But we didnt get those deals done, so I dont see how being supposedly interested in 2 players who we subsuquently failed to sign shows anything positive about the budget. All about the replacement but we wanted Nyambe to sign hence offering him a deal and lost out to Wigan so it is easy for that to cause concern on the back of an inability to sign anyone yet. Does it? Maybe Wigan offered him a better deal, in which case how does it reflect poorly on him to do something that most people would do and get a pay rise? What if it was only Wigan and Rovers who offered contracts. His agent has got lots of blame and has been mentioned by Waggott of course but how can we be so sure that he is a "fuktard" rather than having just successfully earnt his client more money. Maybe but if he has got a payrise then it is still an understandable move. This seems like a very specific theory based on nothing in particular in my opinion but still. If it is Rovers v Wigan and the latter offered more money which I suppose we will never know for sure. Then his decision makes sense.

I dont find it funny that we become even weaker personally. Plus if Wigan offered more money than us even in the assumed absence of other concrete offers, how has he been done over?

I will judge on who we do sign rather than on rumours. We dont know if we actually bid for those players, we may have enquired and run a mile once we found out their financial demands. I would see being the only team not to have signed anyone leaving us ill prepared for the season ahead and compounded by a player we wanted to k8eep choosing to join a promoted side to be a big cause for concern. Lets hope we sign a better replacement as you say. I certainly am not optimistic that we will.

Presumably you will only laugh if we sign a better, permanent replacement?

If that is true then surely him accepting a contract at a team with a supposedly low wage budget shows that his demands would have by virtue fallen within our current wage ceiling. We wanted him to stay, he has chosen to join Wigan. I think he is a little overrated by some but he is a big loss nonetheless and I would find it concerning if he went to Wigan with us still unable to bring anyone in. I am dubious about an admittedly subjective "healthy budget" and suspect us to again rely on the loan market.

We cant even compete with promoted Wigan. Healthy budget.

Im not personally bothered about what he says, its about what he does. I think had we successfully got some players in then no one would want communication, it is in the absence of actions that words are demanded. I think people are fully aware of how the structure works. Many including myself seem to worry that adding an extra layer at a club that already takes ages to make decisions could potentially make that problem even worse. You seem to be naive in not accepting that the structure (like any) has risks and the potential to not run smoothly. It can slow decisions down and it adds an extra risk of conflict which you wont acknowledge because Tomasson was "promised" that he would get the final say but I am sure at some point there will be differences in opinions.

We have never managed to get into the top 6 in over 10 years even in years without the additional provision of downplaying the importance of the first 7 games. Obviously it wouldnt be terminal but it would be a huge dent in any aspirations should we start slowly. A lof of focus is now on Broughton, with Tomasson not yet receiving any criticism because he is not seemingly the key in terms of recruitment and also because of the good feeling following his appointment. Many in the past have been blamed heavily including Waggott and Mowbray like Broughton is starting to now and I certainly would say that they all will have warranted criticism to an extent but the underpinning reason for the constant snails pace decision making lies in India.

People are only asking for communication in the continuing absence of players in the building. You mention no leaks but I would be amazed if anything is close. Your comments about the structure are very patronising. A big fear at a club already known for taking ages to make decisions and action them was the additional delays from adding the additional layer of a director of football. I am yet to be convinced that this decision does anything but further slow everything down. The days keep counting down with 13 until the season and nothing has happened. Them clubs dont have the same issues with speed in actioning decisions like us, predominantly stemming from India. Its an idea that makes sense in theory but relies on the manager retaining final authority (which can never be guaranteed regardless of promises) and efficiency/speed.

Really?

We dont need comments, we need actions!

Think it shows that there is little point in even speculating such is the disparity between gossip.

Gallagher on the wing?

My point was that both youngsters broke individually into the team during the season within a squad that would have had enough cover had they not been up to the mark, rather than at the start of a season amidst a pack of players making up the numbers after a large outflow of players. A youngster breaking into the team should come down to the individual breaking in, not as an expectation out of necessity due to outgoing players.

I thought you said in 2 years, why has that aim now spread to the full 3 years of his contract? I am not talking under 21 football down by saying that it is almost exclusively young players all learning the game in a setting whereby many of the better players within that age group have been loaned out by their respective clubs. Ultimately the aim is development rather than winning games and therefore there is a huge gap between that and the grind of second tier professional football. The examples of Travis and Buckley back up my point. I don't think that we should avoid signing as you determine them "squad fillers" unless there is reasonable certainty that a player is ready now, for example I think there is with Carter. Travis broke through on his own in his own time, we didn't assume he would at the start of the season, we had signed Reed, Rothwell, Davenport and Rodwell on top of having Evans and Smallwood. Travis didn't break through until late December but because he WAS ready, he thrived and kept his place. Had he not been ready, it wouldn't have left us relying on him regardless because we had other options. Buckley was similar, he was on the fringes but we always had plenty of senior options and he wasn't initially ready but again because we had sufficient alternatives, it wasn't the end of the world that he initially struggled and he was taken back out. I don't expect those 4 to all show themselves to be Championship ready this season, 1 or at a push 2 perhaps, maybe in time 2 or 3of them, which I don't know but not all of them. Rarely if ever do 4 young lads all break through instantly unless they are all really special.

Has anyone suggested that we "blow the budget on knee jerk signings?" There is a middle ground between writing off the season and spending wildly and inefficiently. I can't abide an attitude of essentially writing off a season either, the Championship especially is not an environment to build up whereby seasons are written off because squad turnover is so high, players seem to let their deals run down more and there is such reliance on the loan market. Re-invest a decent chunk of the inevitable Brereton money and there is no reason not to strive for improvement on last season, that was the reason for the new manager. Would you have taken mid table obscurity on the back of 8th place had Mowbray stayed? I suspect not. But Wharton has only ever played against kids or in friendlies, so it is impossible to compare either way, that is my point. But why can't we improve on Johnson, why is the benchmark only ever to equal the outgoing players? I felt that we were short in midfield last season in terms of depth. I have never implied that Phillips should replace Lenihan, as long as we get a really good Championship centre back then we should be fine, him next to Wharton, with Ayala and Carter as the main 2 in reserve. No expectations on Phillips yet, any contribution should be a bonus. I don't think the comparisons are fair because Zouma and Jones are being judged historically having played senior football and Phillips hasn't. I think we should recruit without assuming that the majority of these youngsters are up to it, because many may not be yet and we can't leave ourselves short. You made out that I am dismissing them all but I am sure that a couple/few will break through, whenever that is, but not all will and it is just about timing and treating their breakthrough in any upcoming season as a bonus as to not leave ourselves short. So for example with Carter, we have proof that he can do well in League 1, so I am comfortable with him being a squad player pushing for a spot. In midfield, we have lost 3 but I felt we were weak there anyway, and we don't know if Buckley will be as effective deeper, so we need at least 2 who will play loads of games between them. Midfield is key so Travis plus 2 with Buckley flexible between there and further forward and at a push Edun, and then have one (as you have said, I have not seen them like others so which is beyond me) maybe on the fringes pushing for a place, and the other out on loan. With Vale, could go either way, I see the value in him going and playing in League 1 or 2, lets see if he can score goals at senior level, failing that, on the fringes but again we need a new senior striker because Brereton will go, Gallagher is not good enough to be first choice so have him pushing a new guy for that place with Vale pushing them 2, especially now we have 5 subs.

Im not sure they would if that was a direct replacement for either a captain or a player of the season. As a 3rd or 4th choice behind Wharton and a new ready made centre back, then that would make much more sense. I have never said that Vale isnt a "good un." The point is that youth football is obviously not a reliable barometer for 2nd tier Championship football and I have never said x or y isnt good enough or that they shouldnt get chances where appropriate, just that expecting a number to all step up even as squad members at the same time in the absence of enough senior recruits is really risky. It is also totally impossible to compare Zouma/Jones and Phillips, no matter how highly rated the latter is.

By straight in, do you mean to start or within the squad? Davenport was one of 3 central midfielders that departed. If we signed 2 proven midfielders and then Garrett was seen as the 5th choice, then that would make sense. I don't agree with this idea that when holes need filling, that academy players step up. It should be the other way round. Players demonstrate enough either as individuals on the fringes or even on loan to justify more game time, not just because we don't have the resources or competence to fill any vacancies properly. Even if it was a case of 2 central midfielders or centre backs being out at once, you'd be naming a rookie partnership. Point being we need a number of senior players in ASAP.

Maybe one or two at a time yes, but if you throw multiple in together then you are setting yourself up for a fall. Giving maybe one a debut amidst a normal team with experience (more than we currently have which is fairly minimal) and then you get a true picture, if we ever fielded a league team anywhere close to our 2nd team that played at Dundee, we would likely get battered.

But the problem is relying on a large influx at once not because they are all simultaneously demanding places but because of incompetence in the transfer market, through lack of funds or otherwise. Buckley broke through not in the absence of signing midfielders but because he was good enough regardless. We are already very much "using what it produces" but you have to be realistic as to what we can expect to come through and how often. The only alternative to a "Man City one player per 5 years" policy is not numerous players every season as that is unrealistic. It should also be continuous so that when one is loaned out, which won't apply to everyone. That they come back and at that point can justifiably demand a squad place. Take Carter, you can maybe sign one less CB considering that we have lost 2 and take Carter as somewhat proven.

They have spent the money they have brought in this summer on 6 or 7 signings and they are in talks with a striker from France according to reports.

Kids football.

One of the main drawbacks of this director of football model is the added layer which may cause delays which a risk heightened in a club like ours that with dysfunctional owners tends to take longer to make decisions anyway. It is a fair concern to suggest that this is or at least could be playing out or about to play out. We are looking horribly unprepared for the season ahead so the need for signings becomes more and more urgent. Sadly it seems like we couldnt be further away.

Where is that from? The key is always to judge on money spent on players signed and not on reported bids. Im not optimistic that much will be spent.

Brereton was linked tenuously with Leeds but seems like they are going to France for their main striking target: https://insidefutbol.com/2022/07/14/leeds-united-intensifying-efforts-to-land-ligue-1-star/567953/