RevidgeBlue

Or "I'm glad we didn't sign anyone, such and such a young player (who Mowbray then completely ignores) will come on and it'll be like having a new player."

The bit that got me was "We have been close with some signings but they aren't easy". What does he want, a Blue Peter Badge, a pat on the back and for everyone to say "Ah well, never mind Tone you did your best, you gave it a "right good go". If you're after a target then either you land them or you fail. It's no good trying to elicit sympathy because people "nearly" signed!

If he did I can't see the problem. Who could object to him saying we're constantly looking to improve in every area of the pitch? It's then up to them to prove they're worthy of keeping their place and proving the manager wrong.

Same old **** different day. Does he not sound more and more out of his depth at this level with every word he utters? Look at the end of the article where he kills it stone dead yet again. "We do need some defensive options to come in and compete with the players we've got." No we don't, we don't need players who are no better than what we've got padding out the squad. We do need players who are better than the one's we've got who will come in and go straight into the team and improve it. But that has been the case all over the pitch for the last 3 windows and it hasn't happened so no reason to suspect it will start happening now.

Touchy. I have my opinion, you have yours , neither particularly carries any more weight than the next person but you like to dress yours up as being more important because you crack on that you have some sort of inside track at the Club. At least I'm here all the year round giving my opinion or "whinging" as you put it . You only pop up every transfer window and I'm increasingly convinced you're a Club plant placed to try and convince everyone that every move the Club makes is a masterstroke. No doubt you'll be back in January to try and convince everyone the market in that window is over-priced and we don't need to bring anyone in. Until then I shall console myself with the thought that as you are now reduced to hurling cheap insults you've lost the substantive argument. Toodlepip. See you in January.

Ah, wondered why I could never do it, the option shows up on a laptop but not on my mobile phone seemingly.

Is there any actual evidence we have drastically changed our style of play or is Sharpe reading too much into the fact that we've given everyone a run out in pre season for fitness purposes? 2 +2 = 5?

Venus couldn't work out the Croatian for "You'll only be coming in as a squad player son, you'll have to dislodge those already here if you want a first team place." He's desperately working through Google Translate now to see if the German equivalent is any easier.

Gone pretty quiet on the other keeper front. Is that it then, gone from promising young keeper who is our player with not enough competition to promising young keeper who isn't our player with not enough competition? Way to go. ?

Can't make his mind up anyway. One minute he's telling us how highly the Club rate the likes of Buckley and Butterworth and are anxious to promote them, the next news he's telling us how blessed we are to have Evans as back up which if it were to be the case would block the progression of the youngsters stone dead.

? Apart from that..........

I understand that's what you think but in my opinion you're wrong. Having the likes of Jason Lowe who you refer to around the Club was of no real benefit whether starting or as back up and it's the same with Evans.

It's not a must win game in the sense we need the points to stay up but it's a home game so I would say nothing less than 3 points is acceptable. We have to get out of this Gary Bowyer type mindset that draws at home or mediocre results are acceptable. Sadly I think the rest of your post is spot on. We'll start with " the Rangers line up", stink the place out and labour to an uninspiring draw brightened up only by a better spell towards the end when some youngsters are chucked on to try and rescue the game.

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.