Jump to content


SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


roversfan99 last won the day on July 21

roversfan99 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

9916 profile views

roversfan99's Achievements

World Cup

World Cup (9/9)



  1. Mowbray repeatedly has mentioned Premier League giants keeping their kids around to cover international players before being loaned out. I am well aware of FFP hence why my desire is not for a mass spending spree, just a permanent replacement for Armstrong at minimal cost (after receiving a significant fee on the back of a considerable wage reduction) and the protection of key assets who can be sold down the line to further improve our ability to meet FFP regulations. Allowing sellable assets to leave for free makes no sense in any way. By the way, hasnt FFP become more flexible post covid? Mowbray has poorly used his budget which is a different argument all together but it is not the managers responsibility to give himself a budget fitting in with FFP. His budget over the last 3 years has been competitive but the Armstrong fee will cover most of the outgoings during that period. Lets hope it is done ASAP because I think we are all bored of it now.
  2. I bet many would still defend it! Also, you mention throwing money in to offset the debt. Essentially that is just them not putting in the correct care and effort into one of their businesses to make it as efficient as possible, hence the avoidably large losses they make.
  3. I may be wrong but I think Pike had the number 40 last season, and was in a matchday squad against Birmingham. Vale has also had a squad number before.
  4. You removed any direct blame based on the random assumption that anything that has gone to ruin, they have merely not been asked, otherwise they would pay. Baseless. In which case, why spend a significant fee on Pickering, and why can Mowbray not be guaranteed even a cheap permanent replacement for Armstrong when he is sold?
  5. I noticed that McBride, Pike, Vale, Garrett and Cirino all didnt get squad numbers. Seemingly not considered as first teamers at the moment.
  6. Surely the fact that they dont care or take the time to stay informed, leaving a trail of incompetence beneath them is more than enough to warrant anger. They dont give a shit and it certainly has a direct effect on all of us. You imply that they never say no, we couldnt possibly know that, numerous funding requests may have been rejected, its impossible to know either way. That being said, this isnt the first sudden turning off of the taps so surely they have cut funding in an aim to get money back.
  7. Mowbray said this in his interview: “It’s a bit of a drip down scenario for us, the clubs we’re talking to, some big clubs in the north west." I hope we stay well away from Branthwaite at Everton. Was shocking.
  8. He doesn't deserve the flak for things that arent his fault or things that are out of his control though, including this car crash of a summer. He also has brought youngsters through. Transfers, tactics, results, yes.
  9. But Mowbray is not in control of his own budget, presumably those extensions fell within his budget. It is down to people above Mowbray to ensure that we dont exceed FFP regulations. The embargo was not his fault nor the change in transfer policy to loaning kids only, something he said today he wasnt aware of at the start of the summer. Like I said, Mowbray shouldnt be the manager and isnt the man to utilise his resources as efficiently as need someone to.
  10. @davulsukur that team I agree with picks itself, perhaps an illogical tactical tweak like Dolan up front aside. A bench of Stergiakis, Carter, Chapman, Buckley, Garrett, Butterworth and McBride? Would that be our weakest bench in recent memory?
  11. Mowbray shouldn't be in a job but how Venkys have not got the wrath for this summer is beyond me. Mowbray is clearly not the man to utilise a limited budget effectively, but being in an embargo for example was a limitation above his head. Being only allowed to sign kids on loan, something the manager wasnt aware of when we released our remaining experience was again not his fault. And allowing players to run down their deals, clearly something Mowbray isnt confortable with is bonkers. FFP is the latest reason for everything, and of course we need to abide by it. But it is counter productive to allow potential sellable assets to run out of contract to avoid FFP regulations! They have no logic and no plan.
  12. Do you think that, on the assumptions based on Mowbrays interview, that Armstrong goes, we sign 5 kids with minimal first team experience on loan and no permanent signings or further experience, that we would stay up? I don't doubt that the manager who I reiterate shouldnt be here has not spent money totally efficiently. But Mowbray specifically said that he is conscious of contracts expiring and assets and clearly isnt comfortable with allowing their deals to expire, how is that specifically his fault that we arent offering them now? Even if it is a money saving tactic, its a senseless one, because selling assets and running at a transfer profit is a great way to stay within the rules. You can say FFP requirements until you are blue in the face but nothing that I have suggested is expecting mass investment, just logic and a constructive plan. We lose so much because of the owners. Had the summer plan been to sell Armstrong, allow a replacement on a permanent deal (either a swap or even a 1-2m signing) with focus on extending current contracts (maybe even sell and replace Rothwell/Nyambe if they dont want to renew, raising further fees) and bringing in 2 or 3 loans and a couple of experienced heads on frees whilst still making a wage saving on the dozen that left, I would have accepted that. Allowing contracts of assets to run down is not something that fits with FFP, a key way to avoid huge losses is selling assets, something Venkys have never mastered. Even when we sold Cairney, Gestede etc, it was when we had to and for minimal fees. I dont get how your reaction to that article is anger towards the manager. Surely the fact that Mowbray is saying that he didnt anticipate relying solely on loans this summer when numerous players were released, and is quite clearly not happy, saying that its not how he wants to work. He shouldnt be here and is not competent for his job, but this summer is all down on Venkys and they will be happy that Mowbray takes the flak even for things that he isnt to blame for. That first paragraph is spot on, there just seems to be a lack of clarity, moving the goalposts, suddenly its a loans only policy which wasnt Mowbrays understanding when the players we let go were released, allowing players to run contracts down when a slight pay rise could lead to a few million in at a later date, its a joke. I am quite open minded on loans, if they are better than what we have then 100% get them in. But only loans and 5 of them is far too many. Also, we do need a permanent replacement for Armstrong as you say. Even if we make a 10m profit overall with a cheap replacement, then hope to polish him up, then repeat the process.
  13. Sounds like there is minimal chance of any replacements for Armstrong or new deals for all of the others whose contract is running down. That is nothing to do with saving money because allowing assets to run their contracts down is not financially wise. Those bastards in India just dont give a shit.
  14. To be fair, his current injury was a broken bone in a game after an international break.
  15. He has been training daily and playing in the friendlies as normal to be fair, he hasnt refused to play. I suppose like anyone with such a huge question mark over their future, it is going to subconsciously play on your mind somewhat, if he refuses to play then that would be different.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.