Replacement for Fergie?

[silent majority]

If it's decided to replace DF then it will need to be someone wanting to improve themselves with something to offer. The Cowleys at Lincoln if they'd come but at the moment who's available with any kind of track record better than him

If this fictitious event to replace DF happens then the board who have backed the project then would have to admit they have failed aswell.
No players bought for a transfer fee, bringing in young loan players to match their budget.

If they got rid of DF any new manager would have to use the players we have and we may lose the loan players if their parent clubs cannot trust their development under a new manager.

So we should keep the manager to ensure we keep the loan players who aren't performing?

Do you believe by sacking DF and bringing in a new manager the players we have will perform better. Do you believe the owners will provide more funds to the new manager to bring in better players, when we couldn't afford them on our " competitive budget" in the summer. The project was to get young players who could be developed into a good side it was always going to be risky until they gelled together. Losing key players as not helped that strategy. Not Saying DF is always right but he's working with players and resources the club can afford.

I'm not sure how many times I can type this out for you Steve but there is nothing wrong with our budget. I know you'll insist on finding something negative financially somewhere, after all you seem to interpret things a dozen different ways, but a budget is precisely that, an amount of money that we are prepared to spend.

[Lesonthewest]

If it's decided to replace DF then it will need to be someone wanting to improve themselves with something to offer. The Cowleys at Lincoln if they'd come but at the moment who's available with any kind of track record better than him

At last, reality check.

[steve@dcfd]

You don't have to type out it again I understood it first time. There is an amount of money that club is prepared to spend. Where that takes us we will wait and see.

[RedJ]

Not how the manager decides to spend it, then?

[balbyrover]

Not a chance Paul Tisdale would leave Exeter for us. He's turned down a few better opurtuinites than us already and I think he will take them up this season.

[silent majority]

You don't have to type out it again I understood it first time. There is an amount of money that club is prepared to spend. Where that takes us we will wait and see.

Actually I don't think you do. Using phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good when the opposite is true. If I was  an owner of this club I would be mortified to think my  £2m contribution each year was so easily overlooked. We are serious contenders in this division, we just need to show it.

[Not Now Kato]

You don't have to type out it again I understood it first time. There is an amount of money that club is prepared to spend. Where that takes us we will wait and see.

Actually I don't think you do. Using phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good when the opposite is true. If I was  an owner of this club I would be mortified to think my  £2m contribution each year was so easily overlooked. We are serious contenders in this division, we just need to show it.

Whist I agree that the contribution of the owners is, sadly, overlooked by many of our fans SM I have to disagree with your statement that "phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good".  The fact that we have to bring in loan players is indicative of the type of budget we have.  Whilst I would never ask, or even expect, our owners to put in a penny more than they do it is a question of fact that if the budget was significantly higher we would be signing these players, (or their equivalent), and bringing them on for our future benefit and not that of the loaning club.
 
Given who we are and where we are right now we, quite correctly, cut our cloth according to our means.  That shouldn't be seen as anything other than is is, a practical necessity.

[steve@dcfd]

Being serious contenders is down to interpretation. We have brought in young players who need to develop, the team may improve with in the season but at the moment I don't see how we were ever serious contenders. I'm not asking the owners to spend more money what they spend is appreciated. But their and the managers expectations, with in our budget, in my opinion is to high. Mid table at the moment and even from the beginning of the season is where we may finish.

[drfchound]

That would be acceptable right now.

[Alan Southstand]

'The budget' whatever it is, has let us sign Houghton, Kongolo, Whiteman, Toffolo on loan and get Andrew, Mason, Kiwomya and Ben Kemis on permanent deals. I ask myself this - where is the outstanding signing amongst them that shows we should be contenders and also that our budget is 'competitive'?

It is almost an unanswerable query as we don't know what the budget is and we're also not in a position to compare with every other Club in this division. We have to believe what gets trotted out that it is, is spot on, but I have just a fleeting concern that we set out to sign a centre back pre-season and after numerous failed attempts, we pulled out of any further deals. Surely, knowing the position we were in with both McCullough and Bawdry, the manager saw it as a priority and then suddenly it wasn't! Explain that.

I'll not even start with the Williams situation.

[Yargo]

The "budget" pays towards 4 left backs,Andrew,Cedric,Toffolo and Garratt, not cheap those you know

[since-1969]

I think he'll walk if the results get worse and leads to pressure from above .

[idler]

I wonder how big Shrewsbury's budget is? I know they probably won't be anywhere near at the end of the season but they must be playing as a team at the minute.

[since-1969]

I would have thought our budget wasn't an issue here only the results of its use .

[PDX_Rover]

There really are some first class tossers supporting Rovers. Mind you, it's always been the case. Personally I think sacking Ferguson now would be madness. As if that magically turns things around. Shows the level of comprehension of some of our so called supporters. f**king ridiculous attitudes from some folks. Armchair managers the lot of them.

[hoolahoop]

I'm in the "Fergie in" camp so I want him to stay for at least 15 games and this isn't one of threads where I say there isn't anyone to replace him, just wonder who people would want? Justin Edinburgh?

Then why start such a negative thread ?

[silent majority]

You don't have to type out it again I understood it first time. There is an amount of money that club is prepared to spend. Where that takes us we will wait and see.

Actually I don't think you do. Using phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good when the opposite is true. If I was  an owner of this club I would be mortified to think my  £2m contribution each year was so easily overlooked. We are serious contenders in this division, we just need to show it.

Whist I agree that the contribution of the owners is, sadly, overlooked by many of our fans SM I have to disagree with your statement that "phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good".  The fact that we have to bring in loan players is indicative of the type of budget we have.  Whilst I would never ask, or even expect, our owners to put in a penny more than they do it is a question of fact that if the budget was significantly higher we would be signing these players, (or their equivalent), and bringing them on for our future benefit and not that of the loaning club.
 
Given who we are and where we are right now we, quite correctly, cut our cloth according to our means.  That shouldn't be seen as anything other than is is, a practical necessity.

Sorry Not Know Kato, but you and Steve are still looking at this from the wrong angle. Bringing in loan players is not indicative of the state of our budget but is very much indicative of the current state of English football. Every club in the lower leagues is relying on loan players to a lesser or greater degree. If we chose to buck that trend and sign these players with transfer payments and signing on fees our budget would have to be twice the size it is and twice the size of other clubs in this division. And the advantage in terms of results would be a big fat zero. We would have exactly the same, or similar players, with a very similar size of squad but with the disadvantage of having to finance it all ourself.

Signing young loan players is maximising our budget not an indication our budget isn't competitive or inadequate. Other clubs are doing exactly the  same.

[dickos1]

There really are some first class tossers supporting Rovers. Mind you, it's always been the case. Personally I think sacking Ferguson now would be madness. As if that magically turns things around. Shows the level of comprehension of some of our so called supporters. f**king ridiculous attitudes from some folks. Armchair managers the lot of them.

Precisely

[Alan Southstand]

SM, perhaps you would like to religion that last reply. It is contradictory, unless you mean that only us buck the trend and no other club in the division does?

Signing young players is all well and good, but it has disadvantages:

Short termism
Players developed for the benefit of the loaning clubs
Some players returning to their parent clubs and then having to be replaced with someone who is just as good or better, but is totally new to their new environment, to name but 3.

I appreciate it's where we are and where a lot of other clubs are, but some other clubs have realised what was required for this league and have secured experienced league 1 players and we have not, which, imho, has been a massive error of judgement. Whether that is because we cannot 'afford' such experience or whether it was felt they were not required I suppose we will never find out!

[Not Now Kato]

You don't have to type out it again I understood it first time. There is an amount of money that club is prepared to spend. Where that takes us we will wait and see.

Actually I don't think you do. Using phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good when the opposite is true. If I was  an owner of this club I would be mortified to think my  £2m contribution each year was so easily overlooked. We are serious contenders in this division, we just need to show it.

Whist I agree that the contribution of the owners is, sadly, overlooked by many of our fans SM I have to disagree with your statement that "phrases such as 'bringing in young loan players to match our budget' more than implies that our budget isn't very good".  The fact that we have to bring in loan players is indicative of the type of budget we have.  Whilst I would never ask, or even expect, our owners to put in a penny more than they do it is a question of fact that if the budget was significantly higher we would be signing these players, (or their equivalent), and bringing them on for our future benefit and not that of the loaning club.
 
Given who we are and where we are right now we, quite correctly, cut our cloth according to our means.  That shouldn't be seen as anything other than is is, a practical necessity.

Sorry Not Know Kato, but you and Steve are still looking at this from the wrong angle. Bringing in loan players is not indicative of the state of our budget but is very much indicative of the current state of English football. Every club in the lower leagues is relying on loan players to a lesser or greater degree. If we chose to buck that trend and sign these players with transfer payments and signing on fees our budget would have to be twice the size it is and twice the size of other clubs in this division. And the advantage in terms of results would be a big fat zero. We would have exactly the same, or similar players, with a very similar size of squad but with the disadvantage of having to finance it all ourself.

Signing young loan players is maximising our budget not an indication our budget isn't competitive or inadequate. Other clubs are doing exactly the  same.

Which is why I said "The fact that we have to bring in loan players is indicative of the type of budget we have.  Whilst I would never ask, or even expect, our owners to put in a penny more than they do it is a question of fact that if the budget was significantly higher we would be signing these players, (or their equivalent), and bringing them on for our future benefit and not that of the loaning club.  Given who we are and where we are right now we, quite correctly, cut our cloth according to our means.  That shouldn't be seen as anything other than it is, a practical necessity.". 
 
I never once suggested that our budget is inadequate or uncompetitive. Rather, it is what it is; and the consequences are that we bring on young players for the benefit of the loaning club rather than ourselves. Please read what I've written, not what you think I've written.

[godlike1]

I am curious to see what people's thoughts will be if we get thrashed tonight and then loose the next 2-3 games without any sign of improvement in form.

I think if that does happen, which I obviously hope it doesn't m, then surely the owners hands will have to be forced to move quickly. Big project or not. I can't believe they see relegation as acceptable.

[DonnyOsmond]

I'm in the "Fergie in" camp so I want him to stay for at least 15 games and this isn't one of threads where I say there isn't anyone to replace him, just wonder who people would want? Justin Edinburgh?

Then why start such a negative thread ?

To see who people who want in the hypothetical situation.