Have we even done our usual and "expressed an interest?"

Embarrassing isn't it.

I would treat that latest excuse with a pinch of salt tbh, it's difficult to believe that we only became aware of any potential third party ownership issues more or less on the day of the alleged deal and if the player came from a Country where third party ownership is legal you'd have thought it would have been one of the first things we'd have checked from the off like how much would the player cost and what would be his wage demands. If we checked and were lied to, fair enough. If it didn't occur to us to check, yet more incompetence on our part. Two innovative new excuses to add to the list of reasons for deals falling through though "Third party ownership issues we only found out about as he was about to board the plane". "I need one in to convince the others of our intentions" Keep 'em coming Tony! At least someone in the creative department is earning their corn even if no-one in the recruitment department is.

Ought to be a big player for us this season, "lad".

So that's the best the much vaunted recruitment could come up with is it? A guy who was with us last season anyway who's also had a bad injury and may not be the same? Wonder how they managed to unearth that hidden gem? Sounds like it won't happen anyway and it'll be the usual "Club X came in for him at the last minute and how could we compete with that?" We (and the owners) being taken for absolute mugs by Waggott Mowbray and Venus. They talk about basic stuff which should be second nature anyway like signing players from Europe and (too late) about getting our better players tied down on long term deals as if it's some earth shattering new concept which only we have thought of.

There's always a first time. (You would think)

It's way too late to be only just waking up to that realisation now, should have been done and dusted at least 12 months ago. What does Waggott actually do all day?

It's a lot more than two though isn't it.

Why would he want to sign?

Brereton's £7m fee is presumably included in the 2018/19 "purchases" figure. The "cash out" figure presumably includes the first installment for him. Gallagher's total fee is presumably recorded in the purchases column for 2019/20 which we dont yet have. The first installment for him and a further installment for BB would presumably appear in the cash out column for 2019/20.

Thanks for sharing. I didn't quite understand your explanation of the difference between "Purchases and Cash out" but I assume purchases are the total headline amounts for any transfer deals completed during that season and cash out comprises of money actually paid out in installments for deals both those made in that season and in previous seasons. To my untrained eye it looks like we've made a surplus on player trading of around £10m during that 7 year period but without wanting to sound like a PR guy for the owners I think you probably have to read that in the context of trading losses of well over £100 m during the same period plus, presumably, another substantial deficit for last season 2019/20.

I take the opposite viewpoint. The latest u turn and capitulation from the Government on this is far from surprising but where is the income going to come from now? Even more reason why ST'S should have been on sale with a no refund caveat so that anyone who wished to help out a bit could have done. Instead, we couldn't be bothered.

I thought Bowyer was pretty well backed. He brought in umpteen players. It looks to me that if you make a bit of effort with the owners and go over to India to see them and get your feet under the table they'll back you to the hilt. Mowbray has done the same and he's been very well backed imo. The money he's wasted has been obscene yet he never seems to be under any pressure for it or asked to sell any players to compensate. (So far)

I actually agree with you that the owners do appear to make transfer funds available on request. I don't however agree that it is "weirdly honourable" that TM and SW won't overspend. T'M's only job is to secure promotion. Nothing else. He shouldn't be concerning himself with saving the owners money or reining them in, on the contrary he should be the one telling them what is needed to achieve the goal. Waggott's role should be to support the manager as far as humanly possible and find ways of stretching the budget or making a convincing case out to the owners to make promotion a realistic possibility. Unfortunately it comes across as neither can be remotely arsed and both would much rather keep expectations to a bare minimum and plod along in lower to mid Champuinship with no pressure until retirement.

To be fair, most people, myself included, thought Lambert was a remarkably good appointment at the time. It was only subsequently he turned out to be (imo) a fraud. That said no-one in their right minds should have been letting him come on the basis he could write in a get out clause after 6 months. It should have been "either you're in it for the long haul or on yer bike". Even then it might have worked had Lambert proved to be anywhere near as good as his reputation. I don't suppose anyone would have minded that much had he got us up via the play offs then walked out. The problem was that with the benefit of hindsight it turned out to be another terrible appoointment but it looked promising at the time. Good back up staff as well, Irvine and Kelly.

We could do with someone at the LT to develop a backbone and instead of lapping up the rubbish spouted by Waggott and Mowbray without question, ask Mowbray why, if as Waggott says the owners are prepared to go the extra mile for special cases, we are STILL missing out on all our targets. Judging by the last 2 windows when funds were made available for BB and SG there's nothing to suggest the owners won't dip their hands in their pockets if asked so that would indicate our so called attempts at recruitment are even more pointless and wide of the mark than they would otherwise seem. We might as well have been after Bale at LB and Messi on loan to add width offering to pay Barcelona 1% of his supposed £2m p.w. wages for all the good it's done us so far. I've never known us be so incapable of signing players even in the bad old days when we genuinely had no money and had to send off unsigned cheques for the leccy to buy a few days. Other Clubs throughout the Leagues with far lesser budgets than us don't seem to have too much of a problem identifying and bringing in targets they think can improve them within their means. It seems to be a thing peculiar to us that the art of recruitment is a bewildering and mystical thing beyond our capability.

No, makes no sense whatsoever. It would explain the Brereton signing though, owners getting itchy feet about no signings towards the end of that window as well, so make the extra transfer money available but the only way we can sign a £7m player and fit him into our wage structure is to sign a 19 year old.

That for me is the crux of the matter. It surely is a matter of one phone call to the player's agent to ascertain their approximate demands yet we make it sound like it's rocket science. It is surely then a relatively simple matter to assess whether or not there's a bit of leeway for negotiation and whether or not it's worth spending time and effort pursuing the player. Our tactic seems to be offer a fraction of what the player or selling Club want, hope they miraculously and for no good reason cave in at the last minute then act all surprised and hurt when someone comes in offering the actual asking price.

Stop calling everyone "lad". Unless you're about 90.

I accept he might not quite be able to command £35 or £40k p.w. again elsewhere but the fact he's a free agent would tend to drive his wage up rather than down.

Brave words, we might not be far off, hope those words come back to haunt you!

I heard Downing was on 15k p.w. Add in a saving of £2.5p.w. for Mulgrew and then factor into the equation that Graham's gone who must have been on around £15 k as well plus Samuel and that ought to leave quite a bit of wiggle room on wages. Or so you'd have thought.

Has Mulgrew to Fleetwood gone through? Even if it does any wage saving is likely to be negligible in footballing terms.

Rovers: "How much do you want?" Player: "£20k p.w." Rovers: "Will you take £10k?" Player: "See you later " Rovers leak "interest" in said player to press then weeks later when player joins another Club leak another story to the press about how we narrowly missed out on said target due to surprise last minute interest from another Club. Job done.

A lot of us have said half tongue in cheek that we put offers in for players and show a bit of interest just to make it look like we're doing something but the alleged interest in Ayala particularly baffles me, if he was on 40k p.w. at Boro and they offloaded him because of his demands then I could have told you there was next to no chance of that happening without even knowing what he was on. Obviously if we are going to operate to a strict budget he is way out of our price range and that could have been ascertained with one phone call to his agent. Why waste our time and his getting him in to train and then disappoint him with a derisory offer he's never going to accept? All that said though the equation for bringing in a player like Ayala with no resale value is a pretty similar one to bringing in expensive players on loan every twelve months. If they're good enough to get you promotion then it's a gamble worth taking, if not it's money down the pan. Bringing in a Tosin every year for a £1m loan fee and a £15k p.w. contribution towards his wages is the same as bringing in a player for the same period on £35 k p.w. but with the permanent player you have the continuity of not having to rebuild every 12 months. On the flip side you aren't lumbered with an expensive ageing player if their legs suddenly go like Mulgrew and Graham.