roversfan99

Versatility is useful but I feel like its going to be instead of getting 2 players for 2 different positions, we need a winger and left back cover, you cant just sign 1 player to cover both because if hes needed at left back we are then left short out wide again. I just dont think hes the type of player we need, more of a utility man than someone to make a real difference in attack. He also wont be match fit so he will need some time to get up to speed if the argument for him is that he can slot straight in.

Notice given as you touch on is much better than it has been but that doesnt offset the fact that so many games are moved in the first place. Public transport wont change and also issues are caused with work etc if the game is moved to Friday night. So I agree that people will potentially reconsider going. I think the most ridiculous element is having so many games at the same time at Saturday dinner time. Theres no need to have 6 or 7 games across 3 leagues at the same time. Who genuinely is going to watch say Plymouth v Stoke, Exeter v Lincoln or Accy Stanley v Bradford as a neutral to the point where it justifies the inconvenience to the fans of those sides.

Agreed. If you loan someone from this country, Schlupp is an example of this. Even though they may not need to settle in terms of being in the country, they are going to take time to get up to speed as they likely wont have played much football lately. The 2 ways to open up the range of potential signings are obviously to have more money which presumably again wont be the case, or to at least consider options outside of the box, potentially from abroad. Although we do need cover defensively, the main area we need to strengthen is in attack and I dont think experience is a primary necessity. If anything, we need energy and pace.

If Schlupp, Kent and Hanley are genuine targets, are they likely to hit the ground running? None of them have played much football recently. I think Hanley has also recently had injury issues. If we have more money, we stand a better chance of getting better players. Im not saying focus on signing players for the future, it was just a side point that years of budget cutting and no reinvestment has left us sorely lacking in assets. I have no idea if Eustace specifically endorses any signings we go on to make, no one knows. Obviously he should and he probably will. But I also anticipate that the choices put before him will be a very limited one due to a lack of budget, so it might have a feeling of best of a bad bunch. Say we sign Schlupp for example, that might be the option Eustace chooses from a list put before him of other potential loans. But if we had 2 or 3 million to spend on that position, that would open up a far bigger range of options and potentially change the choice he would make. I dont think we are currently lacking much in terms of experience, we have brought quite a lot in already. What we sorely lack is pace and goals. I think if Eustace/Gestede was backed rather than just forced to scrape for loans then we would stand a much better chance of bringing in quality, with the added bonus of bringing in players who could potentially benefit us longer term.

Id likely take him but I dont see Eustace being backed which is why I said it will never happen. It will be pick from this list of loanees and hasbeens.

There are often players with 6 months left on their deal that can be picked up cheaper than normal.

Sellable assets doesnt mean young lads who arent ready. Its bringing in higher quality than what is available fishing around to borrow players which isnt backing him.

Hes probably our most valuable player, and im not sure hes that valuable. Currently recovering from a second serious injury, and not young or of sufficient quality to have Premier League interest.

Its good to have experience but we have absolutely no sellable assets or players who down the line we can polish up and sell on should we choose. Problem is, they cost money, and absolutely none is being made available despite all of the sales we have made. We need to have players like that because our squad is full of plasters and they get ripped off in the short term.

I never said they shouldnt give Eustace what he wants. They should, it should be a case of heres your budget, Eustace and associated footballing staff, use it how you choose. Sell and buy if you want. But backing him equates to giving him a decent budget to sign players. Being linked to players is not backing. But assuming we do sign a couple of loanees that he has chosen from a list. That still isnt backing him, thats allowing him to select from a very limited list because he hasnt been properly backed.

Its not about how it affects me or any one individual. And notice doesnt change public transport etc. How many times.

Eustace being backed would be the actual signing of players with a decent fee involved. Backing is not being linked to a couple of old players on loan by a journalist hack. Again, the burden of proof isnt on me. But it reads like a load of all shit to me. Just like the owners never refuse to sign a cheque, teams are sniffing around £10m Buckley and Rothwell's dad telling people on a train that Mowbray had hatched a plan to get all of the players whose contracts were expiring to all wait and sign for his next club. Feel free to believe it. Either way, point is that it is purely down to the owners as to how much money is made available. Thats the top and bottom of it. So compared to the Rothwell situation, we will actually get a fee for Dolan and he might want to stay more. Meaning that comparatively speaking, it made even less sense to keep Rothwell. It turned out to be the wrong one because Rothwell couldnt be arsed with the rest of the season, left on a free and those players we could have had with the money we would have got never arrived. Self explanatory. And we ended up in the Championship. What if Balaji Rao started telling Eustace to play certain players or that he wanted him to sign a specific player? Or that we are selling someone. Im guessing that would be ok if they felt it was right for the club. Nonsense. Give the football people the budget, let them make the footballing decisions. Simple as that. Dont need a long and laborious explanation.

The Preston game has again been moved to a stupid time to allow a presumably small number of neutrals to watch it. Earlier in the season we had one where only 1 running train allowed fans to get there before kick off. You always see these stupids comments about people not atending games. As if every fan should be equally willing to prioritise Rovers over every other potential source of enjoyment in their life regardless of cost.

Selling a centre back who has been outstanding this season in an area of no depth would be something else rather than bold.

This morning has been full of nonsensical theories and supposed ITK stuff that makes your stuff on our lack of budget just being down to Waggott not asking for it seem pretty tame. They are the ones who send whatever budget we have over, end of story.

Its not about the individuals in question. Thats the main point. You let the footballing people (manager and if you have one a director of football) make the decisions and the owners job is to provide the budget. They are better placed to make those decisions. If you dont trust them, get rid. If you do and their decisions are wrong, you get rid. The decision turned out to be the wrong one. It was compounded because if you go with the approach of keeping Rothwell, you provide reasonable funds without having to sell him. They didnt do that either. So we couldnt really strengthen, as we couldnt in the subsequent 2 winter windows, and each time our results dipped.

He backed the owners so he had the quite opposite reaction regarding Rothwell. At least now Mowbray has gone and like with Tomasson he went from agreeing with them to suddenly blaming them for many things. I suspect he would back Eustace if the Dolan scenario happened. Until Eustace left when he would look back and decide to point the finger. Hes linked us a few times to him I think in recent years and it didnt happen.

I cant believe that all of that has just been taken as fact.

Waggott and Pasha have both been here for ages, including when Mowbray was here. Makes no sense. And doesnt benefit them, why would they do that? Venkys have in the past couple of years in particular started slashing the budget beyond reasonable levels. Theyve become embroiled in self inflicted legal disputes and their interest seems to wane further every year.

What does "it says everything about him" even mean in this context? Due to your dislike of him going well beyond unhealthy levels, you often suggest things about his integrity beyond his competence as a football manager. Im guessing this is similar but im struggling to work out the logic. Selling Rothwell for a fee as opposed to letting him go for free and signing a couple of players on long contracts with the money would have not only potentially benefitted the team for the rest of the season (a wantaway player who then went on to play poorly and a couple of new signings to help to strengthen a shallow squad) but also whoever was to take over after him, leaving him with a couple of extra players to build around. We needed some reasonable money to strengthen. Not only did they not provide it, but they wouldnt even allow him to trade to generate the funds we neeeed. We then had similarly a lack of budget in the following 2 winter windows. In all 3 seasons our form dipped as our small squad caught up on us. Youve even started suggesting that the blame lies with Waggott for not asking in an attempt to again not blame the owners.

100%. If they get it wrong they fall on their sword.

Middlesbrough come in for Dolan in this window, offering £3-4m. Eustace wants to sell and buy a couple of players, knowing he has a minimal budget otherwise, bur the owners refuse. Dolan stays, we arent selling him to a rival, he will leave for free in the summer instead. Eustace then admits to the media that he is annoyed that he wasnt allowed to do it. Would you agree with the owners and think that Eustace is wrong?

If we play Garrett and O'Riordan, 2 players who clearly arent up to Championship standard as the former has already shown and as both failing to get game time in League 1 highlights. We block them from getting a loan in the second half of the season.

The Portsmouth game being a few days after makes this selection a bit harder. I always favour going for it in the cup and can never get my head around people who say they dont care about cup games. Our play off push is unlikely to be maintained but a win could also help to boost confidence after a very poor run of form. That being said, a small squad and a game so soon after mean that 2 or 3 definitely need resting. Tronstad is the obvious one, the centre backs need a rest and we need to protect Beck. The problem is, we lack depth in a number of areas. Buckley is crap, McFadzean is our only centre back cover and he will struggle in a back 4 so we will have to play at least 1 of the main centre backs and in other areas we dont have any good cover. We also know that signings wont be here in time. Toth JRC Hyam McFadzean Brittain Buckley Baker Hedges Weimann Dolan Leonard Beck, Pears, Batth, Tronstad, ACD and Cantwell can all come back to start v Pompey.

Even at his peak, Schlupp was more of a utility man than the type of winger that we are crying out for. One that will offer us a goal threat and provide some individuality. We would (if it happens, which is up in the air) be getting a jack of all trades who will do his hard work but wont add many goals, will only be here temporarily and will be on a physical decline.