Nice new spin you're trying to put on it but Evans isn't good enough, whether starting or as back up. And he has the added downside of probably being one of our higher earners. If you're not good enough if doesn't matter if you're playing for nothing, there's no point having you around the Club.

I think this would be a very poor move on our part. I may be in a minority of one but I think Nuttall looks fairly promising and if it's Blackpool in for him we'll only be looking at peanuts anyway So in many ways it's another Raya type situation. Lose Lose. We might let him go for next to nothing and watch him go on to become a very decent player. Samuel on the other hand....... I think we'd be letting the wrong one go.

Whether or nor you are correct with the analogy about the relationship between the respective parties, Sir Matt was at his peak around 60 years ago, and Clough and Taylor 40 - 45 years ago so I wouldn't have thought having the manager's right hand man negotiating transfer deals would be accepted practice these days. When John Williams was here, would you not have thought it extremely strange if say Mark Bowen or Kevin McDonald were responsible for negotiating with potential targets on behalf of Messrs. Hughes and Allardyce? A perhaps more important point I'd make is that Clough and Taylor were both very high profile and almost an equal partnership. Similarly, although I've never heard of Busby's man you mentioned, that wouldn't matter, everyone would be desperate to sign anyway because of Sir Matt. I wouldn't say either Mowbray or Venus carry the same sort of gravitas at all. So whilst if Dalglish in his prime was manager and I was a player and I ended up negotiating with Venus, that wouldn't matter so much as I'd want to overlook any minor issues and would be desperate to play for the manager. As things stand at present I think I'd expect to be talking to either the manager or the Chief Executive to gauge how badly they wanted me. At the end of the day though I don't think anyone gives two hoots who does the transfers as long as the job gets done. It seems to me however over the last 3 windows that something clearly isn't working as 1) We seem to have offers in all summer for our main targets which rarely If ever come off and invariably end up on the B or C list and even then....... 2) We seem to have immense difficulty getting any sort of deal over the line which suggests that either we are not being at all realistic at all about valuations of players and/or their wage demands given the current level of the market, or if a player does have a possible interest in coming we're not selling the Club well enough at that point or are not accomplished enough to overcome any sticking points.

Come on. At what other Club would the first team assistant Coach do the negotiation of transfers? From the horses mouth: TM said he is very much involved with "ALL the negotiating, all the discussions with Clubs to get the right deals and the right numbers". I think Mowbray has made a major faux pas here. He's probably said it to reassure everyone because he thinks Venus is such a great bloke. In reality he's let the cat out of the bag and everyone is thinking "wtf?". Tbh it makes the fact that Mowbray got Waggott his job and the relationship between the "Coventry mafia" of Waggott Mowbray and Venus all the more concerning.

It shouldn't be a difficult thing to organise, Waggott and Mowbray should be able to agree an Annual budget and have complete autonomy within that budget. They should only need to get the green light from India if they need to go over and beyond that. It's what used to be the relationship between John Williams and the Walker Trust. As regards all the negotiation, Waggott should do that, if he can't, why's he in the job?

Now here I completely agree. I think the loan system is abused just us much by the recipient Clubs as it is by the donor Clubs and that they use it as a cheap disposable alternative to investing in and committing to buying and developing their own players. There also are moves afoot to reduce the number of players Clubs can have out on loan. As things currently stand though I don't think it's unreasonable to expect your player to get a minimum amount of game time if you let a lower tier Club borrow them and you're subsidising most of his wage. It's an arrangement that ought to benefit both Clubs.

We have two exceptional young players at the Club in Rothwell and Chapman who don't get any game time already. Signing Sinclair on the back of bringing in Downing would probably ensure they disappeared without trace.

Apologies. Just seen it on the other thread. I am beyond astounded. I think we've got to the bottom of our failings in the transfer market. I always blamed Waggott.

Think we've just discovered why we always seem to put bids in for our main targets which are completely ignored and why we seem practically incapable of getting any deal over the line. Unbelievable, should be a top executive handling that, it's the most important job at the Club other than being the manager. What the **** does Waggott do for his salary then?

Eh? Did you mean Waggott? First time I've heard that mentioned. Does he? It would explain a he'll of a lot

Is he still with that vacuous wannabe reality TV "star"? (I would call her worse but got pulled up by the PC brigade last time I did so)

But we wouldn't be in the market for those players on a permanent basis anyway were they available, we're operating in a different marketplace.

Good for Brereton. I'd install him as first choice up front for the chance he's never had but I'd guess even if he scored 5 today he'd still be relegated to the bench with DG plodding around next Saturday.

I don't agree that it's right that Clubs can hoover up thirty or forty players and make an industry out of it by sending them all out on loan and charging a loan fee whilst at the same time ensuring their direct rivals can't get their hands on the player. In fact I think the Authorities are coming round to the same sort of view. Moves are afoot to limit the number of players Clubs can have out on loan to around seven I think. But that wasn't the original point you made that I replied to so you've changed the goalposts. The point was whether or not it's reasonable to insert a clause in a loan deal requiring a certain amount of game time and I think it is. The Premier League Clubs are letting the lower tier Club borrow a far better player than they could afford to purchase outright, they're subsidising most of the player's wages and in return they need to see the player get game time. And from the loanee Club's point of view, what's the point in signing ANY player if you're not going to play them? And if they do turn unexpectedly turn out to be a dog with fleas you can still opt not to play them, you just take a bit more of a financial hit on the deal just as you would if you signed someone permanently and they flopped. I can't see the problem.

Oh come on, I know it's fashionable to bash the owners for everything that happens but this isn't too difficult a concept. Waggott should be close enough to Mowbray to know his attitude on exactly where any potential incoming would stand. Assuming penalty clauses for limited game time for loanees are not uncommon, that should have been the first question we asked Citeh. If it's likely to be a problem move on immediately. Not spend an endless amount of time on the deal then draw a blank.

I actually completely disagree with the criticism of Premier League Clubs loaning out their youngsters, if anything, even though there will be a sizeable loan fee involved, they're still doing Clubs further down the Leagues a massive favour by lending them their players then subsidising a huge chunk of their wages. For the smaller Club then to leave them out or use the player simply to fill their Bench is the ultimate show of disrespect imo. I think it is only fair to have provisos about game time built in to these type of deals. If you don't like it, go out and sign and buy your own player outright! Im not that bothered if the City lad doesn't come, it's no surprise the deal has floundered, he'd only have been a squad filler in TM's eyes and I'm not sure he's what we needed in any event. I think we'll struggle to get loans from any PL Clubs bearing in mind Mowbray's attitude about incoming players having to dislodge those already here and the way we treated Palmer last season and Barrow in the past. What say though the "Mowbray can do no wrong" brigade who were cock a hoop about the prospect of us signing a guy "who played 36 games in a team that finished in the play offs?" We've now missed out on our 2 main targets in defence Bauer (who we chased unsuccessfully for 12 months) and a young loanee who we subsequently made our new number one target. Cause for concern yet? Or like last season are Waggott and Mowbray simply going to have to go back cap in hand to the owners at the eleventh hour and say "Please Sir (or Madam) can I have some more?" Edit: I see JH Rover beat me to much of the above whilst I was typing!

Mowbray is so transparent now it's painful to listen to or accept. He simply will not bring In players who are massive improvements on the core group he inherited when he took over. He only ever talks about providing "competition" within the squad. Any big money is spent on younger players with possible potential who can be played out of position or left out altogether and simply placed in the category of "one for the future". That way TM keeps the owners partially happy by spending some money which they probably expect of him, keep expectations relatively low which protects his own position, and at the same time his old favourites aren't replaced or affected.

67 (?) goals conceded and the worst defensive record in the League away from home last season suggest otherwise.

Good move, after all it's not like we're short of centre halves or anything ......... Absolute madness. If the budget is that bad that we need to let Wharton go to bring someone else in then we are in trouble because Wharton will be on absolute bobbins relatively speaking. I'm not even sure I wouldn't rather use one of our own youngsters like Wharton and Magloire rather than spend relatively big money on a youngster from Citeh as you can bet your bottom dollar that under TM the default pairing will continue to be Mulgrew and Lenihan and anyone else will just be covering for injury, suspension, or playing in the League Cup. I think Mowbray has completely lost the plot and the season hasn't even started yet.

Don't think those odds are quite right. Sky Bet have us 33/1 to be Champions, 10/1 to be promoted and 11/2 to go down. If I was betting on it (which I'm not) I'd be taking the relegation option.

So if Leicester and Barcelona suddenly decide to loan us Harry Maguire and Lionel Messi at the last minute and pay their wages we'll be fine! All joking apart; you're right, it doesn't sound from that as if we're after any one specific and our transfer policy in general over the last 3 windows has seemed extremely haphazard being a case of winging it and seeing who becomes available rather than chasing specific targets. Or if we do put offers in it has seemed as though we don't offer a realistic amount and have generally ended up missing out on our main targets.

I would imagine he's been given the usual Mowbray speech about not being a guaranteed first team starter and having to dislodge players already here etc Him (and Citeh) might be weighing up their options and wondering whether to send him somewhere he is likely to get more game time.

No, the 14 -15 extra points required to sneak into the bottom end of the play offs wouldn't be out of the question ordinarily, I just don't think it will ever happen under Mowbray, even if (god forbid) he were to stay another 10 years. I'll agree with you about Damien Johnson. Positive move. Other than that, when you say Johnson will be a "big" player for us, on the evidence of the first game it's not clear whether that refers to his weight or his likely impact. Downgrade on Reed imo. Downing like Conway is a complete waste of a squad place and wages imo and will only hinder the likes of Rothwell and Chapman from getting enough game time. Doubt Mowbray will drop the static Danny Graham so Gallagher if he's used at all will provably be sidelined into one of the manager's favoured "wide striker" roles. Ditto Brereton. I personally doubt that the keeper will be any upgrade at all on Raya and I wouldn't mind wagering that the Citeh lad, if he comes in will only be used as squad cover at either RB or CB and wouldn't be a first team starter in "We mustn't upset the first team lads" Tony Mowbray's eyes. So have we improved or regressed? I certainly wouldn't say we're any stronger, about the same at best, and therefore if other teams have strengthened we've gone backwards. Funnily enough I could get behind a starting line up like the one at Bury last night regardless of results initially. It was young, exciting and gives you something to believe in. However unless Mowbray has completely changed his spots I fear we'll bomb with a starting line up extremely similar to the Rangers one.

Well is it any wonder when you make sweeping comments like that when we finished last season in a lowly 15th position and have since had a very poor transfer window thus far in the eyes of most people. You might as well say "Under Mowbray it'll be automatic promotion this season. pip Citeh to the Premier League next season then after that we'll round it off with a trio of Champions League successes". It's about as likely as what you said and it comes across as irritating when you state you apparently expect us to improve by around 30 points next season when nothing has happened to support that scenario!

JFHC. And there in a nutshell is why we will never ever do anything under Mowbray.