11 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

Yeah, that's right. Brittain was already a club target from a previous window. Puts things into perspective a bit.

Of course, he still has time to get things right. As it stands though, Morton on loan is his only incoming, and that is a move that isn't exactly revolutionary compared to what has been seen in previous windows.

Brittain was a player the recruitment department suggested last summer and in January. Both times rejected by Mowbray.

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

So potentially from 6 to 4 signings will do?

We definitely need 6-7 more signings and I would prefer them all to be permanent signings.  A couple of injuries and the squad is looking very bare.

5 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

Styles…End of the week? Where have you heard this mate? 

A Barnsley friend has said they have agreed a deal with a Championship club and we are the only Championship club who have enquired about him.

So back to transfers.

By the looks of it, Szmodics is likely to be signed today or tomorrow and I keep being told styles will by the end of the week.

Hopefully we can get a CB as well in this week.

One thing that worries me is that we have not been linked with any forwards at all. I would have though with BBD likely to be leaving we would have been linked to one or two by now.

4 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

One question I've got is really how different a setup was it to Mowbray really if we're honest. Very similar.

And I don't mean that as a negative to JDT just that really the way Mowbray set us up wasn't that daft. He wanted Nyambe out, he played Gallagher on the wing and BBD on the left.

It may well evolve over time but it's hardly chalk and cheese. People got fed up with Mowbray but he played a similar game to what we saw today.

So I guess the question is what does JDT need to do to be better than Mowbray as that's what we all want to move onwards and upwards?

We are much improved on set pieces. Our corner taking and free kicks looked like we'd actually practiced routines in training 

8 minutes ago, Galgaterover10 said:

This may be a wild theory but I wonder if JDT thinks he can turn Dack into a genuine number 9 (not false 9). If we are spending that much on someone who plays 10 and is excellent at pressing. Dack is probably the best finisher at the club and JDT made a career at the highest level out of scoring goals without having any standout physical attributes. 

It seems that he thinks he can develop Gallagher and Dack at the moment doesn't fit into the game plan. 

2 minutes ago, TruRover said:

It’s more that it’s not a probalem position for us. I’m more than happy with Dack and Dolan being the competition for the number 10 spot this year.

To spend 2.5m on Szmodics when Bowler is available at roughly the same amount is crazy - because I’m telling you now there’s no way we sign both. 
 

I think it will be £1.5m rising to £2.5m based on appearances etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both signing.

3 minutes ago, West Yorks Rover said:

My biggest worry, starting with tomorrow's game, is the LB position. The QPR manager will target Pickering because

he will know he's probably our main weakness.

I still think Styles will arrive in the next couple of weeks to solve that issue

9 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

STs were still cheap enough for years under these owners, it’s only the past three years that they have increased by eye watering amounts…

Throughout Venky's tenure they have either been kept the same or been increased each season. Prices have never been reduced since Venky's have been here 

8 minutes ago, 47er said:

Get rid of Waggot and appoint someone like Williams.

Have regular dialogue with representative fans.

Have a fans rep on the Board.

Don't let player contracts run out.

Aim to match season ticket sales of our local rivals rather than have an empty Ewood. 13000 cheaper season tickets would bring in more revenue 80000 dear ones and give us a match day atmosphere.

In general be proactive rather than reactive.

Could go on but I'll finish with---don't swallow the idea that things can't be better.

 

In agreement on all of this but ask JW what Madame Venky said about his season ticket policy before he left. They don't like to devalue their product with price reductions.

Sadly I don't think anything changes until Venky's leave and a new owner comes in who understands the fans, attends matches and wants to get involved and improves things.

Till then it will be a death by a 1000 cuts maintaining the status quo and season ticket price rises each season

32 minutes ago, arbitro said:

These slimy, greedy agents you refer to operate in the same way at every club. They are paid to get the best deal for their clients but many other clubs seem to be able to deal with them. If Phillips leaves that will be four players walking away after refusing a new deal and potentially the jewel in our crown doing similar next summer. I can't think of any club that has lost four players in similar circumstances at once. I could accept one of two but four?

Surely fans are in order to question that.

To us fans it's an issue, to Venky's it doesn't matter, they still inject £15-20m a season into the club and seem to be happy for players to leave on a free.

If Venky's have agreed a wage budget and certain maximum levels for player categories in it then there will be no leeway or flexibility with it.

12 minutes ago, Gordon Ottershaw said:

Is there not a case to say that three or four weeks into the season is not the best time to be doing your transfer business?

In an ideal world yes but this summer was always going to be difficult with the new team only just being in place. In reality JDT hasn't seen any of the players in a competitive match yet.

We seem to have a plan of the system JDT wants to play and the additional players needed to make it a success which is better than most seasons. It's just going to take time to get the players in within our budget.

3 minutes ago, Don Said said:

I agree in the sense that our starting 11 is okay & we are unlikely to get loads of injuries in the first month or so.

But whilst a budget is in place, people expect a more proactive approach, and to only sign one player (permanent or loan) a few days before the season starts, after losing the number we have, doesn’t sit too well.

It’s undoubtedly of massive benefit to get key business done early. Got to consider players getting used to the club, the players and staff, tactics, playing their role etc.

People will point out its tough to get business done. But other clubs have been much smarter than us. Boro have added at least 3 or 4 starting players early on and have given them good pre season minutes. They will probably improve their squad further later on as Prem loans become available, whilst other clubs are scrambling for key starters.

There isn’t any real excuse for us to be less on the ball than them.

 

That's the benefit of being proactive and getting rid of the manager early, giving half a season to review the squad and decide what is required.

Our issue is down to how long it took to put the new system in place.

6 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Yeah and I’ll back Glen as a source until I’m blue in the face, but things change. We were in for Styles haggling over a sell on clause according to his info (which is usually spot on) but nothing has happened. 

Barnsley probably want a replacement lined up before they sell Styles.

4 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Last year Burnley got only 3 points from their opening 7 fixtures. They went down with 35 points, just 3 short of safety.  I’d say the first 7 games defined their season.

Its right not to make knee-jerk decisions just to get players in before the start of the season. But with 21 points up for grabs before the window shuts that could easily have a big influence come May.

I'd counter with Nottingham Forest, terrible first 10 games followed by promotion 

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Seems fairly pointless then if as most people have said expenditure on infrastructure is FFP exempt anyway.

So you could theoretically inject money in to buy players for large fees but you wouldn't be able to pay them?

We will have to wait and see on the details but player trading will be classed as turnover. 

We'll need to concentrate on boosting turnover and turning a sponsor down who is offering £1m a season won't be tolerable from next season 

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I take it that if the owners choose to inject £20m p.a. then that £20m qualifies as additional "turnover" for the purposes of any calculation?

Otherwise there wouldn't be much point.

Nope at the moment I believe it excludes the cash injection. The injection is for normal running costs, maintenance and transfers and not for player wages.

2 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Thanks. When you say 75%, is that just players or everybody ? With income around £17m that would imply wages are in the region of £12.75m which is around half of 2 years ago. Have they come down that much ? (Does "wages" include employers NI which is now 15.05% so if included takes out just over 13% of the limit )

Just the players

17 minutes ago, toogs said:

So the Venkys could put actual cash into the club rather than as shares (a loan)?

That would indicate that they really may care about their “baby”.  

It is just accounting of how the money comes in and doesn't really effect things too much.

Cash or Shares are really the same thing in this regard.

3 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Thanks for this. Do you have a link for the detail ?

Is "wages" the bill for all employees at the club, or just the players ? Are any players exempt, eg those under 21 ? Is it monitored in real time and what are the sanctions for failure to comply ? Does turnover include profits/losses on transfers ?

Looking at published accounts the last set of accounts to 2021 showed wages at £25.7m with the last set of accounts for a normal non COVID affected year to 2019 showing turnover of £16.7m which would have meant, with a 90% test, wages of £15m and, with a 70% test ,wages of £11.7m. Even if the owners could put in more money for transfers it's not going to be much help if the club are unable to buy more expensive players if their wages bust the limits.

The actual detail of this is still to be released, I would expect that to be in August/September for it to be made public.

Over the past 2 years the wage budget has been reduced substantially and after the departures I think we are probably now at around 75% and have a wage budget available of around £50k per week possibly more.

18 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks for that. Makes a refreshing change from certain posters citing the wrong set of regulations in support of their view that we can't spend any money.

So what I'm gaining overall from that is that it would give the V's considerably more flexibility IF they decided they wanted to put more money in. Based on current allowable losses only being  £45m(?) over 3 years.

Is that correct?

Edit: Might even be back down to £39m currently now the pandemic is over. 

Yep they can increase to £20m a season without needing to sell the rest of the training ground etc.

The issue will be the wage budget and keeping it under control or substantially increasing turnover in the next couple of years.

31 minutes ago, unsall said:

You’re right, but some on here don’t want to know, like FFP doesn’t exist, it does and even though everyone wants new faces in, including me we just can’t pay wages we can’t afford with our revenue, we have to be smart, get players in but without paying massive wages.

Also we need quality players not just squad men, takes time when we are in our position and even though they are saying it’s a healthy budget we won’t be busting our wage structure, fingers crossed DOF can work some magic.

The agree new EFL rules are slightly different. From next season (not the one starting on Saturday, owners can fund £60m of losses over a 3 year period as long as injected as cash. Wages will be maxed at 90% of turnover reducing by 5% a season over 4 seasons to 70%.

All of the players we have been linked to so far are paid around £5k a week and signing them is comfortable within our wage budget of up to £15k. Our transfer budget does seem to be £9m or thereabouts and we can spend on 4 year deals so long as they don't break the wage budget and there is a logic of pushing through the deal for Styles, Brannagan and Bowler but it is difficult. 

Now in regard to Davis he was affordable for a 12 month loan but difficult for a 4 year deal at our turnover levels. 

With regard to BBD with his 12 month extension and being between 2 new regulations it doesn't make any difference to our FFP regulations if we sell him this summer or he leaves for free next May.

49 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Yeah but in that scenario have to be confident another player can be sold for a significant fee next summer or we won't be able to spend next year.

Like it or lump it FfP is here and if we do healthy business this summer and forget about selling Brererton this summer then going forward we would have to cash in on an asset to continue building going forward 

Remember, FFP changes next summer, so a sale is not necessarily required. 

3 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Shut up.

Brittain, Bowler, Styles and Van Hecke would be ridiculous business (but right in line with the 4/5 quality First XI additions, with the rest of the squad being filled out by Academy players plan) - I'm not allowing myself to think that's possible to happen.

It's a possibility and funds are there to do it.

Although I am told by a friend at Oxford that we have made a bid for Brannagan.

Still no forwards being linked though but it's nice for once to be building from the back with a plan based on what we need for a system to work

4 minutes ago, 47er said:

And Lingard is on £200,000 a week at Forest! Makes the Premier League seem so far away.

I just can't get my head around that amount per week and he's not been that good for 18 months or so.