Thursday deadline.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Akpan has signed for Bradford. Managed to get 1 more season above his level last year fair play to him. He should have found out who J-Lowes agent is ,or better still Steele. He would be signing for Madrid. 

[JacknOry]

Dack will at least want parity with the top earners at the club I reckon and who could blame him after the season he had. 16k after a relegation clause would surely put some on more than 20k now? If we are paying some members of the squad around that much, new players coming in for around that much is hardly going to disrupt the dressing room spirit.

[TruRover]

Think our overall business has been good so far, although we are still abit off from being ready for the season ahead in my eyes. Contract extensions to key men and the 2 incomings so far have been really positive . Also nice to see that there hasn't been any serious links/rumours of our players leaving. 

I imagine our main focus will be on attacking incomings now, think chapman would be great as an impact sub out wide or even upfront with his pace and directness. However the main man I want to see us go after is Maddison, would be a real coup, he's young, quick and most importantly has got a great end product. Would be a dack esq signing imo.

[Tormund]

1 hour ago, J*B said:

I was told this morning by a strong source we're rivalling Reading for Marc McNulty. Fee expected around 1m. We shall see. 

Mentioned him a while ago as a suggestion. Would be a good signing I think.

[J*B]

48 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Whats the source?

A genuine journalist - not a FLW writer!

[JHRover]

36 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Dack will at least want parity with the top earners at the club I reckon and who could blame him after the season he had. 16k after a relegation clause would surely put some on more than 20k now? If we are paying some members of the squad around that much, new players coming in for around that much is hardly going to disrupt the dressing room spirit.

This talk about disrupting dressing room harmony by paying bigger wages and transfer fees is silly in my opinion. Every club in the country has some players on a lot more than others and they do perfectly well. The only way to avoid it is to implement a communist style recruitment system where everyone gets paid exactly the same to ensure equality.

I would guess last season Dack would have been on significantly less than Corry Evans and Craig Conway yet that didn't do him or us any harm. Likewise were we to now put Dack among the top earners I doubt anyone would or could have any complaints as he's earned it.

Cristiano Ronaldo will be top earner at Real Madrid and cost more than the others and he's the centre of attention and star of the show and yet the rest of the team get on with it and are successful with a good atmosphere around the place.

A more realistic comparison would be Wolves - following their takeover they signed numerous Portuguese players on mega money who were brought in through a friendly agent. Yet they retained a British core from pre-takeover who continued to perform and they got promoted with that mixture. Suddenly splashing fortunes out on big players didn't suddenly mean their existing players got fed up.

There's a difference between paying good money out in wages and fees whilst maintaining a good spirit and atmosphere around the place and returning to the dark days of before when Myles Anderson was being brought in on 5 figure a week multi-year deals whilst proven pros were being shown the door.

[Dreams of 1995]

19 minutes ago, JHRover said:

This talk about disrupting dressing room harmony by paying bigger wages and transfer fees is silly in my opinion. Every club in the country has some players on a lot more than others and they do perfectly well. The only way to avoid it is to implement a communist style recruitment system where everyone gets paid exactly the same to ensure equality.

I would guess last season Dack would have been on significantly less than Corry Evans and Craig Conway yet that didn't do him or us any harm. Likewise were we to now put Dack among the top earners I doubt anyone would or could have any complaints as he's earned it.

Cristiano Ronaldo will be top earner at Real Madrid and cost more than the others and he's the centre of attention and star of the show and yet the rest of the team get on with it and are successful with a good atmosphere around the place.

A more realistic comparison would be Wolves - following their takeover they signed numerous Portuguese players on mega money who were brought in through a friendly agent. Yet they retained a British core from pre-takeover who continued to perform and they got promoted with that mixture. Suddenly splashing fortunes out on big players didn't suddenly mean their existing players got fed up.

There's a difference between paying good money out in wages and fees whilst maintaining a good spirit and atmosphere around the place and returning to the dark days of before when Myles Anderson was being brought in on 5 figure a week multi-year deals whilst proven pros were being shown the door.

You can't deny that signing players on x amount of wages disrupts players though. Usually it's a sign of intent on whether or not he's a starter.

As an example, had we signed a centre midfielder on 35k a week this transfer window you'd expect Smallwood to question whether he'll be the first choice midfielder in the coming season. If he isn't then he's been dropped to the bench and probably unhappy, whereas if he's retained as first choice he'll now want some parity with his counter part. This then leads to player x on 35k a week as a rotation option. Meanwhile Samuel is looking at it and thinking about his own role in the team - afterall he's rotation too so why is player x on 35k a week and he's on 10k. Pay rises all round or players want to leave.

Every club in the world has a pay structure. Scratch that, every company. Yes Ronaldo may be on 300k a week but the rest of the clubs footballers will be on 100k+ a week also. You make huge exceptions like that when you reach that level (Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo) but the average footballer for the average club will always want paying what his counterparts do. In a hugely materialistic industry if your back up counterpart comes in in a more expensive car you'd probably start to wonder which side your bread is buttered.

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

I'd like Armstrong but there's no evidence at this stage he can hack it in the Championship. If he's going to cost a Championship sized fee then it might be worth looking at alternatives who have shown they can do it.

Armstrong would be lot better than Rhodes and Marriott. He would bring pacey and finishing ability. and ability to play 3 different positions. 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Dont want can play there, I want pacy wingers out wide, not central midfielders under silly umbrella terms like inverted winger.

I know but I really dont want 3 at the back.

You massively underestimate the importance of a striker being able to score goals which is strange.

Not convinced on Edwards. Played ok for us but statistics are underwhelming in a lower league, would like us to aim a bit higher.

That's your opinion not the Mowbray view who has played strikers wide calling them wide forwards and then calling Rothwell a invert winger

A striker has to bring more than just goals to the team whether its the ability to hold the ball up or pace in behind. For me, either Rhodes or Marriott bring this to the party. I would look at why Rhodes didn't played much the second half of last season and they use Joao and Nuhiu above him. 

On Edwards, he has pace and that's what you said you wanted. 

2 hours ago, J*B said:

I was told this morning by a strong source we're rivalling Reading for Marc McNulty. Fee expected around 1m. We shall see. 

thanks for info JB. 

Can anyone tell me what type of striker he is? has he played under Mowbray before at Coventry?

2 hours ago, RovingRover said:

Quick thought. Might it not be worth taking a look at Lewis Grabban? Finding it hard to convert for Bournemouth at the moment but has had success whilst out on loan at the Championship scoring 20 in 34 for Sunderland and Villa respectively. Bournemouth might be willing to cover wages. Again we could agree a fee with them to make the deal longterm if we see success next summer?

He would cost 5 million pounds and is on a huge wage. Mowbray has already said he doesn't want to bring players in on huge wages and upset squad harmony. 

Forest and Birmingham are looking to buy him permanently

[roversinmyblood]

49 minutes ago, TruRover said:

Think our overall business has been good so far, although we are still abit off from being ready for the season ahead in my eyes. Contract extensions to key men and the 2 incomings so far have been really positive . Also nice to see that there hasn't been any serious links/rumours of our players leaving. 

I imagine our main focus will be on attacking incomings now, think chapman would be great as an impact sub out wide or even upfront with his pace and directness. However the main man I want to see us go after is Maddison, would be a real coup, he's young, quick and most importantly has got a great end product. Would be a dack esq signing imo.

I agree with Maddison as I have been pushing his case on here. However, somebody on here had said that he was rumoured to have a bad attitude. But he does score goals for a winger (Peterborough 177 apps/42 goals) and lots of assists.

I found this on google: -

Available for £2.5m, Rangers must consider Marcus Maddison ... score plenty of goals in the Scottish Premiership throughout 2017-18, they still ... every two games with a whopping 23assists in his 53 league and cup outings.

[chaddyrovers]

Mark McNulty's goals from last season

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mark+mcnulty+coventry+city&&view=detail&mid=83FF6D36CF27F8809B5083FF6D36CF27F8809B50&&FORM=VRDGAR

[JHRover]

3 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can't deny that signing players on x amount of wages disrupts players though. Usually it's a sign of intent on whether or not he's a starter.

As an example, had we signed a centre midfielder on 35k a week this transfer window you'd expect Smallwood to question whether he'll be the first choice midfielder in the coming season. If he isn't then he's been dropped to the bench and probably unhappy, whereas if he's retained as first choice he'll now want some parity with his counter part. This then leads to player x on 35k a week as a rotation option. Meanwhile Samuel is looking at it and thinking about his own role in the team - afterall he's rotation too so why is player x on 35k a week and he's on 10k. Pay rises all round or players want to leave.

Every club in the world has a pay structure. Scratch that, every company. Yes Ronaldo may be on 300k a week but the rest of the clubs footballers will be on 100k+ a week also. You make huge exceptions like that when you reach that level (Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo) but the average footballer for the average club will always want paying what his counterparts do. In a hugely materialistic industry if your back up counterpart comes in in a more expensive car you'd probably start to wonder which side your bread is buttered.

But going back to the part about Wolves. Last season they used several players who were there before the takeover who had been brought through in League One when Kenny Jackett was their manager. They were retained and played a part in promotion yet at the same time they splashed out fortunes on big name Portuguese players who were almost certainly on much bigger wages than their colleagues. Yet no disruption, no jealousy or falling out about how much people got paid, they got on with it.

I'm not suggesting paying those sort of figures out but this suggestion that we couldn't or shouldn't ever spend big money or pay big wages again out of some theoretical potential damage to squad harmony I find hard to believe. If it were the case no club would ever invest significant money or spend big because the disruptive effect would be too great.

Forest are on with it too, spending a lot of money on new players who won't come cheap and Karanka wouldn't be there if there wasn't cash to spend, yet they will have other players and young lads on less money who will crack on and play next season.

[roversinmyblood]

Just now, JHRover said:

But going back to the part about Wolves. Last season they used several players who were there before the takeover who had been brought through in League One when Kenny Jackett was their manager. They were retained and played a part in promotion yet at the same time they splashed out fortunes on big name Portuguese players who were almost certainly on much bigger wages than their colleagues. Yet no disruption, no jealousy or falling out about how much people got paid, they got on with it.

I'm not suggesting paying those sort of figures out but this suggestion that we couldn't or shouldn't ever spend big money or pay big wages again out of some theoretical potential damage to squad harmony I find hard to believe. If it were the case no club would ever invest significant money or spend big because the disruptive effect would be too great.

Forest are on with it too, spending a lot of money on new players who won't come cheap and Karanka wouldn't be there if there wasn't cash to spend, yet they will have other players and young lads on less money who will crack on and play next season.

It is a risk that Mowbray doesn't seem to want to take and values harmony and team spirit above all else. He seems to put a lot of store in loyalty and fairness. Saying that if Christiano Ronaldo was to come the rest of the team might understand make an exception.?

[JHRover]

Just now, roversinmyblood said:

It is a risk that Mowbray doesn't seem to want to take and values harmony and team spirit above all else. He seems to put a lot of store in loyalty and fairness. Saying that if Christiano Ronaldo was to come the rest of the team might understand make an exception.?

If it is Mowbray's decision to do it that way then fair enough, I suspect it's partly that but also significantly what the owners want to do.

But to make out as though any sort of serious spending or increasing of wages is going to be automatically detrimental to team spirit I think is wrong. A balance can be struck between recruiting quality whilst keeping a good spirit around the camp.

 

[roversinmyblood]

Just now, JHRover said:

 

But to make out as though any sort of serious spending or increasing of wages is going to be automatically detrimental to team spirit I think is wrong. A balance can be struck between recruiting quality whilst keeping a good spirit around the camp.

 

Agreed. 

[RevidgeBlue]

47 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can't deny that signing players on x amount of wages disrupts players though. Usually it's a sign of intent on whether or not he's a starter.

As an example, had we signed a centre midfielder on 35k a week this transfer window you'd expect Smallwood to question whether he'll be the first choice midfielder in the coming season. If he isn't then he's been dropped to the bench and probably unhappy, whereas if he's retained as first choice he'll now want some parity with his counter part. This then leads to player x on 35k a week as a rotation option. Meanwhile Samuel is looking at it and thinking about his own role in the team - afterall he's rotation too so why is player x on 35k a week and he's on 10k. Pay rises all round or players want to leave.

Every club in the world has a pay structure. Scratch that, every company. Yes Ronaldo may be on 300k a week but the rest of the clubs footballers will be on 100k+ a week also. You make huge exceptions like that when you reach that level (Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo) but the average footballer for the average club will always want paying what his counterparts do. In a hugely materialistic industry if your back up counterpart comes in in a more expensive car you'd probably start to wonder which side your bread is buttered.

I think your argument completely collapses when you state that Samuel would look to move elsewhere if someone came in on higher wages!

[RevidgeBlue]

52 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Armstrong would be lot better than Rhodes and Marriott. He would bring pacey and finishing ability. and ability to play 3 different positions. 

That's your opinion not the Mowbray view who has played strikers wide calling them wide forwards and then calling Rothwell a invert winger

A striker has to bring more than just goals to the team whether its the ability to hold the ball up or pace in behind. For me, either Rhodes or Marriott bring this to the party. I would look at why Rhodes didn't played much the second half of last season and they use Joao and Nuhiu above him. 

 

I would love us to sign someone you've completely dismissed then watch you doing somersaults trying to claim how pleased you are with it and what a masterstroke it is by TM!

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, J*B said:

A genuine journalist - not a FLW writer!

Which journalist?

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Armstrong would be lot better than Rhodes and Marriott. He would bring pacey and finishing ability. and ability to play 3 different positions. 

That's your opinion not the Mowbray view who has played strikers wide calling them wide forwards and then calling Rothwell a invert winger

A striker has to bring more than just goals to the team whether its the ability to hold the ball up or pace in behind. For me, either Rhodes or Marriott bring this to the party. I would look at why Rhodes didn't played much the second half of last season and they use Joao and Nuhiu above him. 

On Edwards, he has pace and that's what you said you wanted. 

thanks for info JB. 

Can anyone tell me what type of striker he is? has he played under Mowbray before at Coventry?

He would cost 5 million pounds and is on a huge wage. Mowbray has already said he doesn't want to bring players in on huge wages and upset squad harmony. 

Forest and Birmingham are looking to buy him permanently

Not seen enough of Marriott to know what his overall game is like (how much have you seen of him?) but you seem to be discounting the importance of goals. Its not the only thing but the most important thing for a striker and anyone saying otherwise has forgotten the point of the game! Both are unobtainable financially so its irrelevant but youve gone on record saying that we should have dropped Rhodes (for King) when he was here scoring 20 goals a season which suggests that you dont fully understand the main objective of a striker and are obsessed by specific characteristics (pace and strength) even if it is not as effective statistically in terms of goals. If hes scoring 20 a season then hes more than doing his job and just bringing pace would be unlikely to match that sort of output.

Im on an internet messageboard, to give my opinion, just like you should be, rather than to give the opinion that you think Mowbray has. Understand the point of the odd wide forward but central midfielders wide? No thanks, the midfield you named was really slow, had no natural wingers who would stretch teams, if we named it (im sure we wont) then wed be boring to watch and have no threat on the break or real attacking threat. We need wingers, not to sign players that are naturals in other positions that can play wide at a push. Players in the man in their natural positions. Rothwell should compete for a central role.

Yes, I do want pacy wingers but not just pace, they have to be good enough to improve us. Again ive not seen that much of him, bar against us when he was ok, dont remember him even being lightning fast, but im not sure his record in League 1 of assists and goals suggests that he would massively improve us? Feeney has pace, wouldnt want him back.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Stoke bid 15 million for Ritchie at Newcastle and are offering him 4 million a year. 

Would be a good signing for us ?

[ChrisPriceBaldSpot]

 

4 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Stoke bid 15 million for Ritchie at Newcastle and are offering him 4 million a year. 

Would be a good signing for us ?

That bloke loves a promotion out of the Championship. Josh King to Newcastle then? Is there a sell on clause? 

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I would love us to sign someone you've completely dismissed then watch you doing somersaults trying to claim how pleased you are with it and what a masterstroke it is by TM!

You need to get out more 

[Bigdoggsteel]

39 minutes ago, ChrisPriceBaldSpot said:

 

That bloke loves a promotion out of the Championship. Josh King to Newcastle then? Is there a sell on clause? 

I hope so. Even 5 or 10 per cent would be great. I would imagine he would be moving for near enough 20 million. 

Who would have thought that out of him, Rhodes and Gestede, King would go on to eclipse them all 

[islander200]

1 hour ago, ChrisPriceBaldSpot said:

 

That bloke loves a promotion out of the Championship. Josh King to Newcastle then? Is there a sell on clause? 

Kings move to Bournemouth went to tribunal so there will be a sell on Clause.I think it could be 20 

[tomphil]

58 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I hope so. Even 5 or 10 per cent would be great. I would imagine he would be moving for near enough 20 million. 

Who would have thought that out of him, Rhodes and Gestede, King would go on to eclipse them all 

Me ??

[neophox]

Adam Armstrong is the way to go! Much better than McNulty!

[Waggy76]

Just now, neophox said:

Adam Armstrong is the way to go! Much better than McNulty!

I would have thought so ....