RevidgeBlue

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.

Waggott's talking completely out of his backside anyway. In one breath he says that we won't budge on wages etc. in the next he completely contradicts that by saying they can always go to the owners in a special case. You'd think the article was a spoof if you didn't know any different - "we've doubled the amount spent on recruitment" - whoopy doo - shame we can't afford to bring anyone in though - at least a team have been given employment looking at players - and "everyone's looking at what we do". Why, so they can start failing to bring players in as well? I'm genuinely starting to think that after this and the cringeworthy ST statement Waggott isn't very bright at all. He obviously doesn't realise how everything he says fails to match up with reality and how ridiculous he sounds.

So Raya's good enough for Arsenal but not good enough for Tony. Strange one that......... Should have been sacked for flogging Raya on the cheap and replacing him with Walton alone. Never mind squandering 12m on BB and Gallagher, or paying our top paid player not to play for us for 2 seasons or paying Smallwood and Hart for 12 months not to play for us then giving them another month or giving Gladwin an extra deal as an act of Charity while he recuperated. And people blame the owners for the fact we're short of money!

More shame on the Telegraph if they're trying to spin the line that was the plan all along.

Yet more sob stories about missed targets today I see. Only another month to go and Mowbray can drop the pretence. No way would that lad from United be starting ahead of Corry and Bradley in Tony World. It would be a complete waste of everyone's time and our money.

Never found it more difficult to assess our prospects going into a season. I think a lot still hinges on whether we can make a few astute additions before the end of the window and there being no late major departures. The other variables are whether Mowbray is here all season and on the assumption he is, whether he gives the youngsters a proper crack or does his usual and plays it safe by shoe horning in senior players out of position. Best case scenario if Mowbray is replaced with a better manager and the youngsters are given their head - 10th with a view to future improvement. Worst case scenario and it's same old same old 20th to 24th.

Because, if the Club were upfront about it and put ST's on sale on the clear understanding that if they were unable to deliver full attendance due to Government restrictions there would be no refunds, I and many others might have bought one regardless to help out at a difficult time in the form of a quasi donation. We would also have had the advantage of knowing that by by acting now, if numbers were severely restricted, we'd be more likely to get in when allowed. Those that would prefer to know exactly what they were getting before purchasing should also have that option at any point but on the understanding that it's first come first served and all availability might be gone by that time. I really can't see the issue.

Hardly any headline fees are payable up front these days, they're all spread over the life of the contract. The only exception might be if a particularly rich Club paid all or most of a fee up front to keep a top player out of the clutches of rivals. It's therefore no excuse to a duff transfer to say that the full fee doesn't have to be paid in year one, after allowing for any unmet add ons, it all has to be paid eventually!

I'm happy to believe what everyone says about the contract, I just fail to see how it would be enforceable in practice if he decided he wanted to leave.

You're still talking nonsense in an attempt to make it sound like possibly recouping £120k on a player we'll end up shelling out the thick end of £2m for over 2 seasons not to play for us is some kind of result or clever management. No-one ever suggested £120k was not a lot of money in the real world, that wasn't even part of the discussion. On balance I'd send Mulgrew out on loan as well but I don't think the relatively small saving (in footballing terms) is that much of an advantage as opposed to having him available if needed. I think you're just as usual taking Mowbray's side and agreeing with him whatever he decides to do. Taken as a whole the Mulgrew saga has been a disaster for the Club irrespective of whether he goes out on loan to Fleetwood. I also have little doubt that if tomorrow TM brought in a CB or LB the same age as Mulgrew cheap cover on a one year deal on 2.5 k p.w. , you'd be hailing it as a masterstroke!

He won't be changed I agree but as soon as we come up again anyone half decent he's found lacking I'm.

I thought it was fairly widely accepted that after we lost the opening home game of last season, (for which as you say CM was not only selected but captain) Mowbray blamed the defence in the press which Mulgrew took exception to and this culminated in them having a stand up row at Brockhall in front of everyone on the last morning of the transfer window. By the afternoon he'd been shipped off on loan to Wigan with us no doubt paying most of his wage and relations between the two obviously haven't improved since.