roversfan99

How am I shoehorning players in? Shoehorning players in would be saying I would play Bellingham, Foden and Palmer all in the same team. I am literally advocating picking one of those above Rogers, all 4 of them play in the same position. You keep trotting cliches out like the team comes first as if it dismisses my argument. Obviously the team comes first. And I think playing a better player still in his natural position is putting the team first.

Why is so much being read into his under 21 performances? People on here seem fixated by what happens in the under 21s or who the under 21 manager selects. Judgement on his under 21 performances are bypassed by his performances for Forest. If we based it on under 21s then Harvey Elliott would be a regular. I also think we can read too much into games against teams in a quite frankly terrible qualification group. Players like Morgan Rogers and Elliott Anderson are good players who usually (Rogers hasnt been as good this season and Anderson plays a different role) impress in the Premier League, they have the quality to go to the World Cup either way. But I dont think we should be coming to final conclusions on our best 11 based on these games, of course they will impress against such teams, they are far better than the standard of their opponents.

You can, and its not a criticism of our performances. Professionally eased past poor teams. But it doesnt mean that any players who play well should necessarily leap frog superior alternatives when it comes to the proper tournament.

Anderson is good but Wharton's definitely a better player. Dont let a few games v sub par opposition fool you. Wharton is also more natural in the type of position either will play next to Rice. Anderson is more of a box to box midfielder.

Of course, but it doesnt mean that the players playing are the ones that should start the World cup.

We are beating poor sides. Bellingham has made a career out of running beyond and scoring lots of goals, he should and probably will start above Rogers come the tournament.

There is a difference between fact and what the club tell us. You just swallow whatever is said without asking questions. But again, I wasnt only making a point about that summer, no idea why you keep latching onto that one example.

O'Reilly is the stand out candidate at left back. Playing really well for City week in week out. Wharton is the best player to partner Rice. We have to get one of Bellingham/Foden/Palmer into the number 10 role. It wouldnt upset the balance of the team and Rogers is a good player but not a patch on any of them 3.

So you keep telling me/echoing the club about. Its only a small part of a general point I am making so no idea why you keep picking that bit out and playing club spokesman.

The £10m summer was the one where they showed a bit of intent but important to note that the squad 2 years prior had totally been gutted of anyone remotely valuable. In between was a summer when we spent a small amount and were at League 1 level. I feel like expectations rose well beyond what a club would expect based on the overall resources spent across the squad. Was significant for us but on top of those 2 previous seasons, was only enough to remove us from the relegation picture really. The Gallagher signing the summer after obviously was still investment but mainly covered by the Raya sale. Then again, they just lost interest. There were a couple of summers of no spending, no major sales, then the summer in which we sold Armstrong and reinvested nothing. Tiny bit of intent ahead of Tomasson's first season then again a really aggressive attempt to cut back.

While I think you have been a bit generous with some of the above. I would move De Neve to poor, Baradji to ludicrous, Miller/McLouughlin/TGH to average, in isolation it doesnt paint a true reflection of a terrible window. It only does when you consider who has left and the big gaps that remain in the squad.

Stuff like that cant be trusted. Just guesses and likely wide of the mark.

We dont know if they are the positions we want to sign players in, thats my point, although its right down the spine of the team which is not a difficult guess and also tells you a lot about how poor a summer we had. The question is a general and simple one. Yes I agree with them, the window was a good one. Or no I disagree, the window was a bad one.

Again, Armstrong was just an example. Point being, very rarely have they actively invested into the team, even under Mowbray, and investing for the purpose of ambition and trying to do our best shouldnt be confused with offsetting losses every year by raising share capital as every owner at this level is obliged to do to cover expenses being higher than income, notably even an aggressively slashed wage bill. It must be much easier though swallowing everything the club says without questioning. Why at that point where we so far off FFP limits? Was we so far off that we couldnt spend ANY of the Armstrong proceeds.

Youve certainly always been one to swallow everything you have been told by the club. The point was that the owners have consistently failed to invest in the club and them doing what every Championship owner has to do and offset losses should not be confused with anything resembling ambition or a want to do better.

Do you think it was a successful summer window as Gestede and Ismael seemed so keen to tell us? You seem to be assuming we will definitely sign all of these players but we dont know if we will even genuinely try. Dont hold your breath.

Championship clubs run at a loss. Therefore, owners have to offset those losses every year. Thats not to be confused with owners who put money in to improve the team. Also, surely after what we have seen since, you now realise it wasnt Mowbray who wasnt willing to give suitable new contracts to key players. They had that one season where we spent £10m but most summers we were scratching around. The last summer, we sold Armstrong and they turned the taps totally off. Its what they do regularly and thats my point. Lets stop pinning too much blame on individuals outside of Venkys/Suhail. Its been a consistent theme, and them offsetting losses shouldnt be seen as them pumping in money, its just a mandatory obligation.

But again, they have very rarely willingly "pumped in" money, before, during or after the court case and need for a guarantee. There has only been one year where they didnt need to put money in, but its an anomoly based on an academy graduate record sale, very atypical from what they usually HAVE to do just like all Championship owners and offset losses. Had Wharton not been who he was, they would still like every other year had to cover losses. I feel like your historical desire to often deflect blame away from the owners and onto various individuals is perhaps based on a misunderstanding regarding the money they raise via share capital each year. You once said that Mowbray had wasted £100m of funding over 5 years which sums up this misunderstanding.

I think the point was, why do we need so much when they kept telling us how great the summer window was. Not, name which positions we need (which positions you can echo Alan Nixon about).

It wasnt because of the guarantee. Its an easy excuse. They did the same with the Armstrong money.

Looking at the clip you showed, I dont think it looks as bad but yeah I am very surprised it wasnt abandoned.

The ball is at least moving a bit on that video, it was literally stopping dead in our game. Our game 100% could not continue.

Maybe not as bad, but there has been a consistent pattern of us faltering in the second half of the season under numerous managers because of the owners.

Its a Venkys style death spiral.

There will not be a warchest in January. Its been made more difficult for them to send money in the past. But they dont willingly send money anyway, and this seems to be misunderstood. Barring one year in which we had the one off sale of a record breaking academy graduate, they HAVE to send money every year to cover losses. Basically all Championship owners have to do the same. Expenses exceed income for clubs at this level, only difference now is they dont have to provide the same level of guarantee to do so.