JHRover

[JacknOry]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

I know many prefer to focus on the issues, the likes of Mulgrew / Graham having contracts extended, the 13m on Gallagher and BB, the Ayala contract etc, the reliance on loans…

For me it’s more like; BB is a ready made replacement for AA, (we surely need a CC next) we’ve got rid of many players we all knew couldn’t take us any further - the bells, the Bennett’s and the Evans. We’ve several talents on the fringe of the squad like Garrett and we normally get trusted with top loans like Tosin, Harvey and Harwood Bellis.

So last minute transfers might dictate which system we used, from the two we’ve utilised during pre season?

Again - something that seems normal to me is seen as a scandal here? 

Carlton Cole? Colin Calderwood? Charlie Chaplin?

[lraC]

I can't help but think about the Givet signing and the Manchester based tailor, when the arguments about wages, signing on fees etc start.

[1864roverite]

If Rovers could plan properly they would be a real danger😀

[RoverKyle]

20 minutes ago, lraC said:

I can't help but think about the Givet signing and the Manchester based tailor, when the arguments about wages, signing on fees etc start.

Why, what was the situation around that? I loved him at Rovers. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, alex l said:

Craig Conway. David Dunn/Damien Duff. 

Anymore for any more? 

Chris Crowe back in the 1960’s. Chris Coleman in the 1990’s.

[rigger]

23 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Carlton Cole? Colin Calderwood? Charlie Chaplin?

We've already got Coco the Clown, in the form of Tony Mowbray.

Edited August 5, 2021 by rigger

[Bigdoggsteel]

FFP my ass. Remember when we were better than City? 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Bigdoggsteel

[Craigman]

Think we should be pushing our support towards Rovers Ladies, at least they keep making signings!

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

Wages in this current climate are nowhere near as high after the last 18 months unless you are PL championship wages are much lower and if he wanted to play first team football then he would have to take a hit 

He has a contract, Norwich are PL. He's probably on at least double our highest earner. 

[roversfan99]

We ae going into a league game on Saturday, starting a season in which as things stand we could be in a fight for every point down at the bottom, and we dont have a squad full of senior players. Yet everything is so passive.

[JHRover]

Middlesbrough just signed an Argentine midfielder.

When was their FFP firesale? Must have missed it.

[1864roverite]

28 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

He has a contract, Norwich are PL. He's probably on at least double our highest earner. 

He wont be playing PL football he wont even be a bench warmer so if he wants first team football then he will have to adjust his ambition and salary expectations

[Oldgregg86]

14 hours ago, BRFC_Polky said:

 

Nicko stating it’s £15m + Adam Idah who Norwich value at £5m.

 

Snatch there bloody arm off

[DeeCee]

49 minutes ago, rigger said:

We've already got Coco the Clown, in the form of Tony Mowbray.

Charlie Cairoli?

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by DeeCee