roversfan99

It shouldnt be decided to the owners. Thats the issue. Not about the individuals or even the choice made. And it didnt work out. We could have strengthened, added quality in other positions both short and long term. We could have become better and sustained our push for longer. As it was, we kept an unhappy player who stunk the place out for the rest of the season. We then lost him for free and remained in the Championship. How can people defend that, defend these bastard owners, not even at the time but looking back and seeing how it played out. If it was about ambition, keep him AND provide a few million to help to sustain the promotion push.

As ive said, the players we were linked to are an irrelevance to my point. The manager wasnt backed either through the autonomy of selling to buy or with a reasonable transfer budget. That was the primary reason for the extent of our collapse, obviously Mowbray made choices which played a part but its the main reason. A similar thing (not to the same extent) happened in the following 2 seasons, a thin squad dying for reinforcements ran out of steam and suffered a dip in results in the second half of the season. If you want to defend the owners then thats fine, they clearly DIDNT make the right decision hence an unhappy player left for free after stinking the place out in a season where promotion didnt happen. But it happens at other clubs so its ok.

The above is the perfect example of my point, misinformation, speculation used to discredit him purely out of dislike well beyond what he warrants. At the end of the day, he did deserve criticism for his share of how that season finished and we were all glad to see him go. The Reece James stuff is at best speculation regarding tattoos and music. And Wigan werent in our division when we had Giles.

Again, its beside the point that Mowbray had no interest in pushing on.

So you are just picking and choosing which rumours that suit your narrative. The rumoured names are an irrelevance to the point im making. The owners shouldnt be blocking sales, especially when they are unwilling to provide reasonable funds otherwise to push us forwards. And it clearly didnt work. We lost out on £4m, and subsequently the potential to reinvest in longer term assets who would also have improved the quality and depth of the squad which was small. We were left with an unhappy player who massively declined in form before leaving for free.

He did sign players, we got 7. What he says in the media is obviously done to keep people happy.

I dont know. Jed Wallace and Dembele were the 2 linked but either way, its not about the individuals. The owners shouldnt be deciding on such matters. As it was, it didnt work out. What Reading player? The links were Wallace and Dembele but its besides the point. Why are the owners deciding who to keep and who to sell? Especially when we needed reinforcements and selling someone with 6 months on his deal could have generated funds to sign 2 or 3 players. Plus Rothwell was clearly unhappy and didnt perform to the samr levels afterwards. End result, no promotion, and no assets. If they were so insistent on not selling him to a rival, then provide that money on top of keeping him.

Even if the prophet Nixon says so, we dont know if they agree. But either way, it might be a case of we dont have much money, only loans, will Schlupp do? Rather than is this the player youd want if we had a reasonable budget. Might be a case of best of a bad job. I dont get why versatility is so important. We need a winger that can score goals and has some pace and the ability to take players on and make a different in the final third. Hes more of a steady eddie utility player. If we need left back cover aswell, then sign a second player for that. Dont sign someone who can sort of do both but doesnt really help to solve the issues we have with a lack of quality, pace and goals in the final third. If we sign Schlupp to cover 2 positions and Beck gets injured, Schlupp goes to left back. We then have no new winger. Purely as a winger, do you think Schlupp gives us what we are missing? 1. Its not about Gestede's plan. Its all down to the owners and how much money they should be making available. 2. Im not saying that. The manager should have final say. But then equally, if he turns out to not be what we need, he gets the criticism. I dont think Schlupp is what we need. 3. We have made over £40m in sales in the last few years. There should be £15m easily to spend on new permanent additions (well it should have already been spent) but there wont be. Regarding names, havent a clue. Im not a scout. I think Kent could be a useful pick up though. 3 loans would not be acceptable under any circumstances. We shouldnt be scrambling around like this. There is no desire from the owners to grow the footbal club. And crucially, its not a case of spending x amount and thats lost. You then have assets to profit on in the future.

Thats down to the manager though, he should choose and then if it goes well, great, if not then he gets the blame. I agree that short and long term it made sense to sell a player with 6 months on his deal and get a couple of assets for the longer term. As it was, we got the worsr of both worlds.

Then it still wouldnt be what we need and that would be squarely on the owners for again not reinvesting any money at a time of need.

He wasnt going to say "right, now we are up I can get rid of most of these shit players." He didnt "actively decide not to win the league." We went to Charlton and he made a few changes but if I recall we had a number of injuries. I have never seen before that he turned down Archer. Have you got a link to that? He did turn down a striker on loan (wrongly) but that was rumoured to be Liam Delap who went on to have a couple of terrible loans before a half decent one at Hull last season. He was right to kick up a fuss about not being given the autonomy to sell Rothwell.

I dont think Egan Riley is on loan. Im sure they bought him and initialy loaned him out themselves and his emergence this season seems a bit of a surprise.

If we signed 3 loans then we would have 6 so one would always be unable to be even in the squad. The amount of money we have brought in and barely a slither available to reinvest. We clearly wont make the play offs and our squad will have the numerous sticking plasters ripped off and we will be left with a skeletal squad again come the summer. And with no sellable assets to speak of. You HAVE to reinvest some money. That then gives you assets, you can then potentially sell them in the future, reinvest and so forth. Not here. And even then, people still shrug their shoulders. Even if they claim its gone to running costs, reivesting some will potentially lead to further profits on those players in the future.

I dont think he is. We need a winger or 2 with pace and who can offer a goal threat. Obviously thats not easy on our budget but either way Schlupp is IMO not what we need. He has never scored more than 4 league goals in a season (plus he got 1 in the cup) and due to his age his legs are going. Hes more of a utility man, I always thought he was best as a wing back. He might be a steady eddie as a wide man, working hard but we have lots of them already. We need some more attacking threat. Kent would make more sense. Can be inconsistent, questions about attitude and has not played for a bit so it comes with red flags. But hes quick and takes people on, would be permanent and isnt into his 30s, and he has had seasons where he scored a decent amount of goals as a wide man. Venkys will not invest. Its not Waggott and its not even Suhail. Its Venkys. Just because Eustace endorses a signing doesnt automatically make it what we need. Is Schlupp an attacking player who can score a decent amount of goals, and who is going to take people on? No, hes an aging utility man. And if hes signed partly to cover left back, as and when hes needed there, then we are back to square one. Kent I think could potentially give us what we need. If its Schlupp as well, different story. If not, no to Schlupp.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense. It would have been very much in his best interests from a career and financial point of view to get promoted. The problem is, he was here too long so peoples dislike of him grew to unhealthy levels to the point where they start creating nonsensical theories to try and discredit him further.

If he went up and then got sacked, he would have been paid up on a massively increased contract and had a considerable improvement in reputation at Championship level so would have been given further work easily. Every manager is doing it to line their pockets. But the idea that Mowbray wouldnt want promotion is illogical, financially as much as anything.

Makes zero sense. Promotion would have lined those pockets further with a considerable wage increase and probably a new deal.

Versatility doesnt trump whether I think he would be a good signing.

I know based on your posts that you will struggle to agree but not everything Nixon will post is true. He is a self proclaimed gossip.

Schlupp is not what we need. He is heavily reliant on pace and at 32 that will be waning and he again does not offer a goal threat. Kent I would understand more. Will offer more of an attacking threat.

The wingers cant hold a candle to our prolific one goal a season striker featuring missed tap ins and headers 30 yards out.

It is on them, 100%, if they put money in/back in. End of. All these theories about Waggott and Suhail not asking. Just evasion of where the blame lies. They have been regularly slashing the budget even at times mid transfer window in the last 2 years. So I am not having for one minute that there are potential funds lying there that simply havent been asked for. Even if that was the case, the owners should say here is x amount to spend. Nixon said we wanted McBurnie. After a press conference when it was asked, it was rubbished in the LT.

But its Venkys that he will be giving the benefit of the doubt, or not. His happiness will depend on if he is backed. That is 100% on them, no nonsense about not being asked, if no reasonable budget is forthcoming, then he would be more likely to jump ship, nothing to do with the lapdog messengers.

Nothing says transfer window like getting updates not that Nixon has linked us to someone. But that Nixon is going to link us to someone and we need a build up of anticipation as if someone has actually signed and ready to be announced. He linked us to McBurnie last week or the week before. Turned out to be bollocks.

*Venkys