January Transfer Window.

[Mike E]

22 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Doesn't really shape up that way, data is part of the process but it's not taken over in the way it's sometimes being portrayed.

Director of Football (Gregg) & Head Coach (JDT)
sit above
Head of Recruitment (Gus Williams)
sitting above
Head of UK Scouting, Head of European Scouting & Head of Data Scouting
sitting above
Part Time/Full Time Scouts & Part Time Data Analyst

Data based roles highlighted in red*

Per the above, I imagine it'll partly be:

1. This data looks good, shall we scout this player?

2. This player played well, what data can we find on him?

Is it fair of me to assume a player like Mark Harris might be one of part 2 rather than 1, owing to his data as a goalscorer seeming poor?

Perhaps he played well in a particular game, and other data not immediately available in that game suggests he could fit a certain style?

Or could it be that the scouts and upwards see him being a piece of the team puzzle that gets more out of other players?

Or could they think he has the attributes to be improved, ie: a rough diamond?

Mind if I ask what your assumption would be about such a signing? No judgement from me, just asking your opinion given you know more than me about potentially relevant/irrelevant data and how might be used to rule players in/out or consideration?

[joey_big_nose]

10 hours ago, booth said:

https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=229721

Crikey... "runs around a lot all over the pitch and doesn't score goals". I mean we've got Gallagher, Szmodics, Dolan and Vale all in that role... I would quite like a striker who "doesn't run around a lot, hangs in the box, scores goals" please.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Per the above, I imagine it'll partly be:

1. This data looks good, shall we scout this player?

2. This player played well, what data can we find on him?

Is it fair of me to assume a player like Mark Harris might be one of part 2 rather than 1, owing to his data as a goalscorer seeming poor?

Perhaps he played well in a particular game, and other data not immediately available in that game suggests he could fit a certain style?

Or could it be that the scouts and upwards see him being a piece of the team puzzle that gets more out of other players?

Or could they think he has the attributes to be improved, ie: a rough diamond?

Mind if I ask what your assumption would be about such a signing? No judgement from me, just asking your opinion given you know more than me about potentially relevant/irrelevant data and how might be used to rule players in/out or consideration?

Every clubs funnel is different. The initial screening here would probably be pre-existing subjective knowledge on the player given he's Welsh and so is Gus, but that's just a fair assumption we'd make from the outside looking in. For most players it might be a video or a data first approach.

Data work, an initial live or video watching of the player and then progress from there. If the player is still progressing through that funnel you'd imagine he'd then be discussed more widely to the whole staff, perhaps in a meeting. Then I would imagine more extensive/explorative data work would be done. More live viewings, video packages and a presentation to manager.

[USABlue]

On 04/02/2023 at 07:15, RevidgeBlue said:

Greg "Bullshit" Broughton.

Bit harsh.  I think he will yield the axe, heads will roll.  Anyone thrown in the deliberate mistake theory?  No? Good 

[AllRoverAsia]

Steve Cooper "It won't take a genius to work out what has happened. I hope some questions are getting asked over there in Lancashire."

Not myself being a genius I can't work out where Cooper is going with that comment, it leaves avenues open.

GB has promised full disclosure.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Per the above, I imagine it'll partly be:

1. This data looks good, shall we scout this player?

2. This player played well, what data can we find on him?

Is it fair of me to assume a player like Mark Harris might be one of part 2 rather than 1, owing to his data as a goalscorer seeming poor?

Perhaps he played well in a particular game, and other data not immediately available in that game suggests he could fit a certain style?

Or could it be that the scouts and upwards see him being a piece of the team puzzle that gets more out of other players?

Or could they think he has the attributes to be improved, ie: a rough diamond?

Mind if I ask what your assumption would be about such a signing? No judgement from me, just asking your opinion given you know more than me about potentially relevant/irrelevant data and how might be used to rule players in/out or consideration?

Also worth remembering you never truly know where these things got upto.

In recruitment 99% of the players you spend months talking about, never put on the shirt of the club you're recruiting for. Whether it's because you chose not to chase them, or if they chose not to come to you. News is always a million miles behind and often inaccurate. Harris could've been a player who never made it past stage two on this graphic.

Did Harris not happen because of our choice or his? Every failed target is different, sometimes the club backs away, sometimes the player backs away.

[USABlue]

17 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

 

I hope he is a man if his word and will reveal all once the appeal is lost on Tuesday.

Meanwhile I await news today of what our leaders have leaked to a certain journo.

 

Tuesday?  So this is not officially dead yet?

[Mike E]

44 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Every clubs funnel is different. The initial screening here would probably be pre-existing subjective knowledge on the player given he's Welsh and so is Gus, but that's just a fair assumption we'd make from the outside looking in. For most players it might be a video or a data first approach.

Data work, an initial live or video watching of the player and then progress from there. If the player is still progressing through that funnel you'd imagine he'd then be discussed more widely to the whole staff, perhaps in a meeting. Then I would imagine more extensive/explorative data work would be done. More live viewings, video packages and a presentation to manager.

 

19 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Also worth remembering you never truly know where these things got upto.

In recruitment 99% of the players you spend months talking about, never put on the shirt of the club you're recruiting for. Whether it's because you chose not to chase them, or if they chose not to come to you. News is always a million miles behind and often inaccurate. Harris could've been a player who never made it past stage two on this graphic.

Did Harris not happen because of our choice or his? Every failed target is different, sometimes the club backs away, sometimes the player backs away.

Really interesting, thank you 🙂

[AllRoverAsia]

20 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Tuesday?  So this is not officially dead yet?

Not yet.

GB in his interview says success in the appeal is doubtful. No club has ever won such an appeal against an EFL ruling.

[AllRoverAsia]

Subscription only access, which I don't have and will not be getting. Incognito failed too.

"Uncomfortable questions for Blackburn Rovers after transfer failings"

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/23300288.uncomfortable-questions-blackburn-rovers-transfer-failings/

 

[islander200]

4 hours ago, den said:

We’ve been trying to do that for 13 years. We sold an entire PL squad in order to go down that route.

It was the only way for a club like ours, struggling in its attempt to get into 7th place in the PL to push on.

It doesn’t work. That’s a plan that never holds anyone to account, never sets targets and it’s a plan for failure.

Why do some fans fall for this bollocks? 

No we haven't been trying to do that for 13 years Den.

Show me the examples of us buying players, selling them for profit and reinvesting? 

It's complete and utter nonsense to suggest that the club the past 12/13 years has followed that model.

Take Mowbrays 5 years for 4 of them only one first team regular sold .Then forced to sell Armstrong.

In the summer we lost Lenihen, Rothwell and Nyambe all did free you wouldn't exactly say the club were pro-active in trying to sell any of them.

Trading is the way to go for us

Edited February 6, 2023 by islander200

[roversfan99]

With these owners we will not become successful at trading due to their insistence at over ruling managers and removing autonomy regarding potential player sales. There is no point in anyone under them even trying to do that when the owners are so set on scuppering such a plan.

[islander200]

11 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

With these owners we will not become successful at trading due to their insistence at over ruling managers and removing autonomy regarding potential player sales. There is no point in anyone under them even trying to do that when the owners are so set on scuppering such a plan.

Maybe.But the club hasnt followed that model for the last 12/13 years Like Den suggested.

We rarely sell a player, and when we do it's usually when a player has us over a barrell.

[Exiled_Rover]

3 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

Crikey... "runs around a lot all over the pitch and doesn't score goals". I mean we've got Gallagher, Szmodics, Dolan and Vale all in that role... I would quite like a striker who "doesn't run around a lot, hangs in the box, scores goals" please.

Szmodics has 3 goals and (2 - I'm counting that Birmingham OG) 1 assist in 16 matches, many of which he's not started. He comes in for undue criticism in my opinion.

The next time I see Vale 'run around a lot' will be the first time.

[Exiled_Rover]

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

Also worth remembering you never truly know where these things got upto.

In recruitment 99% of the players you spend months talking about, never put on the shirt of the club you're recruiting for. Whether it's because you chose not to chase them, or if they chose not to come to you. News is always a million miles behind and often inaccurate. Harris could've been a player who never made it past stage two on this graphic.

Did Harris not happen because of our choice or his? Every failed target is different, sometimes the club backs away, sometimes the player backs away.

Where's "we didn't think the player was worth £700k so didn't follow up" on your diagram?

[bluebruce]

27 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Szmodics has 3 goals and (2 - I'm counting that Birmingham OG) 1 assist in 16 matches, many of which he's not started. He comes in for undue criticism in my opinion.

The next time I see Vale 'run around a lot' will be the first time.

Taking league only, he has 912 minutes, so probably just under 10 full matches worth when you account for injury time. We'll call it 10 matches worth. It's a goal contribution every 228 minutes.

3 goals and 1 assist from 10 matches equivalent, so 4 goal contributions in 10 games, is actually pretty good when you put it that way, especially from a CAM role. Adding cup minutes increases it to 1080 minutes, or approx 12 games, with one extra assist, so 5 goal contributions in 12, or a goal contribution every 216 minutes.

It's a small sample, but enough to suggest you're right that criticism is a bit overboard and it's worth seeing what we can get from him over a longer run. Not that goal contributions are the be all and end all.

 

(For reference, they're actually very similar to Dack's numbers in the league, although of course he was struggling for fitness and is currently in form... 4 goal contributions in 914 league minutes is almost identical, and is also made of 3 goals and 1 assist. Dack has been much more prolific in the cups though, with 3 goals and 2 assists in 6 appearances. His average across all comps is a goal contribution every 154.7 minutes)

[joey_big_nose]

4 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Szmodics has 3 goals and (2 - I'm counting that Birmingham OG) 1 assist in 16 matches, many of which he's not started. He comes in for undue criticism in my opinion.

The next time I see Vale 'run around a lot' will be the first time.

I sounded a bit harsh there on Szmodics. For me Szmodics and Dolan are effective and reasonably happy with them in their wider roles. But they are not proper strikers. Vake and Gallagher are supposed to be proper strikers but they seem, in my view have a bit of an identity crisis where they spend time running the channels or running around in front of the oppo defenders.

From my perspective Vale doesnt seem too bad in terms of getting around the  pitch. Its - like Gallagher - he just doesn't seem to get into goal scoring positions.

[JamieUK]

The LT article:

Uncomfortable questions for Blackburn Rovers after transfer failings

 

Deadline day has become deadline week, a sorry saga that has brought unwanted attention, and many uncomfortable, unanswered questions.

It has reopened old wounds, and for some, raised concerns about the future direction of the club.

On a reputational level, you have to consider the knock-on effect this will have.

The club opened themselves up to criticism from all angles.

It is hard to think of an issue in recent times that has united Rovers fans with a sense of anger, frustration and hostility in the hours following 11pm on deadline day.

This has grown much bigger than (potentially) failing to add to the squad on deadline day, with accusations over the competency of the very people tasked with bringing about positive change. It must be recognised as such.

Following Blackburn Rovers is a full-time commitment, a lifetime of emotional investment.

To include a buzzword of recent years, most definitely a journey.

This week will have tested even the most patient of Rovers fan.

A club statement published in the wake of Thursday’s ruling that deals for Lewis O’Brien and Ethan Brierley were rejected was, by its very nature, vague and lacking in detail.

The legalese meant there was little by way of acceptance of their role in what unfolded.

On Friday came Jon Dahl Tomasson’s pre-match press conference, and only one topic in town, a story that had garnered attention beyond the usual Rovers media bubble.

Tomasson continues to stress, as he pointedly did after the Birmingham City replay, his focus is on matters on the training pitch, not the negotiation table.

But so often it is left up to the manager in such situations to face the questions meant for those above them.

Due to broadcast agreements, they have little choice but to be under the spotlight.

There has been more than an element of sympathy for the head coach, some supporters even concerned he may consider his future as a result of this last week.

Tomasson appeared weary, frustrated and exhausted by the events that had unfolded. He wasn’t alone.

Yet willing to front up beforehand was director of football Gregg Broughton, first with the club’s inhouse channels and then the local media.

You could argue Broughton wasn’t left with much choice, yet the club have tried to ride out many a storm before by leaving the manager to face the heat.

This was a situation felt throughout the club, the fans’ response having broken through the walls of Rovers’ inner sanctum.

If Rovers’ reputation had been damaged by the events of Tuesday night, their response on Friday won some of that back.

The line of questioning from Neil Yardley was strong and concise, deserving of praise for someone placed in his difficult position.  

Rovers’ social media channels, whose mentions had gone from ‘announce O’Brien’ to ‘shambles’ in the space of a matter of hours, now fielded responses of ‘fair play’.

While confidentiality issues given the ongoing appeal meant specifics couldn’t be aired at the time, Broughton fronted up and accepted full responsibility.

He felt that a non-negotiable given player transfers fall under his remit as director of football.

It had undoubtedly been, and will continue to be, the toughest period of his tenure to date, and Broughton looked as he sounded; devasted. He found himself in the eye of the storm.

Though simply facing the music and accepting responsibility shouldn’t be the green light for everyone to move on and be done with it, even though that was a positive first step.

If there were things systematically wrong with how the deals were processed on deadline day, they must be addressed.

Rovers followed the methods they have for the last 10 years, but equally, they wouldn’t recruit players in the same way as a decade ago, so the behind-the-scenes operation should be as ready and willing to change.

There will be sympathy from some when the mitigating factors are aired, though Rovers aren’t looking for any.

While the club feel they have strong mitigation in their case, they are accepting of their responsibility in the deals falling through.

There is simply no getting away from the fact paperwork was submitted late.

The EFL has to serve the best interests of its 72 members, and with no appeal having been successful to date, it feels hard to see Tuesday’s hearing going in Rovers’ favour.

There is a train of thought that Rovers should simply draw a line under what has gone on in a bid to put it behind them.

Yet Broughton feels they have a good case and owe it to the players concerned to go through with it, irrespective of the expected result.

Quite how Rovers find themselves in such a position is staggering.

Tomasson appeared frustrated when conducting his post-match press duties after the FA Cup replay which concluded 15 minutes before the deadline was up.

That was likely due to the realisation that Rovers hadn’t brought in a striker, not knowing the drama that was about to unfold.

There was no sign of panic as 11pm came and went, no reason to suggest anything but waiting on timings to be agreed on the announcements.

Everything was done. Or so it was thought.

Concern grew as time ticked on and by Wednesday morning Rovers joined the backlog of clubs locked in talks with the EFL over the deals.

Like waiting for a jury to pass their verdict on a defendant, is the longer time passes a positive or negative?

By Wednesday night, Rovers had been given the opportunity to present their case to the EFL the following morning, a last chance to resurrect the deals, or so we thought.

On Thursday afternoon it was announced the club were launching an appeal after being knocked back in their application to register both players.

And so it would drag on, the appeal not being heard until Tuesday, February 7, the make-up of which is unclear at this stage.

The EFL have a test case from 2020 when they rejected Nottingham Forest’s appeal to register Kamil Grosicki, then at West Bromwich Albion.  An arbitrator turned down Forest’s appeal, their case that one document being 20 seconds late shouldn’t be a barrier to the deal going through.

Their case thrown out, the EFL’s standpoint clear.

The ramifications of this are wide-ranging, not least should Rovers’ appeal be successful and the proverbial can of worms that would open for the league.

The players too have a lot riding on this.

Lewis O’Brien, one of the Championship’s stand-out players last season, valued at around £10m by his club and with 13 Premier League appearances to his name, faces six months on the sidelines having been omitted from their 25-man squad.

Forest now have a player on their hands who they can’t use, whose wages they will have to pay, whose re-sale value will be affected.

It was no surprise to see Forest boss Steve Cooper respond with anger, even if you could argue loaning out a player after only six months selling him the Premier League dream, to make room for a 33-year-old free agent on a deal until the end of the season, doesn’t entirely strike you as having the players’ best interests at heart.  

Then there is Ethan Brierley, whose only comparison to O’Brien is they play in a similar position.

His signing would represent a climb up two divisions, the 19-year-old progressing his career with a move to the Championship after just 31 appearances at senior level.

For Rochdale too, fighting against relegation out of the EFL, how could the potential financial impact affect them?

Those weren’t issues lost on Broughton as he stressed Rovers would endeavour to reach a conclusion whereby the midfielder joins the club in the summer and the League Two side recompensed.

And then there is Rovers.

They looked to have pulled off a deadline coup in O’Brien, midfield an area of the pitch many supporters wanted to see strengthened, and here they had the opportunity to bring in a player who would get in almost every team in the league.

In football terms, this signing was an open goal. Yet Rovers put it wide.

There would have been questions around the change of heart from last summer when Rovers opted against a similar signing in preference of another young player in Tyler Morton, but equally, an acknowledgment this was an excellent bit of business.

Whether it would have helped gloss over the fact that Rovers hadn’t added a recognised striker to their ranks, despite seeing George Hirst return to his parent club on January 8, is another debate.

The speed of Rovers’ dealings in transfer windows has been criticised for some time.

The latest saga does nothing to ease concerns around the chain of command in getting deals over the line.

When other clubs are interested, Rovers rarely win the race.

Money makes the world go round, and also helps the transfer cogs get moving.

Rovers were unfortunately stalled for much of the month as deals slipped through their fingers.

It was a hard luck story supporters didn’t want to hear, but a reflection of where Rovers find themselves in the food chain. They are reliant upon the decisions of others, forced to dance to other clubs’ tunes.

Irrespective of the outcome of Tuesday’s appeal, Rovers failed to replace Hirst with a like-for-like replacement, and with Dilan Markanday leaving the club, albeit for understandable reasons, it has left Tomasson an option light at the top end of the pitch.

Rovers’ new-look recruitment team has been in the firing line of some supporters, but it should be made clear their job is to identify players, not to close their deals, so often where things break down.

The approach may appear scatter-gun based upon players, and their positions, that have made it into the public domain, but countless others whose names were inked on whiteboards at Brockhall will remain just that.

If there could be sympathy around Rovers’ summer window given the late arrival of Broughton and Tomasson, the same patience hasn’t been afforded to January.

The one deal they did get done was a loan deal for Sorba Thomas, a player known well to head of recruitment Gus Williams from his time at the Welsh Football Association.

Broughton strongly refuted the reported finances involved in the prospective O’Brien deal, this while the club’s continued message is one of sustainability and prudent spending.

Yet at the same time, they are set to lose an asset in Ben Brereton on a free transfer, a year after the departures of a trio of players (Ryan Nyambe, Darragh Lenihan and Joe Rothwell) with over 500 combined appearances.

It is commendable that Rovers stick to their valuations of players and won’t be pushed around in the market.

However, there has to be a level of acceptance that selling player doesn’t have to be the negative it is so often seen as.

How can they be seen to progress if valuable assets walk away for free?

The January window was expected to be a quiet one, and the short-term solutions that Rovers eventually tried to do aren’t part of the long-term vision fans were promised, something Broughton conceded.

Much faith was placed in George Hirst, described as the club’s top striker target in the summer, only to leave after just three Championship starts and a little over four months. His loan agreement, and permanent option, ripped up.

He remains the only striker signed in the last five transfer windows since the signing of Sam Gallagher.

For the second time in three summers Rovers face the challenge of replacing their star forward, this time without any money to reinvest.

The outcome of the January window means pressure has been heightened on the summer.

The Academy are holding up their half of the bargain, and the recruitment will have to follow if Rovers aren’t to stagnate.

Rovers have been outside of the play-off spots for only six of the 28 matches played this season.

Yet their lofty position has felt an uncomfortable one, and the playing down of expectation has come across as defeatist to some supporters.

Rovers have seemingly been in transition for some time now.

It leads to the thought of when will Rovers next be in a position, and the expectation be, to challenge?

Promotion, whether ready or not, would be a game-changer. You must always be ready and willing to take advantage.

Rovers’ plan is to build for the long-term, but they can’t take their eye off the short-term and allow opportunities to pass them by.  

There is some irony that 2020/21 felt the most ready Rovers have been to challenge, promotion-winning experience added to a squad that had an X-Factor in attack, only to record their lowest points tally since promotion from League One.

In the two seasons since, with arguably weaker squads, they have found themselves in a position to challenge.

They have fallen down once, and in light of the January window, the fear is lightning will strike twice.

The club were accused of incompetency in the wake of transfer deadline day, but it is complacency that will be of greater concern moving forward.

Fans want hope, ambition, to be given belief, to feel involved and invested and not taken for granted and kept in the dark.

Communication is a great cure, which is why Broughton speaking with meaning resonated with a fanbase who have longed for that. It is the least they are owed.

 

[Mattyblue]

Cheers Jamie, and good piece Rich (though obviously you’ve nicked some of those lines of attack from here, but that’s ok!).

[RoverDom]

21 hours ago, 47er said:

Just a feeling, no evidence for it!

You're trying hard to deflect it to the site though, we're not giving him time!

Bit thin.

Do I need evidence for feeling optimistic? He talks sense and seems to have honest intentions in my view. I also think he faces an up hill battle in trying to make the many changes at the club. That's the rational behind me wanting to give him time. 

What do you mean trying hard to deflect to the site? It's glaringly obvious a lot of this site won't give any one time, they want immediate results. I don't have to try hard in the slightest to point that out. People were shouting up after about 10 days after his appointment that we hadn't signed anyone

We're not a well run club and have been a joke for 12 or so years. That's not conducive to getting a seasoned DoF rather we're going to have to take a punt on someone who's doing a degree of learning on the job. 

[RoversSG]

10 hours ago, den said:

We’ve been trying to do that for 13 years. We sold an entire PL squad in order to go down that route.

It was the only way for a club like ours, struggling in its attempt to get into 7th place in the PL to push on.

It doesn’t work. That’s a plan that never holds anyone to account, never sets targets and it’s a plan for failure.

Why do some fans fall for this bollocks? 

Because it works on football manager? 🤣

[cesus]

29 minutes ago, JamieUK said:

The LT article:

Uncomfortable questions for Blackburn Rovers after transfer failings

 

Deadline day has become deadline week, a sorry saga that has brought unwanted attention, and many uncomfortable, unanswered questions.

It has reopened old wounds, and for some, raised concerns about the future direction of the club.

On a reputational level, you have to consider the knock-on effect this will have.

The club opened themselves up to criticism from all angles.

It is hard to think of an issue in recent times that has united Rovers fans with a sense of anger, frustration and hostility in the hours following 11pm on deadline day.

This has grown much bigger than (potentially) failing to add to the squad on deadline day, with accusations over the competency of the very people tasked with bringing about positive change. It must be recognised as such.

Following Blackburn Rovers is a full-time commitment, a lifetime of emotional investment.

To include a buzzword of recent years, most definitely a journey.

This week will have tested even the most patient of Rovers fan.

A club statement published in the wake of Thursday’s ruling that deals for Lewis O’Brien and Ethan Brierley were rejected was, by its very nature, vague and lacking in detail.

The legalese meant there was little by way of acceptance of their role in what unfolded.

On Friday came Jon Dahl Tomasson’s pre-match press conference, and only one topic in town, a story that had garnered attention beyond the usual Rovers media bubble.

Tomasson continues to stress, as he pointedly did after the Birmingham City replay, his focus is on matters on the training pitch, not the negotiation table.

But so often it is left up to the manager in such situations to face the questions meant for those above them.

Due to broadcast agreements, they have little choice but to be under the spotlight.

There has been more than an element of sympathy for the head coach, some supporters even concerned he may consider his future as a result of this last week.

Tomasson appeared weary, frustrated and exhausted by the events that had unfolded. He wasn’t alone.

Yet willing to front up beforehand was director of football Gregg Broughton, first with the club’s inhouse channels and then the local media.

You could argue Broughton wasn’t left with much choice, yet the club have tried to ride out many a storm before by leaving the manager to face the heat.

This was a situation felt throughout the club, the fans’ response having broken through the walls of Rovers’ inner sanctum.

If Rovers’ reputation had been damaged by the events of Tuesday night, their response on Friday won some of that back.

The line of questioning from Neil Yardley was strong and concise, deserving of praise for someone placed in his difficult position.  

Rovers’ social media channels, whose mentions had gone from ‘announce O’Brien’ to ‘shambles’ in the space of a matter of hours, now fielded responses of ‘fair play’.

While confidentiality issues given the ongoing appeal meant specifics couldn’t be aired at the time, Broughton fronted up and accepted full responsibility.

He felt that a non-negotiable given player transfers fall under his remit as director of football.

It had undoubtedly been, and will continue to be, the toughest period of his tenure to date, and Broughton looked as he sounded; devasted. He found himself in the eye of the storm.

Though simply facing the music and accepting responsibility shouldn’t be the green light for everyone to move on and be done with it, even though that was a positive first step.

If there were things systematically wrong with how the deals were processed on deadline day, they must be addressed.

Rovers followed the methods they have for the last 10 years, but equally, they wouldn’t recruit players in the same way as a decade ago, so the behind-the-scenes operation should be as ready and willing to change.

There will be sympathy from some when the mitigating factors are aired, though Rovers aren’t looking for any.

While the club feel they have strong mitigation in their case, they are accepting of their responsibility in the deals falling through.

There is simply no getting away from the fact paperwork was submitted late.

The EFL has to serve the best interests of its 72 members, and with no appeal having been successful to date, it feels hard to see Tuesday’s hearing going in Rovers’ favour.

There is a train of thought that Rovers should simply draw a line under what has gone on in a bid to put it behind them.

Yet Broughton feels they have a good case and owe it to the players concerned to go through with it, irrespective of the expected result.

Quite how Rovers find themselves in such a position is staggering.

Tomasson appeared frustrated when conducting his post-match press duties after the FA Cup replay which concluded 15 minutes before the deadline was up.

That was likely due to the realisation that Rovers hadn’t brought in a striker, not knowing the drama that was about to unfold.

There was no sign of panic as 11pm came and went, no reason to suggest anything but waiting on timings to be agreed on the announcements.

Everything was done. Or so it was thought.

Concern grew as time ticked on and by Wednesday morning Rovers joined the backlog of clubs locked in talks with the EFL over the deals.

Like waiting for a jury to pass their verdict on a defendant, is the longer time passes a positive or negative?

By Wednesday night, Rovers had been given the opportunity to present their case to the EFL the following morning, a last chance to resurrect the deals, or so we thought.

On Thursday afternoon it was announced the club were launching an appeal after being knocked back in their application to register both players.

And so it would drag on, the appeal not being heard until Tuesday, February 7, the make-up of which is unclear at this stage.

The EFL have a test case from 2020 when they rejected Nottingham Forest’s appeal to register Kamil Grosicki, then at West Bromwich Albion.  An arbitrator turned down Forest’s appeal, their case that one document being 20 seconds late shouldn’t be a barrier to the deal going through.

Their case thrown out, the EFL’s standpoint clear.

The ramifications of this are wide-ranging, not least should Rovers’ appeal be successful and the proverbial can of worms that would open for the league.

The players too have a lot riding on this.

Lewis O’Brien, one of the Championship’s stand-out players last season, valued at around £10m by his club and with 13 Premier League appearances to his name, faces six months on the sidelines having been omitted from their 25-man squad.

Forest now have a player on their hands who they can’t use, whose wages they will have to pay, whose re-sale value will be affected.

It was no surprise to see Forest boss Steve Cooper respond with anger, even if you could argue loaning out a player after only six months selling him the Premier League dream, to make room for a 33-year-old free agent on a deal until the end of the season, doesn’t entirely strike you as having the players’ best interests at heart.  

Then there is Ethan Brierley, whose only comparison to O’Brien is they play in a similar position.

His signing would represent a climb up two divisions, the 19-year-old progressing his career with a move to the Championship after just 31 appearances at senior level.

For Rochdale too, fighting against relegation out of the EFL, how could the potential financial impact affect them?

Those weren’t issues lost on Broughton as he stressed Rovers would endeavour to reach a conclusion whereby the midfielder joins the club in the summer and the League Two side recompensed.

And then there is Rovers.

They looked to have pulled off a deadline coup in O’Brien, midfield an area of the pitch many supporters wanted to see strengthened, and here they had the opportunity to bring in a player who would get in almost every team in the league.

In football terms, this signing was an open goal. Yet Rovers put it wide.

There would have been questions around the change of heart from last summer when Rovers opted against a similar signing in preference of another young player in Tyler Morton, but equally, an acknowledgment this was an excellent bit of business.

Whether it would have helped gloss over the fact that Rovers hadn’t added a recognised striker to their ranks, despite seeing George Hirst return to his parent club on January 8, is another debate.

The speed of Rovers’ dealings in transfer windows has been criticised for some time.

The latest saga does nothing to ease concerns around the chain of command in getting deals over the line.

When other clubs are interested, Rovers rarely win the race.

Money makes the world go round, and also helps the transfer cogs get moving.

Rovers were unfortunately stalled for much of the month as deals slipped through their fingers.

It was a hard luck story supporters didn’t want to hear, but a reflection of where Rovers find themselves in the food chain. They are reliant upon the decisions of others, forced to dance to other clubs’ tunes.

Irrespective of the outcome of Tuesday’s appeal, Rovers failed to replace Hirst with a like-for-like replacement, and with Dilan Markanday leaving the club, albeit for understandable reasons, it has left Tomasson an option light at the top end of the pitch.

Rovers’ new-look recruitment team has been in the firing line of some supporters, but it should be made clear their job is to identify players, not to close their deals, so often where things break down.

The approach may appear scatter-gun based upon players, and their positions, that have made it into the public domain, but countless others whose names were inked on whiteboards at Brockhall will remain just that.

If there could be sympathy around Rovers’ summer window given the late arrival of Broughton and Tomasson, the same patience hasn’t been afforded to January.

The one deal they did get done was a loan deal for Sorba Thomas, a player known well to head of recruitment Gus Williams from his time at the Welsh Football Association.

Broughton strongly refuted the reported finances involved in the prospective O’Brien deal, this while the club’s continued message is one of sustainability and prudent spending.

Yet at the same time, they are set to lose an asset in Ben Brereton on a free transfer, a year after the departures of a trio of players (Ryan Nyambe, Darragh Lenihan and Joe Rothwell) with over 500 combined appearances.

It is commendable that Rovers stick to their valuations of players and won’t be pushed around in the market.

However, there has to be a level of acceptance that selling player doesn’t have to be the negative it is so often seen as.

How can they be seen to progress if valuable assets walk away for free?

The January window was expected to be a quiet one, and the short-term solutions that Rovers eventually tried to do aren’t part of the long-term vision fans were promised, something Broughton conceded.

Much faith was placed in George Hirst, described as the club’s top striker target in the summer, only to leave after just three Championship starts and a little over four months. His loan agreement, and permanent option, ripped up.

He remains the only striker signed in the last five transfer windows since the signing of Sam Gallagher.

For the second time in three summers Rovers face the challenge of replacing their star forward, this time without any money to reinvest.

The outcome of the January window means pressure has been heightened on the summer.

The Academy are holding up their half of the bargain, and the recruitment will have to follow if Rovers aren’t to stagnate.

Rovers have been outside of the play-off spots for only six of the 28 matches played this season.

Yet their lofty position has felt an uncomfortable one, and the playing down of expectation has come across as defeatist to some supporters.

Rovers have seemingly been in transition for some time now.

It leads to the thought of when will Rovers next be in a position, and the expectation be, to challenge?

Promotion, whether ready or not, would be a game-changer. You must always be ready and willing to take advantage.

Rovers’ plan is to build for the long-term, but they can’t take their eye off the short-term and allow opportunities to pass them by.  

There is some irony that 2020/21 felt the most ready Rovers have been to challenge, promotion-winning experience added to a squad that had an X-Factor in attack, only to record their lowest points tally since promotion from League One.

In the two seasons since, with arguably weaker squads, they have found themselves in a position to challenge.

They have fallen down once, and in light of the January window, the fear is lightning will strike twice.

The club were accused of incompetency in the wake of transfer deadline day, but it is complacency that will be of greater concern moving forward.

Fans want hope, ambition, to be given belief, to feel involved and invested and not taken for granted and kept in the dark.

Communication is a great cure, which is why Broughton speaking with meaning resonated with a fanbase who have longed for that. It is the least they are owed.

 

Thanks for the repost. Fair play to Sharpe as he is often accused of toeing the line, but has been as questioning of the whole disaster as he should be. I said at the time and still standby, whoever dealt with the paperwork should not be in the job anymore. The only bit of slack I'll give anybody at Ewood is I'm sure they spent most of the day "on hold" to India.

[booth]

So the appeal, did they manage to get the documents in, in time?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Sharpe’s article is spot on and could have been written by lots of us on here.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Mercer]

41 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Sharpe’s article is spot on and could have been written by lots of us on here.

I think he nicked quite a bit from this MB!

Nonetheless, nice to see him stirring the pot a bit!