https://www.burnleyexpress.net/sport/football/burnley-looking-to-seal-double-deal-for-standard-liege-pair-jackson-muleka-and-samuel-bastien-3751550 Seemingly have agreed a deal for a potential 6th new signing too.

If a key target goes to another side in the same league who themselves haven't paid a fee for a while then it would probably suggest that the phrase "healthy budget" is perhaps more for show and it is more of the same.

A lot of them considerably improved our side though as you touched on. For a club with a minimal budget the loan market is critical to improve the team on a budget. This assertion that it blocks our own academy graduates is a false one. Even the ones that ended up as squad players, they ultimately were likely in positions whereby there wasn't a graduate ready to play a part, take someone like Giles, there wasn't someone else in the academy waiting to play with equal ability. If graduates are good enough they will break through regardless, and many did under Mowbray. Buckley is a great example of that, and we did bring in a loanee in Clarkson who simply didn't play because Buckley was playing well. It also can allow our own graduates to actually get more experience, Wharton went and played every week for a couple of seasons rather than staying here and being 3rd or 4th choice at a time when he wasn't ready to start every week, so someone like Adarabioyo massively upgraded us short term and actually also long term aswell, indirectly. The same seemingly could be happening with Carter, who has been out on loan impressing whilst Van Hecke and before that Harwood Bellis played. Had we not signed the above loans expecting kids to break through and they weren't up to it, we would have potentially really struggled.

Burnley are unfortunately appearing to be very decisive in the transfer market, seemingly going for younger players to compliment the experienced core that they already have. Twine and McNally have already signed, Harwood Bellis and Egan-Riley seemingly imminent and now Muleka to come. An interesting name that I have never heard of but young, fast and coming off a good season.

I know you do, you have said. But my point is that the OWNERS should never be interfering with transfer decisions. You recommended a signing who seemingly you have never seen play, its the same situation. I agree that he is inconsistent but you can't judge a player who played as a central midfielder by his goal tally. I can't see us replacing with equal quality on a very small budget.

What else would we talk about? There have been no transfers and seemingly none are close.

Like I said, the point about how he was used or moreso not used is a different one. I think Mowbray should have used him much more so I agree. Against Swansea Gallagher was out, Khadra wasnt fully fit and Brereton had returned the day before so there were mitigating circumstances there but in general he waa certainly underused. But spending a nominal fee to have an attacking player 6 months earlier following an injury to another in a promotion push was sensible.

Putting England goggles to one side and taking a step back at a direct comparison for us at the level we are at. He would have to play excellently over a prolonged period to break into an area where Wales are well stocked. They obviously have Bale plus they also have Harry Wilson who is as good as winger as you can get at Championship level for years and is now a Premier League player, Brennan Johnson who has been a stand out Championship player, Dan James who I dont rate but who plays regularly in the Premier League, Sorba Thomas who has been excellent for Huddersfield and Matondo who is highly rated at Schalke. He has not played much football but he certainly didnt look out of place. His left foot has some power in it and he chipped in with a decent goal tally at Aberdeen. He is quite strong and well built for a winger too and can cover plenty of ground. "Woeful signing" is certainly not a rational comment.

And revert back to echoing the clubs attitude of questioning peoples commitment. The prices are crap and the whole attitude doesn't lend itself to attracting floating fans or seemingly as the club sees them, traitors.

Woeful? Talk about hyperbole. Was it? He signed for a nominal fee on the back of Markanday injury to give us another attacking option in a promotion push. Ultimately he should have played more which is a different argument but it made sense bringing the deal forward.

It has become a running theme across numerous windows that we have had leftover budget that never seemingly gets spent in following windows. Funny that.

In only 4 starts I don't think he looked average enough to suggest that we should immediately sell him on. I do wonder if he is somewhat tarnished in the original posters mind in regards to potential links between Mowbray's family and Aberdeen?

But surely the point is that you play a style that best suits the players at your disposal.

I don't get why Hedges would be one that we have already decided that we want rid of. He hasn't played much and when he did break into the team he looked pretty good.

The manager predominantly, in tandem with other staff members. Either way, the owners should not be vetoing transfers and interfering. I presume you have watched plenty of Plymouth to be able to comment based on your assertion the other day that I cannot comment on Jack Vale's loan spell at Halifax having never watched him there?

Incredible how much people still willingly defend the owners to a fault no matter what. There is always a good budget that happens to never be spent. Apparently them overruling the manager is perfectly justifiable. When they dont reinvest any money its purely down to FFP. Everything can be pinned on Mowbray and Waggott even though its been a 12 year shit show.

No, I would appoint a manager that I trusted had more expertise than me to dictate transfer dealings. If I didn't trust him I would get a new one.

His transfer record is very mixed (plenty of good and bad) and I wanted him sacked both this summer and last. I defend him when say things that are blatantly untrue ie one of (you have previously said the) worst managers ever. Just a bog standard one who did ok overall. But owners should never overrule the manager on footballing decisions. If they dont trust the manager they should sack the manager and do at normal football clubs.

How anyone can possibly justify owners overruling the manager they choose to employ is absolutely insane. And how the owners intercepting a potential sale at considerable profit is "irrelevant" in the case of Rothwell is again beyond having an agenda.

Kaminski would have already been on a senior wage therefore his increase will likely have been much smaller and taken much less negotiating than Nyambe and Rothwell in particular who may have expected wages befitting their statuses when their previous contracts were when Nyambe hadnt established himself and when Rothwell had signed from Oxford.

The blame can't go solely on Waggott, as incompetent as he is at other key aspects of his job. There is clearly still a lack of joined up thinking at the club hence why Rothwell was about to be sold for a considerable profit only for the owners to stop it.

They would have gone straight back up assuming they went down but the style wasnt "attractive" enough. Glad he isnt their manager though as they are worse without him.

The 2 questions that then come are: Is the budget from the owners enough? Factoring in money allowed to reinvest in the last year, seemingly not. Is everyone in the club working together? Based on the Rothwell situation, definitely not, and possibly never will be under these owners.

Also, absolutely no acknowledgement of the point beside the truth question, in that what exactly is a "good" offer? Its subjective, so to take that and take it as gospel seems strange.

When they tried to sell one of them to raise funds on what would have been a large profit on a Mowbray signing, the owners wouldn't let them! Your refusal to give them a tiny bit of the blame is laughable.