Blue blood

Makes a lot of sense this, cheers for clarifying. It would be interesting to know what the split of disparing to floating - or better phrased less interested in the deeper stuff - fans is. Maybe it's the echo chamber thing but because most Rovers fans I knew were invested it seems a lot were in this category. Added in I think it's hard to be ignorant of some stuff. Of late the Brockhall thing and earlier on Singh clowning around got lots of airtime. So I struggle to see how you can remain ignorant on this as someone with more than a passing interest in Rovers. Still regardless of the breakdown of the whys and wherefores the issue is clearly crap owners and crap management.

More to the point a vaguely competent management set up could steer us well away from FFP. Also @Mattyblue it's not just floating fans we have lost. It's a ton of deeply concerned and bothered fans who couldn't take any more. No way were they all floating fans albeit a fair number would be.

To me I think the biggest issue regarding supporter split is positive/negative outlook, a philosophy of stand by the club no matter what. Why? Because most critical voices have left. We have lost about 10k regular fans, presumably the majority of whom weren't happy with things. Sure there will be some glory hunters, some personal circumstances but the former probably would have left beforehand and the latter won't have seen such large numbers all in one go. And, imo, it's been a shower over the last 10 years, so logically a significant amount of the more critical or demanding type of fans will have gone. That leaves a significant majority with a ahem, positive outlook. I'm sure there must be some fans who have only known the Vs reign of terror who also shout criticism down but again I imagine a lot of these would have been connected to "positive" fans. They would be the ones most likely to bring new people along and accept the status quo. Can't remember who said it about being born after WW2 but knowing about it - think they are right and it's that principle. I imagine they would be more critical if being brought into Rovers by the BRFCS fans view. Also I can't see many coming in off their own bat - poor form, divided fan base, relegations and a huge amount of incentive to support the big 6. No, can't see too many fans coming in from a neutral view point, albeit there may be a few contributing towards this category. The third category of fans who may be easier on TM are distant fans. Armchair fans or those who only have a passing interest in the club. If that's the case I can imagine that they probably don't feel too hostile to TM if only taking a surface view. Listen to a few of his comments, glance at the table and it doesn't appear too bad. Lots of the issues are only when you look a bit deeper. Imagine they would have a more positive view of TM too. Ultimately though we need all fans, no matter our views. We have lost a ton already and if the Vs reign of terror continues I imagine it will only get worse.

As the dust settles it's hard to be anything other than disappointed. Looking at each signing: Edun - the only positive really. Perhaps our sole fee shouldn't be spent on a lb but given he can play multiple positions, it's a position we had no cover for and he is the right age and seemingly rated, all in all it seems a good signing. Centre back - contrary to some I think we really needed one. Ayala is.injury prone, Warton could take a while to come back and Carter deputizes at RB. Plenty of need for a centre back. However it absolutely should not have been a loan. Firstly we have loaned 4 centre backs in the last 3 years. Quite simply that suggests that we have not had enough of them on our books. If we had brought one at any point we'd have actually have developed our own player, had continuity and an asset at the end of it. Who knows we might have even had capacity to do other transfer deals. Secondly my big worry is loan signings don't get dropped. They are kind of obliged to play. This means that it could stunt the growth of Carter and Warton, which is fine if it is our player and on merit. Without this though it becomes a much more damaging thing to Rovers. Thirdly it shunts the problem down the road, again. What if Lenihen doesn't re-sign? (I think he will mind but no guarantee.) Ayala is getting on too. Nayambe's contract is ending. In short there's a lot of work to potentially do in defence in the next year and we have just shunted another recruitment issue till then. So yeah not a fan of this signing. The Liverpool lad. Seems both to have talent and be very similar to Buckley. The big question is whether he is good enough to make it worth dropping Buckley. A bit too early to tell, but really the fact it's not clear already makes me a tad worried about the signing. Again, even if on an individual level the loan signing makes sense, it's still yet another player who needs replacing next year. The wingers. Bunched them together. Utterly not what was needed to replace Armstrong with. Let's go with the positive interpretation that they will play on the wing and Ben/Gally moves inside. In that case signing a winger doesn't seem too bad on the surface. The problem is imo, twofold. Actually it's asking a lot of Gally and Ben who undoubtedly will improve playing central but enough to take a 28 goal mantle? (Or a significant part of it.) From what I've seen of both of them they will improve but I can't see from their past performances that they would be top level championship strikers. The other issue is it means the winger, as a wide forward contributing goals and being good. And neither one looks a top of the range championship winger/wide forward either. In their natural positions neither to me seem to have the quality to make up for Armstrong's loss, or anywhere near it. Of course this is a charitable assumption. TM has already talked of Poveda being a false 9. And in such a position I have even less faith the wingers are suited to playing this role. Even Elliott, a top class loan, struggled in that position so what are the odds that either one of them will be good at the role? And of course it leaves Gally in particular limited out wide. It's a recipe for disaster. Then of course, as with virtually all our signings, it's loans. We boot the problem of inadequately replacing Armstrong even further down the line - on top of all the other issues and with Ben potentially not signing, to create more problems down the road. In short without signing people we couldn't have done much worse. I think I would rather have had 10 percent of the 15 million spent on 2-3 permanent additions, who at least would give the club assets and a bit more of a team going into next year. I can't believe a good enough striker couldn't have been found (because it's very difficult when you only have 6 months and a head of recruitment) but to not even get a calculated gamble or a top quality loan, combined with an obsession with false 9d is a very worrying position to be in. Terrible window.

My summary too. Not sure our only cash buy should be another left back but it was a position we needed coved in, he covers a number of positions and seems highly rated so all in all a good addition on paper. The rest? They add numbers but don't seem to offer anything our youngsters don't. It doesn't seem a massive upgrade in experience or quality so I struggle to get excited by any of them. If anything they learn at our expense - the team's and our young players. Then of course we have kicked the can of problems even further down the line. Smart move that as it's not like we won't have issues next year either. Also we can only have 5 loans so eventually we are going to have (if we haven't already) more wounds than sticking plasters.

To be fair they did say that was the aim. Mind you am sure those goal posts will change pdq from the club.

I'll add this on Obafemi deal - he's making a mistake going to Swansea over us, and there aren't too many clubs where you can say that. Lost a lot of their best players, a poor manager, and more concerned with style over substance. All signs that they are really going to struggle.

Ok feel there are a ton of different threads in this which I will try to pick up on in turn. Firstly I think it's key we seperate personal insults from criticism/questioning TM. The two are utterly not the same. I can question his judgement without resorting to name calling - with TM or any other professional. There's a discussion as to whether name calling is appropriate but feel that's a rabbit hole we could get lost in. Suffice to say it is a seperate issue. Secondly other professions are questioned too. Whether it's complaints procedures, whistleblowing policies or professional standards other professions are criticised and questioned. People do look for second opinions and also move on when they judge the competence is unsatisfactory. Of course the last point may be why there is so much complaining - because whilst we can change our doctor we can't change our football club. Of course there is the question whether there is too much questioning of TM. This holds a bit more water, although like all other instances of people being questioned the more of it there is, the more likely people are onto something and there are serious concerns. In fact the more dodgy someone is, the more likely they are to be questioned and on more decisions. Again it's worth differentiating tiredness of the same old crap/sweeping statements Vs genuine concerns. "He's crap cause TM signed him" is very different from people questioning specific decisions or indeed TMs success rate. Sweeping statements may be tiresome and unfair, but it is equally unfair to dismiss genuine criticisms and concerns as unthought out statements. From the makeup of the squad to the experience of squad I think there are some valid concerns. I think it's worth seperating out from the clichés. Finally I'd add in that though professionals probably do know more that doesn't mean that a) fans know nothing or b) they are infallible. its only if you hold to these two assumptions that professionals cannot be questioned. As I've highlighted, other professionals are questioned, and people can spot when they have made mistakes. If you have a basic understanding of something you probably can spot when a pro makes a basic mistake or something doesn't seem to make sense. Actually sometimes even common sense alerts us to errors that pros make. Not just football, all areas of life. Still whatever you want to call it, whether it's common sense, knowing the game or I'm just being arrogant my call would be we are badly run with a poor manager. Yep let's avoid clichés and Insults because none of that is needed. Just on his actions and decisions alone TM doesn't seem to be doing that good a job.

Good point I have noticed this in his tenure. You could even say going back to Gally or Bereton the needs were for defensive reinforcements yet all the money went on one position.

Thing is BDS my standards for a football manager are much higher than them being better than me. Same with doctors, vets, pilots to name a few other professions. All miles better than me at their roles but I still expect them to have a degree of competence way beyond my meagre abilities in these areas!

We could offer good terms to them before they get in the last year of their deal! Sure they might not sign then but a) they may well do securing an asset and b) if they don't you have plenty of time to adjust. I'll be honest, I'm a lot less relaxed than you that they will re-sign with us.

Strongly disagree on Nayambe for a variety of reasons, although I feel this is better discussed in another thread. Yeah am sure they are looking to see if they could get better deals, which leads me to ask: do you think they can get that elsewhere or a best deal at Rovers? My fear is they can get better elaewhere which is why I think at least one of the three if not more won't be re-signing.

Y'know I totally thought you were serious in defending the club. Apologies. Yeah not all deals do get over the line - for all clubs. But it is amazing how often it happens to us.

Apart from Aguero only scored 4 of their goals, the rest were spread around some of the best attacking talent in Europe, and they already have brought in a marquee attacking midfield signing to bolster an already very strong squad. So yeah, just like Man City...

Last years of their contracts and various people/sources have said neither are working on deals (unlike Lenihen and Bereton.) Add in how Nayambe has been treated as well and I reckon he is definitely off. As for the decent bid I agree Rothwell could go - we can't/won't get the best out of him - but only if the money is reinvested in permanent signings. Not sure that would be the case.

Don't worry it will all be cheap loans, leaving us bereft of experience - and a squad in 12 months time. After all why not kick problems down the road. Nayambe & Rothwell look like they won't be staying so it's good to have extra work to do in the future, plus uncertainties about one or two others as well. Remember folks it's all about the journey, the long term, despite every decision being the opposite of that.

Beat me to it @RevidgeBlue Also anyone else a tad worried about getting players on loan from Brighton? It didn't work out so well last time. we're not even a big club/excellent youth set up feeder club anymore...

No, no, no that can't be right because previously honest Tony has come out and blamed Ayala's previous clubs for ruining his fitness by not playing possession football. Surely he isn't changing the narrative?

Had this discussion with someone else in another thread. I said there and will say again - a lot of the loan deals on an individual basis you could make a case for. This lad is no different. The issue is that the whole strategy is built around them leading to an overall lack of experience, no continuity and bugger all assets. It's shunting all our problems further down the line to cause even more problems. Quite simply it's no way to run a club and is overall going to hurt us, even if some of the deals make sense.

Indeed. WBA have a very good manager and can grind out results. Fulham aren't hindered by Parker any more so should do well. At the bottom end the big surprise to me is Reading. What has gone on there from last season? Other teams round the bottom aren't quite as surprising. Would expect Forest to be doing a bit better without (pardon the pun) pulling up trees. Maybe thought Sheff Utds quality would have bailed them out a little more but not that much of a surprise given they have been in such a rut to keep struggling.

Yeah I think that to a large extent I agree with you end up where you deserve, albeit not completely. I think what/how other teams perform does play a part in it. For example it was a great Premier League win by Leicester however it was aided by the fact most of the "big 6" were a bit of a shambles. So circumstances I think do play a part, if not enough to excuse things. I think my second reflection on this would be I'd say I perhaps I am thinking more in terms of a near miss in a car crash - most of the journey might have been ok but there was one dangerous incident where we nearly had an accident. For me, the 17 game streak was a little like that, it was a near miss. It was relegation form, and had it occurred a bit earlier in the season so we, or rather other teams, didn't run out of games or on the back of a good start I'm not sure it would have been a miss. As for Covid we had some issues but nowhere near the scale of the other two clubs imo. The pressure thing is a huge worry and with that the experience to manage games. Both seem to be hugely lacking.

I get what you are saying about hypothetical seasons didn't happen, however I'd say in most industries stuff that could have happened and there was a strong possibility/chance of them happening, do influence performance reviews. For example if kids could have been exposed to a safeguarding risk but it didn't occur, it would still be looked dimly upon. Or closer to football if a team got away without having adequate cover in a position through lucking out through injuries or a manager winning despite playing a player in a totally unsuitable position they would still come under scrutiny. Hypotheticals, as in those that are significantly possible/likely do matter. And I think there is a lot of evidence that Rovers do not perform well under pressure. Both runs were aided by a couple of wins in dead rubber matches when we were safe, putting a huge gloss on things. And we have seen when the pressure is on - like going for playoffs, Rovers fall to pieces. The dead rubbers make things look less close than they were. Also I think regarding Covid impacting teams, that also was unprecedented, hugely skewed things, and made it much easier to stay up. I think it would have had a much closer final table had the relegated two been on a more level playing field with Covid. Again, that's not an unreasonable hypothetical, it was fortunate for us and a few other teams. I'm not trying to say everything TM does is wrong - that isn't accurate or helpful - but I do think we had a bit of fortune last season and the chance of going down was a realistic possibility.

Agree. Funnily enough two games stand out for me on this. One Vs Tottenham where we were dreadful and yet somehow fluked a 2-1 win with two against the run of play flukey goals. Went home happy that day even though logically speaking the football was dire. Another instance of this that comes to mind is 1-0.v Sunderland under Parkes (I think) which was 90 mins of both sides lumping it aimlessly long with nothing happening bar an amazing Gally long range strike. Crap football and a win and you forget how boring it was, or rather it doesn't irk you. Disagree. Last season's run could really have got us down. Only the win Vs Derby and Covid weakening two of the relegated teams meant that we steered to safety. Also it wouldn't be a shame because one good season doesn't cancel out the multiple seasons of ineptitude.

Thanks for the well reasoned reply. I disagree with a fair bit (as you with me) but appreciate the tone and your explanation. Think we both agree Bauer was a cock up by TM. Martinez - man that would have been an improvement had we got him. Thinking on the difference in class makes you want to weep. Again though like with Tosin, unless they push you over the finish line to promotion, in some respects they are a waste. In which case longer term a solid league 1/championship keeper would have been better for us long term. That said given how many goals he cost us maybe Martinez would have been the difference... Douglas and Trybull I see the point (especially with the former) but again it's the short termism which is a huge problem. Let's say all of the loans worked out last season, if we didn't get promoted that's still half a team to replace. That's no way to build a team, be sustainable on or off the pitch. Also as you said Trybull was a decent enough squad player - that's not a difference maker, so why waste a loan on that? Surely we could have had a decent enough squad player from the pool of freebies/lower leagues, and benefit from that continuity and asset wise for more than one season. The more I reflect on it, it's the wholesale nature of it that's the problem. You can make a decent case for most of the loans (not Walton mind) but when you put it all together it ruins continuity, increases transfer workload and doesn't help finances. It's sticking plasters on gaping wounds. Agree there is a risk of league 1 players not making it, even if they look promising. But equally a fair number do make it. That's where good scouting comes in. It is possible. Likewise as you say scouting abroad could also have mitigated this issue. Point is, either way, there are ways around these difficulties if we could be arsed to take them. Fair point on loans to buy with lower leagues although think it could certainly work with premiership youngsters. As for Braithwaite, even as a stop gap he was pretty poor. And so we got no benefit from it, only Everton did as he learned from his mistakes here. At least our youngsters would have learned and still been on our books. Or a loan to buy (admittedly that probably wouldn't have been from lower leagues on reflection) could have helped with the potential summer transfer window. Another centre back was/is needed. Ayala's injury record is horrific, Warton could take a fair while to come back and we are assuming he will come back at the same level (some don't.) Especially if they could cover a full back position, knowing we were a bit weak in those areas, and a defensive signing made a lot of sense. Anyhow quibbles about individuals aside, a successful team cannot be built on youth loans from the big 6. It's not a good foundation for the club whatsoever.

The loan thing really annoys me. Tosin - Bauer would have been a much better choice. We would have had three seasons of the chap by now, rather than one, in which we are short. Walton - you are telling me there wasn't a better keeper available for the wages and loan fee. Given I think most keepers would have been better than him this was a colossal waste of money. And all the "we got Kaminski" firstly didn't undo all Walton's howlers and we would have either had a second choice keeper covered or someone to sell - either to our advantage, and still have Kaminski last year. Douglas and Trybull the same. There weren't players of that quality knocking around League 1 or freebies? Find that hard to believe. In fairness Douglas did look good on paper, but even then with his wages and loan fee, would we have been better getting Pickering in earlier and another year's experience at this level under his belt? Braothwaite - am sure there must have been a league 1 player with potential that we could have got a loan to buy with instead. All the way back to league 1 we haven't massively got it right with loan players. At least then loan with option to buy helped us with Armstrong and Downing. I've more patience with these kind of deals because if they work out we can take advantage of them and sign them, if not send them back. The risk v benefit is more balanced whereas with the loans they are much more stacked against us.