He is just getting his fitness back in a non competitive environment. We need some experience and physicality in there. Might be a good day out but it will be a long match to endure if Magloire plays. We have a natural full back who we paid money for, not ideal on the opposite side but better than playing a centre back who is probably conference level. Would also put Gallagher central, and would bring in Johnson or if not fit enough, Davenport to add some bite next to Travis. If Rothwell is fit, drop Buckley, if not then obviously Rothwell misses out.

Because they are the ones who control the money and give the budget. The issues with the contracts are financial from everything in the public domain.

The change in shape certainly caused additional confusion and didn't help. You could put every individual goal down to individual errors/brilliance from the other team specifically, but in regards to the general game, it was a strange move and it hindered us. Out of interest, would you have agreed and put Edun on at right back, or did you think that Mowbray was correct to put on Magloire and put Buckley as a right wing back? What would you have done? I would agree with @Bigdoggsteel that I wouldn't want to see Magloire play in a Rovers shirt again, he is so far out of his depth despite loan spells away, he will never be good enough, and for his personal sake, let him go and try and manufacture a career in the lower leagues/non-league. I also think that Buckley should never play as a right wing back (or right back) again, he cannot cover that position. Whether it had a loan option/obligation is purely speculation. We still have a loan spot but even if we use it, it would be a huge change of policy if it was anything other than another raw kid with no/minimal first team experience that we could afford.

No responsibility to Venkys for not stumping up the money at the moment to get the deal done? Rightly or wrongly, I suspect that he will want to be up there with our highest earners. Easy to solely blame those 2 for everything and they certainly both take a lot of blame for various things but this is clearly far more complex. A year ago many would have not seen him with 2 years left (and a potential option for a third) sitting on 2 or 3 league goals at the club as a worry. From the sound of it, Mowbray is not involved in contract negotiations anyway.

Yeah, I am well aware that playing a left footed left back at right back is not ideal, but it causes far less disruption than bringing on a player so out of his depth to a level that I have never seen before, and then not only that, but changing the shape bizarrely which again put Buckley at right wing back where he couldn't be any less comfortable. Natural full back on for natural full back, I accept it isn't ideal as he is left footed, but there is no way that Magloire on, a back 3 and Buckley at right wing back is a more sensible idea. Mowbray recently said in the LT when Maja was still "an unknown striker who had not signed on the final day" that he would have been the 5th loan, when asked why he didn't fill all 5 spaces. I suspect that again, the reason why we didn't move for someone like Molumby was money. Clarkson is wet behind the ears, a total novice, and Mowbray spoke numerous times of wanting more experience but that parent clubs tended to want a decent contribution of their wages, whereas with untried kids, he could "sell them a dream" on how they can gain experience with most of the wage being covered by the parent club. We have started well in general for sure but I can't possibly fathom how anyone ciuld have watched last nights game and felt that we did well. The performance was really poor, really scruffy, really unstructured, the defence was all over the place and the lack of depth reared its ugly head. There is clearly a good spirit but that doesn't mean that we did well last night.

As pointed out elsewhere, I very much doubt that we will have the funds for numerous January signings, considering that "the journey is on hold," that money is at a premium and that such proactivity has never been seen in the past. The squad is going to be stretched beyond its limits on Saturday, making it very difficult to remain competitive.

Some would say that City are too.

None of the subs really stood out as obvious alternatives. Butterworth over Poveda would have been fair simply based on how poor Poveda is but Butterworth gets better with each game that he doesnt play in. Edun is a left back ideally. I didnt agree with his tactical change to accomodate Magloire and would have brought Edun on at that time so I wouldnt disagree that Mowbray made mistakes tonight.

Sadly he had little alternative. The likes of Holtby, Evans and Downing were correctly allowed to bet let go but we were only given the money to be able to afford a handful of kids on loan. Mowbray said he wanted experience but couldnt afford it so when we get an injury or two we look really shaky.

How can you possibly know that Venus is responsible for any good tactics and Mowbray solely for any bad ones?

With no Lenihan, Nyambe and potentially Rothwell, it is really hard to see us getting a positive result. Would go Edun at right back and Carter at centre back probably. And bring Johnson into midfield for added protection.

Even if he is on that amount, which with your track record is unlikely, it doesnt indicate how much we are paying of that. Mowbray wanted experience, he said as such but the loanees were brought in because we couldnt afford experience. Either way, even if he was just signed as a cheap desperate signing to add to the numbers with the manager not having the funds for anything other than heavily sponsored loans as seems to be the case, speculation of his wage aside, the most important thing is rhat he looks rubbish.

Because even if you think that the first 11 is good enough, which I dont, the squad is paper thin. Beneath lie a lot of players not up to it.

Lenihan has gone for a scan according to the LT, unlikely for Saturday. Presumably Nyambe will follow the concussion protocol and I cant see us getting a result on Saturday if Magloire plays.

Im not sure that can be said with such confidence. Sounds like its a financial issue based on the public comments from Mowbray and Waggott. Maybe they should have been sold by now though.

Agreed, in fact I thought that both were poor and off the pace all game.

Poveda has looked really poor in all 3 games now. Clarkson wasnt as poor as Poveda but didnt do much of note. Not just a loanee thing though or a loanee issue in general as it can be implied.

The loanees are struggling, but the issue is not whether they block the academy players, its whether they are good enough. We have loads of academy players in the team, including at the other end where one was poor and the other a total liability.

I cant fathom how anyone thinks that this squad is promotion material, even allowing for the poor general standard of division.

Really poor performance and the signs of a small squad being exposed. Magloire stood out, he wouldnt be a professional if he wasnt so fast. You know he must be bad when the manager feels the need to change the whole system because he doesnt trust him. A change that didnt work, Buckley had a poor game. Why not bring on Edun, an actual full back, yes its not ideal that hes left footed but it surely causes less disruption than chucking on a no hoper? Shame that Mowbray signed an injured player. Ayala was so exposed today, Carter had a shaky night as did Pickering. Poveda was embarassing when he came on, he looks woeful. Gallagher and Dolan very poor. Brereton at least keeps on scoring, Travis was ok and what a run by Rothwell.

O'Brien and Hogg are both doubts for tonight. Would be a big boost especially if the former misses out.

It is not an unreasonable request. You yourself have liked a post from @MarkBRFC which is a similar point to mine. You regularly put "rumours" that don't come to fruition and have come most likely from social media, which is totally fine but it would make sense just to say "I have seen on x twitter" or "look at this screenshot from facebook" to add meat to the bones. For what its worth, I certainly do not think that 1864roverite is doing anything over than being genuine and honest, it was just a personal initial reaction to someone that I have no doubt is being 100% transparent.

I am well aware and I am also aware that it is not an excuse for everything that Venkys fail to do (taking over from being "badly advised") but thanks for the patronising undertones all the same.

Fair enough, but then if you do that, you have to accept that your argument is likely to be dismissed by quite a few, and even to some come across as carrot dangling. To paraphrase, the argument is "I disagree but I can't tell you why." I never said that he was pretending. I have no reason to suggest that he is being in anyway disingenuous, I just don't consider it constructive personally and all it inevitably does is causes debate about whether that type of post is worthwhile in the absence of actually having anything to talk about!

We all judge what happens on a game by game basis, you included. I didn't say that Pickering was shit, I didn't write him off or anything like that. I said he looked a bit shaky, not Bell/Douglas shaky, but shaky nonetheless and others agreed, in fact I qualified it by saying that it was early days. It was IMO a fair analysis of his performances within those relevant match threads. Since, he has improved and I have praised him. Regarding those players, there is a small element of speculation within all of our own opinions without knowing their current contracts and the offers put to them, of that I would concede. But from everything from Mowbray and Waggott, the issues are financial. All 4 have the right to see themselves towards the top of our wage structure, our captain, our main goalscorer with Dack out, and 2 players who play every week and have accumulated plenty of first team appearances between them. Rothwell signed from Oxford as a squad player, and Nyambe signed after relegation, they wont be at the top of our wage hierarchy, so surely a decent rise is justified. As long as they don't want silly wages beyond our top earner, and it would seem a jump to suggest that they would, it would make sense to give them those deals, maybe even a release clause to, and then they can grow, be sold and then some of that can be banked and some can be reinvested as Mowbray correctly has identified is the way to be run. Financially, new deals in the long run will earn us money, not cost us money. We aren't run like a normal club though. If there was no sign of any of them signing going back to the summer, then yes, sales should perhaps have been seriously considered, although that would imply that a percentage would be reinvested in the way that healthy clubs work, but Venkys are seemingly unwilling at the moment to allow that, which will eventually render us uncompetitive unless that is relaxed.