JHRover

Telegraph always adopt the non-committal approach of avoiding saying anything unless the club has first authorised it. Hence Rich Sharpe and his predecessors regularly coming out with the 'let me check that one' or 'understood not to be on the radar at the moment' or 'probably not within the budget' etc.

Derby have confirmed that Rowett has sought permission to speak to Stoke. Sounds like he's off then as clubs don't usually release these sort of things unless the manager has told them he wants to go. So much for 'the Derby way'.

Armstrong should be number 1 on the hit list. I'd have half an eye on Gallagher from Southampton. A presence up front would be useful. Another one who isn't going to get a look in at his parent club under a manager who doesn't tend to go with youth. These are the sort of players we should be all over - young, room to improve - and like it or not they cost money.

The irony of it all is that FFP rules were supposedly introduced in order to encourage sustainable spending and discourage clubs from gambling on promotion, however from what I can see the opposite has occurred. Clubs can still spend their way to promotion if they want, only they are under more pressure time wise. So nothing stopping Wolves from going and spending £40 million and getting promoted, on the contrary they have won all sorts of plaudits for doing it. Nothing stopping Newcastle coming down and blowing the division away with their £100 million+ wage bill and £50 million transfer spend, on the contrary Benitez is hailed as a genius and has everyone feeling sorry for him that he hasn't been allowed countless more millions in the Premier League. Aston Villa get relegated yet go and spend fortunes in a bid to go straight back up. This is their 2nd crack of the whip having brought in people like John Terry on astronomical sums. Middlesbrough try to go straight back up so spend £50 million last summer and miss out on promotion. We can fully expect Stoke to do similar. In years gone by the consequences of missing out on promotion after heavy spending were massive losses that would need to be plugged once parachute money ran out. These days the added pressure comes from potential FFP sanctions (as unlikely as they are given only half a dozen teams have received punishments). So rather than not spending as much clubs instead go and spend but perhaps even more to try and guarantee promotion. For those that it works for happy days as the worst they get is a fine which QPR have shown can be delayed and dragged along for several years, in the meantime they can have another few hits at promotion.

I've never got over his comments after we played them on a Tuesday night at their place and he had the brass neck afterwards to comment on Rovers turning up and putting loads of men behind the ball and not attacking them. His Birmingham side was one of the most defensive and negative teams we came up against over the last few years and for him to even think about criticising others for putting men behind the ball given his approach at home was bizarre. A quick glance at some Derby forums and it seems a lot of their supporters aren't too keen on his approach either. His highest finish in his career was last season with Derby in the play-offs and he's never won promotion. Yet he's hailed as some up and coming genius whilst Lambert is slated despite having won several promotions and managed at the top level for several years. Interesting.

Mowbray is bound to say that the focus of his attention is on players in the early 20s age range. Realistically that's the only way he's going to be able to persuade the Indians to part with transfer funds for players if he can convince them that it is an investment that will have return in a few years. See Dack and Samuel. It was also the only way Bowyer was able to extract funds from them for Conway, Marshall, Cairney and Gestede. Fortunately, down to good management more than anything, almost all the players we've spent cash on in the last 4-5 years (not many I admit) have turned out alright. Some said Rhodes was a waste of money that we'd never get back because nobody in the top flight would buy him but we turned a profit on him, since Gary Bowyer took over virtually everyone we've paid out cash for has turned a profit - Steele, Marshall, Duffy, Cairney, Gestede - and then more recently I'd expect Williams' valuation will be on the rise given his recent inclusion in the Republic of Ireland squad, Dack's value will be way higher than what we paid for him and an impressive start to life in the Championship and he'll go up even more. The only real exceptions are Samuel and Bell who are too early to say really, but overall with the Dack success Mowbray will be able to say money well spent last season. Nothing at all wrong with that strategy so long as it isn't the sole ambition. Nothing wrong with recruiting those sort of players so they carry value in the event they are sold, but when the sole aim in spending money is with a view to selling for a profit in a couple of years irrespective of who that might be to and irrespective of the impact it might have then it becomes a problem. Football and results first, individuals and valuations second. Sadly I think it was the other way around for a while.

Telegraph reporting that Stoke want Rowett as their new manager and are discussing compensation with Derby.

Baird and Shackell are dingles, which is a problem

Yes there are some teams in the league with twice our turnover, but I think you'll find that most of those are the parachute receiving clubs who will have overheads of twice what we have, so it cancels itself out. Those clubs who don't have parachute cash, i.e. the majority in the league, do not naturally have twice our turnover. They might have bigger crowds, but the difference in income that generates isn't huge in the scheme of things. I can joke about it, because the whole thing is a joke. Since these rules were introduced and everyone got their knickers in a twist about it, only 5 clubs have been sanctioned. Ourselves, Nottingham Forest, very briefly Cardiff, Fulham, and Leeds United, were put under transfer embargoes. Bolton had an embargo but that was for failing to file their accounts, not for spending too much. Fulham got an embargo for a brief period, yet managed to get out of that and assemble a squad packed with quality players without going down our route of decimating their squad. Amazing how some clubs can do that whilst we couldn't. Only one of those clubs that succeeded through breaking the rules has to my knowledge been sanctioned. Leicester removed the threat of sanctions by agreeing a pay-off. Bournemouth were fined £7 million which is nothing compared to the rewards of promotion. QPR, Wolves, Newcastle all clearly breached the limits yet haven't been punished. I also don't believe for one minute that Derby and Sheffield Wednesday have spent what they have without parachute income and avoided breaking limits. Case in point - Jordan Rhodes - we signed him for £8 million and paid him very well - and all we heard for 4 years was about how unsustainable that was, how we couldn't afford it, how he would eventually have to go to comply with FFP rules, and yet he cost Sheffield Wednesday more and they have him sat on their bench no problem. So yes, it makes me quite angry when all I hear at Rovers' end is 'poor us' because our income is limited (partly our own fault) and we have to abide by these rules meanwhile numerous other clubs spend massive amounts via their owners (not through a few thousand extra through the doors every fortnight). It comes down to determination to get where you want to go. Those clubs determined to get to the Premier League will find ways to invest heavily without picking up punishments. Those clubs looking for an excuse to not invest will hide behind these rules when there are clearly loopholes to be exploited.

I'll believe all that when I see it. There'll be a golden handshake before anything reaches Court. That's one thing the League and clubs will agree on - wanting to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public under the scrutiny of a Judge. Before it gets to that stage there'll be a 'settlement' of much less than the rules stipulate. We'll all probably be dead by then at the rate it is going.

QPR have confirmed McClaren as their new manager. https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/steve-mcclaren-named-new-qpr-manager/?utm_source=direct

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44171269 £90 million loss for the year and a wage bill of £112 million? Alright for some! Not a problem for the FFP gurus!

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see Jason Lowe down at Brockhall trying to earn a contract this summer. He's out of Birmingham, I presume he'll still be based in the NW, knows most of the Rovers lads and the manager. As for whether we give him a contract, I'm not a fan, but that's up to Mowbray and on his head be it.

It really does take some getting your head around, when you factor in how much money has come into the club since they arrived. They came in mid-way through the 2010-11 season. Took the club on for an absolute bargain with minimal external debt. Despite best efforts to end our stay in the top league at the first attempt through swinging a wrecking ball at the squad and employing Kean as manager they still benefitted from a further 18 months of Premier League income during which time they also sold Phil Jones for a huge sum, along with a few others (Samba?) for multi-million fees. Despite the dodgy dealings at that time all those coming in amounted to less than fees received. Then they had 4 years worth of parachute money to get through, and as soon as that money dried up embarked on a selling spree during which they received in excess of £30 million through player sales which was way more than any fees going out in the opposite direction on players. Also between 2013 and 2018 the sum total of transfer fees paid out must come to about 3 or 4 million at the very most. Conway, Cairney, Gestede, Evans, Marshall, Steele - maybe a couple of million together at most - Williams, Dack, Samuel - another 1 million on top. Spread over 5 years that is a small outlay on fees for any club in the 2nd division (with the exception of bankrupt Bolton and maybe Ipswich I can't think of another club that has been in the Championship for 4+ of the last 5 or 6 years and spent less on players than that. Yet despite all those sales and despite 2 years of an embargo and minimal spending on players we're still supposedly haemorrhaging money every year. 18 months of Premier League cash, 4 years of parachute money, £50 million+ of player sales, 2 years of an embargo and minimal spending on anything else since then and yet they've lost £250 million? That certainly doesn't add up to me.

So when they fired Gary Bowyer, let Paul Lambert walk away, inexplicably appointed Owen Coyle as manager, sold all our best players and sent us on the way to relegation to the 3rd division, that was 'early days' of their ownership? No, it was between 2015 and 2017, so only last year, and only seems to have ended when they got lucky with the Mowbray appointment. Venkys aren't the victims and lets stop with this belief that all their mistakes were limited to the first couple of years after takeover and were all the result of bad advice. Some of their most disastrous and damaging decisions were made in 2016 which put this club in its worst position in 4 decades.

Too much attention being paid towards budgets. Barely an interview has gone by with the manager or players since the end of the season without comments being made about how much money other clubs are going to have. Wasn't a problem for Warnock at Cardiff, Wilder at Sheffield, Harris at Millwall, Neil at PNE or Smith at Brentford. Didn't get Wednesday, Norwich, Hull or Sunderland very far. If you aren't going to aim for promotion then there's no point in being in the Championship. It is there to be taken by 3 clubs each season. If you don't believe from here on that you can be one of those 3 then you're in the wrong game. Yes it will be tough, yes we will need to strengthen, and yes the priority is to ensure survival, but if you don't aim high you don't succeed. Can't imagine Neil Warnock sitting down with his Cardiff squad last summer and saying he'd be happy to finish in the top half to start off with. He knew what he wanted and how to get it and didn't spend all season talking about money.

I don't agree. I think we should be aiming for promotion and always should be. That isn't to say that mid-table wouldn't be a decent effort and most would be happy with that, but the aim should always be promotion. Don't think for one minute that Chris Wilder or Neil Harris spent the season telling their lads that mid-table was the aim and to be happy with that. They were desperate for a top 6 finish. They still had good seasons but listening to their managers they were going for promotion and were disappointed not to get it.

If the summer goes well and we then reach Xmas in a healthy position then with 6 months remaining on his initial deal it would make sense to think about extending and improving his contract. If the summer doesn't go well or we make a horrific start to the season and we reach Xmas in the bottom 3 then we don't give him a new deal, at least not until safety is secured. You don't give him a bumper new deal now when there's so many plates still spinning. He doesn't know what backing (if any) he'll get this summer or remotely what sort of squad we'll be going into next season with. I presume he'll have had a bonus for promotion so he'll have been rewarded for that success.

The sort of thing that any fit and proper governing body should be going through with a fine toothcomb. There almost certainly won't be a papertrail of evidence as those responsible for it weren't born yesterday but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated. Lots of people saying that there's no evidence of direct wrongdoing on Venkys part, that there was no way of stopping them buying the club, that their money is legitimate and that the 'fit and proper' test cannot prevent them buying a club just because something might not smell right. That is probably all true. Venkys are here, they own the club and I don't think there's much anyone can do about that. But then there's a side issue of those deals taking place and who was responsible for it. The part where the authorities should be concerned is who was behind these deals and how much influence that person or persons exerted over transfers at the club.

Brunei a notorious tax haven. Certainly seems a good place to relocate to if you have a lot of money to squirrel away with minimal intervention from authorities. Hmmm. http://investvine.com/brunei-eu-blacklist-global-tax-havens/

Managers are different to players when it comes to contracts. You don't need to dish out 3,4,5 year deals to keep hold of decent managers and any compensation received for a departing manager is much less than transfer fees demanded for players under contract. Lots of managers in the Championship only operate on 12-24 month deals or rolling contracts. Mowbray has until at least this time next year, no rush to change that as yet. Lets see how things go and then re-assess the situation at Christmas.

People seem to be inclined to credit Venkys for continuing to pay the bills as though they are happily doing this because they are kind and benevolent people. They are meeting their responsibilities as majority shareholders for meeting running costs, the vast majority of which they have increased through their decision making and ineptitude over several years. The alternative to putting that money in is clear. Option one is that they put the club into administration, option two is that they liquidate the club. Either of those means that they lose control of it and either way they will never get remotely close to recouping the money they've lost to date. Its like me buying a house, leaving the property to go to rack and ruin for 5 years, but meeting the mortgage payments, and then going back after 5 years and coughing up some more money to repair it and make it habitable. I'd have little to no choice but to do it and shoulder the cost of doing it. The alternative would be handing the keys back to the bank or being left with a house that was worthless and uninhabitable. What Venkys are doing is basically that but on a much larger scale. Meeting the bills and mortgage costs (which they've little choice about) and then allowing a bit more in when persuaded to do so to try and build up some more value in the club and improve its condition moving forward. I accept that they are putting their money in and it is a substantial amount each month, but I'm not grateful to them for doing it as I don't think they've much choice and I also think the majority of losses even now could be reduced if they had put a more competent structure in place some time ago. For example our revenues are relatively small yet the commercial side of the club has been woefully short of the level required for some time. I'm also not particularly worried about the debt situation that people at other clubs seem to obsess about as they've no chance of getting that money back.

I could see it coming when we sold him that he would come on leaps and bounds and that it would prove to be a foolish decision to let him go so easily. And that is how it has transpired. Plenty of people on here at the time saying it was the right decision to let him go or saying that the money we got was too good to turn down, which was nonsense. The only mugs here are Rovers who allowed such a talent to transfer to a rival club for a low fee.

Promotion missed for Boro after £50 million spend last summer. Not to worry, Steve Gibson is a great bloke so no chance of an embargo.

Source?