roversfan99

Cash flow shortages? We arent going to have clarity any time soon, even after the season has begun, we wont know say 5 months into the season whether fans will be there, so there will always be an element on uncertainty.

If they brought out a product, listed the potential situations/scenarios that could arise, for example ifollow links if up to a certain number of games are played behind closed doors and then they can be allowed in later in the season. Or doomsday, its behind closed doors all season, the payment covers the season after, then that would surely work? It could also been mentioned that at the moment there is a lack of clarity around facilities, (Concourses etc) a likely inability to have designated seats/stands then people arent under any illusions. The worst thing that could happen would be that due to the uncertainty, no one takes them up on the offer. You would then be proved right. And what harm would be done even if that happened? Nothing. But there are people that would take it, as we have seen on here and as I have shown with screenshots from elsewhere. It is NOT the same as asking for a donation because there ARE various ways in which fans could be rewarded for the payment. It is not just sticking a few hundred quid into the clubs account. You are getting to see games however it is possible as things unfold. And if a car company or a TV company proposed that, they wouldnt get ANY offers because the situations are totally different, those companies wouldnt have a customer base desperate to help, and there wouldnt be a possible alternative (ifollow links, payments deferred to cover following seasons etc) like there would be in this instance. I have seen mentioned comments suggesting that the club "cant win" with reference to complaints about last season. The problem is that the season ticket situation for last season was retrospective, fans DIDNT go into the season expecting what has happened to happen, nobody did, but the club went with a fairly unusual (considering the way most Championship clubs tackled it) one size fits all policy regarding remuneration. If fans bought one for this season, they would know and expect things to change, they know the situation in advance.

Unsure, probably not to be honest until the situation does become clearer. But not 100%. But some would, thats the point. There is an element of demand there, I believe @K-Hod for one but apologies if ive misread. And there is NO chance of demand exceeding supply of even a reduced capacity. So its foolish not to take them up on that. Would require a level of pro-activity and thinking outside the box that has never and will never exist with Venkys around.

His interview wasnt good sorry Mr Hughton you may have a brilliant record at this level but you seemed a bit nervous in your interview so weve appointed a novice instead. Doesnt agree on the way forward? Doesnt fit the type of person? Cliches that usually come when someone isnt good enough

But surely if suppporters WANT to support the club financially by giving them money and are not only willing but able, it should be encouraged by the club itself? There can be provisions dependant on different scenarios that might play out, even if the worst case scenario is a deferred season ticket for the season after, which still has boosted the clubs cash flow at a time of need. The supporters know that the situation is unclear, but the willingness is still there Even if your stance is that it is morally wrong should the club do that, which i dont really get, surely you dont think it is that rather than a simple lack of proactivity that has prevented it?

Would be a very strange appointment considering the names linked with interviews etc to employ a complete novice. No wonder the fans will not be happy. Hughton the obvious choice and even though Cook is a knobhead you cant argue with his record. If they appoint a novice coach I would welcome it as I suspect that they wont be a majpr threat. I can only presume that it was Hughton who put the brakes on that appointment. His record at this level is superb. His last season in it he took Brighton up, then kept them in the league twice. Even now, for all of the Graham Potter hype, hes not improved on Hughtons 15th place finish. For all of the hot air regarding "nicer football" its only useful if it improves results.

Is that right? Surely not, just had a quick look and our possession stat seems to be showing at 53.1%, where is 44% from? To be honest, I can see without the need for stats that players like Travis, Evans and Downing in the middle are all competent on the ball, a massive upgrade on the dregs you mention earlier, but probably arent capable of dominating games week in week out. To be totally dedicated on controlling games week in and week out would be a bit naive from Mowbray. I think we could potentially play a pressing game with the young players we have in attacking positions. The stats also dont highlight how much of an anomaly Johnson is. He is dismal on the half turn and basically everytime he receives it in front of the back 4, he gets robbed of the ball, so he can never play should we want to dominate games. He cant sit in front of the back 4. Whereas it doesnt take much for your delusions to take over and seemingly think that everything is hunky dory. A 22 year old goalkeeper with minimal experience is very much a kid in footballing terms. The thing is, this isnt me being negative because its mere speculation that indicates that we will get another kid on loan to be in net. We dont even know either way. I just dont want one for pretty constructive reasons whereas if we signed Jason Steele back on loan youd be on here telling everyone how he has experience, he knows the club and is a very good signing. Out of interest, as its not a situation I see as remotely possible. But we get a kid (or 22-24 year old if you are going to be pedantic, lets say that Muric) on loan in net and spend 2m on Whiteman. Happy with the 2 signings, or annoyed that we have spent the money on an non urgent area and put another plaster on the area where we have no one? If there is any money, which I doubt, it has to go in goal or at centre back. We do not need a raw kid on loan in net!

I dont want to speak for him but I suspect that the neglect that he mentions is obviously not specifically about this event 5 years down the line, it is across their full ownership.

Surely not a cat in hells chance that we go into the opening day having presumably spent 3m plus on 2 signings without recouping anything plus getting those 2 back on loan. Thw idea of continuing the false 9 wide striker nonsense is a worry too.

City are signing Ake, perhaps another CB plus have Laporte, Garcia and still even if they are not in favour, Stones and Otamendi on the books. Plus Fernandinho. No chance that hes close to the first team. I think Mowbray speculated that he might go elsewhere to a Prem side or even to a different league which may be more likely.

Is there? To be honest, id be pleasantly surprised if theyd even got the budget sorted yet. This idea that we are so active at the moment in the market is almost certaintly inaccurate. I dont think theres a cat in hells chance of us spending a couple of million on Whiteman. If we was to follow the scenario you think will happen and loaned in a kid in net whilst spending a couple of million I am sure I wouldnt be alone in being fuming. Id be amazed if we spent 7 figures in this window without a big sale. Sadly dont see that happening at all but again id be fuming that we didnt spend that money on a goalkeper.

Pot of money? Will believe it when ive seen it sadly. A 2m midfielder couldnt be further down the list of priorities.

I was happy with signing Johnson. Of course but I would specifically be wary of signing a kid on loan to go in net. Thats my point. Phillips has just come off a season in which he was player of the season for his club at this level and any development would be to our benefit if it was permanent. Different ball game.

I accepted that there are exceptions to my opinion, indeed there would be positive and negative historical examples of all routes, older goalkeepers, goalkeepers signed from abroad, young loanees. I also have acknowledged that these goalkeepers have talent and it is not a lack of talent but more a potential lack of consistency at the age. The fact that these goalkeepers have potential is fairly immaterial to us if we are only loaning them. If we sign a keeper in his early 20s he is likely to be years and years away from his peak and any delevopment will benefit the parent club. For example with Raya, he made mistakes but once he became more consistent with age we would have benefitted. If we signed a younger goalkeeper but permanently the same would apply. If we loan a keeper it only really matters how good they are now in the immediate future, not what potential keeper they could eventually become. If you can not understand my reservations about loaning in a young, raw goalkeeper from a Premier League club then fair enough.

Exactly, not consistent with a club sure that a player isnt good enough. Maybe a season gaining plaudits might be the platform he needs here to push at least past a young lad who appeared out of his depth at this stage when thrown in.

Is he crap? He comes back every year and is farmed out again on loan, where he keeps getting promotions. This season, he has got another promotion, his club desperate to sign him up again in League 1 and has really impressed from the sound of it. I dont necessarily know either way whether he will be good enough or not, but as 3rd or 4th choice centre back, considering that we have Williams, who is League 1 standard, and Carter, who looks nowhere near up to it, at this point in his career. Seems incredibly premature to suggest that hes crap and they have written him off. Why do they keep loaning him out rather than just letting him go permanently if "they" have decided already that he isnt up to scratch. Even if they have previously decided that he isnt good enough, surely his performances this season are in his favour?

The problem is that goalkeeper is the most precarious position in the team. Sign an inconsistent and raw but talented young striker, winger or attacking midfielder that doesnt hit the ground running, its in an area if the pitch where you dont need to play him every week, you are likely to have many options in those areas so you can dip him in and out and even if he isnt good enough to even contribute occasionally, it isnt the end of the word. The further back you go, the more risky it can be. Get a centre back like Adarabioyo or White, then brilliant. Sign one that is nervy and making mistakes, you likely have 3 or 4 centre backs so you can take him out of the side. Less scope for rotation granted, so more likely to be a wasted loan, but still not awful. If its a keeper, the likelihood is that its under some sort of guarantee that he will be number 1. And even if not, its rare to have a competent and quality number 2 waiting in the wings. From the examples that I gave that didnt work out that you havent really acknowledged, Forest and Reading went out and signed goalkeepers from abroad that are amongst the top keepers in the division after getting Muric and Virginia, meaning that whilst any loan fee and wages were a waste of money, they didnt have to persist with keepers that obviously have talent but were not ready for Championship football. Huddersfield had to persist with Grabara until January, obviously not to their benefit, until they could desperately bring back Lossl. We saw ourselves what happens when we brought in and thus relied on a young goalkeeper who turned out not to be up to it. With no competent back up, we had to stick with him making mistakes. I dont know where this sudden obsession with Iversen has come from, he isnt a name that I have seen elsewhere, but ultimately he was playing in League 1 which is as we know not of the same standard. And I have never doubted that Iversen or indeed any of these young goalkeepers have ability, of course they do. I dont know how much of Rotherham you get to see but I cant say that I have seen much of him, so I am not rubbishing him individually. My point is more that in terms of the different cycles of different positions, goalkeepers mature and peak later than any other position. Goalkeepers with minimal first team experience will likely be most error prone at the start of their career, and these players have years and years before they peak. We could do without a raw keeper making mistakes that ultimately form part of a learning process to the benefit of the players parent club. I also do acknowledge that there are a few exceptions to the rule despite the point I am trying and perhaps failing to get across. Woodman is one example, Henderson was another. Do you not agree at all with my sentiments? That goalkeeper is possibly the worst position to sign an untested kid on loan? Would you prefer more experience in a goalkeeping position ideally if at all possible, or at least if it is a younger goalkeeper, one on a long term deal that we can develop to our benefit, as was the case with Raya? Or would you actively prefer a young loanee? Same logic to your post about the Liverpool keeper @WacoRover

Loans for me are used ideally to attain players that are of a quality that you couldnt afford. For us, Adarabioyo and Reed would have been had he been used right. You look at Brewster and Gallagher at Swansea, Ben White and Harrison at Leeds, they can just give you that push. Its when you start padding out your squad with them or plugging gaps that it can sometimes go a bit wrong. Mentioned it the other day but goalkeeper is a position where reliability and consistency is critical. If its a young keeper you at least want to know that the mistakes they are making, they will learn from. If they are not staying long anyway, it doesnt make a difference. You look this season, a few teams went down the road of loaning younger, "highly rated" goalkeepers: - Huddersfield got Grabara on loan from Liverpool. He made too many mistakes and when I saw them play with him in goal he looked a bag of nerves. They then signed Lossl on loan in January, a player they had before, and dropped him. - Forest signed Muric, a very highly rated young keeper from City. Had a shaky start, before you know it, they sign Samba who takes over and Muric is never seen again. - We had a talented young goalkeeper. He made mistakes, but the consolation was that at least, assuming he learnt from them, he was ours to develop. We sold him for cheap where he has progressed, got in an inferior keeper of the same age who has made mistake after mistake and we have never had anyone to even compete with him so he had to play every game and it cost us. - Reading siged Virgina, a highly rated keeper from Everton with no senior experience. Had a shocking start, they had to act, they dropped him and signed Rafael before sending Virginia back in January. In the interest of fairness, its not a totally fruitless avenue. Swansea signed Woodman who was very good. But I am certainly dead against the idea of loaning in a kid to be in net.

Ive seen us linked with Keiran OHara a few times on here. Some of his finest work here 50 seconds in plus for the last goal. Hes also amidst a 6 match ban for biting someone! Obviously amidst plenty of agent and supposed ITK driven rumours, I wonder when we will hear about 1 player we definitely are interested in, Stewart Downing?

Hes anything but steady.

You seem to be using the data for select things as matter of fact that Wharton is a better player at the moment as Goode. Ive not seen either player this season (I presume you are the same) so to just use data is incredibly flawed. The fact that Goode is out on his own in terms of Northamptons player of the season suggests that the fans who watch him every week think that he was their best player. My basis for potentially having Wharton around is not with any certainty on his ability. I just think we have one competent centre back, then we have an injury prone and not very good Derrick Williams, and an out of favour and past it Mulgrew. We also have Carter who lookee well off at this moment. The main difference is that any centre back coming in will need to slot into the first team, the potential expectation of Wharton would be to be a squad player. Ultimately his advantage is that he is already ours as you say. Im not doing it to be contrarion either. I share your opinion that signing a League 2 player to fill the void that we need as a partner for Lenihan is a big risk. Also the fee will be beyond us. But you are using these stats as total fact of the matter im absence of watching them regularly. Its not a fact, underlined and in bold that Wharton is better. I also think that Ben Heneghan didnt really pull up trees at Blackpool.

Totally agree that stats like this are of limited us and to totally dismiss him out of hand as "no better than" Wharton is an unfair conclusion to come to without seeing him play, https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/sport/football/hes-not-just-goode-hes-great-skipper-charlie-your-cobblers-player-year-2917874 He seems to have easily won player of the season there and you have to think, what is more valid, the opinion of fans who have seen him all season or just statistics? Obviously when you start analysing them across divisions it makes them even less of a barometer. That being said, I dont think we will spend a 7 figure sum on anyone, it seems like an agent driven story with every club in the league almost linked with him.

Seems to be linked with every team at this level. Would perhaps be a little strange considering his defensive partner from last year is already ours and with plenty of scope for improvement.

What makes you say they should out of interest? For me, no matter how highly rated he is. That is a huge risk to bring in a goalkeeper with no senior experience from another club. We would be reliant on it working out and if it didnt, wed likely only have a semi capable number 2 (like this seaso having to stick with Walton) as an alternative. Goalkeeper is the worst place to get a kid on loan because obviously he will be more prone to mistakes, which of course cost us and then give back his parent club a better player. With Raya we had a goalkeeper who made mistakes but he was ours at least to develop. With attacking players its a bit less risky because whilst it is of course not good if they dont work out. You have a series of attacking options at the club and even if they arent the best they probably arent directly costing you goals against like a rookie goalkeeper would.

I really hope not.