January Transfer window

[...]

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/blackburn-rovers-set-transfer-crystal-palace-veteran-jeffrey-sclupp/

 

Schlupp 

 

[rovers11]

Schlupp would be a no from me. Yes, he's definitely better than what we have but he's not the game changer we need. 

[London blue]

3 loans?! Incredible foresight and planning. 

It's such a nuisance that the January transfer window sneaks up on us every year with no warning.

 

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, rovers11 said:

Schlupp would be a no from me. Yes, he's definitely better than what we have but he's not the game changer we need. 

What if he’s the best we can get given the budget provided by the chicken overlords?

[roversfan99]

Then it still wouldnt be what we need and that would be squarely on the owners for again not reinvesting any money at a time of need.

[chaddyrovers]

48 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Just because Eustace endorses a signing doesnt automatically make it what we need.

Is Schlupp an attacking player who can score a decent amount of goals, and who is going to take people on? No, hes an aging utility man. And if hes signed partly to cover left back, as and when hes needed there, then we are back to square one. 

Kent I think could potentially give us what we need. If its Schlupp as well, different story. If not, no to Schlupp.

Eustace, Gestede and Owen all agree on Schlupp and give Schlupp can play left back and left wing given us that versatile we need. This signings make sense to me. Pickering our till March and we need another left back. so how is what we need? 

Schlupp can take people on still on like he did last season against City twice. 

 

Edited Sunday at 13:54 by chaddyrovers

[chaddyrovers]

26 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

If we signed 3 loans then we would have 6 so one would always be unable to be even in the squad. 

The amount of money we have brought in and barely a slither available to reinvest. We clearly wont make the play offs and our squad will have the numerous sticking plasters ripped off and we will be left with a skeletal squad again come the summer. And with no sellable assets to speak of. 

You HAVE to reinvest some money. That then gives you assets, you can then potentially sell them in the future, reinvest and so forth. Not here. 

And even then, people still shrug their shoulders. Even if they claim its gone to running costs, reivesting some will potentially lead to further profits on those players in the future.

Maybe Baker might be made permanent transfer and as Nicko says one might be permanent signing but depends on wages and fee involved

Here is a couple of questions, 

1, what would the RF99 plan if you were in Gestede job in terms of budget to buy or loan players? 

2. If Eustace said to you as Head of football operations role, that Schlupp is the one he wants, would you refuse him that? 

3. how much would you spent on January and who would you sign? 

Fairly questions to answer here

Edited Sunday at 14:12 by chaddyrovers

[simongarnerisgod]

5 minutes ago, rovers11 said:

Schlupp would be a no from me. Yes, he's definitely better than what we have but he's not the game changer we need. 

if he`s better than what we have then surely he`s worth signing😏

[B16Rover]

Id be perfectly happy signing a cheaper one trick pony from a league below with funds saved for elsewhere than spend all the budget on Schlupp and some bog average Koumetio style loans

He's not the right player due to injury record but Jones from Notts County is the mould.  Would fill the Hedges winger position who can defend but has a yard of pace and his one trick of balls into the box would complement Gueye and Brittain on the other side 

 

Still think we need another central midfielder too

[CambridgeRover]

Have to say it is a complete farce. Loans only and general crap. After all the money in and  cost cuttings.

This squad is in disastrous condition. No sellable assets, contracts expiring and stop gaps.

Didn’t expect anything different from Venkys but bloody hell

[Paul Mani]

12 minutes ago, LDRover said:

Hang on, you coined the legendary phrase that they never refuse to sign a cheque?

Actually, the quote came from several people who worked for them. I just passed on what had been said…but don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story, hey? 

[Old Codger]

17 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Eustace, Gestede and Owen all agree on Schlupp

 

Yeah, ITK maaaaaaannnn.. like you know 😉 You don't.

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, Old Codger said:

Yeah, ITK maaaaaaannnn.. like you know 😉 You don't.

that is from Nicko has said as I said earlier 

[Forever Blue]

27 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Then it still wouldnt be what we need and that would be squarely on the owners for again not reinvesting any money at a time of need.

Yea we all know where the blame lies.

So what you’re suggesting is we shouldn’t sign someone the manager wants, and who he thinks would improve the first team,  because the owners won’t authorise an even better signing? 

Edited Sunday at 14:18 by Forever Blue

[...]

What do you think about Mohamed Farsi? Is he a possibility? 

Edited Sunday at 14:28 by ...

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I believe we get the money from Palace in 3 instalments and I think Rovers have/will do used it to cover the running cost of the club. I would have like money to be spent from the money we have received in the last 12 months like this window on a striker who I would like as permanent. Nicko is saying today that it was loan striker in. He is saying we have money for 3 loans on decent wages. 

I do whether who this loan striker will be. Cannon doesn't look likely 

But why would we opt to do that and use those cash instalments to cover running costs?

If there are no impediments on the owners putting in money, as claimed several times by those in senior positions at the club, then why don't they meet running costs from their own resources and then allow the Wharton money to go into the transfer pot?

Why do you believe the money received since then - Szmodics & Raya - is going to be treated any differently?

[Rogerb]

58 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Eustace, Gestede and Owen all agree on Schlupp and give Schlupp can play left back and left wing given us that versatile we need. This signings make sense to me. Pickering our till March and we need another left back. so how is what we need? 

Schlupp can take people on still on like he did last season against City twice. 

 

Schlupp of last season is not the Schlupp of this season that's why he can't get in the Palace side even with Wharton being injured.

[Old Codger]

Good to see Sammie still doing his thing in the Prem - just scored at Fulham.

Why can't we find someone with his work ethic - surely there are players with the same engine and energy elsewhere in the Football League?

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, JHRover said:

But why would we opt to do that and use those cash instalments to cover running costs?

If there are no impediments on the owners putting in money, as claimed several times by those in senior positions at the club, then why don't they meet running costs from their own resources and then allow the Wharton money to go into the transfer pot?

Cos that the decision of the club owners who are looking to limit their own money being put into the club at this stage. Its appears that at the minute. 

8 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Why do you believe the money received since then - Szmodics & Raya - is going to be treated any differently?

I haven't said either. 

I said what I would do with the money we think is available. I would like to make permanent striker signing and possibly Poku depending when he will be back

[chaddyrovers]

6 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Schlupp of last season is not the Schlupp of this season that's why he can't get in the Palace side even with Wharton being injured.

Schlupp is wide player or wing back. Not centre midfielder by trade even tho he has played there. 

I would take Schlupp given he can played 2/3 positions. 

 

[Cherry Blue]

7 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Schlupp of last season is not the Schlupp of this season that's why he can't get in the Palace side even with Wharton being injured.

Schlupp has come on as sub 11 times which only equates to 94 minutes this season so if he signs he wont be hitting the ground running.

[BankEnd Rover]

9 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

Schlupp has come on as sub 11 times which only equates to 94 minutes this season so if he signs he wont be hitting the ground running.

With the current state of our squad, I think he will come straight in against pompey. That's if we even sign him by then.

[sharpysharps86]

14 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Schlupp of last season is not the Schlupp of this season that's why he can't get in the Palace side even with Wharton being injured.

Do they not play in totally different positions?

Not being good enough for a premier league side anymore is one thing, but Schlupp would probably get in Rovers team as it stands ahead of Hedges / Dolan

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Eustace, Gestede and Owen all agree on Schlupp and give Schlupp can play left back and left wing given us that versatile we need. This signings make sense to me. Pickering our till March and we need another left back. so how is what we need? 

Schlupp can take people on still on like he did last season against City twice. 

 

Even if the prophet Nixon says so, we dont know if they agree. But either way, it might be a case of we dont have much money, only loans, will Schlupp do? Rather than is this the player youd want if we had a reasonable budget. Might be a case of best of a bad job.

I dont get why versatility is so important. We need a winger that can score goals and has some pace and the ability to take players on and make a different in the final third. Hes more of a steady eddie utility player. 

If we need left back cover aswell, then sign a second player for that. Dont sign someone who can sort of do both but doesnt really help to solve the issues we have with a lack of quality, pace and goals in the final third.

If we sign Schlupp to cover 2 positions and Beck gets injured, Schlupp goes to left back. We then have no new winger.

Purely as a winger, do you think Schlupp gives us what we are missing?

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Maybe Baker might be made permanent transfer and as Nicko says one might be permanent signing but depends on wages and fee involved

Here is a couple of questions, 

1, what would the RF99 plan if you were in Gestede job in terms of budget to buy or loan players? 

2. If Eustace said to you as Head of football operations role, that Schlupp is the one he wants, would you refuse him that? 

3. how much would you spent on January and who would you sign? 

Fairly questions to answer here

1. Its not about Gestede's plan. Its all down to the owners and how much money they should be making available.

2. Im not saying that. The manager should have final say. But then equally, if he turns out to not be what we need, he gets the criticism. I dont think Schlupp is what we need.

3. We have made over £40m in sales in the last few years. There should be £15m easily to spend on new permanent additions (well it should have already been spent) but there wont be. Regarding names, havent a clue. Im not a scout. I think Kent could be a useful pick up though.

3 loans would not be acceptable under any circumstances. We shouldnt be scrambling around like this. There is no desire from the owners to grow the footbal club. And crucially, its not a case of spending x amount and thats lost. You then have assets to profit on in the future.

[waynerovers]

Not a penalty for me, sure there was some contact but the Fulham player goes down way too easily.

 

Edit, wrong thread

Edited Sunday at 15:28 by waynerovers