January Transfer Window.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

 

 

Come off it. There’s some serious deflection going on here. It’s not Forest’s fault the lad is in limbo.

If we got promoted and cleared the decks, replaced the lads who got us there with better, and splashed the cash it’d be all “no room for sentiment”.

Can anyone honestly say they gave Duncan Shearer a second thought when Alan was banging them in?

I literally said I’m not defending us - in fact I’ve spent most the day criticising us.

I was just merely pointing out there are other ways of not being ‘respectable’ towards players.

The O’Brien situation is entirely on us!

Re: replacing players after a promotion ,  I agree that’s perfectly normal - I just think 29 new ones is a tad excessive. 

O’Brien was bought by forest after their promotion - unless I’ve got that wrong?

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, BankEnd Rover said:

Clubs “fans” sorry. Just on twitter, a lot appreciate the transparency. Something they say their clubs have never done. 

Only because they haven't seen the whole sad tapestry of ineptitude that has been the last decade+ at Rovers.

[Atko's Engine]

3 hours ago, Mercer said:

That is not the point.

A potential business transaction can be varied on a very regular basis right up until closure.  A deal is not done until it's over the line.  If I had a £1million for every business transaction I've been party to that has changed closed to completion then I would be an extremely wealthy man perhaps even able to buy Rovers myself!

Frying pan & fire spring to mind there Mercer...!! 😉

So now we know a little more. Kudos to GB for fronting up, that can't have been easy after all the positive noises he's made & shows good leadership.  I get some detail has to wait pending the appeal.

There are plenty of lessons to be learnt here. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but getting Forest to pull O'Brien out of training seems like a massive missed opportunity to free up time, with less than 12 hours to the deadline.

Why did we do the medicals in Manchester? Is that always the case? Seems weird if they still had to be at Brockall for paperwork & PR purposes anyway, why not just do it all there??

Why did SW not make an exception to the norm of going to the match? It was deadline day, he knew how important this one was to the club, he knew big deals had potential to happen (be that O'Brien, a striker, or an enquiry about BBD or another outgoing)?  It should have been all hands on deck from a senior management perspective, stuff whether or not Birmingham would feel that we were snubbing them.

Why is SW not fronting up now? Why is it left to GB, who it sounds like was doing all the running on the day to fulfil the potential of a top signing that HIS recruitment team had brought to the point that a deal could be done?

There do need to be consequences here internally it seems. Sacking? Maybe, depends exactly what happened, who was at fault and what their track record is. Maybe final warnings and a "shifting of responsibilities" (aka demotion) is appropriate. 

IMO though, GB would be the wrong one to go. He appears to show passion, desire, insight & and leadership. I get the feeling he really wants to succeed here, rather than just enjoy the ride (well, before Tuesday anyway). Same with JDT.

I also think the decision to go for O'Brien (and Thomas to an extent) indicates that contrary to last Jan, we did actually look to take advantage of being in the playoff race. The medium & longer term plans still exist (hence Brierley), but the short term plan had enough flex in it to be able to stretch to a potentially game-changing short term signing. I think that bears out what I've suspected all along, which is that privately GB and JDT realised the opportunity they had to go up this season, but publicly played it down. I've no problem with that, and they even managed to get it all agreed, if not signed off literally.

So there's more to come. The appeal will almost certainly fail it seems. We'll get more detail then I guess. In the meantime we need to hear from SW. He has some explaining to do as CEO, that's why he gets the big bucks, he should earn them and own this himself.

I will be chasing for a reply to my email to him on Monday.

[bluebruce]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I literally said I’m not defending us - in fact I’ve spent most the day criticising us.

I think tempers are high, and some people are letting emotion override reason and the ability to view things from multiple angles. Some people are running with anything that sounds like a defence of the club on even a small point, and assuming the poster is defending the fuckery of the last few days. Which almost nobody is doing. I hope posters manage to remain respectful, because we're all in the same boat and it has a big fucking hole in it.

[Iceman]

8 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Dunno why any of that was directed at me (quoted my post anyway). I know we messed it up, I used the term cockup in the same post you quoted. Doesn't mean I won't continue to look at things with balance. And I certainly don't feel sorry for him. As you say, although LOB would have been an excellent signing, the position wasn't the priority, striker was. I get that targets fall away and you can't control it, but we have needed a good striker signing for both the windows GB has overseen, and all we have mustered was Hirst, who was dogshit and is now gone. It ain't good enough however you slice it. The only thing in GB's favour in that regard is he hasn't been here all that long and there is probably a fair bit of work to sort out our shambolic recruitment. By this window though, I expected him to have been getting to grips with that. I know we have financial constraints too, but there ARE cheap gems out there, there always are. The problem is it takes skill to source them, and our recruitment department in general must still lack that. Between now and the next window, that should be where our recruitment focuses...on finding better recruitment staff! And of course a free agent striker of reasonable ability wouldn't go amiss.

Sorry BlueBruce, I didn't mean to quote anybody 

[Exiled_Rover]

15 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

 

 

Come off it. There’s some serious deflection going on here. It’s not Forest’s fault the lad is in limbo.

If we got promoted and cleared the decks, replaced the lads who got us there with better, and splashed the cash it’d be all “no room for sentiment”.

Can anyone honestly say they gave Duncan Shearer a second thought when Alan was banging them in?

O'Brien didn't get them there - he was a summer signing that they're now desperate to get rid of. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Exiled_Rover

[roversfan99]

39 minutes ago, BigHoz said:

Don’t think Greg is to blame tbh, unlucky with the striker situation, did everything he had to do with o brien and he’s been let down. Glad he’s come out and spoke as not many at ewood do and I still think he wants what’s best for rovers.  Waggot needs binning sharpish and the rest of the slimey scum. 

If he is "unlucky" not to sign a striker, is he also lucky that we managed to get Hyam in the circumstances that we did?

[Paul Mellelieu]

14 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Now's not the time for confessions, Paul. 

GB is a breath of fresh air for me.  The stupid conspiracy theories, the calling for sackings, the OTT anger at certain members of staff, and the rest, when the facts aren't fully known sound like the rantings of middle-aged men angry at the world.  

[BigBar]

4 hours ago, Gamst said:

Maybe I’m naive, but I think that interview took some balls and I’m impressed. None of us know what happens behind the scenes, but I think we need more people like GB and JDT and less like Waggott and Sylvester. Hopefully this sorry affair helps us get there. 

I thought the opposite. Thought he came across nervous and edgy and had the energy of a man who fucked up. Jittery and voice quivering. Weather he didn't do his part as he should have and was too casual or not knowledgeable enough or allowed people under his management to drag their heals. Eithee way the buck stops with him, lots of vague, non detailed, evasive shite imo.  Not impressed at all.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Atko's Engine said:

Why did we do the medicals in Manchester? Is that always the case? Seems weird if they still had to be at Brockall for paperwork & PR purposes anyway, why not just do it all there??

Why did SW not make an exception to the norm of going to the match? It was deadline day, he knew how important this one was to the club, he knew big deals had potential to happen (be that O'Brien, a striker, or an enquiry about BBD or another outgoing)?  It should have been all hands on deck from a senior management perspective, stuff whether or not Birmingham would feel that we were snubbing them.

On the first quoted para, good point that if they were heading to Brockhall anyway it might make more sense to do it there...all I can think is the facilities may be better in Manchester, and that we don't have a club doctor anymore (I think that's right anyway). I don't know exactly what's involved in a medical or whether you need a doctor rather than a physio to conduct it.

On the second para, the bigger question for me is why we even agreed the match for Tuesday night. It didn't enable TV coverage, it was 3 days after the last game and yet 5 days until the next game after, and most of all, it was on bastarding deadline day. Numerous fans on this forum identified that it seemed stupid, so why can't professionals in the industry? The very least they could do if they insisted on that day for some reason was make sure that ALL staff who might have even the least bit involvement in transfers, apart from the manager, stay at fucking home.

Edited February 3, 2023 by bluebruce

[yankfan]

“Obviously, I know you’re going to ask me what they are and unfortunately because of the appeal, I can’t go into them.”

why would the appeal prevent anyone from disclosing the issue?  It’s not like it’s some sort of classified document. Only reason is to save face. 

[yankfan]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

If he is "unlucky" not to sign a striker, is he also lucky that we managed to get Hyam in the circumstances that we did?

Makes me think we’ve been lucky to get every player we have and also understand why we never know if we have a club option in a player or not?  Umm did we get that sheet signed or not? 

[Miller11]

2 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

O'Brien didn't get them there - he was a summer signing them there that they're now desperate to get rid of. 

Makes no difference. Would you have felt for Tayo Edun if we’d loaned him out in the January after we signed him?

[Exiled_Rover]

14 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Has he said that, that we ignored the striker target in order to pursue O'Brien? That's fucking idiotic if so. Not seen that comment from him so far though.

No - in the interview he said they had a striker target on deadline day, but it wasn't followed up on by Neil Yardley. 

[wilsdenrover]

9 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I think tempers are high, and some people are letting emotion override reason and the ability to view things from multiple angles. Some people are running with anything that sounds like a defence of the club on even a small point, and assuming the poster is defending the fuckery of the last few days. Which almost nobody is doing. I hope posters manage to remain respectful, because we're all in the same boat and it has a big fucking hole in it.

I understand all that, so far I’ve not seen anything disrespectful though - which is good.

Now what can we use to plug that hole…

[Exiled_Rover]

Just now, Miller11 said:

Makes no difference. Would you have felt for Tayo Edun if we’d loaned him out in the January after we signed him?

None of our players are good enough for me to give one single fuck about - that said I'm not the manager of a club throwing stones in a glass house.

[bluebruce]

1 minute ago, Exiled_Rover said:

No - in the interview he said they had a striker target on deadline day, but it wasn't followed up on by Neil Yardley. 

Yeh that comment I heard. It should have been followed up on, but I assume it just went the way of the Kone and Undav deals, rather than it was abandoned in order to pursue LOB. It would be moronic to do the latter.

[bluebruce]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

If he is "unlucky" not to sign a striker, is he also lucky that we managed to get Hyam in the circumstances that we did?

5 minutes ago, yankfan said:

Makes me think we’ve been lucky to get every player we have and also understand why we never know if we have a club option in a player or not?  Umm did we get that sheet signed or not? 

Well not everything is lucky or unlucky. Some things are just standard business with no luck involved. Some things are incompetence, or skill. I think the skill is in short supply here though, when it comes to the administrative stuff...

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

1 hour ago, Angry_Pirate said:

ultimately the blame will land on his door as the Chief Exec but now is not the time for blame.

There’s no “ultimately” about it: he abdicated a key oversight responsibility at 5.30 and went off to a footy match leaving his direct underling in total charge. Maybe he thought Sylvester fully capable but that doesn’t matter, anything could’ve happened. What if Sylvester had had a heart attack or a car crash that evening?

Waggott is no different to Captain Smith going to his bed as the Titanic went full steam ahead at night in an ice field. 

[Groundhog]

8 minutes ago, yankfan said:

“Obviously, I know you’re going to ask me what they are and unfortunately because of the appeal, I can’t go into them.”

why would the appeal prevent anyone from disclosing the issue?  It’s not like it’s some sort of classified document. Only reason is to save face. 

Because it could get misconstrued and influence the case by any number of means - I agree it's not a court case but it's wise to keep things under wraps until it's been sorted. 

[Groundhog]

12 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

GB is a breath of fresh air for me.  The stupid conspiracy theories, the calling for sackings, the OTT anger at certain members of staff, and the rest, when the facts aren't fully known sound like the rantings of middle-aged men angry at the world.  

100% well said, it's embarrassing

[bluebruce]

6 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

No - in the interview he said they had a striker target on deadline day, but it wasn't followed up on by Neil Yardley. 

3 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Yeh that comment I heard. It should have been followed up on, but I assume it just went the way of the Kone and Undav deals, rather than it was abandoned in order to pursue LOB. It would be moronic to do the latter.

In fact I'll follow that up, I just read the comments back. He talked about Lewis O'Brien and then said "At the same time we are dealing with a striker who we were still waiting on the club to make a decision on so those two things are live."

So we were looking to do both deals, not one or the other. And we were waiting on another club to make a decision. They obviously decided no.

[Mike E]

14 minutes ago, yankfan said:

“Obviously, I know you’re going to ask me what they are and unfortunately because of the appeal, I can’t go into them.”

why would the appeal prevent anyone from disclosing the issue?  It’s not like it’s some sort of classified document. Only reason is to save face. 

I think that if the appeal is successful, he may be more lenient towards whoever made the mistake, so it'd be unfair to go into it prior to that.

Or even just wording something verbally in a different way to a submitted appeal argument could affect the outcome of the appeal.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Mike E

[Exiled_Rover]

2 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

In fact I'll follow that up, I just read the comments back. He talked about Lewis O'Brien and then said "At the same time we are dealing with a striker who we were still waiting on the club to make a decision on so those two things are live."

So we were looking to do both deals, not one or the other. And we were waiting on another club to make a decision. They obviously decided no.

The question wasn't followed up on by Yardley. It's implied that the deal fell through, rather that it was abandoned.

[bluebruce]

11 minutes ago, yankfan said:

“Obviously, I know you’re going to ask me what they are and unfortunately because of the appeal, I can’t go into them.”

why would the appeal prevent anyone from disclosing the issue?  It’s not like it’s some sort of classified document. Only reason is to save face. 

Because he's not a legal expert and could phrase something in a way that could be misconstrued if quoted in the appeal. It's common to not go into details publicly before a legal case for this kind of reason.

I would also imagine those details do involve things that cast us in a bad light however you phrase them, things they might not mention in the appeal (like Sylvester fell asleep with his thumb up his arse so they couldn't get him to sign anything) but until we find out specifically what happened, I can only speculate. If we don't get the details after the appeal is done, then I'll agree it's to save face.