At the start of the summer, assuming no major departures, I wanted 7 incomings, preferably all permanent deals but a couple on loan if necessary. We offloaded Feeney and Ward, and lost Payne, Armstrong and Antonnson, so we were 5 down on numbers before we started, and in my opinion needed a bigger squad and more depth than we had last season. That number perhaps drops to 6 if we could find someone to play in a couple of positions, but we can't really go below that. Our manager has said the same in his earlier interviews - he wanted 6 and preferred permanents over loans. Only his position seems to have shifted in recent weeks - according to the Telegraph 5 incomings is a likely outcome of which 2 will be loans and 1 a CB. My view has been consistent in terms of numbers and a clear preference for permanents. We've brought in 2 to date so need at least 4 more in my opinion. Those 4 need to be of sufficient quality to go straight into the first team or dislodge existing players over the course of the season, not players who will be sat on the bench at best making up the numbers like Gladwin. Also depends on the 'calibre' of loan - Rhodes to Norwich and Wildschut to Bolton are in my view better than kids from academies that have never played in the Championship. As you rightly point out the window isn't closed yet and it isn't too late, though we're already at a stage where new arrivals are likely to be too late for Ipswich. I think you've admitted yourself today concern at what you're hearing in terms of a permanent defender and loans elsewhere.

Probably right. The club aren't daft and know that putting out tweets like the Bennett one will get a lot of people hooked on the premise that we've a 'busy' week of activity and people will immediately assume that means multiple new signings arriving. As you say it could just as easily and probably more likely refer to the frenzy ahead of the Ipswich match. No doubt they've got Sky sports people down there all week whipping up a frenzy especially as they haven't got the Premier League for another week.

I'm not trying to bash Mowbray here. I've already said that his success in leading us to promotion vastly outweighs poor transfers and justified everything he did. He's in credit, significantly. But coming back to those players he has brought in I think it is wrong to suggest that his recruitment has been brilliant and that he's revolutionised the club with it. As explained above the likelihood is that 7 of our 11 at Ipswich will be players who were here before he was. The 'big ones' of Mulgrew, Lenihan, Bennett and Graham were given debuts or in Lenihan's case given a central role under the very unpopular Coyle and Lambert. Dack was a massive success and will probably make the owners a lot of money when they sell him, much more than the cost of our transfers over the last 4 years combined. That alone makes it even more odd that they won't fund Mowbray to a higher level. Surely they know that Dack has been a big success and will make millions in profit and they want some more of that from other signings? Surely they know that they won't ever profit from borrowing other club's players? When Rhodes arrived he was unproven in the Championship and a gamble, particularly for the cash we paid, yet there was confidence he would do it as he had done it to an exceptional level for several years in League One. Almost immediately following his arrival it was clear he was going to score a lot of goals for us. Hopefully Samuel and Dack will follow and be good Championship players, but at the moment they aren't.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/16385732.wanderers-try-to-nab-charlton-man-from-under-blackburns-noses/

Agree that for some reason this area has been deliberately or otherwise neglected for the last 3-4 years. We filled up last year with the Armstrong and Antonsson loans, before that it was Gallagher, Emnes and Joao. Season before that we were mucking around signing Simeon Jackson mid-season after selling Rhodes. I could accept the slow, gradual build job narrative if we saw a piece by piece construction but all we seem to want to do in that area of the pitch is get by as easily and cheaply as possible. At best we'll be in the exact same position next summer as we are now as Graham will be a year older and the loans we're getting will be off again. Unless Samuel surprises.

If we start at Ipswich with the same XI that started v Everton last week then only 4 of them will have arrived at the club under Mowbray's management - Smallwood, Bell, Dack and Samuel - none of which have ever performed successfully in the Championship in their careers. I'd also expect Williams to come in for Bell at LB which takes it to 3. I appreciate the job Mowbray has done and think he deserves a lot of respect for it but this notion that he has completely revolutionised the squad in a short space of time isn't correct. Less than half of our 'strongest' XI he signed, the rest were here before. He has done well to reinstate some pride in the club and obviously the only true measure of his ability is what results he delivers and he delivered promotion.

This has been in the pipeline for the last few weeks. If you put any weight on what the Telegraph say then there's been a gradual shift from at least 4 to now 3 of which a couple will be loans, seemingly one of which is only until Xmas, and the permanent will be for a CB who all being well won't feature.

Nobody I would have thought. But the way Sharp has been writing it suggests that it is something we should be hotly anticipating as though we mean business and are set to splash the cash. £750k in League One was a lot of money for one player, in the Championship its peanuts. We also pulled off a coup with Dack because he'd had a quiet season before coming here and Gillingham needed the money. I would have expected considerably more to be invested this summer ahead of our Championship return yet the Telegraph are at work trying to convince readers that £750,000 or so is big money. It isn't.

Disturbing.

Rich Sharpe keeps on mentioning that one of our cash purchases might even eclipse the fee paid for Bradley Dack last summer. Wow. So we might surpass 750k on one player and that is supposed to be something to be excited about. I don't obsess over how much people cost but surely having won promotion to a higher level then the transfer budget should be significantly higher?

Looks like Reading are signing Sam Baldock from Brighton. Proven in the Championship, 29 years old, knows how to score. I think this is the calibre of player that we should be looking at bringing in to start with, followed by a loan afterwards.

More likely is that short term loan deals, provided they fit within the budget, can be done by Mowbray and Waggott without needing to involve those in India in the process, however when cash is needed for a lump payment to another club then the Indians have to OK the deal.

Like last year it seems the money, whatever there is of it, is going to be invested into midfield/defence rather than attack. I suspect that's because we're unwilling/unable to pay the going rate for permanent signings up front and so the alternative is to rely on the loan market to try and fill the gaps (like we did last year with Antonsson and Armstrong). It might just be my odd way of looking at things but if we've money to spend on a back up CB to sit behind Mulgrew, Lenihan, possibly Williams and Downing, then that money should be diverted elsewhere. Clearly it isn't my job to tell Mowbray what to do but I would be perplexed if we spend what money we have on a CB and 2 midfielders when the gaping hole in the squad is and has been all summer up front and out wide. We've known since January, or even before, that these positions needed addressing as our loans of Armstrong, Chapman and Payne were themselves only short term stopgaps. So to be going into our first league game at Ipswich with Bennett and Conway as our only two wide men and Graham as our only proven forward is awful.

I read that as a denial, it's clear anyway that we aren't in the market for such a calibre of player.

My prediction is we'll get one loan, probably Palmer, announced before Ipswich and after that we'll at best get one permanent done before the deadline and another loan, two at the most, before the end of August. Anyone setting themselves up for a busy exciting week of several quality new signings I think will be disappointed.

Two players who have proven in recent years to be good Championship players. Both won promotion to the Premier League. Meanwhile we're trying to borrow some kids who have hardly played anywhere.

They're mostly busy bringing in permanent signings and will sort loans out later. It appears we've occupied ourselves with loans from the start and to my knowledge still haven't signed any.

Neither do 75% of other clubs.

Difference between being highly rated in someone's academy and being able to hit the ground running in the Championship. We should know that given recent experience. I'm not writing anyone off but being a prospect used to playing reserve team football to playing every week under Championship expectation is a big jump.

I suspect that a decision has been reached that when signing forwards they are either too expensive or too much of a gamble. When paying money out cash a centre half or full back represents better value or more affordability. The position we need to strengthen is an expensive and tough one to get right, I don't think it's a coincidence that for the last 3 seasons we've addressed that area by recruiting loans en masse. Much easier, cheaper and lower risk, but people then act surprised when we can't get people in until the lastminute and always start the season slowly, I think the reason for that is quite obvious.

No indication that we're looking at signing players from abroad or the lower leagues to address our lack of forwards, two areas we should be looking at if we're short on funds. All the talk around loans up top with a permanent move for a back up cb.

If the XI that started v Everton remain fit and in form for 46 games then they should be able to compete. However that hasn't really been the concern this summer. The concern is what else we have by way of options and depth that WILL be called upon sooner or later. People will also lose form. Foolish to believe what we have is enough just because our strongest side played well against Everton.

Seems we're following the 2013-14 template, whatever that is. Home shirt with pale blue, dark blue socks/trim and the halves the opposite way round. Away shirt featuring the weird crest. It could be worse but very similar to the kit we had when relegated under Kean, not much thought gone into it.

I think we've two things running side by side and this has been the way of it since the boardroom cull and Cheston stepping up, perhaps even before that. On one side we have the club business - headed by Waggott, previously Cheston - who to a limited extent manages the operation on a day to day basis and is judged on his ability to balance the books. He'll head up payroll and daily expenditure on things like the maintenance and bills and he has to try and squeeze out as much as possible from sponsorship etc. On the other side we have the first team operation headed by Mowbray and his transfer fund is dealt with separately and is directly authorised by the owners in India. If the club was being left to wash its own face then we wouldn't even be able to stump up the £500k or whatever for Davenport and Rothwell. That cash must at least be approved by the owners as extra spending above and beyond the daily requirements. Completely agree that the black sponsor badge probably put an extra few quid on the deal. Not sure on the blue on the shirts. I expect that Umbro just lazily come up with something using colours from elsewhere and we just take whatever they give us. I'd almost be impressed if such thought had gone into the colour scheme but I think it is just laziness and taking whatever Umbro come up with. Wouldn't surprise me if our kits and Man City's kits were made in the same factory and it was cheaper for us to use the same colour as them rather than a different one. I've actually no major gripe with the sky blue, provided it is only done once every 10 years. But the dark blue socks and numbers and black sponsor wreck it. It seems that Waggott's primary duty here is to squeeze the pennies out. Fair enough as we need to do that but you've to be careful as to how much of that is centred on the existing supporters who already have had their patience and wallets tested heavily these last few years.

It just seems everything has to be left until the last minute. No need for it. New shirts - left until as late as possible when pre-season is underway, away shirt still not out and won't be until next week just a couple of days before kick off at Ipswich. New sponsor - last minute Season ticket info out later than most clubs. Season tickets still not sent out in the post with 2 weeks until the season starts at home. New digital ad boards still haven't appeared only 2 weeks until the season starts at home. Amateurish and little wonder we lag behind on revenues and income. Easy option is to blame crowds and catchment areas but I expect more effort.