roversfan99

Nope, not at all. Just to go back, my request was for a degree of flexibility in the budget for renewal of contracts and a couple of million on a striker following the sale of Armstrong. Lets not lose focus of the fact that you had similar requests, hence your daily suggestions of Healey, NIsbet etc, so I am not sure why you are suddenly so keen to go against that But our accounts run from July 1st through to June 30th. This training ground transaction was reported (this article seems to be what Rich Sharpe believes has happened or indeed the reasoning rather than anything official but I will take it as fact) as something done at the end of June to avoid potential FFP implications, at the end of the last accounting year. My request came after the Armstrong sale which as the article states was after June 30th, putting it in the next financial year ending in June 2022. Any signings/signing on fees as suggested by myself at the time would also fall into this accounting year to which we had only just begun. Therefore any issues regarding FFP relating to last year, which were subsequently overcome anyway, had absolutely no relation to what I was suggesting. I repeatedly did point out that any signings would have been in the new accounting year, but you never directly responded to that. In fact the article implicitly states that the Armstrong fee will give us some flexibility underneath the FFP threshold this year, so it actually backs me up that we could spend a bit in the summer if we had chosen too: "With the sale of Armstrong going through in August, for an initial £15m plus add-ons, to Southampton, that will give Rovers even more room to breathe moving forward, with that included in the accounts to the year June 30 2022." All of this is prior to the additional issues that I raised regarding not being able to judge based solely from the accounts how much of any losses were eligible for FFP regulations, and how renewals of contracts would likely be financially beneficial for us in the long term, tying into what was mentioned in the article about making profits on player sales as a more sustainable way of moving the club forward.

These groups that you have created culminating in group 3 are shaped around your own personal views on who is to blame. Venkys didn't make a few mistakes at first, learn from them and then run the club as normal with a vested interest ever since. This is such a bizarre take on things. Mowbray threatens sustainability of club by spending the budget he was given by the owners.

I dont think that its an issue whereby Mowbray would take his foot off the gas if he was given a new deal but there is absolutely no need to give him one before the end of the season, and only then if we overachieve and make the top 6.

Neither Loftus Cheek or Winks will ever come close to dominating anything near the biggest of games. Neither are particularly good, especially Winks. There is something in the methodology of building around our own strengths and minimising our weaknesses, which perhaps leads to a more pragmatic midfield. Bellingham is the obvious break through star although not a typical playmaker himself.

Qualifying is a means to an end, some of those teams had much stronger opposition, Italy have had a bit of post victory complacency and Holland are crap. We lost the most important game of the year unfortunately. Not denying that we have some very good players and albeit with a favourable draw, came so close to winning a tournament but like I said, nothing can be learnt really from smashing teams full of players that went back to their day jobs today. Nothing.

Nothing can be read into hammering the 2 crap teams of the last week. We with a couple of jitters sailed through a piss poor qualification group, nothing to see here. But absolutely nothing can be learnt from beating San Marino.

What is the information? Or what about? I dont get what possibly could be said that causes sudden optimism that everything is going to change from the owners.

I am not sure that 5 caps for Ireland is a badge of honour these days to be fair!

Information? Which information? From where?

Do you expect it or is it more hope at this stage? Also, regarding your repeated assertion that Mowbray has caused any issues with FFP because of what he has spent. If you gave me 10k if I asked for it to help me and then had your house repossessed after failing to pay bills as a result. Would you blame me or yourself?

That would be treating the symptoms rather than the root cause. I am not sure how we could possibly influence that really anyway. Even if we could force the manager or even Waggott out, and bare in mind that even Kean left of his own accord, that would be a decision made under duress from the owners and would be unlikely to suddenly provoke a sudden inheritance of sense. Did you say they have 2 more years to convince you?

Venkys wont act proactively in the January window even if we are genuinely in the hunt for the play offs sadly. The contract certainly shouldn't be extended though. If we finish in the top 6, then at the end of the season it is worth considering. What would upset the rest of the squad?

Do you know where I could find these quotes? If contracts would upset others, that would imply that they would be paid above the current wage structure.

There is no suggestion that it does include loan players (these teams will have players out on loan at far lower than Championship level) nor that the figures are accurate as anything regarding wages is purely speculative. But even if they are on wages above that, we could still and likely are only paying a fraction of those wages.

Or integrated into the Nations League?

Both of those countries have won major tournaments in the last 5 years. I wasnt remotely impressed by us winning 10 nil or indeed 5 nil last time we played them, it is a waste of time playing against a team who had to use their annual leave from their random jobs to play tonight, 5 or 10 goals is an irrelevance. Obviously our team full of players playing at the highest level were going to batter them, if we could only use Conference players and below we would still win comfortably. Literally nothing can be learnt from tonights game.

I think those who have been given loan spells both in the case of the Chelsea players and Magloire are at an advantage, playing mens football in games that matter rather than sanitised kids football. Magloire apparently has been dealing with a personal issue lately according to Mowbray. Maybe that is why he has not featured for the under 23s although again it is blatantly obvious that he will never make it here, he should have been let go in the summer if he would have agreed. I dont really think that the thing that our first team is calling out for is more academy graduates to be rushed through. Our team is already very young and Mowbray has made a fair few academy graduates into key members of the squad.

San Marino have only won one game in their entire history, a 1 nil friendly win over Lichenstein. Had we won 20 nil it still wouldnt have been impressive. I do wonder if next time we play such opposition, whether Southgate should pick a team of League 2 and Conference players. Wed still batter them but it would send a message to UEFA, these games shouldnt be taking place without pre qualification.

Playing against opposition who arent close to even being competitive.

Totally pointless.

It does seem unethical if we are holding on to young players just to pad out the under 23s, but it is perhaps the symptom of modern day reserve football which in general doesn't perhaps prepare young players for senior football.

There is a lot of assumptions present. Ultimately until any of these players sign on the dotted line, there is a large degree of uncertainty It also seems to be taken as a fact that we have a strong interest in Souttar. When you see a club linked with other clubs in the paper, you have to take it with a pinch of salt, not assume it to be a fact.

Jack Walker was one in a million. I never said that Venkys will put us into administration, I was merely pointing out that this myth that is often peddled by Venkys apologists that we would become like Bury without them is absolute horse shit.

Why does it at all matter whether any new owner supports us?! Did Abramovic support Chelsea as a kid? I agree with what has been said regarding this constant comparison to Bury that has been repeated as nauseum and many who defend Venkys love to pull it out. Bury is a one off, specific example and not the guaranteed outcome if an owner is no longer willing to offset losses with share capital issues via other companies. Under Venkys we spend more money than we bring in, people mention the money being "pumped in" as if it is anything other than a necessity. The 20m a year figure is often banded around too which is not accurate. But if they stop being willing to fund their self inflicted losses, then there may be a period of turbulence whilst the club is passed over perhaps to administration etc but it isnt terminal if that happens.

I suspect that a million is well beyond our budget. Ogbene has only 1 goal in 51 for Rotherham too.