roversfan99

Buckley at right back? Oh dear.

I don't have information that he is wrong, nor right. Straight loan, loan with an option to buy, loan with an obligation to buy, all speculation and as he didn't sign, totally irrelevant.

The idea that the brunt of blame regarding financial mismanagement falls onto them 2 is utterly nonsensical anyway. They are given money by Venkys, if they are given x million, regardless of what they spend it on, x million has been spent. If that amount is too much and thus causes issues with FFP rules, that goes back up to the owners. If that money is not spent efficiently, of which there certainly is a fair argument, that is a whole new discussion. Although the sale of Armstrong covers back much of it and any potential Brereton sale would likely lead to an overall profit.

The suggestion of it being a loan to buy was purely conjecture and speculation, not fact.

He played basically all of last season centrally yet didnt really offer much more than fleeting brilliance, as has been the case throughout his Rovers career. As much as I was and am still somewhat skeptical of him playing deeper, so far this season has been better than anything before.

£400 was expensive, and ultimately they cannot now offer better value than that, so if anything 17/11 game tickets are slightly less value for money. Backed themselves into a corner, because the critical aspect is season ticket pricing and it is too high. Surely self explanatory.

I hope that Nyambe has been able to train today and can slot back in. He is our only proper, competent right back really, the other 2 are not right backs even at full fitness and when they play there, it shows.

A structure and a decent structure are 2 different things.

Good question, not sure. I want Mowbray to be removed, but say we had a vacancy, Rooney would be far from the top of that list.

With Bell, we didn't offer him a new deal which was correct because of the 3 and a half years of terrible performances, he didn't turn us down.

This season, Rothwell has played every game in a central role bar one in which he was rested but brought on at half time anyway. Last season, he started the majority of games that he was available for, again from a central role. From that, I don't get how he wouldn't "be overly fussed" about him leaving when he plays him all of the time. He regularly says what he is good at and seems to think that he is capable of dominating week in week out rather than fleetingly as has been the case during his Rovers career.

The job that Rooney seems to be doing seems to have improved this season, almost as if he is using a seige mentality as a real positive to drive the team to results. Last season when things weren't as bad, he wasn't overly impressing. Fair play to him this season for really having Derby organised although a further points deduction would surely be fatal. I wouldn't be surprised to see him earn a managerial job in a much better comparative position only to not impress half as much when that "us against them" against all odds narrative is removed but it will be interesting to see.

Jesus Christ. Can't do wrong for doing right is a phrase that springs to mind. It is far from the first time that Mowbray has praised Rothwell in public, I can remember off the top of the head him saying that Rothwell can do everything that Benrahma can do 2 years ago when the latter was the best player in the division, he has regularly said how good he is and simply that he needs to do it more often because he does have the ability and attributes to do it. I want Mowbray out too but the way that every single thing that he says is twisted is beyond a joke.

The things that you have put in bold are your opinions, assertions and assumptions, not facts, including FFP experts without our profit and sustainability calculation to hand making generalised statements about why this particular sort of thing MAY be done. My posts include my own, even spending or not spending next summer will neither prove nor disprove that we couldn't spend a penny more in the summer which is what I am contesting. My raised points include differing accounting periods to which these various profits, losses, sales, transfers of ownership etc relate to, the unknown percentage of which the losses shared contribute/are disqualified from FFP regulations, absolutely no public suggestion that FFP was the specific reason for the cut backs, the fact that the 2022 accounting year had only just begun when I wanted a bit of money to be spent, some of the reasoning behind my rationale, some of which you have not really addressed at all, some of which you have with your own opinions which I disagree with. The fact that we nearly got Maja on loan (which would cost albeit perhaps not the reinvestment level alone that I requested, a 2/3m striker and some new deals would suffice) alone proves that we aren't right on the line of projected FFP failure in my opinion, there is a semblance of flexibility for reinvestment which didn't materialise. Our opinions are so different on this topic and I don't feel like you are directly addressing my specific stance at times so I suspect that it is easier to just agree to disagree.

Gonna be a difficult game with a patched up defence. Carter himself has an injury so that right back slot where I would be nervous with him playing there anyway. Mowbray suggested that he might have to play Rankin Costello there although he wont be able to do 90 minutes which is not ideal in itself. Van Hecke doesn't convince me either yet, has a mistake in him and holds onto attackers too much, penalty in the making.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0b0yptf Mowbray said in his press conference that he believes that Mowbray carries the ball from midfielder better than anyone in the Championship and indeed anyone in the Premier League bar Adama Traore, Allan Saint-Maximin and maybe a couple of others. Hell of a statement.

You must somewhat to have come into a thread entitled "Derby away."

If I indeed have said that specific phrase, it has been massively taken out of context. I have never suggested that I do not believe in FFP, that it is an ongoing restriction and consideration to us and indeed all clubs, and that we have obviously been close to the limit at certain points. My stance all along was that I do not believe that more (ie a couple of million on a striker) of the Armstrong money couldn't possibly be spent and indeed the wage budget couldn't/can't be relaxed to slightly reduce the massive reduction on the wage bill to tie down key assets due to how close even post the Armstrong sale we are to FFP requirements. I stand by this for a number of reasons, firstly that it would imply that we was well over 10m prior to the Armstrong sale, which was never suggested, it has never been mentioned throughout a summer in which a hugely restricted budget was repeatedly discussed by the manager and CEO when asked about it. "We can't spend any more due to FFP" would have stopped that constantly asked question in its tracks. And less relevant, but I don't think that the FFP rules amidst the pandemic have been clarified anyway, as to whether they stand or will be relaxed in any way. Calculations made including those by yourself and chaddy based on P&L figures did not change my opinion although you repeatedly keep trying to convince me otherwise. Those figures are historical, going up to 2020 when the accounts that will show the Armstrong sale are the ones for the year ending 2022. They also crucially include all expenses, a number of which do not qualify for FFP losses, therefore those figures can not be used and indeed adjusting for these would become practically impossible for us. If by "now do you think" you mean following the news that ownership of our training facilities has been passed from the club directly to the owners is proof that my stance is ill advised, then I would disagree. The reason for this is still totally unknown, for me it is incredibly suspicious based on the untrustworthy reputation that the owners have built up during their tenure, that is an opinion but the actual reason is still to be communicated. Finance experts can speculate on why it might have been done, but no one knows until Venkys come out and say, which is probably unlikely. But even so, it has no bearing really on invalidating my stance. Firstly, wasn't it done a week before the year end accounts? If so, it isn't even in the same period as the Armstrong sale, the year in which our wage bill has been lowered and the one to which I criticised a lack of reinvestment.

The Alex Neil rumour came from Mercer who has the worst track record imaginable and there have been no credible rumours of Wilder either. I also think that it is totally disingenous to suggest that Mowbray would automatically waste the money "on Pears et al." His transfer record is very mixed but to focus too much on Pears (potential nepotism aside) who is a sub keeper is unfair. The main 2 question marks are the 12m duo, one of whom has started to come good (not to a 7m degree) and the other is pretty poor yet not totally without use. But there have been some good ones, Dack, Kaminski, Armstrong who made the club lots of money and a fair few others. A decent amount of rubbish too so a mixture. I would love a manager like Wilder and a healthy budget next summer but I suspect that the chance is slim to nil under Venkys. More likely is more Mowbray or someone new lacking competence and working on a shoestring.

Plenty of people defend Venkys and deflect towards Mowbray and Waggott, that I find odd and confusing. I see Mowbray as on the face of it a genuine bloke but one who has been underperforming for 18 months after doing a pretty good job prior. Waggott's value since his appointment is something I am not convinced by, but Venkys are the common denominator in 11 years of woe. To defend Venkys by slandering the fans is utterly disgusting yet sadly common. Supporting a football club is not a "job" at all, not to everyone, nor an obligation that precedes everything, money, family etc. The thing that anyone even tempted to suggest as such needs to take a step back and think, who am I even slagging off? Every club has a core support that, finance and personal life permitting, will come regardless, and they still do here. Some, of which a percentage is unclear can't come anymore. Perhaps out of principle of funding owners who wont listen, the protests (of which I attended a number of) didn't work, it takes a hell of a personal sacrifice to give up something you care so much about because of how strongly you feel. Are they not supporters, do they deserve resentment above what the owners deserve? No chance. Or equally people who have grown so disenchanted at having hope ripped away from us. And some simply might come for a promotion party on the cheap or a big game, but ultimately either lack the money to come every week, the interest in football or in Rovers, the freedom within their personal time, the time off work to justify the expense, whatever it is, why do those people deserve resentment and looking down upon? Why does it have to be a case of either you are in 100% or you are out and don't deserve the club? Obviously, the fact that the primary source of todays anti-supporter spiel boycotted himself for a year because he had a "bad feeling" about the manager sums it up. Also, this continuous crap about the owners investing 20m a year or propping up the club, bollocks. The losses are as high as they are because of them, the investment is not out of the goodness of their heart, nor would we automatically become Bury if they suddenly decided against it. Take an active interest, employ more competent people, think longer term (including on contracts to valuable assets) and have a plan, be more proactive, it doesn't need to be so high.

If the money spent has caused us to go into FFP difficulties, of which there is no suggestion anyway, that is not on the manager. If the budget allocated to the manager (given by the owners) has not been utilised well enough to progress on the pitch, then that is on the manager.

"could it not be a case of the owners stepping in to thwart Mowbray and Waggott's grubby little scheme." You implied that Venkys are taking drastic steps to avoid being fleeced by potential con men who they still continue to employee regardless.

It is a number of assumptions culminating in a conspiracy whereby Venkys become the innocent party and Mowbray and Waggott are essentially con men.

This idea that Waggott and Mowbray are trying to sell the training ground for personal gain without the owners knowledge is beyond the point of conspiracy. The idea then that the owners have done this to protect themselves from it potentially happening again by these 2 evil con men, yet don't distrust them enough in spite of that to sack them, is laughable. Would the sale of the training ground qualify as an FFP saving out of interest?

Exactly. A goalkeeper with minimal long term experience who was 22 is much more likely surely to sign long term compared to a goalkeeper coming into his peak years. No negotiation, here is the length of the contract, take it or leave it? Either way, way off on a tangent.