You have totally, totally missed my point on double standards. You've also shifted the goalposts onto selectivism which I will address separately. Chaddy: "we were only linked with those players" inference therefore is unless brought it doesn't count as evidence against TM (debatable but let's run with that ) And in the same post Chaddy "I expect more players to be signed by the European network" inference therefore the network is a good thing. In this case a hypothetical non signing is evidence to suggest something is good. You see the point? You state an expectation that hasn't happened as proof to help your points but limit me to concrete examples only. That's double standards. Onto selectivism and how well we are doing/trying: Yes I've seen a few of the documentaries thanks and am not saying it is easy. That said given half the clubs have made more signings than us statistics alone suggest it's not quite as difficult as you make out! In fact statistics aren't your friend on this one. History isn't your friend either in defending our transfer endeavours. The fact we signed no one last January, missed out on multiple targets last summer - you bleated on about the missing out on keepers a lot as I recall - the fact that so many of our defenders are the same from two or three years ago also indicates we aren't that great in the transfer market or doing all we can. Logic isn't helping you much either. Your suggestion is that I'm assuming it's like football manager. However it's a false dichotomy to say the only choices are it's like football manager (and by comparison we are doing badly) or Rovers are doing brilliantly in difficult conditions circumstances. Actually there are a number of alternatives between these two positions, one of which is that Rovers aren't too hot on transfers. Finally on selectivism I have mentioned targets and signings from the past couple of years. Whilst admittedly not solely those known an uncomfortable amount of them are. The links this summer being one example of this.

A few musings on this. 1) I didn't massively get the magazines as a kid but I did get children's football annuals as a kid. I also got them as an adult due a grandparent not appreciating the aging process until they passed away a year or so ago. What did surprise me was how the current ones have very little writing compared with those I read as a kid. It's all like "Messi hassic skillz" in today's annual, whereas as a child I remember reading full articles on players and their background. I remember reading one on Short and his love of sailing for when he retired, a Coventry defender (Burrows?) on being a brickie and that strengthening his leg muscles, so despite not being the biggest he could out-ump strikers. There were more words in a single one of those articles than there is in the entirety of the annuals these days. A symptom of a decline in literacy, or reading perhaps? I still get the 4-4-2 season preview magazine. I've had them for a number of years now and really rate them. It gives a solid low level insight into each club, what the situation is, who are their better players and what the fans think. It's far from infallible in their predictions but it gives a really good overview of each team, and helps me know a little bit about each team and a sense of what their situation is.

C'mon Chaddy let's not be obtuse. There's plenty of examples form our time at Rovers. Some have worked out ok but some haven't and there's a bigger market out there. To pretend it hasn't happened previously is daft. But here's what really annoys me - the double standards. When we are linked to players or miss out on them, and you are defending the corner of the club stating they are doing all they can to recruit players and are doing a jolly good professional job the links are good and evidence of the club doing a good job. But when I use the links to criticise the club they are meaningless speculation. You can't have it both ways! Actually, and this is the real joke - you say you expect others to come, speculation, not even links just supposition, and use this to bolster your arguments. Yet an actual tangible link to a player is dismissed as non-evidence when it supports my criticism. You treat the same evidence/examples as a valid support of points whilst saying that same evidence is insufficient and poor when used to bolster my points. How is that fair or a reasonable debate? Can you not see how daft and contradictory it sounds? Look I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of our scouting network and expectations of it, but I'm not wild about having this double standard of evidence and these contradictions. Let's aim for a bit of consistency! Nice selective use of examples. Not that I necessarily disagree, but there's plenty of evidence of clubs buying players that weakens this defence too.

Couple of reasons I'm frustrated with it: 1) I'm pretty disappointed its not produced much within two years. Still time to redeem itself but it should have been producing more than it has currently. . 2) I think its that combined with TMs preference to go for the known and safe option. Cunningham link this year, Gally as the striker last year. We've been linked with Pears (sp?) from Boro as a keeper who other than the Boro links/convenience doesn't have much going for it. My frustration is why invest in a European network - which I think in principle is a good idea - if there's a tendency to go with the known. I guess in League 1 that was fair enough, albeit not ideal, given how little time TM had had, but by now we shouldn't be as reliant on known as much as we have been over the past year or two.

The circus continues. With our European Scouting Network in full swing the name Cunningham is offered as a possibility of left back, which seems a rather excessive amount of resources to identify a player we've already had on loan. Of course we are at risk of missing out to those football giants Bristol City, which is understandable. If we do, it won't be Rovers fault. Downing deal is off the table. Well, age makes that not too disappointing a blow. But given he can play three positions to a decent standard and we've lost a lot of players you'd have thought his versatility would have made him a decent signing. Add in that he was actually pretty decent last year and it's all a bit odd we didn't sign him up. Edit seen we are not in competition with Bristol City. Am sure we will find someone else to lose out to. An asthmatic snail moves faster than we do on transfers...

Fun fact (which may be incorrect and my memory playing tricks on me) but last time we started a competition on September 12th we went on to win it at Cardiff. History to repeat itself?

Kaminski, Nayambe, Lenihen, Warton, Bell, Evans, Travis, Holtby, Armstrong, JRC and erm Rothwell. There's still 2 or 3 players I don't want in that team which is a bad way to start. Torn between Rothwell or Gally (up front) for the final spot but figured keep Armstrong to where he is best. Neither Rothwell, Bell, Warton or Evans would be near my first 11 but can't see any better choices at present which is depressing. No idea why people are selecting Bereton. A few decent runs and a missed open goal doesn't warrent it imo. Mind you we are short on options. As for that bench. Horrific.

Another load of bull-twaddle from Waggot. Now don't get me wrong, agents are pond life and a blight on the game. But its not as if they've suddenly all upped their prices and demands. Rather we've decided we won't pay the going rate anymore. Championship players aren't asking for more I don't think, in fact given the uncertainty in football I'm very confident on this, so the costs shouldn't come as a surprise for Rovers whatsoever. However, blaming it on the agents makes a nice deflective excuse away from Venkys, Waggot and TM for their various roles in leaving us not paying the going rate. Also if eight out two in is anywhere near acceptable than we might as well down tools now. We need 2 just to field a solid, championship level, first 11. And that still includes one of our dolloper over-costly strikers in there. To say we need two is like using masking tape to patch up a car. What about a second keeper? Where's the defensive cover? Where's the strikers or wide attackers or whatever you want to call them? Who's going to score the goals? Dack, Armstrong, certainly, a few promising youngsters might and we're into players where the phrase booze ups and breweries come to mind. And that's acceptable? That's the minimum? If the bar got any lower we would be digging it out of the ground. But no its hard luck all round and greedy agents. Hell of a consolation that will be having them scapegoats when we plummet down the league. I hate fiiotball.

So today's conclusions: Who's to blame for the so-far a debacle of a transfer window - Waggot, TM or Venkys - the answer being D all of the above. We're struggling to sell players as well as buy them. At least we show some consistency there. We may have a tenner to spend if King or Raya leave their respective clubs via sell on fees. A Rovers transfer window is enough to drive someone to drink...

Which makes it odd that he was captain 1st game of the season and didn't look to be out till alleged argument. I've wondered and suggested this a few times although JBN may well have said why it can't work. Certainly Holtby would be better there but it may still be worth trying him there as back up. If that's the way to go I can't think of any other players we have who could play that role. Would his intelligence and passing make up for his lack of pace?

That sounds plausible. I'd heard a few different rumours, didn't know this was the accepted version though it makes sense. TM really can't have any bite back or characters in the squad.

The Mulgrew situation is odd. The idea that he only played the first game of last season because of injuries is undermined by the fact he was captain in that game and on a long contract. Some sort of row seems to have happened. That said TM is poor at longer term planning. Look at last season's recruitment - there was a good chance 5 of the 6 wouldn't be here this year. As it is 4 aren't and a 5th may as well not be so he isn't one for thinking ahead more than the near future is TM.

To be fair when the alternative is Gally and Bereton it's no wonder that we're in the mood for second chances.

It seems like a normal day on the transfer window thread: - The main debate being how crap are we really. - Rovers missing out on targets. - Lots of holes that need filling in the squad. - Chaddy tying himself in knots and contradictions trying to defend the club. - And not a signing in sight!

Look at how Luton and Barnsley finished. Don't think they will be the pushovers people think. Brum and Reading more likely to fold imo as both are basket case clubs with mediocre squads. Either way we are looking at 4 potential candidates which as you say is hardly an abundance of clubs.

Think it's a bit of both really. We have had ample money but likewise so have a number of other clubs. Where we have been outspent we have had some advantages of a) not having to sell anyone we don't want to and b) having zero pressure on results. It's not the same as a bigger budget but these two factors should have meant we have been doing better. Am sure a number of managers would trade in their superior budget for these advantages.

That's a dangerous road to go down Joe. We can't be relying on that. Also not.convinced that a good manager can't have these teams punching above their weight. Look how Luton and Barnsley finished the season for example.

Top post. Agree with all of it except to say that Lenihen should also be marked in red as an injury worry. Last season was the only one he wasn't massively out for. In defence of TM a lot of those players whose game time we have lost were getting on in age and wouldn't be here now or performing at the same levels. In criticism of TM their ages weren't a surprise and he should have known they would need replacing. It's not rocket science that aging players need replacing...

Yeah think doomed is perhaps over exaggeration but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it's a distinct possibility. There's a lot of.bang average teams in this division so it's not a forgone conclusion, not to mention a number of basket case clubs. But it's also well within the realms of possibility. I wouldn't like to bet against it either. Perhaps it doesn't help that we are much weaker than last season. Had we gone from one squad you showed to the next in a year I think people would be more relaxed. But it does seem compares with last season we have regressed and that will be adding to people's alarm. For the record I think we will struggle as we are very reliant on a small number of players. Dack, Lenihen, Travis, Armstrong - an injury to any one of them huge amount of damage and makes the team look a lot weaker. I guess that may be the same for a number of other championship clubs but it doesn't make it any more comfortable or less dangerous for Rovers.

Doesn't mitigate any of the concerns about the players that he raised.

Not a relegation doomed side by any shot but by my count 4 of the 11 are relegation worthy which is not good for a first 11 minus Dack. In fact that is worrying. Add in the level of risk from unknowns and fitness - I think Kaminski and JRC will come good but it is a risk - and it gets even more worrying. Relegation certs, no. But there is plenty of cause to worry.

Well this is interesting post. Of course there's the first season promotion bounce which helped the first year back but like for like is an interesting and helpful comparison. Firstly for the second squad makes me wonder how much we have wasted the time as the squad difference isn't that much at all. Keeper wise we are weaker no doubt about it. No second keeper and Kaminski is a risk compared to Raya who got very strong reviews from Brentford. Defence - torn on that one. Mulgrew was a bit younger and more useful, perhaps less of a liability and at least scoring some goals. A lot of the names are the same which is pretty depressing. More depressing and weakening us is that Bennett is now considered a full back and he is a liability. Roswell I didn't rate but was a body at CB we currently don't have. Not sure the defence is any better either. Midfield - yep that looks better. Travis has grown as a player, Holtby is a quality addition and there's a few exciting youngsters. That said Reed is a big miss from there, so it's not like we are streets ahead. Up front - maybe better? Hard to say. Armstrong has improved vastly but we are without Graham who back then was a reliable Championship striker. Put it this way I'd rather have Graham then than Gally and Bereton now (and would be cinfident he would outscore them both.) And we had Armstrong on the books then too. Also it may be controversial but I actually thought Samuel was better than Bereton. If both came through the youth ranks I know who we'd be more optimistic about. So yeah we might be a bit better but it is marginal imo. And a criminal waste of 2 years. Don't forget that when we lost our newly promoted bounce the team went on a horrific run. And this team is not too dissimilar to that one.

I think it once again shows footballers think they are above the law. Tbf they usually are so you can see why they would think that way. Bans for players breaking Covid restrictions would be a step in the right direction. Even amongst the moral sewer of football this one surprises me a bit. For starters they'd just been called up to the England squad - you would have thought that they would have been desperate to stake their claim and not done anything to jeopardize it. Also from what I read on BBC it was to meet a couple of girls. I mean they will have had girls throwing themselves at them in Manchester, couldn't they have shown a bit of restraint and waited a few days? They can't have been that desperate. Another in a long list of footballers being above the law.

You have repeatedly said it matters who we have at the end of the window and played down concerns that we are starting without said reinforcements. Deflection. The issue isn't whether there are fewer foreign signings - although my post clearly shows why I have issues with such stats that you put out. (Reread my post and you will see the issue I have with your stats.) But that is not the issue I am debating/questioning you on! I have issue with you saying it's harder to look in the foreign market AND defending the club saying we are using our European scouting network. It's the contradiction of the two statements that I predominantly have issue with. The problem is there's been too much patching up and sticky plasters on our defence for too long. It needs permanent longer term solutions. Add in loans should be used for higher quality players and there is no real reason to loan him. Why waste a loan on a player who isn't too quality. They should be youngsters we wouldn't otherwise get or finishing pieces of the jigsaw not players like Lindsay.

Mate, your Rovers can do no wrong mantra has led to you tying yourself in knots with all sorts of contradictions. 1) We want a player who can play straight away and have trained with the team (hence why not going for a player who would quarentine.) Aside from the reasons it's daft as @roverclitheroe points out this directly contradicts your point about waiting to the end of the transfer window to buy players. They have just the same problems of not training with the team and being there immediately. Can you not see how daft you sound? They need to train with the team and we buy them the last day of the transfer window - your negatives for one are the same for the reason you champion. 2) You give evidence for why quarentine is a problem and stopping people buying players abroad (which am not convinced on saying the number of signings from a full window to a partial window is misleading as is the financial restrictions in general, but hey ho lies and damn statistics eh?). But at the same time you are saying how do you know we are not using the European scouting network. In the same post you are saying we can't get players from.abroad AND defending our recruitment by saying we are looking abroad! There's a whole host of other issues with this post too. Won't get a player like Tosin - not permanently but we may on loan but that wouldn't be a favourable comparison for Rovers so ignored. So what about the 2 games missed with a loan signing but you are bothered by quarentine (another contradiction). You even champion Linsey on loan which seems daft - loans should be left for quality otherwise unobtainable so that's an odd one to suggest. Apart from the fact you think that's what the club will do, rather than what is right so that's why you champion it. A bit like the anti Nayambe bias it's not what is best that you like but what you think we will do. That said such a policy with Rovers is fairly harmless, irritating but allowable. But it still annoys me as you watch loads of footy, you have your finger on the pulse of a lot of teams and post a load of updates on what happens - all of which I appreciate. And all of which should enable you to have your own views rather than be a yes man for Rovers. So c'mon stop defending our poor transfers and championing TMs intentions (which I sadly think you are spot on about) where you end up contradicting yourself, and use that interest and passion to have some cracking ideas of your own!