RevidgeBlue

Considering you're suddenly so keen to save £120k I don't recall you voicing your dissent when we paid Gladwin for 6 months to use our facilities, or Smallwood and Hart for an extra month for doing nothing!

I doubt that. I was told Downing was on 15k p.w. Mulgrew will be on less than Ayala but the principle is still the same. You scoffed at the notion we would hand out an overly generous contract to someone of a certain age.

Wish I'd had a pound for every time I'd heard that during every abysmal transfer window from the Mowbray supporters! It never gets any better by the end of it either! Last two Jan windows only Club in the League not to sign anyone and Chapman respectively, last summer £5m wasted on Gallagher, no permanent keeper acquired and the dreadful Walton in, the summer before (probably) having to go back cap in hand to the owners at the last minute having missed out on all our targets and over paying for Brereton in a last minute panic buy.

If it's good enough for Mulgrew why not Ayala?

I think you're spot on about loans.

I'd go even further than you in your criticism of loans. In isolation Tosin looked reasonably impressive but imo was far from a worldbeater. We finished 11th and conceded 63 goals, only 6 fewer than the season before that. ( Although you might argue that that itself was an achievement with Walton in nets) I'd far rather we'd finished a few points lower but saved the £1m loan fee plus wages but much more importantly allowed Wharton or Magloire to get 12 months experience under their belts at Championship level. And I will feel the same way this season if, having spoken of the need for "men" at the back Mowbray splashes out again on a loan for a Premiership youngster the same age as Wharton or Magloire leaving us back at square one yet again in 12 months time.

Imo the notion that Venky's won't pay for defenders is just another stick to beat them with and excuse the failings of successive managers. Everyone conveniently overlooks we paid a reported £7m for Scott Dann although admittedly that was some time ago.

I said "if all parties were serious about the deal he'd be here". You obviously didn't appreciate the point I was making. We might or might not have had genuine intentions of signing him initially but the player obviously wasn't serious about coming. If you put a bid in for a player and he says "I'm coming" or "I'll think about it" and you're still no nearer whatsoever a month or so down the line you surely don't have to be a genius to work out there's a potential problem or that the player isn't that bothered about coming. So it's not difficult to see why it looks like the whole episode comes across as a box ticking exercise to make it look like we were doing something.

Kipre was obviously just hanging on until a Premier League Club came in for him. We should have been able to suss this out and move on to other targets. Still, by enquiring about him it looks like we've been doing something.

My only reservation over the Director of Football role would be that you don't want a person with a non footballing background who couldn't tell a decent player if he tripped over him telling a football man of vast experience who he can and can't sign. This happened during Dalglish's latter spell at Liverpool when the clown Damien Commoli (sp?) was there I think. However provided the DOF is at least equally clued up on spotting a player and the state of the market (shouldn't be difficult with TM in charge) I can't see too much problem if it takes some strain off the manager.

Can you find us someone from the "people who get deals over the line" section?

However, if all the parties concerned were serious about the Kipre deal, he'd be here.

Because? File him with the list of targets before we signed Brereton, Bauer, Assombalonga, Reed, the two foreign keepers who must not be named, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

I posted on here that we were after him a month or two ago. The person who told me thought it was a sign we had no money.

Exactly, it would be ludicrous to base our transfer plans on the possibility that we might receive a sell on fee from a former player leaving their current Club. That player might not move at all and we have to do what we have to do and treat any unexpected windfall as a bonus - if it did happen then that money could always be spent at a later date. That said even if we were sat there in vain hoping for King to move it wouldn't have made much difference, we still haven't got any deals over the line.

Yes, I'm talking about the close season after when we allegedly attempted to bring him back on loan on similar terms to before.

Been linked all summer. What a surprise. Boro, Mowbray allegedly mates with his dad, HSH etc.

No, but then why are we wasting our time being in for him in the first place when we could be in for a player we could realistically land as opposed to being in for one we realistically can't?

Ditto Harrison Reed. Hung about all summer hoping to get him back again on loan with the parent Club subsidising a large part of his wages only to be gazumped by Fulham who offered what the selling Club wanted I.e. loan with a view to a permanent move on full wages. Very slapdash to attempt to do business like that and it makes you think we never really wanted him in the first place.

The only time when it was really a case of the first time you heard about it was after the deal was done was when money was no object under Jack and Kenny started building a team. However things are at the other extreme now. We allegedly have offers in for players all summer every summer and nothing ever happens or alternatively we get gazumped at the last minute by another Club actually offering what the selling Club wants. Whoever would have thought it? Like you I suspect it's largely window dressing. Either because the owners will spend but Mowbray is averse to bringing new players in or the money isn't there to be competitive in the market. I actually tend slightly more towards the former view.

It'll be the same story as last summer hanging round after the season has already kicked off and we're off to a bad start sitting there forlornly with puppy dog eyes hoping that a Premier League Club will do us a massive favour and a few crumbs will fall off the Premier League loan table. Then if we do get reasonably lucky like we did last year with Tosin that will no doubt be paraded as having been the plan A all along.

Tony might consider them both by the time they're about 27 and "men".

Yeah right. Like the fabled "shadow owners" who never existed.

Off topic and irrelevant now but I don't think there's any evidence Lambert was sold a pup at all. I'd say all the events pointed to the opposite. He inserted the get out clause of his own volition and of course we knew nothing at all about it until he'd left. He didn't perform here apart from the first few games, sold our star player on the last day of the January window which from a timing point of view you don't do if you've any long term aspirations, failed to address glaring weaknesses in the squad or attend to contracts running down, then exercised his release clause and departed with glowing praise for everyone at the Club leaving us without a senior striker on the books. It all points to a man who was only ever here as a stop gap measure to his own ends to me but I know some won't agree.

Mowbray managed to persuade her to spend 12m on BB and Gallagher so she can't be that hard to convince!