Jump to content
Neal

Tony Mowbray Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Amo said:

"I felt an equaliser was coming... but we weren't making any clear-cut chances"

He gets bored of his own b*llshit after 30 seconds.

So he brought on Evans and basically put a stop to that !

Edited by tomphil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

since Samba, Nelsen, Salgado, Jones and Givet

Now that's a proper list of defenders. Can we set the clocks back ten years please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Miller11 said:

I’ve been very vocal about the fact I believe this sort of policy to be the case for a long time. Before Mowbray came along. The last couple of years have just made me believe it even more.

I’ve gone into detail before about the fees involved in signing defenders. Scott Dann is rightly pointed out as the one major fee that has gone on defensive reinforcements. He was a last minute buy in silly season following N’Zonzi starting the season at centre half, and they lost a fortune on him. Perhaps the approach was a little different when Kean and his agent were around. Since then we haven’t paid more than £250k for a defender. We have picked up several freebies, converted several midfielders, borrowed, and relied heavily on the academy, and since Samba, Nelsen, Salgado, Jones and Givet were jettisoned for varying fees and in various farcical circumstances, we’ve had a defence lacking in both depth and quality. 

Add to this the early claptrap the lunatics came out with about “exciting attacking young players”.

It also ties in to things I hear from people who work at the club. If anyone believes that Venkys or their “trusted advisors” haven’t had input in signings, you’re deluded. If you believe this isn’t still happening you are, in my opinion, naive.

I’m not suggesting there is a written rule that states “DEFENDERS SHALL NOT BE PURCHASED”, but there is plenty to suggest that funds are not made available for players who don’t fit a certain profile. I’ve asked Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston about this pretty directly. Of course they denied it.

Probably the thing that convinced me there’s something to this more than anything is having heard Mowbray at the last consultation meeting. He ridiculed his defenders and spoke so passionately in the now infamous “defenders are coming” speech. I honestly can’t see how anyone who witnessed that (aside from the additional conversations at the end of the meeting) can believe for a minute he just changed his mind.

There are plenty of reasons to despise Venkys without the need for a fictitious stick. I’d call this a theory with a fair bit of evidence to suggest it’s true.

Oh, and from what I hear, it extends to goalkeepers too.

Sorry, think this theory is absolute nonsense. It would indeed be naive to think the owners had no input whatsoever into transfers and if they said any major expenditure had to be on younger players with a sell on value that wouldn't surprise me one bit. Strikers are also in general a lot more expensive than defenders so if successive managers have decided to concentrate the majority of a limited budget into forwards that wouldn't surprise me either.

I don't believe however that the owners would interfere with transfer policy to the extent of saying you can spend decent money on forwards but not defenders. If the argument was put forward that at times during Venky's tenure  the overall budget hasn't been big enough then it would be hard to disagree with that but I actually think TM has been well backed financially since we were relegated.

We've also had numerous managers under Venky's stewardship and not one has ever said or hinted that they were prohibited from signing a certain type of player. As far as we know TM wasn't precluded from going after Bauer either, he decided he didn't want to pay Charlton's original asking price and hung around for 12 months hoping to get him on a free before on his own admission cocking up the negotiations with the spiel about Bauer  coming in as a squad player.

As far as keepers are concerned as well, Walton would presumably be very expensive at his age were we to sign him permanently and if only he was any good. We weren't to know that he would as another poster memorably put it "make Alan Fettis look like Dino Zoff" so that doesn't necessarily tie in with the theory either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Sorry, think this theory is absolute nonsense. It would indeed be naive to think the owners had no input whatsoever into transfers and if they said any major expenditure had to be on younger players with a sell on value that wouldn't surprise me one bit. Strikers are also in general a lot more expensive than defenders so if successive managers have decided to concentrate the majority of a limited budget into forwards that wouldn't surprise me either.

I don't believe however that the owners would interfere with transfer policy to the extent of saying you can spend decent money on forwards but not defenders. If the argument was put forward that at times during Venky's tenure  the overall budget hasn't been big enough then it would be hard to disagree with that but I actually think TM has been well backed financially since we were relegated.

We've also had numerous managers under Venky's stewardship and not one has ever said or hinted that they were prohibited from signing a certain type of player. As far as we know TM wasn't precluded from going after Bauer either, he decided he didn't want to pay Charlton's original asking price and hung around for 12 months hoping to get him on a free before on his own admission cocking up the negotiations with the spiel about Bauer  coming in as a squad player.

As far as keepers are concerned as well, Walton would presumably be very expensive at his age were we to sign him permanently and if only he was any good. We weren't to know that he would as another poster memorably put it "make Alan Fettis look like Dino Zoff" so that doesn't necessarily tie in with the theory either.

But what do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This interview should be the tipping point for anybody who still backs him. He is talking about results with this quote.

“Is it a concern? I judge the team on their performance levels,” Mowbray told the Lancashire Telegraph.

Hopefully he understands if you lose too many games you get relegated.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/quicktest/18027479.is-concern--rovers-boss-mowbray-recent-results/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JHRover said:

The way I think it works is this:

Mowbray has to 'sell them' a vision in order to receive funds from India to spend on players. The owners (Mrs Desai and hubby) who have the keys to the safe listen to the pitch and decide if they are going to go with it or not. This is the primary reason Mowbray and before him Bowyer and Kean went out to India to keep her sweet and get direct approval from her. Without doing that she won't bother with it, probably won't even consider requests and no money will find its way into the club for new players.

Mowbray's sales pitch to the owners is that he will make them profits on player trading which of course will help reduce their losses, It is obvious from Mowbray's comments this is a big part of what he sells to the owners. He still has points on the board with the Dack one despite quite woeful business elsewhere.

The Brereton was an indicator of what it is all about. The nature of that transfer was utterly bonkers from the price, timing and way it came about. To suddenly go out on deadline day with that sort of cash having spent little before that on the squad suggested things weren't as straightforward as they would have us believe. From the word go that deal was described as a project signing, clearly with more than one eye on Brereton's potential development and future value more than his immediate use to the first team. 

Mowbray let the cat out of the bag with his infamous 'defenders are coming' speech at the end of last season. Our failure to do what he promised either comes down to him having some sort of brain transplant and completely reversing his opinion on the team or because people above him prevented him from getting those defenders. I know what I believe is the answer. I don't believe any professional manager would have spent £15 million on young attackers without spending anything on defenders. It is ludicrous. 

The bit missing for me is the part where Mowbray walks after being undermined and then hamstrung.

That’s the kind of bloke he is, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arbitro said:

This interview should be the tipping point for anybody who still backs him. He is talking about results with this quote.

“Is it a concern? I judge the team on their performance levels,” Mowbray told the Lancashire Telegraph.

Hopefully he understands if you lose too many games you get relegated.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/quicktest/18027479.is-concern--rovers-boss-mowbray-recent-results/

Same nonsense he's been speaking for a while now. Very much the kind of gibberish you start to hear from managers when they know their time is up and are desperately trying to cling on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the Lenihan injury is his latest excuse. This has taken Mowbray completely by surprise despite Lenihan's long history of injuries and a failure to add to the defence. Interestingly no mention of his decision to send Mulgrew out to Wigan. 

A series of failures and now we suffer the consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arbitro said:

This interview should be the tipping point for anybody who still backs him. He is talking about results with this quote.

“Is it a concern? I judge the team on their performance levels,” Mowbray told the Lancashire Telegraph.

Hopefully he understands if you lose too many games you get relegated.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/quicktest/18027479.is-concern--rovers-boss-mowbray-recent-results/

I think that quote and article sum up the fact he feels no pressure what so ever from the board or owners. Sadly I think even with a relegation back to L1, Mowbray has feathered his nest to such an extent that he would still get no pressure from the board. 

A manager should never have a say in the appointment of board members, never mind be overly friendly with them. 

After raising optimism over the last couple of years it does feel like were slipping back to the Kean/Coyle days. Sigh,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benhben said:

I think that quote and article sum up the fact he feels no pressure what so ever from the board or owners. Sadly I think even with a relegation back to L1, Mowbray has feathered his nest to such an extent that he would still get no pressure from the board. 

A manager should never have a say in the appointment of board members, never mind be overly friendly with them. 

After raising optimism over the last couple of years it does feel like were slipping back to the Kean/Coyle days. Sigh,.

I think you are spot on. The autonomy he has is is frightening. Mowbray talks about how long he has been in football and understands the machinations of it but then he talks about not being worried about results. Blackburn Rovers success, both on and off the field is determined by results and he comes out with pure nonsense like that.

It's a sad indictment of where we are at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it all boils down to the so called owners as always. They may fund us enough to keep us floating. but they don't care about us. If they did then they would be here and see what is happening. Not staying in India an pretend all is well.

Should have cancelled the takeover the moment they say they were excited about how Rovers could improve the Venky's brand, and not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All a chairman or CEO should say to that interview is look if you've been in football a long time and know the mechanics of it you'll know full well you get points for results not 10-20 mins of good play per fortnight.

Even him saying that though is nonsense anybody watching will know performances have been mostly been poor anyway that's why the results haven't followed. Just because you lose 2-1 doesn't mean it was a close game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JHRover said:

The way I think it works is this

Yup, I don't think you're far off with that theory.

We're not in the situation where the manager is given a budget and told to get on with it, apart from a few peanuts here and there to manage turnover. Whenever a key player is identified that costs a few bob, the manager has to go petitioning to Pune. I think the last time we spent anything like this on a defender was Scott Dann back in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Seems the Lenihan injury is his latest excuse. This has taken Mowbray completely by surprise despite Lenihan's long history of injuries and a failure to add to the defence. Interestingly no mention of his decision to send Mulgrew out to Wigan. 

A series of failures and now we suffer the consequences. 

Lenihan’ suddenly turned into Van Dijk in TM’s eyes despite earlier in the season saying he’d have his work cut out to keep his place / get back in, or words to that effect. As you say too, it didn’t take much to predict that Lenihan would succumb to an injury sooner or later this season. He’ll have another spell out before the season is done too I’d wager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, rickard said:

And it all boils down to the so called owners as always. They may fund us enough to keep us floating. but they don't care about us. If they did then they would be here and see what is happening. Not staying in India an pretend all is well.

Should have cancelled the takeover the moment they say they were excited about how Rovers could improve the Venky's brand, and not the other way around.

It's like being kept on a life support in hospital.  You're in a vegatitive state. One day they'll turn it off. A good mate of mine likened our situation to being a passenger on that plane were the pilot locked himself into the cockpit  and flew along for a while until he decided to crash the plane.

Edited by Tyrone Shoelaces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, arbitro said:

This interview should be the tipping point for anybody who still backs him. He is talking about results with this quote.

“Is it a concern? I judge the team on their performance levels,” Mowbray told the Lancashire Telegraph.

Hopefully he understands if you lose too many games you get relegated.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/quicktest/18027479.is-concern--rovers-boss-mowbray-recent-results/

If hes judging the team on performances then I would suggest that he should be even more concerned than with our results. The level of performance has been consistently shite throughout the season and we have repeatedly failed to have anything over than minimal shots on goal. He has tried to make out as if drab home performances v the likes of Charlton, Luton and Forest displays were dominant and we deserved more from them, total bollocks. I cant think of a single good performance all season, Hull maybe is the best and that was a poor game settled by a missed penalty and a set piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It's like being kept on a life support in hospital.  You're in a vegative state. One day they'll turn it off. A good mate of mine likened our situation to being a passenger on that plane were the pilot locked himself into the cockpit  and flew along until he decided to crash the plane.

We're still allowed something from the drinks trolley.

GET BEHIND 'EM FFS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amo said:

Yup, I don't think you're far off with that theory.

We're not in the situation where the manager is given a budget and told to get on with it, apart from a few peanuts here and there to manage turnover. Whenever a key player is identified that costs a few bob, the manager has to go petitioning to Pune. I think the last time we spent anything like this on a defender was Scott Dann back in 2011.

This Scott Dann myth needs putting to bed once and for all i think.  Our favourite scribe who was well in at the time given his connections to the Kean camp laid it out as a deal that could rise to 7 million. Although to be fair it was still a big commitment i don't think the intention was to ever actually stump it all up.

We paid about a million up front then there was a load of add ons and clauses in there. Nixon said something along the lines of he'd have to play for England so many times, get promoted with Rovers and be here a number of years before it would ever reach that figure. By the time we'd sold him it was generally thought they'd more or less recouped what he'd cost up to that point c3 millionish i think it was ?

That was another of Keans questionable motive signings, nothing more than get him in unfit, get him fit and in the shop window then flog him. Remember Brum were desperate to shift him off the payroll so the figure was dressed up in the press to appease their lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Armstrong so bullet proof in Mowbrays eyes? Since he won player of the month last January he has been poor, at best. I just don't see how he is a shoe-in every game whilst better players sit on the bench or aren't even in the squad. Mowbray is a stubborn, stubborn man 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further alarm bells ring when Mowbray talks about judging the team on performances!

Kean used to do that, remember that stuff about how often we had the ball in their half or final third of the pitch? We didn't score or even get a shot on target of course and we invariably lost.

Mowbray should judge the team on results. That's how he'll be judged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.