So thats why Fergy left!

[sedwardsdrfc]

I think he’s right in what he says,
After that first season of consolidation we needed to push on and try and get into the championship.
But for whatever reason we didn’t do that,
As SM has stated Mccann over achieved, that squad wasn’t great but was topped up with very good loan players.
We should’ve signed better players after that season but the necessary money wasn’t made available.

The squad included, before loan signings:

Coppinger
Marquis
Whiteman
Anderson
Wright
Blair
Rowe
Butler
Andrew
Mason
Marosi
May

All competent upper end L1 players. All bar Andrew availsble to Ferguson the year before, when he served up dross week in, week out.

I agree that we had a decent core of players back then, but I think it’s stretching the truth a bit to say that all of those are upper end L1 players.

Blair, Mason, Marosi and May were top end L1 players? They all mostly did a good job for us, but that’s a bit of a reach if you ask me. Could add one or two others as well.

Thing is in the lower leagues a solid group can become a top group with a few special players for the level. Whiteman, Marquis, Rowe, Copps and in form Anderson were at that level that would have taken most mid table clubs to been play off material imo

[BillyStubbsTears]

Rowe very rarely played under mccann, May the same,
Look at the squad fergie inherited and the one he left us with, it’s a massive contrast.
Further down the line you can look at the squad Moore inherited and the one he left us with, that’s the job that’s caused our current position

Nobody's is questioining Ferguson's eye for a player. It's just that when he put them out on the pitch, they were often cack. As for whether players played a lot under McCann, you're moving the goalposts. You said McCann had a squad that "wasn't great". I disagree.  The key point was that the core of the squad that McCann had was the same core that Ferguson had had the year before, and massively underperformed with. And then, if we believe his article. walked away from because it wasn't good enough.

Rowe made 32 league appearances under McCann by the way.

And that’s what I said, his recruitment was excellent but whether he got the best out of him is a different matter.

And regarding mcann, I’d definitely stand by it not being great.
It wasn’t. And he had to top it up with loan players which he did excellently

There were only two season long loans in the McCann season (Wilks and Kane). Granted, they were both excellent, but two players don't make a poor squad a promotion chasing one.

The other loanees were the sort you get every season - 1-4 month jobs (Downing, Lewis, Cummings) to cover injuries (Anderson, Wright) or other issues (Mason) and the odd speculative one that you hope will come off but doesn't (Smith).

Your argument that the core squad that McCann inherited was a poor one and that it needed major support from loan players doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. We didn't use loan players to any great extent that season - only 3 made more than 7 starts and one of those wouldn't have been signed but for the loss of key players to long term injuries and disciplinary action.

[Chris Black come back]

Also, it should be massive credit to McCann that he either sourced, and / or maximised, Kane and Wilks. The loans that Ferguson brought to the club were nowhere near the same impact as loanees, although Whiteman and Anderson became integral after they were made permanent. McCann did a great job with a good squad.

[dickos1]

Rowe very rarely played under mccann, May the same,
Look at the squad fergie inherited and the one he left us with, it’s a massive contrast.
Further down the line you can look at the squad Moore inherited and the one he left us with, that’s the job that’s caused our current position

Nobody's is questioining Ferguson's eye for a player. It's just that when he put them out on the pitch, they were often cack. As for whether players played a lot under McCann, you're moving the goalposts. You said McCann had a squad that "wasn't great". I disagree.  The key point was that the core of the squad that McCann had was the same core that Ferguson had had the year before, and massively underperformed with. And then, if we believe his article. walked away from because it wasn't good enough.

Rowe made 32 league appearances under McCann by the way.

And that’s what I said, his recruitment was excellent but whether he got the best out of him is a different matter.

And regarding mcann, I’d definitely stand by it not being great.
It wasn’t. And he had to top it up with loan players which he did excellently

There were only two season long loans in the McCann season (Wilks and Kane). Granted, they were both excellent, but two players don't make a poor squad a promotion chasing one.

The other loanees were the sort you get every season - 1-4 month jobs (Downing, Lewis, Cummings) to cover injuries (Anderson, Wright) or other issues (Mason) and the odd speculative one that you hope will come off but doesn't (Smith).

Your argument that the core squad that McCann inherited was a poor one and that it needed major support from loan players doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. We didn't use loan players to any great extent that season - only 3 made more than 7 starts and one of those wouldn't have been signed but for the loss of key players to long term injuries and disciplinary action.

Disagree completely
Take Kane and Wilks out of that squad and we wouldn’t have been in the play offs.
Not a chance

Also I’ve not once said the squad was poor, youve added that in, I said the squad wasn’t great.

[no eyed deer]

Fergie wanted more money to spend, the club said you're getting enough to do a good job. Any other spin on that is conjecture as far as I can see.

That's not how I see it now and back then.  Many said the board were happy with league one no ambition, but on record said they otherwise.

Just look at which league we are in now !

It's all about balancing the books, yet told top 5 budget?

As I said, conjecture.

So what the point in this message board as we could say the same about the majority if the posts...yours included

If they're like yours and based on 'beliefs' and 'feelings' rather than actual facts, then indeed.

So yet again Glyn is right and all others are wrong.

Or could it be you are gullible and believe what you are told to be facts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Rowe very rarely played under mccann, May the same,
Look at the squad fergie inherited and the one he left us with, it’s a massive contrast.
Further down the line you can look at the squad Moore inherited and the one he left us with, that’s the job that’s caused our current position

Nobody's is questioining Ferguson's eye for a player. It's just that when he put them out on the pitch, they were often cack. As for whether players played a lot under McCann, you're moving the goalposts. You said McCann had a squad that "wasn't great". I disagree.  The key point was that the core of the squad that McCann had was the same core that Ferguson had had the year before, and massively underperformed with. And then, if we believe his article. walked away from because it wasn't good enough.

Rowe made 32 league appearances under McCann by the way.

And that’s what I said, his recruitment was excellent but whether he got the best out of him is a different matter.

And regarding mcann, I’d definitely stand by it not being great.
It wasn’t. And he had to top it up with loan players which he did excellently

There were only two season long loans in the McCann season (Wilks and Kane). Granted, they were both excellent, but two players don't make a poor squad a promotion chasing one.

The other loanees were the sort you get every season - 1-4 month jobs (Downing, Lewis, Cummings) to cover injuries (Anderson, Wright) or other issues (Mason) and the odd speculative one that you hope will come off but doesn't (Smith).

Your argument that the core squad that McCann inherited was a poor one and that it needed major support from loan players doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. We didn't use loan players to any great extent that season - only 3 made more than 7 starts and one of those wouldn't have been signed but for the loss of key players to long term injuries and disciplinary action.

Disagree completely
Take Kane and Wilks out of that squad and we wouldn’t have been in the play offs.
Not a chance

Also I’ve not once said the squad was poor, you've added that in, I said the squad wasn’t great.

Yes, I agree that we wouldn't have made the play-offs without those two. But they were the finishing off of what was already a strong, established squad. And the fact that the Board was prepared to fund their wages totally gives the lie to Ferguson's claim that there was no support for a promotion push.

As for your other point, I prefer not to second guess other people's semantics, so maybe you could explain what "not great" means? Not historically great by our standards? Worse than average for that division? Poor enough to have finished just 6 points out of the relegation zone as they  did under Ferguson the year before? Given that much of that squad, even with the loss of Marquis, was strong enough to be in the top 8-9 for much of the 18 months after McCann left, I'd say it was a pretty strong core squad.

[Bentley Bullet]

Maybe the board was prepared to fund the wages of Kane and Wilks because it was what McCann requested? Maybe they realised that Ferguson had a point and more quality was required and had to give in to the request in order to get their man (McCann).

[Glyn_Wigley]

Fergie wanted more money to spend, the club said you're getting enough to do a good job. Any other spin on that is conjecture as far as I can see.

That's not how I see it now and back then.  Many said the board were happy with league one no ambition, but on record said they otherwise.

Just look at which league we are in now !

It's all about balancing the books, yet told top 5 budget?

As I said, conjecture.

So what the point in this message board as we could say the same about the majority if the posts...yours included

If they're like yours and based on 'beliefs' and 'feelings' rather than actual facts, then indeed.

So yet again Glyn is right and all others are wrong.

Or could it be you are gullible and believe what you are told to be facts.

I've not said that anyone is wrong. Just that conjecture needs to be recognised as such, but even more so by those who write it and pretend that it isn't.

Could it be that you make your own facts up and other people are gullible enough to believe them.

[silent majority]

Maybe the board was prepared to fund the wages of Kane and Wilks because it was what McCann requested? Maybe they realised that Ferguson had a point and more quality was required and had to give in to the request in order to get their man (McCann).

No truth in that.

I remember posting at the time that the club had made funds available for GMc and that he hadn’t spent them. I also remember that he’d resisted the temptation from the club to do so and said he wasn’t going to spend money just because it was there.

[steve@dcfd]

Yet when MCCann wanted come back stronger he couldn’t get the players off his list to improve us. He made it difficult so some players left to all ow him to have some funds but it was not enough Hull came calling and the rest is history.
Things haven’t changed yes over the last two years we have brought in players we could afford has the quality improved no. Did we replace Whiteman and Marquis with better or even the same quality no.
Second half of last season and this season we’ve brought in good young players which we hope will improve. A couple seasoned pros which we hope will stay fit.
But at this moment we have not seen our best eleven that played in preseason together.
We will only see if the squad when and if all fit can get us out of this league.
Then we return to the conundrum if we are promoted can we get the quality to move to the next step or even challenge.
Which Ferguson, MCCann, Moore,Wellens and McSheffrey couldn’t is it the managers or the club that self sufficiency comes before ambition

[Bentley Bullet]

Maybe the board was prepared to fund the wages of Kane and Wilks because it was what McCann requested? Maybe they realised that Ferguson had a point and more quality was required and had to give in to the request in order to get their man (McCann).

No truth in that.

I remember posting at the time that the club had made funds available for GMc and that he hadn’t spent them. I also remember that he’d resisted the temptation from the club to do so and said he wasn’t going to spend money just because it was there.

Is there any truth in the rumour that Ferguson was given a budget for the following season and then it was reduced?

[scawsby steve]

Could someone provide some evidence that Rovers paid the wages of Kane and Wilks, because I've always understood that we pay no more than 50% of loan players' wages, and even less than that for those from Premier League clubs.

[Alickismyhero]

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-were-never-going-to-match-my-ambitions-claims-former-boss-darren-ferguson-3802039

This completes Fergy's side of the storey

[silent majority]

So, according to him Peterborough weren't ambitious enough when they were in the Championship and we didn't match his ambitions when we were in LG1.

I think you all know what ambition means.

[steve@dcfd]

Yes our ambition is self sufficient club which we saw the direction we went last year. We are all hoping that we can turn the direction without spending on more quality players

[DonnyBazR0ver]

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-were-never-going-to-match-my-ambitions-claims-former-boss-darren-ferguson-3802039

This completes Fergy's side of the storey

Just a regurgitation of the same piece that started the thread.

Quite telling his ironic comments about Peterborough,  as Martin says.

The second irony when some fans held Posh up as a model only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Their season last season mirrored ours in so many ways with injuries and not being able to attract players in January  due to their lowly position, whilst still having a fair number of contracted players they couldn't get rid of.

Ambition has to be proportionate.

[Bentley Bullet]

The question is, is ambition and self sufficiency a good combination for success on the pitch? So far there is little if any evidence that it is.

[WarwickRover]

I’d have Ferguson back, in shot, I’m sure he would provide better than the dross we have seen the last 9 months.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

I’d have Ferguson back, in shot, I’m sure he would provide better than the dross we have seen the last 9 months.

We played some dross under him too. On balance, yes he was a good manager for us although he did keep making the same mistakes when insisting on 3 at the back when not having the right personnel to play it.

Whilst I hear what your saying BB, being self sustaining or, self sufficient is better than being unsustainable and we've been there before too.

Peterborough could not sustain it either because the income has to be proportionate to the expenditure. With limited attendances and subsequent income, it can soon become unsustainable and you're reliant on your owners plugging the shortfall.

I firmly believe it's not the lack of financial support, but the way it's been used with the lack of stability with frequent changes in management regimes.

Unsustainability is not an option.

[selby]

  The real shock to the EFL is coming a couple of years down the line, that is why some big names in Division 1 are going to keep pushing the boat out if the rumours circulating are true.

[WarwickRover]

I forgot, he did serve up some dross

I agree it is not the lack of financial support, could be due to lack of stability.

Perhaps we need a coach who is tactically astute?

[Bessie Red]

Yet when MCCann wanted come back stronger he couldn’t get the players off his list to improve us. He made it difficult so some players left to all ow him to have some funds but it was not enough Hull came calling and the rest is history.
Things haven’t changed yes over the last two years we have brought in players we could afford has the quality improved no. Did we replace Whiteman and Marquis with better or even the same quality no.
Second half of last season and this season we’ve brought in good young players which we hope will improve. A couple seasoned pros which we hope will stay fit.
But at this moment we have not seen our best eleven that played in preseason together.
We will only see if the squad when and if all fit can get us out of this league.
Then we return to the conundrum if we are promoted can we get the quality to move to the next step or even challenge.
Which Ferguson, MCCann, Moore,Wellens and McSheffrey couldn’t is it the managers or the club that self sufficiency comes before ambition

Your final point will hopefully be addressed by the fact that the young lads brought in on 2/3 year deals will have improved even more over this season and if not promoted this season, improved again next season. They will be our players, so any additional talented players can be loanees in lge 1.
The new model of buying young talent on 2/3 year contracts is much better for continued success than filling half your team with young Prem players.

[Bessie Red]

Maybe the board was prepared to fund the wages of Kane and Wilks because it was what McCann requested? Maybe they realised that Ferguson had a point and more quality was required and had to give in to the request in order to get their man (McCann).

No truth in that.

I remember posting at the time that the club had made funds available for GMc and that he hadn’t spent them. I also remember that he’d resisted the temptation from the club to do so and said he wasn’t going to spend money just because it was there.

Thats how I remember it.

[Bessie Red]

Yeah I'm overplaying Blair and May, but they were solid L1 squad members.

Marosi? I didn't rate him. But the following season he was an ever present for the L1 champions, then played 20 matches in the Championship, so what do I know?

Also May was one of the highest scorers in the league last season playing for a mediocre team and subject to rumour that Championship teams were casting an eye over him.

[RobTheRover]

I think it kind of confirms what a lot of us were thinking anyway, no real surprises.

Some on here will still not have you believe it though 

Which is what though?

You need to read between the lines and not accept what you consider is the version that you want to believe.

Exactly. This is Darren's version from his perspective. I can guarantee the club's will be very different.

[Upton Rover]

All true words spoken

[aidanstu]

There's nothing in what he says in that article that is particularly damning about his time with us. He days the club were very supportive when he could have been sacked.

He had a League One budget in League Two and yes, he got us promoted barring a poor end to the season when winning the league was in our sights.

Thrre's nothing particularly wrong with consolidation however, he says he didn't have the stomach to debate the finances with the owners, given the situation with his dad etc.

I said at the time, being a football manager is all consuming and stressful so nobody's going to blame him for saying, you know what, I don't need this right now. Not the first time and not the last time he resigned from his job. Not the first time he didn't see eye to eye with the owner, confirming he stopped talking to McAnthony in his spell at Peterborough before joining us.

Of course there will be those who focus on the finances as the reason he resigned but there clearly were more pressing issues at the time.

He calls it consolidation Baz, but a top 5 budget is not consolidation, its an opportunity to finish in the play-offs, which as bfyp says we managed to do the following season.

That’s if you buy into the propaganda of us having a top 6 budget in the first place. He isn’t the first manager to say that was just bs rhetoric is he?

[roversdude]

He’s not going to come out and say he’d lost confidence in himself and was crap-he moved the club forward but we played some abysmal football and came third in a one horse race

[Barmby Rover]

So, DF is a liar and a bad coach, GM is also a liar and is unable to motivate a team, DM was only looking for a big club, and so couldn't cope with a budget, RW couldn't manage a massive budget and employed poor players with it, having run out of money for a striker. 4 managers all poor at their job, according to those "who know", amazing any of them have had any success since isn't it? When you get arguments like these you have to look at common factors...... that one I will leave up to you!

[Jonathan]

Rowe very rarely played under mccann, May the same,
Look at the squad fergie inherited and the one he left us with, it’s a massive contrast.
Further down the line you can look at the squad Moore inherited and the one he left us with, that’s the job that’s caused our current position

Nobody's is questioining Ferguson's eye for a player. It's just that when he put them out on the pitch, they were often cack. As for whether players played a lot under McCann, you're moving the goalposts. You said McCann had a squad that "wasn't great". I disagree.  The key point was that the core of the squad that McCann had was the same core that Ferguson had had the year before, and massively underperformed with. And then, if we believe his article. walked away from because it wasn't good enough.

Rowe made 32 league appearances under McCann by the way.

And that’s what I said, his recruitment was excellent but whether he got the best out of him is a different matter.

And regarding mcann, I’d definitely stand by it not being great.
It wasn’t. And he had to top it up with loan players which he did excellently

There were only two season long loans in the McCann season (Wilks and Kane). Granted, they were both excellent, but two players don't make a poor squad a promotion chasing one.

The other loanees were the sort you get every season - 1-4 month jobs (Downing, Lewis, Cummings) to cover injuries (Anderson, Wright) or other issues (Mason) and the odd speculative one that you hope will come off but doesn't (Smith).

Your argument that the core squad that McCann inherited was a poor one and that it needed major support from loan players doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. We didn't use loan players to any great extent that season - only 3 made more than 7 starts and one of those wouldn't have been signed but for the loss of key players to long term injuries and disciplinary action.

Disagree completely
Take Kane and Wilks out of that squad and we wouldn’t have been in the play offs.
Not a chance

Also I’ve not once said the squad was poor, you've added that in, I said the squad wasn’t great.

Yes, I agree that we wouldn't have made the play-offs without those two. But they were the finishing off of what was already a strong, established squad. And the fact that the Board was prepared to fund their wages totally gives the lie to Ferguson's claim that there was no support for a promotion push.

As for your other point, I prefer not to second guess other people's semantics, so maybe you could explain what "not great" means? Not historically great by our standards? Worse than average for that division? Poor enough to have finished just 6 points out of the relegation zone as they  did under Ferguson the year before? Given that much of that squad, even with the loss of Marquis, was strong enough to be in the top 8-9 for much of the 18 months after McCann left, I'd say it was a pretty strong core squad.

I feel “not great” means just that - not great. There was the core of a strong team there, but in taking that on McCann totally transformed the role of Whiteman and that’s what turned him into one of the best players in the division. With that transformation, plus the acquisition of Kane and Wilks, McCann managed to take a squad that didn’t look great, and certainly lacked depth and options, and build a team that did exceptionally well. I’ve seen it argued that he got lucky with injuries. Perhaps so, and that enabled us to reach the play offs as the squad wasn’t particularly strong, which is why we had to go out and get Downing at Christmas once we did suffer injuries.

I’ve no issue with the board backing given to either of them, and McCann showed it was possible to get more out of the group. If there was a summer that I felt we really didn’t take advantage of what we have and build on that base, then it’s the one that followed when McCann left.