It's something he seems to try a lot, probably one of the main reasons that he's played so far on the left. No co-incidence that he hit the post so much last year, with him trying it as often as he does.

Ibe is one of those players who I only know by appearance and reputation, rather than having seen him play a lot. His goal record, apart from a brief loan at Derby a couple of years ago looks pretty dire, it has to be said. Having said that, he obviously must have something about him to get 100+ PL games when he's just turned 24. If it's him, I'd be cautiously excited, especially if it's linked to a permanent deal, although I've no clue how realistic that would be.

Some rumblings (maybe Nixon started, don't know) that Forest are after Freeman on loan. Suggests that he might be available, but then again they might be a slightly more attractive option than Rovers at present seeing as they're potentially going for the top 2.

Believe that he's been coming off the bench, but then again I suppose many of the names suggested have too. He'd be a top signing, but I suspect that it will be a PL youngster, despite the mention that it could be an experienced player. Hope to be wrong obviously, and even if it is a youngster it could feasibly be a Harvey Barnes type instead of a Martin Samuelsen.

That would be amazing, but I seriously doubt it. Surely would have Prem interest?

I'll choose to see the last 20 minutes as us learning how to see how out a game, rather than let it take away from what was a very good opening hour against a decent team. Quick point on Bell, tonight was a microcosm of where he's at with his Rovers career. Most of the game looked like there's a reasonable player in there, but too many times where he is far too loose. Genuinely conflicted about offering a new deal. Anyway, great three points. COYR.

Sharpe very impressed with Davenport by all accounts. Said he controlled the game and PNE had a number of senior players there

I don't see how? It's entirely consistent to believe that players bought in the first few transfer windows a) improved/contributed to the team so we could get promoted and consolidate in the championship and b) have now been shown to be not good enough to challenge for promotion to the top flight. This doesn't mean that it was the wrong decision to get them in them in the first place, just that our ambitions have quickly outgrown their usefulness. It wasn't a given that we'd get promoted (look at Sunderland) nor was it a given that we'd find staying up fairly comfortable (look at every other promoted team over the same period). Signing Dack was wonderful, but there aren't too many players who join a L1 side and find gliding up through the leagues so easy. Sometimes you have to shop at the level you're at, and Smallwood, Samuel, Nuttall, Bell, P. Downing and others made significant contributions in progressing where we are now. TM is now happy to raise our expectations, which I think we all are glad about, so we need significant (not 9 players though!) first team reinforcements. There's no contradiction at all in recognising that setting our sights higher will require improving the squad, and at the same time that our position now of having a young squad sat not far outside the playoffs is a significant improvement on what TM inherited, and for which his recruitment has clearly played a large and positive role. In terms of the wider transfer strategy, totally fair enough that we have more loans than we would like (even if they play a crucial role in being successful at this level) but elsewhere we needed to improve the depth of the squad (see Holtby), and signing players for the future is exactly the way that a club like ours can overcome FFP. Wouldn't disagree that this approach has been hit and miss so far, but our squad value must be miles higher than it was prior to Mowbray's appointment (even notwithstanding that he's spent a few quid). This has turned into a slightly longer and ranting post than it was meant to, and I don't want to make it sound like he hasn't made errors in some of his signings. He obviously has, potentially at least one big one. At the same time when he get's criticised for needing to bring players in so that a team that was in the third tier a season and a half ago can challenge for promotion, it just strikes me as enormously disproportionate and is even in danger of underplaying the progress we've made and continue to make, which is considerable.

Understood. (I was also unfair quoting your post when in reality I was speaking to many posts on the last page or so, don't want to seem like I was digging you out specifically!).

With respect, I think this is way off the mark. Appearances aplenty for the likes of Greer, Feeney, Akpan, Guthrie, Ward and Lowe. All of those would need an injury crisis to get near the squad now. Even the sprinkling of inconsistent talent we had up front weren't actually our players! Harsh to hold the fact that he's not had to sell anyone (yet) against him when we've only just got to the point that we've got anyone who would fetch any money! I can't argue that he's brought in a lot of players, some of them have not been goof signings and that we need significant recruitment to be where we need to be. All I'd say is that: i) some of the suggestions that we need up to 9 new players in addition to the current squad is, I think, completely over the top. We win tonight then we're 3 points off the team currently in 6th. We don't need a new squad. ii) Many of the players brought in were to get us of L1 at the first time of asking, which they did, and to get us up to speed in the Championship. A club like ours shouldn't be satisfied by treading water in the second division, but if we want to shop for players to get us promoted, we're looking for a different standard of player we were 18 months ago. To illustrate, TM got loads of stick on here last year for being to loyal to players who did the job in L1. Now that he wants to push on like we all do, he's being criticised for needing to bring in too many players. He's made mistakes in the transfer market but some of the criticism is just unreasonable in my opinion.

If he is, I'd hate to think what some of the others that we've had over the last 10, even 5 years have been doing!

I wouldn't ever want to sound overly harsh on him seeing how much he was responsible for giving us a much needed lift. I'd put him as one of only two post-Sam managers to be in credit overall (admittedly a shockingly low bar!) and he was very good at identifying good young players. Even so, you're 100% right that we underachieved badly and it looks even worse in retrospect. The goals in that side shows it, but also the careers had by King, Cairney, Duffy and Hanley too. One that doesn't get mentioned as much is O'Connell who is now being linked with some of the biggest clubs in the land. Judge and Dunny were both badly underused too, and a lot of the problems come down to GB not really wanting to leave a straightforward 442 as far as I see it. Grateful for his contribution, but hard not to look at that time as a missed opportunity.

I've missed a handful games since then, but this is absolutely right. Perfect blend at this level between skill, athleticism and grit. I've been surprised by how well they've gone this year, but you could tell then that they were an excellent team.

Me too, but I'd be surprised as well. Armstrong being productive at centre forward, and maybe Dack's injury in a strange sort of way, means that we can possibly see a way of not being as reliant on Graham, but I don't think Mowbray will think that we're there yet (or anything close, disappointingly). There might be a different decision to be made at the end of the year, but keeping Graham at least for one more window should be no-brainier. I hope we keep him next year too, which admittedly will probably be his last.

I think we're firmly in the 'hard to beat at home' category, but I'd want a few more draws converted into wins before we call it a fortress. The fixture list has been strange too in that we've tended to play almost all of the tough teams away first, so we still have most of the big hitters to come at Ewood. Having said that, I can't remember the last time I came away from Ewood thinking we were genuinely outplayed, even if we've picked up some disappointing results. Keep that up and it's definitely an opportunity to have a stronger second half of the season, with some of the lower-hanging fruit away games coming between now and May.

Wells has been recalled, big blow for them.

I still really respect GB for lifting some of the gloom from what was the darkest part of our darkest period, and really felt for him when he was sacked. But having seen what some of the players we had during his tenure have gone on to do, it's difficult not to admit that he is tactically limited. Quite surprised that it's still being exposed at such a low level though. Hope he turns it around, as I still think he did much much more good here than bad.

Was meant to be the next big thing for Scottish football at one point but has definitely gone off the boil since leaving Hibs. Would be wary, personally.

Inclined to agree. In my heart of hearts I don't believe it will be us, but I get confidence looking at the fixtures which look quite kind for us. Brentford away scares me, that aside we can accumulate a lot of points if we're consistently near what we can do.

I agree that investing wisely is vital for any club in this league without parachute payments, and that some of Tony's signings haven't come off. At the same time I think that it's exactly by the strength of some of TM's signings (as well as with academy players) that we are in a position to trade now in a way that is like night and day with the squad he inherited. I'd say we could've got a couple of million for Lenihan, other than that we had a squad full of toxic assets, in financial terms. I know not everyone will agree, but a a couple of points which I think are worth making: Some of the players marked as failures in the original post made some signficant contributions. Would we have got promoted without P. Downing and Samuel? Maybe, maybe not. We're not seeing any profit from Rodwell, but he played a part in winning games for us last year. Every signing is a risk, and it's completely unrealistic to expect every signing a team makes to be a success. Some need to be, Dack needed to be, Tosin needed to be when we didn't bring another centre half in. Arguaby Walton needed to be and he's coming up a bit short, so TM should be the one taking responsibility for it. Sam Hart's wage still contributes towards FFP, but if you get the high ticket stuff right I don't think it's right to use free transfers or players brought in for their potential as evidence that we have been especially profligate when the squad overall is worth more than we paid for it.

Don't know, can see us finishing above at least the Dingles, West Ham and Bournemouth without breaking sweat ?

Stoke's upturn makes it so hard for the three at the bottom. 5 point gap between Barnsley and safety if they see out a win today, and you think that after their dodgy start that Hudds will continue to pick up enough points to get them over the line. Doing us a favour beating Swansea too!

Fair enough on Dack's injury, but my point is that looking at signings one by one, then giving them a yes/no success/failure isn't a misleading and unfair way of looking at how well TM has spent money. If you get the big stuff right, then all the loans and speculative young players who don't make it really don't matter. That's why we remember Sparky for his gems and not his dross, because every mamanger has them. I'm not especially good at judging transfer values these days, but Armstrong is a young, English lightning quick forward who scores and sets up goals. Inconsistent, yes, but it seems to me that 6 million in the modern game is a fairly conservative estimate of what he could go for. Rothwell on this season's form wouldn't fetch as much, but certainly enough to pay for himself and go a long way in covering most of the other small fees on the likes of Bell, Davenport etc.

Some very harsh judgements there for me, plenty of low-risk signings there which have either contributed whilst they were here or still very much have the potential to. Judging Nuttall as not worth his contract when we signed him on a free for the youth team, scored a few goals for us then sold on a profit seems harsh. Some other small investments who were fine, even if they weren't in the plans for the future, like Rodwell or P. Downing. We didn't worry about wasting money on fees and wages for Maceo Rigters, Bruno Berner and Johan Vogel when the profits from Santa-Cruz and Bentley pay for them fifty times over. I don't see why we should worry about the money 'wasted' on the likes of Hart, Lyons, Caddis, P. Downing or Rodwelll when you think about how much the value has increased for Dack, Armstrong and Rothwell. Can't disagree that the Brereton transfer is looking more and more like it might be an expensive error, but there's no doubting that the squad's value has increased enormously since TM took over, and by more than the outlay we've spent on transfer fees. Dack might be doing a bit of the heavy lifting for that, but Armstrong's value will have tripled since we signed him and Rothwell is certainly worth much more than the few hundred grand we paid for him.

Maybe, but in fairness Brad did go bankrupt, and he did basically double his wages to 50k a week if I recall. I think this case is more easily explained by the usual story.