Do you not mean “the lazy little shit”?

Still sore? Not even a nibble from me. Returning from fishing and back to football related talk- Nyambe needs a better display tonight too. I rate him and Darragh highly, both potential premier league players but we could score 2 or 3, and still drop points if we aren’t at it from the first minute + we make similar basic defensive errors to Saturday. (And Ipswich away, Reading at home, Bristol away, villa at home, last ten minutes of stoke away, Forest and Sheff united at home, Swansea away, Etc etc) I’ve never been concerned about the goals under Mowbray, it’s the organisation and consistent defending. He is a damn sight better at it than Mercer’s best mate Clownpants, but he’s no Big Sam or Hughes eye for detail on defending. Obviously we have lesser players, but Bolton away/Brentford at home/Hull away are our only (what I’d personally describe as) properly solid displays.

Either way he hasn’t been up to it.

Cheers for link. From my point of view, exactly what we needed. I want to see us back to basics tonight, too much poor defending this season. Lenihan and Williams deserved the hook after Saturday!

There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and then suggesting their choices are illogical, in my personal opinion. For example - the assertion he should be in line to start games... I mean just how many should he have started in your view? I’d call regularly in the 18 “in line to start” and despite the “illogical” and the argument about cost - he’s still an 19 year old new signing. If your gripe is on his positional use, I’m quite sure you’d find alternative gripes if we’d switched formation to accommodate him. He should be eased into the way we play. Finally on cost - as you will constantly dodge this point, I don’t think we’ve spent hardly anything up front, and I don’t think he’s earning very much yet. I very much feel you constantly mix up expectations and aspirations. We all would’ve loved Brererton to hit the ground like Rhodes, bit the expectation should’ve never been such. I didn’t think you read them, trivial nonsense? Seriously though it might be time to lighten up. I’m off for a “must drink” brew.

There is plenty of logic to it, it’s just a few people aren’t prepared to accept other viewpoints - ironically even the opinion of our own manager and backroom team. Also vast majority is an echo of JHRs assumption. When we’ve nothing to spend in January should we need it, perhaps then you’ll be more justified on that aspect

You got the figures on the deal now then? I’m not being flippant either, it’s genuinely interesting how you agree he cannot have cost so much upfront, yet say he’s cost the bulk of any perceived budget!

Err, I might sound like a mentalist in your opinion but perhaps he scouted and signed a player he wanted?

On my screen that shows as a 1-1-1-1–1-1-1-1-1-1-1 formation... might be a bit narrow..!

You said must win, so how on earth can I miss the point? If you’d said an “important game to get back on track” the reaction would’ve been agreement or like. Equally... more editing and hiding.....!! In the words of every annoying AF teenager in 2018; “Can you not?”

Must win... now that is funny!

Created numerous chances even first half, arguably Dack should’ve scored 1 at least. The way you suggest it, we looked blunt- hardly the case, we looked disorganised at the back imo. We need to stop that - that Coyle-esq can’t defend stuff has reared its head a few times in Mowbrays tenure. No sure why you can’t see that personally!

Timid tony! Might have well stopped reading at that point really. I’m not sure where I suggested we park the bus either?! Sheffield United employ 3 Centreback pairing and are far from “negative”. Im not sure you, or those that agree understand that we lost on Saturday because we conceded two early goals due to poor defending. If you think taking the pressure off this side in training and focusing on simply “having a go” is the answer - the only “guff” is between your ears.

Are you suggesting it would've been fair to give him an opportunity - ergo ten games to prove he could do that with us?

What I think isn't important in this instance, more about what is written/fact. For example, as we all know they've stumped up millions, including another 5million or so last week to stick into the club (loaned). Secondly, the club has a set of rules/guidances (FFP) that it is compelled to either work too, or ignore and risk it. Thus they probably limit their investment in the actual team/wages/transfers to what they "legally" can invest. Hence the discussions previously about FFP being "convenient" We aren't loosing 35M+ in a season anymore (again fact, not thought), so I guess that it isn't the same barrier where FFP is concerned - thus Brererton, Arma, et al being signed up of actual money. I think a caveat of FFP also allows investment at youth/community without sanction for spending more than earning - that definitely would explain why they've never stopped investing in Jack's final gift eh!

1. The rating of the signing is in relation to the thread, and the transfer window, only partially taking into account his performances (or lack of) so far, simply as a positive - since his cameo's are improving. If you'd told me in June, we'd sign a few decent frees, loans, Armstrong and sign some new contracts for better current players - I would've said the window was good, satisfactory etc - If you'd told me we had invested a lot more, signed an promising, international, champ experienced player, with exciting attributes, pace, a finish - only 19 - I would've said "get real". Overall the signing really is a 15/10 on previous seasons activity. Rhodes being the last one of a "similar" fee, (although wages initially surely different) - and what has transpired since made me think we'd never invest as much ever again. 2. Slowly bringing him into the squad, then into the first team, and then regular cameos.... I don't have any complaints. If we changed shape entirely to accommodate him, I would be a lot more uneasy. I also think its a contradiction to suggest he looks uncomfortable, "very poor" etc in 20 minutes. It will take time, and I could only describe his previous three appearances as "impacting" if only 2/3 games led to points. 3. I don't acknowledge that he has even made his name if you consider his age. He has played in an up and down Forest team, I don't know much about the way he was utilised previously but I have read lots since his arrival, opinions etc. I also think Palmer and Dack are physical players, so I am not sure why you are suggesting that it makes no sense to use them centrally. Palmer has all the technical, physical traits to be a fantastic player. His ineffectual nature comes from lack of mental attributes, hence why he is on loan in the second tier. 4. I think (as TM said) AA is long term central striker/part of a two setup and I am happy that Graham, Brereton and AA all have different attributes, strengths etc. I can agree somewhat about someone to directly challenge the "Target man" role we use DG in, I also think we needed more width and options out wide. I perhaps am more cynical about the ease of which it is to sign these "square pegs" as they are called nowadays. 5. We play 1 upfront. We tried Dack up there pre season (Everton at home?), so I think TM already thought along those lines, in games/times we cannot use Graham. I personally am not going to get out my tree about BB not being 2nd choice to a DG in a 1 CF system, instead of what he is - regular impact player from the bench and backup for any of the forward positions. 6. You don't have to agree with me, that is the beauty of a message board, and I enjoyed answering your questions why. I often said this with Bowyer, "compared to what it was" etc - I think there is a certain element of that with TM for me - but the way he has overhauled the squad that he inherited from Coyle has been impressive for me. One of the key reasons for that is like you say, getting more and keeping the Mulgrews and Bennetts. Now time to be a Boocastle fan for the evening...!

We’ll see this comes back to Brereton which is a questionable fee - considering the tv money went back up to a minimum of 5m after league 1, any agreement on price being staggered would make it a nominal investment. Even over 2 years - 3.5m a season is about our current season ticket takings. If they want/need more turnover to justify the investment + help avoid FFP, they could be more honest

Conway or Palmer on the flank then? Or even Rothwell.

Do you know what Or means? And I don’t mean Orr.... If we played 2 up top with Dack in behind - you either lose 1 midfielder or defender (you can’t play 12..!) Thus a 3 in midfield, a narrower setup with Reed and Bennett as the wider centre midfielders and a choice of Evans or Smallwood as the central more “sitting” option.. The joke is that it needed explaining.

Manipulative? I’m not sure I’d call passionate understanding of the situation the club has been through “manipulative”... Id say it’s cheapened by timing in relation to advertising the HST though! Maybe an honest; ”If you invest in us, we will invest more in the team” would be better?

This kind of opinion I find hilarious. Imagine if football was this simple. Why do you think Preston constantly played cut backs against us on saturday? Is it because Alex Neil said “go for it” and only did attacking drills for a week!? They looked at our past games and found ways to test us, we crumbled. Equally they sat Dack out the game for large spells and isolated the FBs. It’s not an accident. I expect and want a pragmatic thoughtful approach personally. Taking that into account, Wigan have a big solid team that are going to trouble us at set pieces. Equally, DG ain’t troubling those two huge centre backs the same way Armstrong running in behind will. I expect a mixture of the 4231 with changes, perhaps AA up top, Dack, Palmer, Bennett in behind. See Hull away early season for a blueprint. If I was looking at changing style in future, a subtle move to a 4312 might work with Brererton and AA in front of Dack, Reed and Bennett as wider CMs, Smallwood or Evans as the sitting CM. Or perhaps it’s time to go to a fresh 532, Dack and Graham upfront - stick Rodwell as a link to midfield, and an organiser, between Mulgrew and Lenihan, for a back three with great passing to push right up and press teams. As for result - defending is key, regardless of the “fan denial esq” reactions to the choice of forwards. I’d take a 0-0 right now!

If the deal is there, and you want the player long term - I doubt you’d back out because you may see his more definite impact arriving 12 months down the line as opposed to now! Especially if you’re trying to slowly build the club up. We also play 1 centreforward most games. So what is the issue with him getting minutes in different attacking positions? He’s made an instant impact last three games too - unlucky his goal was offside. If we change setup too - we’ve a great set of strikers with different attributes to choose.

Palmer was one... who are the others? AA has played wide lots before, Bennett is a utility player... you say “many” out of position. Hyperbole or just nonsense? Also was DG 100% fit? Not to mention; Is the choice of centreforward important when the team is defending like it’s just found out what football is? I mean - we could’ve had Shearer and Nonda upfront, but if Nyambe (square peg in a square hole) and Darragh (50+apps as a CB) starts anymore games like that, it wouldn’t matter! Obviously, hold up, taking chances etc - but realistically the big problem Saturday was organisation and defending, not this banal “round pegs in square holes ffs!” argument doing the rounds, imo

See I’d agree with lots of that if I believed; 1. We had a decent budget and spent it all on Brererton 2. Brererton’s fee is 7m upfront and in total not including wages/add ons. But since I don’t think like that, it’s hard for me to see Brererton as anything but a 19 prospect (who incidentally has improved every cameo so far) An exciting potential. I hope we turn around in January and add more 18/19 year olds to the group because that’s building a squad long term. Not adding “cheap” on the hope that they turn out good. Grabban is probably paid twice what our best earner is too. They’ve gone for those well known, proven lads because they’re gambling to go up. Fair enough if it works, but any rovers fan who has even an tiny remaining portion of memory should know what happens to teams that gamble on older “proven” players, Big wages, big fees etc, but fail to go up quickly... I am excited by our recent trajectory, and long term transfer business is a big part of that.

“Transfer window; Success or Failure”... Would I count signing such obvious potential as a failure? Nope. Am I excited about the prospect and potential? Definitely, and he is our player which is a huge plus compared to KP. Our recruitment has been fantastic for 3 windows but I’m under no illusions that it should be sorted/perfect by now - especially considering the squad 18 months ago. Its a slow process of rebuilding our team. The depth and quality in the squad is testemant to the improvement, but obvious weaknesses in some areas point to this taking more time.