Meet the owners

[dickos1]

Wellens called the shots, Wellens did the recruiting and the board backed him.

Wellens then demonstrated that he couldn’t manage.

It’s him that should be apologising to the
Board and fans for wasting their money and time, not the other way around.

Great player in his time though.

Whatever way you want to look at it, there is no way whatsoever you can say the board backed him.

Dickos -yes I can -  The board backed him - he didn’t replicate.

Gave him the job on his promises.
Gave him the money he knew he would be getting for transfers.
Upped it to support him on transfer day when requested.
Gave him miles of rope to see if he could turn it around contrary to the accumulating evidence about his “style” and performance - a less supportive board would have had him out weeks ago.

I was pleased and hopeful when he was appointed in the same way I was pleased and hopeful when Moore was appointed - both have let Rovers and me down big style.
BVB

None of that is backing him I’m afraid,
We left the transfer window without a fit striker, that’s not down to wellens the following paragraph from Jonathon is very poignant.
The owners hold the purse strings, they oversaw years of squad depletion and over-reliance on loans, they recruited and employed Wellens, they said what he could have and couldn’t have, they employed a Talent Identification Manager and they either set the strategy or allowed it to proceed without one. They were happy for Wellens to stand by them when they didn’t deliver, but when he needed them to stand by him they lost their bottle and sacked him.

[colincramb]

I’m not one of the ‘Board bashers,’ in fact I hate the mindless ‘Baldwin out’ chanting, but there are mistakes all over this latest episode.

Irrespective of what you make of his general antics and touchline conduct, I actually feel the owners owe Richie Wellens a debt of gratitude for the united front he put on with them. Whichever way you look at it, they failed to secure him the striker he wanted (and very much needed) during the summer transfer window.

Wellens made it very clear we needed a goalscorer (and all of us could see it) once it became clear Fej would be out. The way that window was handled by those in charge of transfers was utterly shambolic. Wellens wanted Grigg, but that didn’t happen. When it became clear Grigg was moving elsewhere the Free Press published another list of goalscoring targets. We got none of them. We ended up going for another option in O’Brien but (and we can blame it on the paperwork all we want) we didn’t get him either. We ended up with Joe Dodoo because we could, and because we had to get something.

Look a bit closer at the above, and none of the above ‘targets’ were anything like each other save for having two arms, two legs and being classed as strikers. They were all very different types of striker, with very different strengths. It smacks of desperation and a real lack of a coherent plan. Was that all Wellens’ fault for a poor recruitment strategy? Possibly and I’m sure blame will be thrown that way, it’s easy now he’s gone, but the club recruited and employed a Talent Identification Manager and if they don’t set the tone and direction then the obvious question is why?

We may turn around now and say we need to learn lessons. But in the aftermath of that shambles they came out defiantly, very much with a view that no mistakes were made and it was just bad luck. Personally I completely disagree with that view, but Wellens (the one managing a team without a recognised goalscorer in the squad) stood alongside them and presented a united front. He made it clear that we’d have to endure pain if we were to take a longer term view of what we need, he relied on the support of the Chairman and the CEO and they agreed (well I assume Blunt did) and we continued. Everyone said they were on the same page. Long term absentees failed to return, and in fact the injury situation got worse. Results improved a little but were still poor, the resources available even worse.

Wellens is ultimately the fall-guy for the fact that we have a squad of players that is not strong enough and not good enough. Wellens may be blamed for recruiting a number of them, and that may be fair, but we go back again to the strategy and the vision. The owners hold the purse strings, they oversaw years of squad depletion and over-reliance on loans, they recruited and employed Wellens, they said what he could have and couldn’t have, they employed a Talent Identification Manager and they either set the strategy or allowed it to proceed without one. They were happy for Wellens to stand by them when they didn’t deliver, but when he needed them to stand by him they lost their bottle and sacked him. I will be very disappointed if they go on to stab him in the back now.

If we are to move forward there needs to be accountability and ownership of mistakes, not shifting of blame. They owe Richie Wellens more than that. He’s been made the fall-guy for a sequence of blunders and if he’s left quietly and with dignity, as it appears, then they owe him the same. They also owe it to themselves, otherwise (to quote ITEN) we’ll sleep walk into the same problems again.

I'm looking forward to hearing you put all this forward at the MTO.

Perhaps you should find some other things to look forward to.

I actually think this is an excellent analysis of the situation.

[colincramb]

I can’t see this being a very positive evening.
Sounds like it will be more like a kangaroo court.
Barrack Room lawyers Asking questions over something that is done.
Spilt milk………

So are you saying that we shouldn’t be asking questions over the way the club has been run since McCann’s departure? How many wins is it in the last 40 games? I think as fans that put not insignificant amounts of money into the club, we have a right to understand the direction of travel. As long as it’s put across in a respectful and grown up manner, I don’t see what is wrong with that.

[Padge_DRFC]

A lot of board out people are going. Sacking Wellens won't give them a simple night.

[dickos1]

That lot will end up embarrassing themselves

[PDX_Rover]

What are these ‘board out’ people proposing happens exactly? Genuine question.

[Campsall rover]

Wellens called the shots, Wellens did the recruiting and the board backed him.

Wellens then demonstrated that he couldn’t manage.

It’s him that should be apologising to the
Board and fans for wasting their money and time, not the other way around.

Great player in his time though.

Whatever way you want to look at it, there is no way whatsoever you can say the board backed him.

He new what the budget was though. He was happy to take the job on.

Not all the blame lies at RW door though as Jonathan has said in his excellent post. As he says there were 4 people involved with the recruitment.

RW realised there would be pain after he did not get his striker. Now what did that mean? Did he mean we were done for and would be relegated or did he mean he could keep us in this league but it would be bottom half of table and not top half as he originally had targeted.

I am assuming he meant the latter. But his body language and after match summery to Holden after the Burton game suggested he had thrown the towel in.

So like it or not the board were left no option but to sack him if they had any intention of salvaging some semblance of self respect from this season and still leave themselves with a possibility of actually staying in Leagye 1.

[DonnyOsmond]

Wellens called the shots, Wellens did the recruiting and the board backed him.

Wellens then demonstrated that he couldn’t manage.

It’s him that should be apologising to the
Board and fans for wasting their money and time, not the other way around.

Great player in his time though.

Whatever way you want to look at it, there is no way whatsoever you can say the board backed him.

He new what the budget was though. He was happy to take the job on.

Not all the blame lies at RW door though as Jonathan has said in his excellent post. As he says there were 4 people involved with the recruitment.

RW realised there would be pain after he did not get his striker. Now what did that mean? Did he mean we were done for and would be relegated or did he mean he could keep us in this league but it would be bottom half of table and not top half as he originally had targeted.

I am assuming he meant the latter. But his body language and after match summery to Holden after the Burton game suggested he had thrown the towel in.

So like it or not the board were left no option but to sack him if they had any intention of salvaging some semblance of self respect from this season and still leave themselves with a possibility of actually staying in Leagye 1.

He did waste one person's worth of budget on paying off Butler and then having to replace him too. Then Bogle and Williams. He may have had a limited budget but it part it was caused by his own decisions.

[idler]

Losing to a better more experienced team is acceptable. Losing in the manner that we have in some games is not.
A basic requirement should be the attitude of giving your best and running until you drop not only for your self esteem but to help your team mates and give the paying supporters something to cheer.

[steve@dcfd]

Donny wasn’t Richie told he had to get players out before he could get any more in. Having played Bogle and Williams in preseason and the level of their wages it was decided those could go. Richie was acting on orders he was given. Once it was seen they where not going perhaps like Butler they wanted to be paid up. Once the window closed and there was no chance of them moving on then Richie should have had them back in the squad unless something had gone off we all don’t know about. But he must have had the backing of the CEO on that decision he pays the wages.
But part of the budget was wasted by others before Richie arrived as well the decision to sign six young players starting from April 2020just to pad out the squad. None were ready for league 1 football and are still not as results have shown.

[Campsall rover]

The important thing now is we move on from this debacle. We learn lessons, do not repeat the same mistakes.

There needs to be a joined up strategy, a proper plan on how the club are going to progress.
The board need to have a very long hard look in the mirror and actually admit the are partly to blame for the predicament we find ourselves in.

I do not know the facts where our budget fits in a league 1 table, but assume it is mid table. If it is then it has not been used to its full potential by RW.
If it is bottom 4/5/6/7 then the board need to up it to give the new manager a serious chance of making us competitive.

Some serious investment in the playing squad now will in the long term pay for itself with improved gates and overall revenue.
Not talking silly money being thrown at it but please do not tell me we should end the season behind any of the following clubs who I would expect have lower budgets.
Crewe, Morecambe, Fleetwood, Accrington, Shrewsbury, Wimbledon, Burton, Cambridge, Cheltenham, and Gillingham.
All those clubs are smaller than us with gates lower than ours even with us sitting 2nd to bottom.

Yes you will always get 1 or 2 clubs over achieving of course.
It is down to good management as to where a club finishes.

We must get the next appointment right if we are going to finish above just 4 of those clubs.

[DonnyOsmond]

Donny wasn’t Richie told he had to get players out before he could get any more in. Having played Bogle and Williams in preseason and the level of their wages it was decided those could go. Richie was acting on orders he was given. Once it was seen they where not going perhaps like Butler they wanted to be paid up. Once the window closed and there was no chance of them moving on then Richie should have had them back in the squad unless something had gone off we all don’t know about. But he must have had the backing of the CEO on that decision he pays the wages.
But part of the budget was wasted by others before Richie arrived as well the decision to sign six young players starting from April 2020just to pad out the squad. None were ready for league 1 football and are still not as results have shown.

He chose to pay off Butler and waste that part of the budget. Butler didn't ask to be pushed out. Agree on Bogle/Williams should have been used once it was shown they weren't going anywhere. Those youngsters contracts were extended because the club believed they had potential to be good players... Harry Kane wasn't Premier League ready at 19-20, should Spurs have let him go at that point when he was on-loan to League One and Championship clubs.

[steve@dcfd]

Donny we are not Spurs I have no problem of young players and potential but they should not be classed as first team squad and taking up first team budget. They have been on loan and all sent back after a month. The decision to use the part of budget on them with no U23 squad was wrong imo

The Butler situation was made by the club it should have been sorted by the CEO when Richie arrived again abdication of duties. He was offered a loan at Boston but did not accept it so it as decided to pay him up. Suited him as he went to Peterborough as a coach it was good that offer was given so quickly.

[DonnyOsmond]

Donny we are not Spurs I have no problem of young players and potential but they should not be classed as first team squad and taking up first team budget. They have been on loan and all sent back after a month. The decision to use the part of budget on them with no U23 squad was wrong imo

The Butler situation was made by the club it should have been sorted by the CEO when Richie arrived again abdication of duties. He was offered a loan at Boston but did not accept it so it as decided to pay him up. Suited him as he went to Peterborough as a coach it was good that offer was given so quickly.

Based on what you're saying shouldn't we just get rid of the youth team as a whole then if we don't have room/budget to try and develop the lads coming out of the youth team into fully fledged first teamers?

[Padge_DRFC]

My question would be who's decision was it to offer Taylor a 3 year deal and what the reason behind it was

[steve@dcfd]

Donny no what we should do as a club is to have sufficient funds to be able to run the academy and players we believe to have potential to develop using a U 23 set up. But those funds should not reduce the first team budget. GMC says young players still need extra coaching therefore extra funds are required to assist in their development.
The club decided to get rid of the U23 as part of a cost saving exercise. Gavin as said the club needs to stand on its own and monies from Club Doncaster are making us self sufficient so we are not expecting the 2million a year now.
So I want to see young players develop but not at the expense of us not getting better first team players. Otherwise w will continue to be reliant if we can afford it better but more expensive loans.

[Jonathan]

My question would be who's decision was it to offer Taylor a 3 year deal and what the reason behind it was

We started the summer with a seemingly very different approach. Tied down young players, gave Taylor a 3 year deal and Close a 3 year deal. Within a month or so we were back to short term contracts and scouring the loan market. It was a bit strange.

[Filo]

My question would be who's decision was it to offer Taylor a 3 year deal and what the reason behind it was

We were giving 2 year deals out, meaning every 2 years there was a potential large turnover of players, the contracts had to be more staggered, it made sense to give the better more experienced players those linger contracts

[dickos1]

Wellens called the shots, Wellens did the recruiting and the board backed him.

Wellens then demonstrated that he couldn’t manage.

It’s him that should be apologising to the
Board and fans for wasting their money and time, not the other way around.

Great player in his time though.

Whatever way you want to look at it, there is no way whatsoever you can say the board backed him.

He new what the budget was though. He was happy to take the job on.

Not all the blame lies at RW door though as Jonathan has said in his excellent post. As he says there were 4 people involved with the recruitment.

RW realised there would be pain after he did not get his striker. Now what did that mean? Did he mean we were done for and would be relegated or did he mean he could keep us in this league but it would be bottom half of table and not top half as he originally had targeted.

I am assuming he meant the latter. But his body language and after match summery to Holden after the Burton game suggested he had thrown the towel in.

So like it or not the board were left no option but to sack him if they had any intention of salvaging some semblance of self respect from this season and still leave themselves with a possibility of actually staying in Leagye 1.

Knowing what the budget is means nothing though,
His two main attackers were out and have been more or less all season, the board could’ve helped him more with that, this is obvious.
He was told he needed to get rid of players to bring more in, the two he felt he could move on refused to leave or nobody came in for them, either way the board could’ve helped with this much earlier than they did.

I just don’t think it’s any coincidence that mcann, Ferguson and now wellens all had grievances with the budget and how they wanted to challenge but couldnt

[Alan Southstand]

Not to mention the defensive midfielder that was supposed to be an absolute priority but financially out of reach.

[vaya]

Not to mention the defensive midfielder that was supposed to be an absolute priority but financially out of reach.

A dozen players signed. If it was a priority, then that should have been the start point for recruitment.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

All reasonable speculation above but I think it's inconceivable that conversations weren't had about the transfer strategy and the desired transition to secure more permanent signings to be less reliant on loans.

Rowe, Close, Hiwula, Knoyle, Williams etc. You can imaging the conversations "Are you sure you want to give them X contract, as you're not leaving yourself much left in the budget?" RW "Just get em in, whatever it takes". So the board backed him with those permanent signings.

Likely at that time RW and GB etc, think it's likely Taylor and Fejiri are going to be back soon plus Bogles getting a chance to perform, so Ritchie thinks he can pad out the squad with loans and short term "stocking fillers" in the knowledge he can tweak things come January.

Wellens loses patience with Bogle & Williams but the board say fine, but you've got to try and get them out. By this time, the Grigg situation is on the cards. As we know, that gamble failed on three fronts. Wellens choice to try and force them out failed, Fejiri and Taylor are still injured. The board still back Wellens on the Grigg front, but he chooses Rotherham then the O'brien debacle.

Just speculation of course but if the board had risked those permanent signings by not offering the deals the player/agent wants then we'd be saying they've not learnt anything and they're not backing the manager. Not the way you want to start a new manager/board relationship. 

[Alan Southstand]

Vaya, it’s well documented why we couldn’t get the DM’er!

But you already know that.

[vaya]

Vaya, it’s well documented why we couldn’t get the DM’er!

But you already know that.

12 players signed. None of them a defensive midfielder.

[dickos1]

Defensive midfielder wasn’t all we needed though was it?
Moore left us with 7 players

[The Beast]

Wellens called the shots, Wellens did the recruiting and the board backed him.

Wellens then demonstrated that he couldn’t manage.

It’s him that should be apologising to the
Board and fans for wasting their money and time, not the other way around.

Great player in his time though.

Whatever way you want to look at it, there is no way whatsoever you can say the board backed him.

When he took the job he must’ve known the budget, yet he took the job.
A budget apparently bigger than the last few years.

[DonnyOsmond]

Defensive midfielder wasn’t all we needed though was it?
Moore left us with 7 players

It was 14 players, not 7.

[steve@dcfd]

Wellens called the shots, Wellens did the recruiting and the board backed him.

Wellens then demonstrated that he couldn’t manage.

It’s him that should be apologising to the
Board and fans for wasting their money and time, not the other way around.

Great player in his time though.

Whatever way you want to look at it, there is no way whatsoever you can say the board backed him.

When he took the job he must’ve known the budget, yet he took the job.
A budget apparently bigger than the last few years.

Last season budget was 23% less than normal we sold Whiteman to allow us to bring two players in January the rest were loans.

This season the budget is more still below half way in the league how low we don’t know. We had to buy players am for the first time in years.
He would have known the budget but still wanted the job he should have walked away there and then like others did.

Gavin said the recruitment team sorted the players with the DNA so between them it hasn’t worked but maybe better players were beyond our means.

[knockers]

If Dodoo has the DNA that they think will help us move forwards then we’re f**ked.
He should have buried that wonderful cross in the second half but didn’t even connect with the ball!

[River Don]

If Dodoo has the DNA that they think will help us move forwards then we’re f**ked.
He should have buried that wonderful cross in the second half but didn’t even connect with the ball!

Dodoo wasn't anyone's first choice.

He was all that was available.