22 minutes ago, unsall said:

What do you mean snidely,obviously a top Rovers fan but very negative and if you ask him he’ll probably agree he is,cautious might be a better description ?

Pragmatic ?

11 minutes ago, Biz said:

No club is going to punctuate it’s summer season ticket promotion with “we can’t afford to do much bar sign our better players on bigger contracts and add a couple of loans”

It’s frustrating but not complicated to understand why the word “competetive” was used in interviews with TM/SW. I do think someone at the club thought we might do a bit better in the striking department a couple of months ago.

Still a bit of time yet mind.

I agree with that last part.  I think they expected to do better than they have transfer wise (so far). 

3 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

There are some excellent permenant buys out there. Like Davenport for example who has potential after a great upbringing to improve and earn the club money. 

However, these players are usually limited to all positions EXCEPT forwards, who generally come at a premium. A premium that we cannot currently pay. 

There’s a reason why last season we loaned the likes of Antonsson, Armstrong, Chapman and even Payne. We needed their quality for less money. The situation with Palmer is no different.

I understand about the idea of quality we can't afford and agree to the logic to some extent.  For me though, this comes back to the club being honest about the situation.  As others mentioned, There have been attacking players out there that have gone for reasonable money.  What do you class as 'forwards' as we seem reluctant to buy wingers/strikers. Or anyone that can't play midfield or defence.

Last year (and this close season) we were told there is always the opportunity to pursue these players when the loan finishes (or words to that effect). Effectively, you are saying we could never afford them - in which case those statements are untrue.

Following this point, if the manager/directors claim to be happy with the budget (it's competitive etc) thrn surely that  budget should allow for the purchase of a permanent,  contracted forward as well as any loans? 

You would also think, that whilst attacking players are more expensive to buy, the rewards financially are much greater in terms of resale. The owners will have seen this through Gestede, Rhodes, Cairney and Dack's current value. You told us that Venkys have always been willing to spend.  So surely our model should be to pick up some of these higher value players along the way permanently?  - by this, I don't mean players over £5 million but good value -like Armstrong.  

Ultimately, there is still a lack of transparency at the club.  If we can't afford forwards, just say so.  No need to spin it or cover up what is becoming increasingly obvious.  Likewise you can't say the owners are willing to spend, as clearly there is a (low) limit on that.

7 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

 

But what’s the alternative? Buy lesser talented players? Because we definitely couldn’t afford Kasey Palmers transfer fee...

You can’t have all loans but ones like these are the best we can hope for. I for one have no interest in us signing lesser but permenant players.

On that basis and given how highly you rate Palmer, it's unlikely you will be impressed with any future permanent signing.

Get behind the lads ffs

?

35 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

He’s going to be playing for us this season. So other than resale value, what’s the difference? More importantly, IF we were actually looking to purchase him he would be far too expensive. So isn’t loaning him actually an amazing option? We’re getting the services of someone who’s arguably better than Dack for a fraction of what he’s worth....how can anyone find a negative in that? ??‍♂️

I imagine it's not a cheap option.  Listen, I get the we could never afford him business...but at the end of the day, he isn't ours and he won't be here next year.  Personally, I'd rather we tried to buy some quality permanently.  Call me old fashioned!

16 minutes ago, bob fleming said:

Indeed it would. Very true.

It would also be nice to be owned by a multi billionaire. Archibald? Ardiles? They were on loan.

...and also achieved a little more than Kasey Palmer has to date.  Permanent signings are ours to develop - for good or for ill - traditionally more likely to give a s%%% when the going gets tough.  

Don't get me wrong - the lad could be a great signing for us.  Lets hope he has a fantastic season. 

Then we can reminisce next season about how good he was compared to the next loanee ??

Just now, bob fleming said:

Isn’t he? What have I missed?

I'm sure I don't need to point out the bleedin' obvious Bob.  It would be nice to see a permanent signing of this caliber. 

26 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

We’ve just signed a player who’s probably better than our best player pal - cheer up! 

Except he's not 'our' player.

30 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You keep mentioning McKay, dont you think you should trust Mowbray 

In all seriousness, he would have been a good signing for us, worth a gamble, good stats, but we arent in the same market as Swansea are.

Theyve got parachute payments, they are one of the favourites to go back up, they are about to sell Mawson for 20m, they are about to spend 4m on Celina, yet they are signing City players who havent played senior football and Forest cast offs for pittance. Hardly a club that is desperate to get back.

Sensible signings though that we'd be happy with.  Expect that they will be around the top 4.

5 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Hope the words 'signingS' and 'busy week' imply more (possibly some permanent) business to be done.

One every day this week will suffice.

1 minute ago, MarkBRFC said:

Ryan Grant has just tweeted that nothing else is happening today.

I really don't think the media department understood the "agent Bennett" thing did they?!

Nope

Season long loan!

That it lol

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

They are teasing us now! 

To be fair most signings have tended to be announced nearer to 5pm.  

Wish they'd hurry up though.  On hols and don't want to take my phone to the pool.  Be dark at this rate!!

1 minute ago, Pedro said:

Chris Brown signs 3 year deal. "I've got unfinished business"

Ha you can't catch me out.  You gave him as a permanent signing!

3 minutes ago, schoey said:

I thought it was his twitter picture at the end of the season from what I remember (and was originally from when he was on loan with us), but hopefully I’m wrong! ?

Think that's been there a while tbh. 

1 minute ago, neophox said:

We hope!

For both Neo?

15 minutes ago, AAK said:

Can't see it being anyone who we've spent cash on, they wouldn't be getting Bennett to shoot it if it was, it would be a bit more serious I would have thought.

Has to be one of Chapman or Armstrong or they've got the wrong end of the stick with the agent Benno thing! Armstrong back on loan with an agreed purchase fee would be my guess - plus the Chelsea lad. 

24 minutes ago, HowieFive0 said:

If Chapman was the real deal then surely there would be a host of clubs in for him 

300 mins plus two major injuries ..jury well n truly out .

Young lad who clearly has talent.  Type who can get round the back of teams.  Seemed to integrate well with the rest of the players.  Only going to improve but doubt over an injury and so was likely within our budget.  

Who else do we have on our bench who can change a game?

Gone on to have a good pre season and looks on verge of Boro bench at least.  Missed the boat IMO.  

26 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Not too bizarre, TM let us all know he did not think as highly if Chapman as we do, did.

Then he can't have much of an eye for attacking players.

4 minutes ago, J*B said:

If we finished up with this...

IN
Sam Gallagher (Perm)
Kasey Palmer (loan)
Lucas Nmecha (loan)
Back up CH (Perm) 

OUT
Caddis (free)

Gladwin (loan)
Nuttall (loan)

Would everyone be disappointed? 

Yes, I'd say so.  No winger in there.  Now if you added Chapman or Armstrong  to that list as a permanent then that would be as good as I could have imagined

7 minutes ago, Biz said:

It’s about wording “Mowbray got as many wrong as right”... it’s hard to say Leutwiler (brought in as a backup GK) or Caddis (backup RB) are “wrong” since they came to backup the main squad as cheap options. I agree they aren’t particular “right” either but it’s important to have that scope.

Weve spent actual fees/money on 3 players in the past 12 months and all of them will be of use in 18/19

I get what you're saying and squad fillers are just that however, take Dack out of the permanent signings and overall, they aren't great.  Loan signings on the other hand have on the whole been very successful.  

Devils advocate for a second.  If Mowbray does have a reasonable transfer/wage pot,  perhaps he is being spoiled for choice and is bottling a decision...so opting for loans instead?

Ok, Clutching at straws time now...  Rovers have tweeted:

It’s set to be a busy week in the #Rovers media department, so we’ve recruited a familiar face to lend a helping hand. Let’s get to work, #AgentBenno!

Bennett has been using his AgentBenno tag when asked to get Chapman and Armstrong back on twitter.  

So they must be signing this week...right?  

Followed by the next tweet pushing Season Tickets!

5 minutes ago, JHRover said:

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.

The only logical conclusion is that the money isn't there to bring in good enough players.

12 minutes ago, Biz said:

I disagree.

For a manager who had to totally rebuild the squad in a division below, who had only spent 1.2million and signed 11 permenant signings in 12 months, I think he’s done very well. Add 4 of the 5 loans of (ignoring Harper), Antonsson, Armstrong, Payne and Chapman to Dack, Smallwood, Bell, Samuel, Downing, Nuttall and Leutwiler - that’s a better hit rate since the only real flops are Gladwin, Whittingham and Hart. Two of those we would have said looked decent signings on the face of it.

 

 

Not sure you can add Leutwiler, Samuel, Nuttall and Bell to that list.  Jury is out on those - Samuel poor overall.  The other 3 haven't really featured enough.  Over time they may be a success but not presently.  

Look at it this way.  80 % of his loans were successful...probably because they were a better quality of player than we had.  The standard of player we should be adding permanently upon promotion.