No money for anyone but Whiteman?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

We have 3 left backs. One is injured but if Garrett doesn't get the chance then sell him basically...

[Campsall rover]

Play Garrett at Left Back or what about Fielding or Amos, have either on the bench, if that doesn't work play Rowe there .

To play Rowe at left back would be madness. First of all he is not particularly good defensively and secondly along with Copps he is our most creative player.

[Jonathan]

We have 3 left backs. One is injured but if Garrett doesn't get the chance then sell him basically...

I agree. And I wouldn’t sell him. I’d give him the chance. He still has a lot to learn but he’s our asset and we’ll see the benefit of him progressing and developing with more experience.

[steve@dcfd]

We have 3 left backs. One is injured but if Garrett doesn't get the chance then sell him basically...

It would go on the lines of Evina, Lund, Middleton, Etheridge and Williams nobody wanted them.

[the vicar]

Whilst understanding the angst of the opening post we should remember the money the owners put into the club in 2016( £2 million ). I imagine a similar amount will be contributed this season too.

but the budget for league one should be bigger than a league two budget as we need much better players or we are standing still

[the vicar]

Left back and right back in the changing room 🤤😶

[Bessie Red]

Think the whole forum is in agreement that Garrett should be left back and Mason right back!

I don't understand why everyone seems to think Garrett isn't capable of playing  left back  regularly. Up until Saturday every game he has played in this season Rovers have been undefeated.
Yeah he is young & inexperienced but he is obviously doing something right!!

[pib]

All this talk of a left back and I would've thought a striker would be the priority.

DF has said himself we haven't scored enough goals this season and that's what has held us back.  It's clear as day watching us that we could do with some more quality up there.

[Retdon1]

If there is zero left in the budget for a left back then I'm sure fergy has enough contacts in the game to try a haggle a bargain cut price loan deal for a young left back from a premier league club as the window nears the end.

[silent majority]

Quote
That isn't good enough at all and whether it's down to the manager or the board I think it could be a mistake that costs us come season's end.

The budget was agreed with the manager and the board, if DF needed a financial package to go outside that the board will have to agree.
We have what we’ve got and if can maintain our league position we wil see, if we start to go down the league then it’s down to all of them.
It also can’t be helped they we have players out with long term illness or injury that are not helping the situation.

You have to bear in  mind that if Whiteman signs a permanent contract then this will blow a major hole in the budget as this is additional cost to the budget that was already agreed. As I've said before, if you put a good business case to the board then they will consider this on its merits. The original strategy and thinking was that Whiteman would remain a SUFC player and we would have a loan player for the season, at a reduced cost.

However this opportunity has arisen and I'm sure the board will be thinking that this makes good financial sense and good sense long term for the interests of the club.

I can see that to a point. But in the budget we allowed for the signing of Houghton permanently and Whiteman on loan. If we sign Whiteman permanently all we have done is swapped the two financial packages round. Therefore it should not be a major hole in the budget. Depends on the two packages if it’s additional than planned.

No that's not right. Remember we never thought we would get Houghton on a permanent either therefore it wasn't in the original budget. But more than that there is no comparison between the two financial packages.

The extra money needed for somebody like Whiteman will mean a substantial increase on a budget that was already at a significant level.

[Bessie Red]

Quote
That isn't good enough at all and whether it's down to the manager or the board I think it could be a mistake that costs us come season's end.

The budget was agreed with the manager and the board, if DF needed a financial package to go outside that the board will have to agree.
We have what we’ve got and if can maintain our league position we wil see, if we start to go down the league then it’s down to all of them.
It also can’t be helped they we have players out with long term illness or injury that are not helping the situation.

You have to bear in  mind that if Whiteman signs a permanent contract then this will blow a major hole in the budget as this is additional cost to the budget that was already agreed. As I've said before, if you put a good business case to the board then they will consider this on its merits. The original strategy and thinking was that Whiteman would remain a SUFC player and we would have a loan player for the season, at a reduced cost.

However this opportunity has arisen and I'm sure the board will be thinking that this makes good financial sense and good sense long term for the interests of the club.

I can see that to a point. But in the budget we allowed for the signing of Houghton permanently and Whiteman on loan. If we sign Whiteman permanently all we have done is swapped the two financial packages round. Therefore it should not be a major hole in the budget. Depends on the two packages if it’s additional than planned.

No that's not right. Remember we never thought we would get Houghton on a permanent either therefore it wasn't in the original budget. But more than that there is no comparison between the two financial packages.

The extra money needed for somebody like Whiteman will mean a substantial increase on a budget that was already at a significant level.

SM are you saying that Whiteman will cost more than Houghton for a peemanent move, if so that surprises me!!

[ravenrover]

And on Saturday it was a "definite" no to bringing anyone in, well well

[drfchound]

If we got relegated this season then I think DF should do time in Siberia. History surely can’t repeat itself can it? 
Personally I think there is more chance of pigs flying over the Keepmoat while we watch Rovers beat Plymouth on Saturday.  Well let’s hope we win, will be a tough match.
There are at least 10 teams worse than us in this league.
I think it would have to take a major injury crisis to get us into a relegation scrap now.

Who would have thought two years ago that we might get involved in the relegation scrap (apart from me of course) but it wasn’t the lack of signings in January that brought that about.

[PDX_Rover]

We'll be reight.

[steve@dcfd]

Quote
That isn't good enough at all and whether it's down to the manager or the board I think it could be a mistake that costs us come season's end.

The budget was agreed with the manager and the board, if DF needed a financial package to go outside that the board will have to agree.
We have what we’ve got and if can maintain our league position we wil see, if we start to go down the league then it’s down to all of them.
It also can’t be helped they we have players out with long term illness or injury that are not helping the situation.

You have to bear in  mind that if Whiteman signs a permanent contract then this will blow a major hole in the budget as this is additional cost to the budget that was already agreed. As I've said before, if you put a good business case to the board then they will consider this on its merits. The original strategy and thinking was that Whiteman would remain a SUFC player and we would have a loan player for the season, at a reduced cost.

However this opportunity has arisen and I'm sure the board will be thinking that this makes good financial sense and good sense long term for the interests of the club.

I can see that to a point. But in the budget we allowed for the signing of Houghton permanently and Whiteman on loan. If we sign Whiteman permanently all we have done is swapped the two financial packages round. Therefore it should not be a major hole in the budget. Depends on the two packages if it’s additional than planned.

No that's not right. Remember we never thought we would get Houghton on a permanent either therefore it wasn't in the original budget. But more than that there is no comparison between the two financial packages.

The extra money needed for somebody like Whiteman will mean a substantial increase on a budget that was already at a significant level.

Ok but that means Whiteman will potential cost more in transfer fee than Houghton?

Also I thought the plan was always to try and sign Houghton permanently we couldn’t in the summer until he proved his injury had recovered but then we were going to sign him in this transfer window.
So are you saying we did not budget for that eventuality and he was always going to be a loan?

[anne honemous]

We could pick up someone as good as Whiteman, if not better, by just shopping around and waiting until the time is right. He's a decent player but it's not the end of the world if he doesn't sign - either on loan or permanent. There will be similar players in academy teams up and down the country craving a chance to go out on loan and get experience.

I'll wait until the end of the window before judging our overall transfer business.

However, as I said a few weeks ago, if we don't strengthen or DF isn't given the strengthen then it says a lot about the board and just how much they're prepared to back their manager.

I still think we're going to sign 2/3 players what we need and the better than expected Xmas and New Year period will stop us from making the wholesale changes we probably require.

[Campsall rover]

This obsession wit the left back position is crazy. Garrett has don well and is improving game by game.
We have the 5th best defence in the league.
Our problem is at the other end converting chances created into goals.
Our priority is a striker unless Mandeville proves to be the answer.
It seems we aren’t going to see Kiwomya for some time yet.

[Jonathan]

We could pick up someone as good as Whiteman, if not better, by just shopping around and waiting until the time is right. He's a decent player but it's not the end of the world if he doesn't sign - either on loan or permanent. There will be similar players in academy teams up and down the country craving a chance to go out on loan and get experience.

I'll wait until the end of the window before judging our overall transfer business.

However, as I said a few weeks ago, if we don't strengthen or DF isn't given the strengthen then it says a lot about the board and just how much they're prepared to back their manager.

I still think we're going to sign 2/3 players what we need and the better than expected Xmas and New Year period will stop us from making the wholesale changes we probably require.

I’ve been the first to admit Whiteman has a lot to learn, but I disagree that it would be easy to shop around and sign an equivalent. To find a player 21 years of age that can bang in 7 goals from midfield in less than half a season would be a very tough task. Whiteman would be an excellent acquisition for now and for the future. The goals make him a valuable commodity and the potential is there to improve his allround game. 

Re: the comparisons between potential fees for Whiteman vs Houghton. I think Houghton’s would be reduced by the fact that his contract expired this summer, whereas I don’t think that’s the case with Whiteman. Houghton is clearly a top player and very polished for one so young, but I think it’s the contract situation that’s significant there.

[the vicar]

With Whiteman we have a chance of scoring as he shoots were as the other players have a phobia to shooting

[since-1969]

With all this  illustrious praise on here , maybe someone should organize a surprise welcome home party 🎈  🎉  .

[silent majority]

Quote
That isn't good enough at all and whether it's down to the manager or the board I think it could be a mistake that costs us come season's end.

The budget was agreed with the manager and the board, if DF needed a financial package to go outside that the board will have to agree.
We have what we’ve got and if can maintain our league position we wil see, if we start to go down the league then it’s down to all of them.
It also can’t be helped they we have players out with long term illness or injury that are not helping the situation.

You have to bear in  mind that if Whiteman signs a permanent contract then this will blow a major hole in the budget as this is additional cost to the budget that was already agreed. As I've said before, if you put a good business case to the board then they will consider this on its merits. The original strategy and thinking was that Whiteman would remain a SUFC player and we would have a loan player for the season, at a reduced cost.

However this opportunity has arisen and I'm sure the board will be thinking that this makes good financial sense and good sense long term for the interests of the club.

I can see that to a point. But in the budget we allowed for the signing of Houghton permanently and Whiteman on loan. If we sign Whiteman permanently all we have done is swapped the two financial packages round. Therefore it should not be a major hole in the budget. Depends on the two packages if it’s additional than planned.

No that's not right. Remember we never thought we would get Houghton on a permanent either therefore it wasn't in the original budget. But more than that there is no comparison between the two financial packages.

The extra money needed for somebody like Whiteman will mean a substantial increase on a budget that was already at a significant level.

SM are you saying that Whiteman will cost more than Houghton for a peemanent move, if so that surprises me!!

Yes I am.

[silent majority]

Quote
That isn't good enough at all and whether it's down to the manager or the board I think it could be a mistake that costs us come season's end.

The budget was agreed with the manager and the board, if DF needed a financial package to go outside that the board will have to agree.
We have what we’ve got and if can maintain our league position we wil see, if we start to go down the league then it’s down to all of them.
It also can’t be helped they we have players out with long term illness or injury that are not helping the situation.

You have to bear in  mind that if Whiteman signs a permanent contract then this will blow a major hole in the budget as this is additional cost to the budget that was already agreed. As I've said before, if you put a good business case to the board then they will consider this on its merits. The original strategy and thinking was that Whiteman would remain a SUFC player and we would have a loan player for the season, at a reduced cost.

However this opportunity has arisen and I'm sure the board will be thinking that this makes good financial sense and good sense long term for the interests of the club.

I can see that to a point. But in the budget we allowed for the signing of Houghton permanently and Whiteman on loan. If we sign Whiteman permanently all we have done is swapped the two financial packages round. Therefore it should not be a major hole in the budget. Depends on the two packages if it’s additional than planned.

No that's not right. Remember we never thought we would get Houghton on a permanent either therefore it wasn't in the original budget. But more than that there is no comparison between the two financial packages.

The extra money needed for somebody like Whiteman will mean a substantial increase on a budget that was already at a significant level.

Ok but that means Whiteman will potential cost more in transfer fee than Houghton?

Also I thought the plan was always to try and sign Houghton permanently we couldn’t in the summer until he proved his injury had recovered but then we were going to sign him in this transfer window.
So are you saying we did not budget for that eventuality and he was always going to be a loan?

At the start of the season Houghton wasn't going to be fit or able to play until about Christmas time, therefore he wasn't included in the original budget or squad. The injury to Luke early on meant that Houghton was fast tracked and his inclusion was an additional cost to the original budget.

[selby]

  The number on this thread I would like to know is, how many of the people on this thread questioning the "budget" did not go to the Cheka trade matches on principle, or the F.A. cup game last week.

[Colin C No.3]

  The number on this thread I would like to know is, how many of the people on this thread questioning the "budget" did not go to the Cheka trade matches on principle, or the F.A. cup game last week.

8

[selby]

  Colin whatever the number, it is people with more wind than P***.

[roversdude]

Great bit of business I can see him being a big player for us

[mrfrostsdad]

In an ideal world we need another left back, and a 'proper' striker who can score goals at this level and not just at League 2 level.
I see Sheffield United has just signed yet another striker on loan (Wilson from Man United)

Billy Sharp anyone???

[RedJ]

If he gets the level of service Marquis and May are getting most of the time he too will be utterly toothless.

Would love to see him back, not only for sentimental reasons but he did well last season at this level too I seem to remember. But it won't happen.

[RoversAlias]

Billy is still far too involved in Sheffield Utd's first team to warrant continued suggestions of him coming back here.

[bpoolrover]

1st of all well done the board it's a great signing,as far as the budget is concerned I would hope it didn't affect it to much as it's a investment I episode be surprised with the quality of him if the didn't get more than there money back off him