I dont get why Hull (established Championship club with a good core of quality) need experience yet Rotherham (historical yo-yo club) should be taking a risk on someone young.

Rothwell was the only player in Mowbrays reign - I have been pretty consistent in saying that it is not an issue just in Mowbray's tenure, it is a Venkys thing. Ties in to my point that once Mowbray says anything, regardless of accuracy it causes rage and an inability for some to stop then going into an in depth analysis of why he shouldn't be here anymore The pandemic isn't an excuse it's a fact - I never really argued otherwise. It can be a valid excuse AND a somewhat justification for that lack of backing that I have mentioned You don't give your players away - Venkys seemingly did not have any interest in negotiating, in which case I would imagine we could have got higher than 10 million euros. But is 10 million euros giving him away, or is it indeed a considerable chunk of money for a Championship club bemoaning FFP, and well in excess of what we spent? Again this summer money was spent - The first summer in 3, but yes, again you clearly have not read my posts in which I have repeatedly stated that it isn't the amount of spending that necessarily frustrates me, its the lack of underlying, consistent plan.

Still a lot for a player who didn't make the 18 when we had players back.

You are so keen to defend the owners at the moment for some reason, I have repeated that my main criticisms are not necessarily the money spent but the underlying inefficiencies in how it is spent and how it doesn't conform to a plan. I never said that there wasn't a reason mid-pandemic not to splash big money but equally there wasn't backing at that time. There might be a reason for it if we take the pandemic as a reason, but that still doesn't defy the idea that there wasn't backing at that time. Same with last summer, again even if you take FFP as the reason despite any mention of it in public and I do not want to waste time having that debate, so lets assume the reason last summer was FFP. Again, there was no backing. You could perhaps constructively argue that there was no backing in either summer for valid reasons, but there was still no backing. FFP is the constant excuse, but the owners have shown total disregard towards trying to be as efficient as possible within FFP rules in the last 6-12 months anyway. Because Mowbray has said it, again people jump to the defence of the owners presumably so that they can get angry at Mowbray again. I have always championed a system of profiting on assets when you can cash in on them and reinvesting part of that, its the best way a club like ours can sustainably flourish, we NEVER have shown signs of doing it because it is undermined by the owners regardless of each new member of staff coming in and comparing us to Brentford when quite clearly the owners have no interest in a similar model. Jack's Walker's ownership was before my time and it was a totally different era. And the example you give is of a choice that was detrimental.

The problem with going 3 at the back on the assumption that no 2 man pairing isn't good enough is that you are just playing an extra player in an area that you are weak in, and adding an extra player who is likely prone to make a big mistake. It also affects the attacking balance of the team leaving us naturally more prone to sitting in to begin with. Maguire and Dier shouldn't be taken to Qatar.

You can choose to do a thorough post mortem over years worth of tactics, ultimately I am not really interested. But either way, I wanted Mowbray out too, for longer than you. My points were more about the crazy reactions any time he speaks, but mainly as to Venkys who sadly remain. He never said that he had money to spend in January. He did say that he could sign a striker in January and didn't, but he specifically said a young striker on loan from the Premier League. There hasn't been backing in every window either, that is bullshit and has nothing to do with defending Mowbray, to whom I refer you to paragraph 2. They didn't back the manager last summer, when none of the money was allowed to be reinvested. Cry foul of FFP all you like, the speculated reason for the lack of spending doesn't make it any less of a valid point even if it is true, but you can't then go on to still defend examples of turning money down for assets running their contracts down. They didn't back the manager in January, when we spent £700k, I don't want you to go off on a tangent about how a loanee was wasted, I know, I agree, but again I am separating this from Mowbray. The season before, we didn't spend anything really, and the season before that, we did buy Gallagher but he sacrificed Raya to fund most of that. There is a big expectation over the academy plugging gaps too. So what he said about the owners and the implications about their ambition or lack of tallies up. He made a valid point even if he is probably doing it to try and save face and it doesn't change that I am glad that he has gone.

Very much in the honeymoon period, whereby he won't even consider tangible evidence of anything but perfection within the club.

They were all reported as muscular injuries.

Like it or lump it is not a valid point, obviously neither of us can impact anything but my opinion is that allowing assets to run their contracts down and chucking £12m+ plus down the drain by overruling the manager is not an efficient way to run a football club and removes the validity of the FFP line that is constantly used. It also undermines the supposed journey idea to think so short term. You say that they didnt trust him which is a baseless theory but in such a case, anything other than sacking him once that trust is lost is typically idiotic. Until the owners stop overruling decisions then no matter how proactive the employees below are, there will be cases when players get to the final year of their deal at which point a sale has to be made. The whole point of becoming even slightly more sustainable is to buy assets, profit, pocket some, reinvest some and continue, thats how you do a "journey" and Venkys have totally failed since day 1.

The ticket prices have absolutely nothing to do with it. Our higher ticket prices dont necessarily lead to more revenue because quantity goes down as a result. My issue with Venkys has never primarily been about how much. Its about them overruling and having an all or nothing policy, hence why we will never be efficient under them. I wont swallow the FFP excuses when the owners have demonstrated more than once a lack of willingess to stick to a plan and a short term mentality.

He could have loaned one who would now be no longer at the club and I have said as much in the past. It has no relevance though to my point about moaning about FFP yet throwing so much down the drain at the same time. Nor my point about Mowbray saying anything leading to people frothing at the mouth.

I dont get this argument that people would go mad at the owners, that shouldnt affect decisions. And for one, they shouldnt overrule the manager, meaning that the owners wouldnt be judged on individual signings and sales, only if they didnt invest enough. The point was though that FFP is being used as a big limitation which in isolation it could be. But we cant use it as an excuse when we have turned away over £12m in fees in 6 months for players that are otherwise running their contracts down. On Brereton, it isnt just one of those things. The situation should not be determined by potential fan reaction, there is an investment to protect. But even then, initially a new deal should have been pushed after that decent season when he scored 7. But even factoring that in, we could have still sold this summer having made that mistake and made a profit on investment.

You are falling into the chaddy trap of withholding opinion because of what the manager said.

Rothwell. Brereton. Apparently Stoke bid for Nyambe last summer but even if that is merely a rumour, its still £13m+ down the drain. But boo hoo FFP stopping Venkys from splashing the cash.

The asterix of "within FFP rules" is somewhat diminshed as an excuse when the owners repeatedly overrule the manager and refuse to sell assets who are otherwise leaving for free.

Over a decade of negligent ownership probably outranks a strange tactical decision in a game we went on to win, to be fair.

Like any manager at any point, there is an element of saving face, a desire to defend himself and make himself look better. Not really arsed about that side of it. Point being, what he said was either true or complimentary, yet you and others allowed it to cause you to get really wound up.

You both are going off on massive tangents. My point was merely that Mowbray complimented the history of the club and the academy, and also like many of us questioned the owners with a fact about the lack of post Armstrong funding thrown in. None of that warrants the angry reaction from many on here which supports the conclusion that Mowbray could literally say anything and wind up lots of our fans now. Also, the bit in bold, it doesn't wash.

Brittain and Gallagher both got injuries in training too, as did Scott Wharton. Didn't Hedges miss the Sheff Utd game with a muscular injury done in training?

For many the red mist comes over as soon as Mowbray says a word. All he has done here is complimented the club regarding both its history and its academy and questioned Venkys on not allowing reinvestment like many of us have done. Ironically, chaddy was his biggest cheerleader up until a month or two before his departure. If you are so bored of reading about him, why do you anyway? Your first two sentences are contradictory. He is probably somewhat saving face, all managers say the same worn out phrases including Tomasson. We all wanted Mowbray out and he has gone but his quotes about what is left (ie the academy and the owners) tally with what many of us think and had it been anyone else he would have been agreed with.

Fitness permitting, Maguire is as likely as anyone to start that opening game unfortunately.

Im just saying that in general, I feel that all of his points about the club and the owners are valid. That seemingly gets twisted into a defence of him individually and potentially even a justification for a new contract. We do have shit owners yes, and thats all thats relevant to us in the here and now.

JDT "wants it that way" and is happy with it, so no questioning it please.

I suspect that his comments will again rile the majority but what he says is true. Praises our history and our academy and points out that the owners didnt reinvest any of the Armstrong money and indirectly blames them for us being where we are. Glad hes gone but what he says is on the money

Maguire, Dier and Pope? I bloody hope not.