roversfan99

It is subjective. My opinion is that spending a couple of million when a squad already lacking in numbers and quality after previous negligence loses its best 2 players including its only goalscorer for close to if not £30m doing what we did in the summer is not being backed. We spent such a small amount, and its in spite of a lack of backing that Eustace has got the results that he did. No manager will ever publically criticise the players they have or the players they bring in. And some of them have done well, take Danny Batth. Weve signed a veteran who couldnt get a kick in an injury crisis at an average Championship side. Its been a very good bit of recruitment but part of that is Eustace setting up in a way to protect him and to get the best out of him. But its not a symptom of a manager being backed, its in spite of not being backed.

He also didnt get backed in the summer. We sold by far our best player for £9m on the back of selling a player for a club record fee which also hadnt been reinvested. We signed a dud of a striker for £1m, and then probably a combined £1m on top on a sub keeper, Ohashi and Cantwell. Then a couple of freebie veterans unwanted by other Championship clubs and 3 loans. If thats being backed then I wouldnt like to see what not being backed is. Eustace has done a very good job in spite of not being backed.

Quite a few need a rest. Problem is, the squads nowhere near big enough and we have to wait until the end of the month to see who we can borrow because in spite of sales, we still dont have money. The mighty Plymouth, Oxford and Preston can all spend money to get deals done early.

I think people getting tetchy isnt originated from those comments which could be in any context. Its because we repeatedly have seen this situation play out before.

We need 4 at least now Baker has gone. But its understandable why people dont relax, weve seen this all before. Desperate for funding to improve the squad off the back of sales and owners who wont allow it. Manager regularly shows frustration in the media, doesnt get what he wants and a positive start fizzles out.

You think those players are "too good" for us? A Coventry reserve, an aging ugility man frozen out by his club and an injured League 1 player. Eustace is clearly getting pissed off.

Ive never seen anyone so engrossed by which director of football every team decides to employ.

Even if you plan months in advance and even if the owners have given the initial go ahead, you still have that final approval needed right at the end which clearly is what causes issues. Look at the attempt of signing Batth in 2023, the owners changed their mind last minute and it fell through. Deals failing to get over the line cant be attributed to any individual employee, remember when we tried to sign DJ Campbell and the deal failed to go through and that was long before Waggott and co. We eventually signed him at a later date. But crucially, the main thing is money. Of the deals that have been done, Oxford, Burnley, Plymouth and Preston have all spent 7 figures on players and got them in early. Even though weve made so much in sales, Venkys are not willing to reinvest any so you are forced to rely on loaning players and they are the deals that drag towards the end of the window for every team.

This Morton rumour seems to have gone from a random post to almost a certainty based on nothing.

If anyone is "DM-ing" Nathan Jones for transfer gossip then they should have a look in the mirror at themselves!

So nothing close, we are trying to loan a Coventry sub defender but its in the balance, we want a veteran utility man but unlikely to happen. Exciting.

From where?

Hes been playing in the 7th or 8th tier.

I think he was called Jastin and hasnt really broken through since.

Why would they loan him if he is playing so much and if they were willing, why have we agreed personal terms considering its a loan where it would be a case of how much of his wages each of the 2 clubs would pay.

Its so short sighted. The only real way to reduce losses substantially is through player trading. We are now left with no real assets. With Szmodics, we paid was it £2m and sold for £9m. You can even get away with a dud or two on top of that and youve still made a profit on trading. If you spend money, its not just a case of increasing losses, especially as its amortized over the course of his contract. You are investing in potential assets to actually make money out of transfers.

Ignoring the repeated totally unnecessary patronising undertone. My point was that basically all Championship owners have to pump money in. In fact, football clubs in general, apparently the only Premier League owners not to need to offset losses last year was West Ham due to their government subsidised stadium. All I am saying is that it doesnt warrant credit. And I doubt that the fans of other clubs whose owners do the same even mention it, its just taken as a given. Share capital being raised to offset losses in the accounts to keep the company solvent, you own a football club, thats what you have to do. Theyve only been able to "take a hiatus" from offsetting the losses in the 2024 accounts due to the fortune of having an academy graduate (so not even an asset theyve brought in) who emerged and generated a club record sale as 100% profit. Theyve been clearly intent purely on reducing losses for a number of years. They still are but theyll still have to raise share capital in the 2025 accounts because we wont generate sufficient sales that will offset the losses. We havent spent a fee of over £2m for over 5 years. There hasnt been year after year of pumping in money out of ambition. You havent really disagreed with anything I have said. Im not sure what point you perceive that I have made that is odd.

Venkys clearly are trying their best to avoid having to fund losses. I think in the 2024 accounts we will show a small profit.

Because the owners are both totally detached delaying decisions being made and also have stripped back any reinvestment, its very difficult to get deals done quickly because you are left begging, stealing and borrowing for the scraps at the end of the window. The problem is, we dont only need quality in, we need players not at the end of the window but now. Chuck in rearranged games and our January is so busy, and we have gaps in key areas. Carter will be out until the start of February, Travis will be out until February, Baker has left a hole and Ohashi will be out until the start of February. We are short in all of those positions anyway, we only had 3 centre backs to begin with as McFadzean is not a genuine option in a back 4, we have 2 midfielders including Travis and then Buckley who isnt good enough. And Ohashi is our only striker who is anywhere near Championship standard and hes out. And thats before you consider the lack of pace in the team.

If you own a Championship football club, you will naturally spend more than you bring in. It doesnt deserve any credit, its something you know going into it and its something that if you arent willing to do then you need to sell. Preston recently announced that their owners had to put in an eight figure amount to cover their losses again, its widespread across the league.

For Baker? Doesnt play the same position.

Baker was average but he was sold enough. The type of squad player that is useful as opposed to last season when we had Garrett and Buckley in reserve when Travis and Wharton left. Buckley is a liability. Doesnt work hard, poor attitude, petulant and has far less footballing ability than certainly he thinks he does and even still some fans think. Takes far too long on the ball.

So we need another player now on top of what we already needed. Baker was average but average is a lot better than what Buckley is.

Its not the same as an ill advised attempt at getting extra income in counterproductive ways that will piss people off. I have no idea where you have got 50k from, theres no way we would have been paying close to that. But either way, I dont see what he would gain from kiboshing deals that have already been agreed. The most logical reason is that the owners didnt The Batth deal last summer was mentioned by @islander200. The owners cut the budget mid window and wouldnt allow his wages or the length of contract so the deal fell through.

With the Batth one, that was in the window where they cut the budget and put a freeze on transfers mid window. So I presume it would have been allowed until they moved the goalposts. So your theory is that the owners would allow deals to happen, Waggott and co set them up then for some reason kibosh them afterwards, for what motive I cant fathom. And they also would spend more but simply arent asked.