JHRover

How about a different theory on this. What if Steve Waggott is paid or bonused on how much he saves? If he is then why would he make any serious effort to pay these players more? Keep on driving the wage bill down = better figures on his performance. Just a possibility which wouldn't surprise me.

Only just noticed that Swansea host Luton tonight in one of their 'in hand' games. Hopefully this is good news for us as we have a full week recovery and preparation whereas Swansea will be focusing on tonight and only have a couple of days to prepare for us. I hope it is a gruelling match which wears them down and they end up limping to victory.

I don't think there is any money unless certain strict criteria are met. I also believe that Mowbray's power and influence have been reduced over the last 12-18 months in terms of flexibility on players - previously he had the ability to bring in established experienced players, often ones he had encountered previously, whereas recently they have been younger players with seemingly no link to him. We have seen fees paid out in the last few windows on Pickering, Edun, Markandy - but these fees are generally only very small and all are done with high confidence that the outlay will be covered quickly. All in all not a bad way to do business as ideally all transfers would grow in value but it places severe limitations on what can be done. It is clear there has been a shift in policy. I think Mowbray says a lot but a lot of it turns out to be grossly exaggerated or simply doesn't happen. I don't really blame him for that as there are so many components and cogs turning that him saying one thing one week and then a short time later things have changed. The days of him getting multi-millions to invest in a Gallagher, Brereton or Armstrong seem to have gone, replaced by a focus on loans and a few hundred grand deals here and there. In my view that change sits directly with the inability of Mowbray to head off to India and sit around a table with the head honchos, losing his direct line to them and instead having to deal through Pasha who by most accounts is a Balaji man. Mowbray himself has admitted that communications have changed and that they have been difficult at times. No coicidence that the only 3 managers to last under Venkys - Kean, Bowyer and Mowbray - early on in their times jumped on a plane to Pune - it not only secures their position but also is the best, perhaps only, way of getting approval on significant backing. Back in the days of Kean we thought it bizarre that he would put himself through that difficult journey several times a year and wondered why it was so important to keep them sweet in Pune. I think we can see now why he did that.

Look at everything through the lens that Mowbray has lost his link to Mrs Desai by not going to India. That explains everything- the cuts, lack of new contracts, minimal spending, focus on loans, uncertainty on his own future. The only way of getting anywhere with this lot is by getting on a plane to Pune and talking them round. Can't do that then it is very difficult. I keep on banging this drum and the more time that passes by I become more certain that this is the fundamental issue. It therefore matters not what position we are in or how urgent the need for players we are left with a buffoon in Waggott crunching the numbers unable to do very much. I expect the Giles wage contribution is covered by the savings on the 3 departures yesterday which is why it took so long to get done.

I'm not writing them off, far from it, and on paper they should get second. But it is up for grabs and we are in the driving seat. But if strength on paper was anything to go by they would be clear of us after 28 games not behind us. People were raving about their squad in August and we've outperformed them so far. Their business in January is impressive but now they have to do the hard part and get them performing as a team - easier said than done. You don't spend that sort of money in January if you aren't under pressure and if they don't go up their parachute money drops. They won't be in financial trouble because their owner will prop them up but they know this is their best chance.

I actually think the more players Bournemouth sign the better. It shows Parker isn't happy with his side or is under immense pressure. Going to be some ask incorporating them all quickly into a new team under a new manager and there will be a lot of egos around. A lot of those already there might not be happy with replacements being brought in. Can only pick 11 to play and has to keep them all happy.

Yes. The only conclusion to draw from this is that those outgoings were necessary rather than optional. As I say for Butterworth and us I think a loan is a good move, and for me Chapman was finished here last year (still strange he was given another year to spend it all on loan) yet both were on the bench in our most recent game and now they can't be over the rest of the season. Seems quite a gamble.

We're run by Waggott and Pasha - what qualifies either of those two to run an operation of this size and stature? Tells us all we need to know.

For Butterworth himself I think a move to League One and regular games is the right thing for him and his career. No issue with that. I'm just baffled at the logic from Rovers point of view given that is now three attack minded players out the door today and none in. Walking a tightrope to avoid more injuries and suspensions because there are now even less options to fall upon. Of course Dack returning might be a bonus but it seems risky to be expecting him to be a significant contributor given the length of his absence and nature of his injury.

The Armstrong cash dealt with FFP didn't it? Or are we saying that we had to sell Armstrong, pocket all the cash and can't spend anything despite drastically cutting costs? I'm getting lost in the Rothwell circus - are you saying we stopped it? Or was it because Bournemouth moved on to other targets? Lets not end up bickering about it because I'm sure we can agree in the end it doesn't actually matter - FFP or no FFP, cash to spend or no cash to spend - by the looks of things we haven't really added depth which the Luton game shows we need - that's all there is to it. In a normal season of mid table mediocrity that might be fine but in this position they are very brave and confident in what they have or stupid.

I doubt the owners that matter know or care we are in with a strong chance. Balaji might but he doesn't control the purse strings.

Maybe, maybe not. Two sides to every story yet I'd tread carefully where the likes of Waggott are concerned and would certainly not jump to conclusions of the player being the one in the wrong.

Sharpe gets everything from the Club. He has no other sources. Of course his line is going to be that the manager wants him to toe.

I could have called an estate agent and agreed a fee for a million pound house earlier. That doesn't mean I have the money. I can't/won't pay it, so the deal doesn't happen and I don't get the benefit of the house. We can go around making bids for players left right and centre. Remember Assombalonga? Means nothing if we can't or won't close the deal.

That's very easy to say. Anyone can claim to have money. Spending it is the key. Familiar theme here though that despite claims of it being there for one reason or another it doesn't get spent. Still - gets some free brownie points for the owners who must not be criticised or questioned. When Rothwell's girlfriend is on social media responding to vile messages saying how people don't know the ins and outs and truth of things I suspect this is what she is referring to. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some pushing from Mowbray/Rovers end as much as Rothwell wanting to leave at this juncture.

Even if we ignore our current league position and the need to strengthen with promotion a possibility you would expect - at a club with a plan - more business with one eye on the longer term. Hedges and Markandy OK but a quick look at the summer we have 10+ out of contract/loan. Might expect a few more with a view to plugging that considerable gap.

I think Giles will happen, they are just delaying the announcement until the last minute rather than disappointing fans with an early announcement and no more business after that.

Undecided on this one. Usually a Saturday away game is a no brainer and the team deserve the support, but have to admit the journey, cost and kick off time is testing me. My mates are going to the pub for the afternoon watching the football there. Tempted to join them and save a lot of time, money and hassle.

Its clear that they are shuffling the numbers on the wage bill to try and make room for additions. Chapman out, Butterworth out, McBride out - the sort of moves that would suggest someone coming in but I suspect are actually late attempts to free up wages to do a cheap last minute deal. Venkys have set an annual budget and that involves a strict limit on the wage bill, no pay increases and very little scope on transfer fees. Loans the order of the day to avoid any long term commitment or fee. My suspicion yesterday was that Mowbray had decided he was going to sacrifice Rothwell shipping him off to Bournemouth for a few million on the basis that cash would enable him to do business today. That move collapsing means no money in the kitty other than for Giles for Wolves which will be heavily subsidised as they will want him to play regularly with a view to progressing next season. I had wondered whether our lofty position and with a prize tantalisingly close whether there would be a change in approach but this seems to be a January like every other. Lots of talk but come deadline day little action. No prizes for trying and failing. Say it every time. I did say at the start of the window that retaining the players that had got us here was the priority and no major departures would be a success if we used our budget to resolve the contract situations. But to be here with no progress on contracts, a growing injury list, very weak bench and options at Luton and short of the business claimed to be getting done - disappointing but not surprising.

I've just explained why. If we have no more money and clearly need some reinforcements perhaps Mowbray has decided this move is worth allowing to generate funds to enable him to sign a couple. I think it is common knowledge that Mowbray and Rothwell perhaps haven't seen eye to eye in the past. Of course any manager or club employee is going to portray the player as the problem rather than themselves. I'm not saying this is or isn't the case - I was just pointing out that there are always different ways of seeing things and all we are doing on here is interpreting what has been said by others. Someone said I didn't have proof for what I was saying - of course I don't - none of us on here do.

Nobody can say anything with certainty. Everything on here is either opinion, interpretation or based on what they have been told. My interpretation, based on what I have heard and read, is that the owners and their patsy have mucked a lot of people around with mixed messages, no communication and general incompetence when it comes to contracts. Lets flip this right on its head - all the furore about Rothwell stems from Mowbray's comments to Rich Sharpe yesterday. We are assuming Mowbray is being 100 % honest there. As I've shown already today Mowbray often says things that are exaggerated or don't happen. So it might be the case that Rothwell was willing to play yesterday, and isn't pushing for a move. It might instead be the case that Mowbray wants to sell him and is driving this hoping to get the cash from his sale to fund other moves. I've learnt not to trust anyone or anything around here and whilst I'm not saying this is the case it could be. Depends on whether you take Mowbray's words as the accurate truth because we haven't had Rothwell's version of events and won't do if he leaves. It has become clear there isn't much if any money without sales, which seems very strange to me, but we have seemingly now reached a stage where the only chance of money being spent on new players is by selling him. Maybe Mowbray knows this and feels it is a sacrifice worth making to bring in the 2-3 that he needs to fill out the squad? We just don't know. Lots of speculation yet as ever people are very quick to see the player as the villain and very reluctant to look closer to home at how the club has dealt with things. I see a pattern emerging on players and it isn't a good one.

The point of course is that rival clubs will have only taken serious interest this season as he has been integral to the side storming to the top of the division. Prior to that he wasn't getting serious interest from elsewhere so will have been much easier to tie down to a new deal. Everything you say is a product of us not either selling him at a more convenient time or resolving his contractual situation. Not doing either has put us into this vulnerable position where we have few choices and no time. Could we have offered more money? Almost certainly yes - and I come back to the central issue here - it isn't just Rothwell in this position. He has come to the fore this window because of his performances this season and interest from elsewhere - but there are many others in the same/similar positions - all because the club hasn't offered enough to keep them under contract. Don't pay the money = be left wide open to predatory clubs. I think with billionaire owners funding 8 figure annual losses we should be well protected from that sort of thing but instead we seem to want to operate as an academy to develop players for others to poach when ready. No problem if that is like Armstrong - off to a PL club for substantial money - but to Bournemouth? Embarrassing is the word I'd use. I thought after trying to knock our training ground down this lot could sink no lower but flogging our best player to a Championship rival on deadline day during a promotion push I think takes it to a whole new level.

This is the crux of the issue in a couple of sentences. The shenanigans of the last 48 hours are just the outcome or product of us not having our house in order. Get our house in order = this doesn't happen. Its another 'told you so' moment from me - I've been banging the drum about contracts and the dangers of allowing them to run down for many many months - this is why - it has put the club in a vulnerable position where we exposed to predators. A player - whether that is Joe Rothwell or anyone else - wants security. If clubs are offering him good money and a long term contract and are professional in their dealings whilst we have mucked him around with derisory offers then it is obvious which way he is going to go. The club has had time and opportunity to avoid this situation - and has done nothing. And if anyone really expects Mowbray/Rovers/Venkys/Waggott to have already lined up a couple of proven quality permanent signings to replace him tomorrow I think you are going to end up disappointed. My expectation is a couple of loans and the usual spiel from Waggott about why things were all lined up but fell through.

Ok maybe - so how does that explain Nyambe, Lenihan, Travis and Kaminski who are all going the same way?

'Going towards FFP' doesn't make the money disappear. It doesn't just vanish into a hole somewhere. Presumably when people say it has gone towards FFP what they mean is that we are using that cash to run the club for a while avoiding the need for the owners to do it. therefore the money will still be there - perhaps in instalments or drips coming into the accounts - but we know it is coming and can use it for accounting for FFP on the income/expenditure sheet. But the money is there - it is real - and could be used towards new signings now if we really wanted given the position we find ourselves in.