January Transfer Window.

[Guest]

Just now, Sparks Rover said:

Can't see any other reason why you'd defend this shitshow

Try common sense. You don't know what happened so why pretend to? The only point that I've made is that Steve Waggott being at the game is perfectly normal behaviour and not something to read into.

[Sweaty Gussets]

1 minute ago, S8 & Blue said:

Didn't realise that O'Brien was on 65k p/w.

 

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist...

£45k according to online resource I saw, but still. That's a lot of money to throw at a loan unless this was a greenlighted 'special' from Venky's. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Again, there is no conspiracy. Everyone was where you'd expect them to be in any functioning football workplace environment.

Yeah but we don’t have a “ functioning football workplace environment “.  Even the dogs in the street know that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Mike E said:

But on Deadline Day, you'd think he'd have priorities straight.

Again, priorities were straight. We have a lot of people employed to do that job. Steve Waggott was fulfilling his own duty. 

[Sparks Rover]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

Try common sense. You don't know what happened 

We know what didn't happen.

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, JoeH said:

There is nothing to read into. Everyone was where they should've been. Someone forgot to send off a document. Next it'll be Charlie Mulgrew's fault for missing a free-kick in Dundee which caused X, and so on and so on.

Like i said there'd be nothing unusual about a CEO missing a game when there are transfers to be done.

Football has been around a long time there's been all sorts of scenarios thrown up and trying to maker out Waggot just had to be there at Brum because of some unwritten rule is complete BS.

You were probably still at school whilst some of us were observing the comings and goings in directors boxes around the country and at Ewood in the early Venky era.  

[Guest]

Point 1: Steve Waggott being in Birmingham is perfectly normal. There's nothing in it. Point 2: It's a reach to try and make it someone's fault. But the reality is we don't have all the facts and trying to put blame on an individual right now is pointless. Point 3: Getting angry at me for that opinion (not everyone but one or two) and making it personal, isn't going to stop me from posting my opinion.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

We know what didn't happen.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with being annoyed about what didn't happen on deadline day. Very frustrating

[wilsdenrover]

10 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Technically his problem is that Forest haven't included him in the 25 man squad.

Forest knew on 1st Feb that the deal was doubtful, and yet they still chose to pursue Ayew and let him take the last place in their squad. He's partly not playing football because Forest didn't want him.

 

The problem here is they knew it was doubtful, maybe even very doubtful, but we’re still going through the appeals process.

The deadline for squad list submission surely has to be after the deadline for appeals.

I will not mention this point again. 😀

[Polky]

1) GB takes full and sole responsibility.

2) Brierley to be completed in the summer with an agreement in place with Rochdale

Edited February 3, 2023 by BRFC_Polky

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, tomphil said:

there's been all sorts of scenarios thrown up and trying to maker out Waggot just had to be there at Brum because of some unwritten rule is complete BS.

But it's not BS. It's just perfectly normal and true. The simplest answer is often the right one. 

[tomphil]

3 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

£45k according to online resource I saw, but still. That's a lot of money to throw at a loan unless this was a greenlighted 'special' from Venky's. 

Maybe not though as i'm led to believe they can use what they have in the budget however they see fit.

Last season Mowbray chose to spread it around 4 players, two of them being small fees, instead of pushing the boat out on a luxury loan or two big wages.   So if there was money in the pot to cover those wages till May it was probably up to them....or so they thought !

[DE.]

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I think someone (I don't have a clue who) has failed to submit a document. Whether that be someone at the club, this 3rd party law firm they've hinted at, or an agent or whatever. I don't know who's at fault and neither does anyone on the board. 

Not exactly. We missed out on two players for two separate reasons, one being a missing document and the other, from memory, being an unsigned document plus something else. So, not quite as simple as a single document being missing, and this level of incompetence does fall within the remit of the CEO to be responsible for and address. 

As for Waggott being in Birmingham, not a problem if there are competent people in place. Unfortunately there clearly aren't.

[Sweaty Gussets]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

Point 1: Steve Waggott being in Birmingham is perfectly normal. There's nothing in it. Point 2: It's a reach to try and make it someone's fault. But the reality is we don't have all the facts and trying to put blame on an individual right now is pointless. Point 3: Getting angry at me for that opinion (not everyone but one or two) and making it personal, isn't going to stop me from posting my opinion.

Point 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 toinfinity.

Steve Waggott is paid to oversee the business dealings at Rovers, including player contracts. That's his job.

He is ultimately responsible, because whoever fucked up reports to him. 

That's accountability at CEO level. 

He should resign. 

[Bethnal]

Doubt very much there’s any legal recourse for the player and I’d prefer my agent to be sourcing a viable alternative for a loan abroad at a reputable club, rather than putting a speculative case out to tender with ambulance chasers.

Reputationally, while there’s probably some sympathy among the administrative teams at other clubs, if I were an agent, I wouldn’t be engaging with the club on deadline day for the foreseeable or until there appears to be some progress on our facilities to handle a transfer on that day. That’s a bit of a blow as we seem to only be able to move deals forward as the last one with our hat in the ring.

It’s impossible not to be cross at this as a fan, but it is interesting that this seems to be a lot of peoples’ final straw. I wonder if it’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back after 12 years or particularly egregious.

I’m simply unable to travel from London to Ewood on Monday. I would be willing to buy someone a ticket as my proxy, so long as they agree to participate in some coordinated action/disobedience/dissent before during and after the game.

Also happy to participate in offline discussion about action.

[J*B]

I absolutely understand there’s an unwritten rule that the away team puts someone senior in attendance on game day. That’s absolutely fine. 

What I can’t fathom is that under our specific circumstances i.e. it’s deadline day, we have multiple deals on the line, we are in the top six, we have only managed to secure on target on a short term deal, Waggott hasn’t taken a step back and said:

”Folks, I know I have a duty to attend the FA Cup replay at Birmingham but someone else is going to cover me. As Chief Exec of this club I am going to ensure we deliver on deadline day. I will work with the relevant teams to ensure there is no issues at our end.”

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Point 1: Steve Waggott being in Birmingham is perfectly normal. There's nothing in it. Point 2: It's a reach to try and make it someone's fault. But the reality is we don't have all the facts and trying to put blame on an individual right now is pointless. Point 3: Getting angry at me for that opinion (not everyone but one or two) and making it personal, isn't going to stop me from posting my opinion.

No one should stop anyone from posting their opinions.

We all know there will be more than one person to blame for this, I guess a lot of the debate is over who should take the responsibility for it.

This, to a point, probably depends on who you think is, or should be, ‘at the top of the process’

 

Some people think this is Waggott, others think it’s Broughton, and some think it’s Silvester.(I think that covers everything I’ve seen in this thread)

Debate is always healthy, as long as it’s kept civilised and doesn’t turn personal.

 

[Hasta]

Just now, JoeH said:

There is nothing to read into. Everyone was where they should've been. Someone forgot to send off a document. Next it'll be Charlie Mulgrew's fault for missing a free-kick in Dundee which caused X, and so on and so on.

If you believe all the leaks we have, Rovers didn't realise that O Briens contract had to be agreed if he signed in the summer before registering the decision. This meant that legal advisors had to be brought in late in the day. This led to the deadline being missed.

Now I don't believe anyone forgot to send off a document. I think the amount of stuff they had to sort was at a late stage was too much and they ended up submitting it late. 

Now if a major stumbling block came up that caused a chance of a massively important deadline being missed on a potentially multi-million pound deal, if I was the CEO I'd want to be hands on. 

[wilsdenrover]

6 minutes ago, JoeH said:

But it's not BS. It's just perfectly normal and true. The simplest answer is often the right one. 

I guess it’s the had to be there versus would usually be there which is where peoples opinions different.

I’m not sure if we’ve played on deadline day before but this is where I feel the difference is.

I’m not against ‘networking’ I’m just not sure it’s always the most important thing any executive could be doing.

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

But it's not BS. It's just perfectly normal and true. The simplest answer is often the right one. 

You'll do well when you eventually pitch up at Ewood if you haven't already.

If a club has players in the building to sign and the CEO might be needed there is nothing unusual whatsoever about him missing a game a hundred miles away.  No matter how many times you try and pretend otherwise won't make it true we've seen managers missing games to scout or sign players.  We've seen a Rovers directors box empty more than once under Venkys, thank god those days are gone obviously.

They could have sent somebody else if there were obligations or politely offered their excuses which would have been accepted under the circumstances.  It was an FA cup replay infront of barely 7 thousand people 100 miles away at short notice so all things considered it wouldn't have been hard to miss.

Your attempts at trying to absolve anybody of blame are admirable but rather silly.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

10 minutes ago, BRFC_Polky said:

Enjoy…

Interesting. At least Brierley will becoming in Summer, unless he gets injured of course. Anybody else think reading between the lines Rochdale have been given some money ?

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

You'll do well when you eventually pitch up at Ewood if you haven't already.

If a club has players in the building to sign and the CEO might be needed there is nothing unusual whatsoever about him missing a game a hundred miles away.  No matter how many times you try and pretend otherwise won't make it true we've seen managers missing games to scout or sign players.  We've seen a Rovers directors box empty more than once under Venkys, thank god those days are gone obviously.

They could have sent somebody else if there were obligations or politely offered their excuses which would have been accepted under the circumstances.  It was an FA cup replay infront of barely 7 thousand people 100 miles away at short notice so all things considered it wouldn't have been hard to miss.

Your attempts at trying to absolve anybody of blame are admirable but rather silly.

You could argue that the CEO shouldn’t be needed but surely he should be there in case he is needed?

[Sweaty Gussets]

15 minutes ago, BRFC_Polky said:

1) GB takes full and sole responsibility.

2) Brierley to be completed in the summer with an agreement in place with Rochdale

'I take full responsibility, but now is not the time to point fingers, please move on'🤣

And he doesn't say what the 'internal factors' were that fucked up the deals. 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Sweaty Gussets

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

8 minutes ago, J*B said:

I absolutely understand there’s an unwritten rule that the away team puts someone senior in attendance on game day. That’s absolutely fine. 

What I can’t fathom is that under our specific circumstances i.e. it’s deadline day, we have multiple deals on the line, we are in the top six, we have only managed to secure on target on a short term deal, Waggott hasn’t taken a step back and said:

”Folks, I know I have a duty to attend the FA Cup replay at Birmingham but someone else is going to cover me. As Chief Exec of this club I am going to ensure we deliver on deadline day. I will work with the relevant teams to ensure there is no issues at our end.”

That’s what I would have done. If there’s a fuck up at least I want it to be my fault.

[MarkBRFC]

9 minutes ago, J*B said:

I absolutely understand there’s an unwritten rule that the away team puts someone senior in attendance on game day. That’s absolutely fine. 

What I can’t fathom is that under our specific circumstances i.e. it’s deadline day, we have multiple deals on the line, we are in the top six, we have only managed to secure on target on a short term deal, Waggott hasn’t taken a step back and said:

”Folks, I know I have a duty to attend the FA Cup replay at Birmingham but someone else is going to cover me. As Chief Exec of this club I am going to ensure we deliver on deadline day. I will work with the relevant teams to ensure there is no issues at our end.”

Because that would entail him doing some work instead of having a night out.