What's new
  • Club announcement
    New manager appointed
    Tranmere Rovers have appointed Darrell Clarke as the club’s new manager.
    View profile Discuss this

Deathly silence

bigmart said:
Brabin couldn't even get us in the play offs despite being well backed, Micky then took over and got us to two play off finals and got us promoted, one of his 6 promotions. Brabin meanwhile has no promotions as manager
Click to expand...
Brabin built solid foundations out of rubble.

Hill took us to Wembley and had us flying until Vaughan got injured, with no back up thanks to Ferrier’s behaviour.

You’re arguing that because neither was an unqualified success they were therefore ‘very poor’. They weren’t very poor appointments at all. Add in Mellon too - twice - I maintain that MP’s record of appointing external managers is certainly not very poor.

Even Adams was considered a solid appointment until he went doolally a couple of months into the job! And yes, MP interference contributed to the wheels falling off there.
 
bigmart said:
Adams got us relegated, Brabin failed to get us out of the National League, Hill got us into the play offs but what he said got him sacked. So besides Mellon and to a lesser degree Hill the external appointments have hardly been a success.
Click to expand...
Your evaluation of Brabin, shows how unrealistic your judgement is. Who exactly has appointed well in the last decade. Mufc efc and LFC all seem to be relatively similar to us.
As was said of another infamous profession, it all ends in failure.
Brabin took over a month existent squad, progressed nearly hit the play offs and certainly laid the foundations for a double promotion.
Mellon was pushed once and King twice!
Rather have Palios in the room than some septic with no history of even watching English football having swallowed a guide to AI and data sets.
 
Well the doomsday scenario of no deal seems not to lead to meltdown. Seems odd the new EFL process is retrospective for on going deals and bloody annoying.
Not sure how a maximum budget can be raised by a take over?
 
dollar'sbloke said:
Well the doomsday scenario of no deal seems not to lead to meltdown. Seems odd the new EFL process is retrospective for on going deals and bloody annoying.
Click to expand...
Kieran Maguire has said the main extra issues dealt with by the new IFR are:
1: Source of funds
2: Checks on senior execs who help make decisions, instead of just owners and directors

Palios would’ve known that when he downgraded his estimated timescale from “imminently” to “fairly soon”. But yes, annoying for everyone concerned, I expect.
 
Brabin was a manager who had failed to get two other clubs promoted out of the national league. The recruitment approach seemed to be to sign up some of the better players with NL experience and with the squad assembled Rovers ought to have reached the play-offs in his first season. He didn’t seem to want to engage with the fanbase either. Something of a marmite figure on here.
 
Last edited:
O4anotherplayoff said:
Kieran Maguire has said the main extra issues dealt with by the new IFR are:
1: Source of funds
2: Checks on senior execs who help make decisions, instead of just owners and directors

Palios would’ve known that when he downgraded his estimated timescale from “imminently” to “fairly soon”. But yes, annoying for everyone concerned, I expect.
Click to expand...
Yes and no from a fan perspective. The regulator was created to try and weed out the dodgy deals that have caused some clubs so much strife. I would suggest that we should be careful about the background of those involved and how committed they are to the future of the club. We know nothing after all. This said, let us hope that they are the real thing!
 
O4anotherplayoff said:
Kieran Maguire has said the main extra issues dealt with by the new IFR are:
1: Source of funds
2: Checks on senior execs who help make decisions, instead of just owners and directors

Palios would’ve known that when he downgraded his estimated timescale from “imminently” to “fairly soon”. But yes, annoying for everyone concerned, I expect.
Click to expand...
So MP retaining a role may help 2 in the first instance?
 
O4anotherplayoff said:
Sounds like MP would only be a consultant to the new regime rather than a senior exec.
Click to expand...
I think if a title oiled the wheels the regulator wanted, he would assume it. You can be CEO and not on the board?
Seems a bit vague anyway you could parachute in some bods then let them leave in undue haste once taken over.
I suspect we are going from the days of getting ok coral to over regulation.
Any chancer would be better than liquidation? EFL might be sleepwalking into that nightmare with some group of fans somewhere soon.
 
dollar'sbloke said:
Well the doomsday scenario of no deal seems not to lead to meltdown. Seems odd the new EFL process is retrospective for on going deals and bloody annoying.
Not sure how a maximum budget can be raised by a take over?
Click to expand...
It's not the EFL process any more, but an Independent Public Body, that came into force at the start of April, so, strictly any deal not complete by that point now falls under the new regulator. However they had previously stated that any sale that had substantially completed the EFL process would not need to start the new process from scratch, so it's likely they will just be going over the EFL approval, which was conducted with additional checks with the knowledge that the Regulator was about to go live. Also with the finances, the budget without the sale will be the maximum possible under the rules, the fact it will be 'higher' if the sale completes indicates that either there will be an immediate capital injection, new sponsorship deals or new commercial deals, any of which would serve to increase the turnover figure for the budget limit.
 
It's my understanding that the EFL process was extended and included more checks than otherwise would have been the case, including both full source of funds for the sale but also a business plan and source of funds for operating the club for a minimum of two years, on the basis that it was known the regulator was going live. As such enough should have been done that the process doesn't need extensive further checks but does still need rubber stamping by the new regulator. The regulator also now has the power to investigate ALL club ownership, not just those up for sale, and can retrospectively 'disqualify' existing owners, directors and senior executives. It's also my understanding, that, if required, Mark will be a consultant, so not fall under the owner, director or senior executive criteria. The regulator will also be able to block changes of name, stadium moves, the selling of stadiums or assets or otherwise changes that drastically alter the 'culture' or history of the club if they feel they are not in the best interest of the club or fans. It's a new idea, so it's more than likely that initially the 'touch' will be too heavy and require moderation, but the intent is sound.
 
bigmart said:
The problem is the rumour also says it's Palios doing the interviewing and his record of appointing managers is very poor.
Click to expand...
well we now know that the new owners are involved (to whatever degree) in the process, for practical purposes the club have to lead the process but it would seem likely that the new owners would have sign off though could also be suggesting candidates.
 
drwhoman said:
Yes and no from a fan perspective. The regulator was created to try and weed out the dodgy deals that have caused some clubs so much strife. I would suggest that we should be careful about the background of those involved and how committed they are to the future of the club. We know nothing after all. This said, let us hope that they are the real thing!
Click to expand...
Yes, proper vetting is a good thing. Hopefully this additional hoop to jump through is nothing more than a temporary inconvenience for us.

Perhaps also a degree of karma from the footballing gods that we’re now the first (or one of the first) club to suffer some practical inconvenience by the transition to a new regulator, given that the absence of regulation back in 1987 meant we suffered no penalty when we became the first FL club to enter administration. Which not only kept us in the FL but also proved one heck of a springboard for the success that followed.
 
Last edited:
O4anotherplayoff said:
Yes, proper vetting is a good thing. Hopefully this additional hoop to jump through is nothing more than a temporary inconvenience for us.

Perhaps also a degree of karma from the footballing gods that we’re now the first (or one of the first) club to suffer some practical inconvenience by the transition to a new regulator, given that the absence of regulation back in 1987 meant we suffered no penalty when we became the first FL club to enter administration. Which not only kept us in the FL but also proved one heck of a springboard for the success that followed.
Click to expand...
Don't think we were but our chairman was the administrator of the first, not sure who. Frank Taylor our administrator spoke to Mark for advice
All this is subject to my dodgy memory though there is some truth in it! I think the legislation was new so winding up into liquidation, had this added stage. Frankly without it I think we would have been wound up. As it was Taylor believed he legally could nit allow time for a second bid if PJ didn't come through!
 
Looking at the way the IFR is being phased in, the dates where the new regulations come into force etc and when their workload is going to ramp up. it is highly likely they are going to want to get anything like the Tranmere sale sorted and off their desks before June is out. I'd hope then that we hear something sooner than later.
 
StuartR said:
Looking at the way the IFR is being phased in, the dates where the new regulations come into force etc and when their workload is going to ramp up. it is highly likely they are going to want to get anything like the Tranmere sale sorted and off their desks before June is out. I'd hope then that we hear something sooner than later.
Click to expand...
TBF against my significant doubts palios clearly has the short term covered. Manager full budget even the hardly pressing pitch. Any takeover will probably have no tangible effect until 27-28. They'll need that time to plan to expand turnover if that is what they intend.

I've heard agents are under pressure to get deals not hold out due best options at our level. The music maybe stopping and new salary caps maybe the cause.
 
dollar'sbloke said:
TBF against my significant doubts palios clearly has the short term covered. Manager full budget even the hardly pressing pitch. Any takeover will probably have no tangible effect until 27-28. They'll need that time to plan to expand turnover if that is what they intend.

I've heard agents are under pressure to get deals not hold out due best options at our level. The music maybe stopping and new salary caps maybe the cause.
Click to expand...
DB I don't think that is actually the case. MP cleverly said we had a maximum budget as per the financial rules but a budget is a budget. It doesn't mean we have the cash to spend up to the budget. MP went on to say that that budget was reliant on him and Nicola continue to fund the Club - he didn't say he would. Given (unless he can renegotiate) we have a £2m plus debt repayment due in November I don't think we should assume we will spend up to the budget cap or even close to it.
 
ADD said:
DB I don't think that is actually the case. MP cleverly said we had a maximum budget as per the financial rules but a budget is a budget. It doesn't mean we have the cash to spend up to the budget. MP went on to say that that budget was reliant on him and Nicola continue to fund the Club - he didn't say he would. Given (unless he can renegotiate) we have a £2m plus debt repayment due in November I don't think we should assume we will spend up to the budget cap or even close to it.
Click to expand...
He said we would have the maximum budget allowed AND that would be lower than last season as the regulator is tightening.
This loan will just be rolled over either to same creditor or another, whichever has the lowest charge! Not sure why people obsess on this.
The bigger pint is and we are typical, our budget and annual loss were the same. File under unsustainable across the board!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top