January Transfer window

[Bbrovers2288]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

According to the last FF minutes, if you believe what he says, Waggott was in the process of putting together a request for January funding at that point.

Not condoning it, but if things are so slow that that's not early enough to be ready to go on January 1st then any request should be made even earlier. They've been doing it long enough.

In any event it would appear that in the last couple of January windows even after funding was approved  the "Board" at Ewood I.e. Waggott and Pasha pulled the high value incoming deals at the last minute.

 

Exactly my point, why are we waiting for the window to open before we get budgets approved and players availability/price, yes players can’t move until windows but that doesn’t mean we sit and do nothing in between windows. Any decent business will have forward plans in place, for personnel. I would think there should be a different list depending where we are in the league come January, perhaps different budget also, the keep us in the league budget, the playoff push budget, the auto budget, and the worst being the middling mid table nothing budget . If some of you believe we are that good at being stealth and it’s not any error with our recruitment team then can I remind you of our last few January windows, mad rushes to get players needed in and then errors with minutes to spare. It doesn’t suit the narrative then we are well organised and ahead of the game 

[RevidgeBlue]

15 minutes ago, alcd said:

I suspect they would be content with a relegation as the wage bill comes right down and the losses IN L1 reduce to the norm of about £5m for the bigger clubs in that league. Absolutely no guarantee that a relegation gets rid.

They seemed mighty keen to get out of League 1 last time for whatever reason. A lot keener than they would appear to be on the faint possibility of promotion to the Premier League via the play offs.

Would they be so keen if relegation happened again now though? Doubtful.

[Rover1984]

They are simply not trying. If they were trying to sell you would invest in potential. At least if someone was interested you would have a few assets within the ranks. We are down to bare minimum, This club has been patched to the point it’s undesirable. Would you pay 5x above the price with no potential 

Edited January 8 by Rover1984

[islander200]

47 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

According to the last FF minutes, if you believe what he says, Waggott was in the process of putting together a request for January funding at that point.

Not condoning it, but if things are so slow that that's not early enough to be ready to go on January 1st then any request should be made even earlier. They've been doing it long enough.

In any event it would appear that in the last couple of January windows even after funding was approved  the "Board" at Ewood I.e. Waggott and Pasha pulled the high value incoming deals at the last minute.

 

But even if they have given a budget , every signing has to be run past them.Take Danny Batth for example,Jdt ,Broughton Waggott say yes to the deal. The owners then turn around and say no because it was 2 years he wanted and they would only sign off on a 1 year deal.

The owners say yes or no .Waggott and Pasha are on the ground so they get the blame 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, islander200 said:

But even if they have given a budget , every signing has to be run past them.Take Danny Batth for example,Jdt ,Broughton Waggott say yes to the deal. The owners then turn around and say no because it was 2 years he wanted and they would only sign off on a 1 year deal.

The owners say yes or no .Waggott and Pasha are on the ground so they get the blame 

At the risk of setting RF99 off, issues caused by the Court hearing aside, I'd say it's more likely to be Waggott and Pasha putting the kibosh on everything but either way it's ultimately the owners fault for employing and continuing to employ them.

[Leonard Venkhater]

24 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

At the risk of setting RF99 off, issues caused by the Court hearing aside, I'd say it's more likely to be Waggott and Pasha putting the kibosh on everything but either way it's ultimately the owners fault for employing and continuing to employ them.

So....that would suggest that the Raos have given Suhail and Waggott a secret, "limited" and tread-water agenda with related performance targets.

As a consequence,, Waggott would merely collude and string along other stakeholders in the idea of the club wanting to progress.

If it is finally agreed that "football man", former agent Waggott's game is pretend night is day, just to pick up his bonus, what would this imply for the future strategy of WATR?

Edited January 8 by Leonard Venkhater

[roversfan99]

Why would Broughton and Waggott have set up deals only to then stop them? Makes no sense.

The owners are the ones who have stopped the deals, who require authorising every deal at huge delays and who wont reinvest any money back in.

[Leonard Venkhater]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Why would Broughton and Waggott have set up deals only to then stop them? Makes no sense.

The owners are the ones who have stopped the deals, who require authorising every deal at huge delays and who wont reinvest any money back in.

And Waggott just accepts that?

The Charge of the Shite Brigade!

"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do or die".

Edited January 8 by Leonard Venkhater

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

So....that would suggest that the Raos have given Suhail and Waggott a secret, "limited" and tread-water agenda with related performance targets.

As a consequence,, Waggott would merely collude and string along other stakeholders in the idea of the club wanting to progress.

If it is finally agreed that "football man", former agent Waggott's game is pretend night is day, just to pick up his bonus, what would this imply for the future strategy of WATR?

I can't speak for WATR, I don't think I could bring myself to sit in the same room as Waggott after he tried to flog off part of Brockhall.

Long term unless the owners are prepared to fund the Club properly and employ proper people to run it - which has never happened simultaneously to date - more recently we only ever seem to have had Mowbray going through the motions and wasting the opportunity or JDT and Eustace being the right fit but being starved of funding - the only option would appear to be to try and actively attract potential investors.

Without wishing to be rude what can the Trust actually do? Issue a vote of no confidence in the owners and management?  That'll have them shaking in their boots.

[Mattyblue]

…which they won’t do anyway as they are ‘critical friends’.

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Why would Broughton and Waggott have set up deals only to then stop them? Makes no sense.

The owners are the ones who have stopped the deals, who require authorising every deal at huge delays and who wont reinvest any money back in.

Broughton and Waggott setting up deals without getting them authorised first makes even less sense. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Broughton and Waggott setting up deals without getting them authorised first makes even less sense. 

With the Batth one, that was in the window where they cut the budget and put a freeze on transfers mid window. So I presume it would have been allowed until they moved the goalposts.

So your theory is that the owners would allow deals to happen, Waggott and co set them up then for some reason kibosh them afterwards, for what motive I cant fathom.

And they also would spend more but simply arent asked.

[Mattyblue]

Only in VenkyWorld would a CEO have to get transactions big or small approved by his COO…

[BankEnd Rover]

Nathan jones saying baker is being recalled by stoke - If true then Buckley will be staying put. 

[RoversClitheroe]

Lewis Baker being recalled by Stoke? Wouldn't surprise me.

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

So your theory is that the owners would allow deals to happen, Waggott and co set them up then for some reason kibosh them afterwards, for what motive I cant fathom.

Because "Waggott and Co" are the bean counters.

Don't forget this is the bloke who thought it was a good idea to levy a match day tax on tickets and charge people a quid or however much it was to enter Blues.

Do you expect him to be jumping through hoops if (as reported), the owners authorised a loan deal for O' Brien on 50 k p.w.

[lraC]

24 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Why would Broughton and Waggott have set up deals only to then stop them? Makes no sense.

The owners are the ones who have stopped the deals, who require authorising every deal at huge delays and who wont reinvest any money back in.

From what I hear, it is Pasha who stops the deals, despite giving the recruitment team the agreed budget.

Perhaps WATR can verify that.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

Nathan jones saying baker is being recalled by stoke - If true then Buckley will be staying put. 

That'll be another position in need of reinforcement if true.

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Because "Waggott and Co" are the bean counters.

Don't forget this is the bloke who thought it was a good idea to levy a match day tax on tickets and charge people a quid or however much it was to enter Blues.

Do you expect him to be jumping through hoops if (as reported), the owners authorised a loan deal for O' Brien on 50 k p.w.

Its not the same as an ill advised attempt at getting extra income in counterproductive ways that will piss people off.

I have no idea where you have got 50k from, theres no way we would have been paying close to that. But either way, I dont see what he would gain from kiboshing deals that have already been agreed. The most logical reason is that the owners didnt 

The Batth deal last summer was mentioned by @islander200. The owners cut the budget mid window and wouldnt allow his wages or the length of contract so the deal fell through.

[Torgeir]

9 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

Nathan jones saying baker is being recalled by stoke - If true then Buckley will be staying put. 

Calling BS on that one. His contract is expiring in June, so would assume there's no recall option. Just my gut feeling.

[pick32]

Baker offers nothing 

[RevidgeBlue]

I wasn't aware of the rule on whether loan players can or can't be recalled by their parent Club.

Having attempted to look it up, Am I right in thinking they can be recalled but only during the transfer window and on 28 days notice?

If so we're theoretically at risk of losing Beck and ACD as well?

[MarkBRFC]

Definitely can only be recalled during the transfer window, no idea about the 28 days notice though but probably seems correct.

 

[Rover1984]

They would have to pay a fee to recall him. Offer him a new contract and he’s literally a new signing for the new management team. My mate is the new assistant manager and is known to want to see all players available at their disposal

Edited January 8 by Rover1984

[rovers11]

22 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Lewis Baker being recalled by Stoke? Wouldn't surprise me.

I agree, steady eddie but nothing more. No great loss if true.