All I'm doing is repeating what the club has. And Mowbray. I'd say since he came in, hes eaent therigjt not to have every decision he has made questioned. When there isn't even anything wrong? It's clearly working. Anyone can see that.
But folk need to be negative. I looked at the predictions for Carlisle in the week. Everyone backing them. We won 5-1. But let's be honest, it's still not good enough though is it? You all said we'd lose. We won 5-1. And I'm the mad guy for pointing these things out.
I predicted Rovers to win. You are being a bit melodramatic in making yourself out to be TM's only ally.
Armstrong is a totally different case. We already knew what he could do.
I have been one of Mowbray's strongest supporters, but i refuse to say he cannot do anything wrong.
You haven't answered the question: 8M??
£8m for a lad who is highly rated. And 19, and an international. In today's market. Yes.100%.
Leeds spent £10m on Bamford.
Stoke spent £10 on Ince.
Yes, I think it's a fair amount to pay.
I'll ask you again, as you didn't answer. Did you think we over-paid for Armstrong.
I am not this lad man you claim I am. If I see something that u don't agree with, I say. I was critical of things on opening day. Which we discussed at length. I often state I don't get why Travis doesn't get more game time.
I'm just not going to sit and be really negative about loads of things, I don't believe are negative.
The amount of negatives,in comparison to the positives brought up are not balanced. Or even. You'd think we where in a really bad place listening to all of this. This reality is, we aren't. I'm just getting behind the boss, and the club.
Far too many experts saying how they would do things differently. Unhelpful and most redundant.
Going on to the Carlisle game
I don't think anybody predicted such a strong 11 to be fielded so in all fairness the negativity leading up to the game was with a weakened line up.
If we knew mowbrays intentions then maybe the predictions would of been more upbeat
Of course had we knew the line up I am sure Carlisle would of been more prepared.
I just want to add to all this.
We have returned with a much higher offer.
Venkys have just turned over record profits, they trust Mowbray (with good reason) and are willing to back him 100%.
£8m to them is nothing.
If think he's worth it, then we'll get him. .
Just as importantly as strengtheing us. Crucially it sends out a message to the rest of the league that we aren't here to make up the numbers. Results will also show them that.
I DID answer about Armstrong. I said he was a known package - so well worth it.
Apparently, Forest are asking 12M and will probably be settle for 9-10M. To me, that is a huge gamble. If he comes in, I will support him, as I do every Rovers player, but I cannot get this business of you saying no-one has a right to have a different opinion from Mowbray, and that - if they do - they are not proper supporters. Apart from a centre-forward to cover the ageing Graham, I still maintain that we have more than ample cover in the creative/attacking areas. Who will be dropped from the group of Graham, Armstrong, Dack, Palmer, Rothwell, Bennett, etc. to accommodate a still unproven 19-year-old? TM still has reservations about Travis because of his inexperience, so is it likely another ****ager would walk into the team?
We already know what we would get from Gallagher. I'd much prefer that certainty.
Incidentally, Champs - nearly all the negativity is still focused on Mowbray's ability as a manager (although some of the worst culprits have gone quiet!) That's not what I am talking about. He has been very impressive in that respect. In addition, his open, honest relationship with the supporters is just about the best I've seen.
I still reserve the right to say that there comes a point where adequate cover becomes redundancy when a squad gets beyond a certain size, and that's when players start to get restless. Our best youngsters could see a path forward last year. If we bring in four or five signings (including a 19-year-old). that pathway is effectively blocked.