Well that window shut with a whimper

[RoversAlias]

  1969, no football manager is cheap, the better value is in the loan market for two reasons for us this season.
   It gives our new manager more time to assess where we need improving, and there is a better standard of player available for the money, and more choice.
  All the players who are not in their clubs thoughts and were up for transfer up to 5 o'clock today are now up for loan, plus players who do not make the premiership squads and those without clubs.
   Dickos, I can see your logic in numbers and quality, but I am hoping, and don't think it will be very hard, to make better use of the players at his disposal, especially positional, and probably tactically. Baudry and Williams were no good to us sat watching.

I agree mcann May get more out of the players and that’s still to be seen.
But my worry is injuries, if we get the injuries we got last year, mcann will be struggling

Why do you keep calling him "mcann"?

Sorry, do you not know who I mean?

Of course I do and a few times I've assumed you just typoed but you seem to be doing it on purpose and I don't get why. You obviously usually articulate yourself fine and well on here yet are spelling the new manager's name wrong consistently.

Married to the sudden total shift in your attitude towards things since the departure of Ferguson, who you defended more strongly than anyone on here, and I'm starting to wonder if the two things are related.

I'm not Coleman so I won't get the tinfoil hat out just yet but I was curious is all. And the constant budget debate in nearly every thread is boring me senseless so I thought I'd try to talk about something more interesting...like spelling!

[Campsall rover]

 

You can argue that we actually had/have a decent core squad, but Ferguson was unable to get the best out of them.

Agreed

[dickos1]

No my phone just swaps it to mcann so couldn’t be bothered to keep altering it.
I like McCann, and I’ll be happy clapping about him against the doom mongers come November time no doubt.
My whole point has been we haven’t really strengthened the squad this summer not that our budget is rubbish. We were told we had more money to spend but we’ve saved a load in wages over the summer and not re-invested it that’s my only point and it would be the same view if Ferguson was still here.

[silent majority]

Nobody has suggested we’ve lost people who made telling contributions.
What has been said is we’ve lost more players than we’ve brought in and last season we were very light in certain positions.
If mason gets injured we only have Lund if Andrew gets injured we only have Amos, if Marquis gets injured we’ve nobody.
Rate them or not, Williams, Alcock, Garrett, mandeville, were all decent options when players were injured and we’ve not replaced them.
Houghton and baudry were two of our most important players and they’ve gone.
We haven’t invested the money we’re now saving on the players that left.

Nope, can't agree with that, you even contradict yourself in your own post.

So, lets agree on your first line, we haven't lost anybody who made a telling contribution. The rest of your post doesn't hold any water; Williams, Alcock, Garrett and Mandeville, seriously?

[silent majority]

No my phone just swaps it to mcann so couldn’t be bothered to keep altering it.
I like McCann, and I’ll be happy clapping about him against the doom mongers come November time no doubt.
My whole point has been we haven’t really strengthened the squad this summer not that our budget is rubbish. We were told we had more money to spend but we’ve saved a load in wages over the summer and not re-invested it that’s my only point and it would be the same view if Ferguson was still here.

Saved loads in wages? Not really. (we've had this argument before but you insist on sticking to this line)

[RoversAlias]

No my phone just swaps it to mcann so couldn’t be bothered to keep altering it.
I like McCann, and I’ll be happy clapping about him against the doom mongers come November time no doubt.
My whole point has been we haven’t really strengthened the squad this summer not that our budget is rubbish. We were told we had more money to spend but we’ve saved a load in wages over the summer and not re-invested it that’s my only point and it would be the same view if Ferguson was still here.

Cheers for the explanation Dickos. Hopefully those doom mongers won't have need to come out in November although I suspect some would find a reason even if we were top of the league with 50 points.

[Campsall rover]

Nobody has suggested we’ve lost people who made telling contributions.
What has been said is we’ve lost more players than we’ve brought in and last season we were very light in certain positions.
If mason gets injured we only have Lund if Andrew gets injured we only have Amos, if Marquis gets injured we’ve nobody.
Rate them or not, Williams, Alcock, Garrett, mandeville, were all decent options when players were injured and we’ve not replaced them.
Houghton and baudry were two of our most important players and they’ve gone.
We haven’t invested the money we’re now saving on the players that left.

Dickos, how many full backs do you expect a league 1 club to have. As you stated we have 4 !!!
Personally I think the quality of the squad has improved.
Why have you gone all negative? Last season you lambasted anyone you thought was being negative.
The football last season was turgid in the main.
This season will not be. Where we will finish is open to debate of course, but it will be exciting with plenty of goals at both ends. A top 6 finish is possible but we need to match the numbers in the opposition midfield if we are to achieve our goal.
McCann will utilise the loan market when he needs to.
I for one am excited about the ride ahead. It might take a month or two to get it right but there is huge potential with this squad. Let’s see if McCann can get much more from it than DF did.
I think he will.
3-0 on Saturday is my prediction.

[dickos1]

Being a solid replacement for injuries and suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve made a telling contribution does it?
I think you’re constantly missing the point either consciously or not.
Last season we struggled with injuries, massively at times. Yet we’ve let more players go than we’ve recruited. Therefore when injuries strike again we’re going to be in a worse scenario than last year.

Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

[dickos1]

Nobody has suggested we’ve lost people who made telling contributions.
What has been said is we’ve lost more players than we’ve brought in and last season we were very light in certain positions.
If mason gets injured we only have Lund if Andrew gets injured we only have Amos, if Marquis gets injured we’ve nobody.
Rate them or not, Williams, Alcock, Garrett, mandeville, were all decent options when players were injured and we’ve not replaced them.
Houghton and baudry were two of our most important players and they’ve gone.
We haven’t invested the money we’re now saving on the players that left.

Dickos, how many full backs do you expect a league 1 club to have. As you stated we have 4 !!!
Personally I think the quality of the squad has improved.
Why have you gone all negative? Last season you lambasted anyone you thought was being negative.
The football last season was turgid in the main.
This season will not be. Where we will finish is open to debate of course, but it will be exciting with plenty of goals at both ends. A top 6 finish is possible but we need to match the numbers in the opposition midfield if we are to achieve our goal.
McCann will utilise the loan market when he needs to.
I for one am excited about the ride ahead. It might take a month or two to get it right but there is huge potential with this squad. Let’s see if McCann can get much more from it than DF did.
I think he will.
3-0 on Saturday is my prediction.

You could have me as a full back and you as another and we’d have 4 but we’re not good enough.
If mason got injured we’d have Lund who struggled in the league below last year, if Andrew gets injured we’ve got Amos who’s played 2 games is it? He may be brilliant but he might not be.
I’m not being negative about the manager at all, I just can’t understand why we’ve not invested the money we’ve saved from last season

[Bristol Red Rover]

....Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Keep to the facts.
"Crawford and Anderson." and Taylor and Watters (development).
We also had loans out last season - check this little lot out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Doncaster_Rovers_F.C._season#Loans_out

It really is 2 + 2 = -5 with you this season 

[silent majority]

Being a solid replacement for injuries and suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve made a telling contribution does it?
I think you’re constantly missing the point either consciously or not.
Last season we struggled with injuries, massively at times. Yet we’ve let more players go than we’ve recruited. Therefore when injuries strike again we’re going to be in a worse scenario than last year.

Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Exactly! Not a single one of them made a telling contribution, therefore we haven't really lost anything, unless you wish to move the goal posts and talk about solid replacements! You just keep muddying the waters so as to try and prove a point.

And as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, the players you mentioned were not on above average salaries at the club (apart from one). Evina, who you've included a few times, had his wages covered by Crawley as a loanee, and yet in your column you claim the savings in loaning out Mandeville and Garrett. You can't have it both ways.

[drfchound]

....Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Keep to the facts.
"Crawford and Anderson." and Taylor and Watters (development).
We also had loans out last season - check this little lot out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Doncaster_Rovers_F.C._season#Loans_out

It really is 2 + 2 = -5 with you this season 

.......and Wilkes who has already made an impression oh, as well as having Andrew available again after not playing last season apart from a couple of games last August.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Even at this early stage, and even accounting for Crawford's injury, I think the squad is better, and the signs are, they will be managed better.

The ones we lost were no loss at all really. The only one you could debate, would be Baudry but we can still understand why he was allowed to leave.

Houghton, was not the same player when he came back from injury, and given he wasn't our player anyway there's no debate there.

By now you should be able to understand the way McCann wants to play, so looking at the squad, it is more able to support that.

I firmly believe this squad, is capable of tipping the balance from last season where we snatched defeat (or draws) from the Jaws of victory on too many occasions. That in itself points wise would put us in a play off position.

Of course, talk is easy, we'll see what comes over the next 9 games which will tell us more, given we'll be up against quite a few of the fancied teams.

[dickos1]

Being a solid replacement for injuries and suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve made a telling contribution does it?
I think you’re constantly missing the point either consciously or not.
Last season we struggled with injuries, massively at times. Yet we’ve let more players go than we’ve recruited. Therefore when injuries strike again we’re going to be in a worse scenario than last year.

Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Exactly! Not a single one of them made a telling contribution, therefore we haven't really lost anything, unless you wish to move the goal posts and talk about solid replacements! You just keep muddying the waters so as to try and prove a point.

And as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, the players you mentioned were not on above average salaries at the club (apart from one). Evina, who you've included a few times, had his wages covered by Crawley as a loanee, and yet in your column you claim the savings in loaning out Mandeville and Garrett. You can't have it both ways.

Move the goal posts? As I said in my original post nobody has suggested we’ve lost players that made a telling contribution although thinking about it, how you can attempt to say baudry didn’t make a telling contribution is baffling. Look at the results when he played and the results when he didn’t. The squad is weaker surely a club that wants to progress should be getting stronger each year, yet we are starting this season with a weaker squad than we had last season.
The wage bill has been reduced.
Yet you keep trying to tell everyone it hasn’t!
I’ve never said they were on above average wages but if we lose 4/5 players on average wages and 1 player on above average and replace them with 3 players on an average wage then we’ve a lot of money left over haven’t we which hasn’t been re-invested.

I’m pretty sure we would have still been paying some of evinas wages and I’m pretty sure we were paying some of houghtons and kongolas so yes it is both ways.

[dickos1]

....Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Keep to the facts.
"Crawford and Anderson." and Taylor and Watters (development).
We also had loans out last season - check this little lot out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Doncaster_Rovers_F.C._season#Loans_out

It really is 2 + 2 = -5 with you this season 

We’ve got loans out this season have we not?
And we had 4 or 5 loans in that were regularly in the first team during their spell which indicates our squad wasn’t big enough yet this season it’s even smaller.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nobody has suggested we’ve lost people who made telling contributions.
What has been said is we’ve lost more players than we’ve brought in and last season we were very light in certain positions.
If mason gets injured we only have Lund if Andrew gets injured we only have Amos, if Marquis gets injured we’ve nobody.
Rate them or not, Williams, Alcock, Garrett, mandeville, were all decent options when players were injured and we’ve not replaced them.
Houghton and baudry were two of our most important players and they’ve gone.
We haven’t invested the money we’re now saving on the players that left.

1) We didn’t have Houghton 12 months ago.
2) We have replaced Baudry with a player who most seem to think is a more than adequate replacement.
3) I’ve just closed my eyes and imagined the carnage in here if we’d signedfour players like Williams, Alcock, Garrett and Mandeville this summer. Ouch!

[silent majority]

Being a solid replacement for injuries and suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve made a telling contribution does it?
I think you’re constantly missing the point either consciously or not.
Last season we struggled with injuries, massively at times. Yet we’ve let more players go than we’ve recruited. Therefore when injuries strike again we’re going to be in a worse scenario than last year.

Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Exactly! Not a single one of them made a telling contribution, therefore we haven't really lost anything, unless you wish to move the goal posts and talk about solid replacements! You just keep muddying the waters so as to try and prove a point.

And as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, the players you mentioned were not on above average salaries at the club (apart from one). Evina, who you've included a few times, had his wages covered by Crawley as a loanee, and yet in your column you claim the savings in loaning out Mandeville and Garrett. You can't have it both ways.

Move the goal posts? As I said in my original post nobody has suggested we’ve lost players that made a telling contribution although thinking about it, how you can attempt to say baudry didn’t make a telling contribution is baffling. Look at the results when he played and the results when he didn’t. The squad is weaker surely a club that wants to progress should be getting stronger each year, yet we are starting this season with a weaker squad than we had last season.
The wage bill has been reduced.
Yet you keep trying to tell everyone it hasn’t!
I’ve never said they were on above average wages but if we lose 4/5 players on average wages and 1 player on above average and replace them with 3 players on an average wage then we’ve a lot of money left over haven’t we which hasn’t been re-invested.

I’m pretty sure we would have still been paying some of evinas wages and I’m pretty sure we were paying some of houghtons and kongolas so yes it is both ways.

I asked for somebody to tell me who we had lost, from last season, who had made a telling contribution. You responded by saying we were down on numbers and listed several players who you claim were solid replacements. In other words it's a numbers game with you? But then again it isn't because you keep telling everyone we have a weaker squad than a year ago. So it's not numbers then?

Williams, Alcock, Garrett and Mandeville were not decent options, you can spin it as often as you like, but they weren't, otherwise they would still be here.

[The Red Baron]

I know people have mixed opinions on loan players but I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple come in from Premier League clubs. The window for loans closes at the end of the month. It was noticeable how little business was done by clubs below the Championship yesterday.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

We haven't seen Kane kick a ball yet, or even Vieira. GM will use the time between now and the close of the loan window, as all managers will to assess where any weaknesses are. It's far from being a weaker squad.

Injuries to key players would affect every club in the EFL, as it did last year, so you can't say we're in any worse position.

[DearneValleyRover]

I too fully expect us to bring a couple if not more loan players, a central defender and a forward minimum

[Alan Southstand]

Don't forget midfield, DVR!

For anyone to suggest we are a stronger squad this season, they must be on a different planet to me!

As things stand, right now, we are weaker. The first team was just about ok, but now we have one player who looks like he's not going to be a regular. 45 mins v Sheff U - injured; less v Southend - injured. I hope the lad recovers well and proves a lot of people wrong, but the question marks are now hanging over his head.

Let's also hope young Kane turns out to be a cracker and is joined by 1 or 2 more before the end of August, otherwise it's going to be a long season.

[dickos1]

Being a solid replacement for injuries and suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve made a telling contribution does it?
I think you’re constantly missing the point either consciously or not.
Last season we struggled with injuries, massively at times. Yet we’ve let more players go than we’ve recruited. Therefore when injuries strike again we’re going to be in a worse scenario than last year.

Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Exactly! Not a single one of them made a telling contribution, therefore we haven't really lost anything, unless you wish to move the goal posts and talk about solid replacements! You just keep muddying the waters so as to try and prove a point.

And as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, the players you mentioned were not on above average salaries at the club (apart from one). Evina, who you've included a few times, had his wages covered by Crawley as a loanee, and yet in your column you claim the savings in loaning out Mandeville and Garrett. You can't have it both ways.

Move the goal posts? As I said in my original post nobody has suggested we’ve lost players that made a telling contribution although thinking about it, how you can attempt to say baudry didn’t make a telling contribution is baffling. Look at the results when he played and the results when he didn’t. The squad is weaker surely a club that wants to progress should be getting stronger each year, yet we are starting this season with a weaker squad than we had last season.
The wage bill has been reduced.
Yet you keep trying to tell everyone it hasn’t!
I’ve never said they were on above average wages but if we lose 4/5 players on average wages and 1 player on above average and replace them with 3 players on an average wage then we’ve a lot of money left over haven’t we which hasn’t been re-invested.

I’m pretty sure we would have still been paying some of evinas wages and I’m pretty sure we were paying some of houghtons and kongolas so yes it is both ways.

I asked for somebody to tell me who we had lost, from last season, who had made a telling contribution. You responded by saying we were down on numbers and listed several players who you claim were solid replacements. In other words it's a numbers game with you? But then again it isn't because you keep telling everyone we have a weaker squad than a year ago. So it's not numbers then?

Williams, Alcock, Garrett and Mandeville were not decent options, you can spin it as often as you like, but they weren't, otherwise they would still be here.

If we’re down on numbers then the squad overall is weaker. That’s self explanatory.
It’s not just me who’s pointing out the fact we haven’t re-invested the money we’re saving from last season.
Some of the most respected posters on here such as Jonathon, wing commander have also had the same thoughts regarding the lack of
Replacements in certain positions but for some reason you just keep coming at me.
Just because players have left it doesn’t mean they werent good cover for us last season.

[ravenrover]

Being a solid replacement for injuries and suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve made a telling contribution does it?
I think you’re constantly missing the point either consciously or not.
Last season we struggled with injuries, massively at times. Yet we’ve let more players go than we’ve recruited. Therefore when injuries strike again we’re going to be in a worse scenario than last year.

Baudry, Williams, Evina, Alcock, all gone and we’ve replaced those with Crawford and Anderson.
Are you attempting to tell me Crawford and Anderson are on more than baudry, Williams, evina, Alcock?
Not to mention the loan departures of mandeville, Garrett, and the loss of houghtons wage contribution.
It’s obvious the wage bill has decreased I’m not sticking to any line

Exactly! Not a single one of them made a telling contribution, therefore we haven't really lost anything, unless you wish to move the goal posts and talk about solid replacements! You just keep muddying the waters so as to try and prove a point.

And as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, the players you mentioned were not on above average salaries at the club (apart from one). Evina, who you've included a few times, had his wages covered by Crawley as a loanee, and yet in your column you claim the savings in loaning out Mandeville and Garrett. You can't have it both ways.

Move the goal posts? As I said in my original post nobody has suggested we’ve lost players that made a telling contribution although thinking about it, how you can attempt to say baudry didn’t make a telling contribution is baffling. Look at the results when he played and the results when he didn’t. The squad is weaker surely a club that wants to progress should be getting stronger each year, yet we are starting this season with a weaker squad than we had last season.
The wage bill has been reduced.
Yet you keep trying to tell everyone it hasn’t!
I’ve never said they were on above average wages but if we lose 4/5 players on average wages and 1 player on above average and replace them with 3 players on an average wage then we’ve a lot of money left over haven’t we which hasn’t been re-invested.

I’m pretty sure we would have still been paying some of evinas wages and I’m pretty sure we were paying some of houghtons and kongolas so yes it is both ways.

I asked for somebody to tell me who we had lost, from last season, who had made a telling contribution. You responded by saying we were down on numbers and listed several players who you claim were solid replacements. In other words it's a numbers game with you? But then again it isn't because you keep telling everyone we have a weaker squad than a year ago. So it's not numbers then?

Williams, Alcock, Garrett and Mandeville were not decent options, you can spin it as often as you like, but they weren't, otherwise they would still be here.

If we’re down on numbers then the squad overall is weaker. That’s self explanatory.
It’s not just me who’s pointing out the fact we haven’t re-invested the money we’re saving from last season.
Some of the most respected posters on here such as Jonathon, wing commander have also had the same thoughts regarding the lack of
Replacements in certain positions but for some reason you just keep coming at me.
Just because players have left it doesn’t mean they werent good cover for us last season.

Have you considered that the senior players ie Copps Rowe Marquis Butler and others are still on the same money they were last season? They must have pretty poor agents if there was no pay rise or increased incentives linked into their contracts, so maybe not saving as much as you keep saying

[dickos1]

Copps signed a new contract on reduced terms the others were all under contract and I’m not sure when they get older it goes up each year it’s more likely to go down.

[ravenrover]

As you get older do you expect your wages to go down? What sort of agent negotiates a contract like that? As for Copps it may have been on reduced terms, I take it that is in the public domain somewhere or is it inside info? but I bet there were plenty of incentives to offset it

[silent majority]

Copps signed a new contract on reduced terms the others were all under contract and I’m not sure when they get older it goes up each year it’s more likely to go down.

Your doing it again! Since when does your opinion become a fact?

The difference between you and the posters you mention is that they read what I write and then adjust their position. Unfortunately with you the determination to argue your point means that you change your position on a continuous basis and ignore valid reasons that differ with your view. You also post stuff as fact because it suits you to do so, despite having no proof or knowledge that it's right to do so.

You argue budgets, salaries and reasons for managers leaving when you have absolutely nothing to base that upon apart from your opinion. Despite me offering the right version you continue to argue, there's no debate with you, just your strongly held view which gets repeated over and over.

[Filo]

Copps signed a new contract on reduced terms the others were all under contract and I’m not sure when they get older it goes up each year it’s more likely to go down.

Are you privy to contract negotiations?

[RoversAlias]

" we’re down on numbers then the squad overall is weaker. That’s self explanatory."

How is that true? A squad can be filled with dross and players who don't get a game, then those can be shipped out for better players but you don't have to replace them all like for like.

I posted last week in one thread directly comparing our departures to our incomings in terms of perceived quality and it worked out that we were maybe only one down on last season's squad. I'm not doing it again but when you look at our squad overall it is at least as strong if not stronger than last year on the face of it. Signing loads of new players doesn't always equate to a better team, it doesn't work that way.

[dickos1]

Copps signed a new contract on reduced terms the others were all under contract and I’m not sure when they get older it goes up each year it’s more likely to go down.

Your doing it again! Since when does your opinion become a fact?

The difference between you and the posters you mention is that they read what I write and then adjust their position. Unfortunately with you the determination to argue your point means that you change your position on a continuous basis and ignore valid reasons that differ with your view. You also post stuff as fact because it suits you to do so, despite having no proof or knowledge that it's right to do so.

You argue budgets, salaries and reasons for managers leaving when you have absolutely nothing to base that upon apart from your opinion. Despite me offering the right version you continue to argue, there's no debate with you, just your strongly held view which gets repeated over and over.

Ferguson stated at the time the contract offer to coppinger would be in reduced terms.
Jonathan hasn’t adjusted his position, he clearly felt the money hasn’t been invested on an experienced midfielder and cover for Marquis. Same view as myself.

I couldn’t care less about the budget, but shouting about it being bigger than last years back in May was silly.

[dickos1]

" we’re down on numbers then the squad overall is weaker. That’s self explanatory."

How is that true? A squad can be filled with dross and players who don't get a game, then those can be shipped out for better players but you don't have to replace them all like for like.

I posted last week in one thread directly comparing our departures to our incomings in terms of perceived quality and it worked out that we were maybe only one down on last season's squad. I'm not doing it again but when you look at our squad overall it is at least as strong if not stronger than last year on the face of it. Signing loads of new players doesn't always equate to a better team, it doesn't work that way.

I’m fed up with discussing it now, there’s a few of you that are so unbelievably defensive of the board it’s untrue.
Let’s just see what happens,