[Archived] Summer Transfer/discussion Thread

[Amo]

Never understood why the ignore feature doesn't hide the person's content when it's quoted. That seems like a design flaw to me.

[Stuart]

  On 11/06/2016 at 10:25, imy9 said:

People like myself who are looking for links/quick updates have to read through pages of bickering between the same posters day in and day out.

One poster causing problems. 10 people @#/? off. Quietest board for years.

That's right, let's blame and suppress the views of the 10 rather than sort out the one.

This is Britain 2016, folks.

  On 11/06/2016 at 10:46, Amarillo said:

Never understood why the ignore feature doesn't hide the person's content when it's quoted. That seems like a design flaw to me.

This would be great - and I've asked for this before.

What would also be useful is if the software didn't show that somebody who you have on ignore has posted anything. It really hits home just home much they spam.

The trend at the moment is that one person posts something which they know will @#/? people off. Then others respond out of frustration (and it's getting worse), then others respond to the responses defending the instigator.

Very simple fix to this. Although one mod in particular would likely ban the 10 and protect the 1 out of some kind of warped moral duty.

[yeti-dog]

  On 11/06/2016 at 09:07, Al said:

No you give it a rest. Nixon never says anything definite does he?

Why do you think that 28year old players would not want to play for the club. I don't understand your logic. Am I not allowed to disagree with you or are you the only one allowed an opinion?

You really do seem angry all of the time, try relaxing a bit you're blood pressure must be through the roof.

[yeti-dog]

  On 11/06/2016 at 10:50, Stuart said:

One poster causing problems. 10 people @#/? off. Quietest board for years.

That's right, let's blame and suppress the views of the 10 rather than sort out the one.

This is Britain 2016, folks.

This would be great - and I've asked for this before.

What would also be useful is if the software didn't show that somebody who you have on ignore has posted anything. It really hits home just home much they spam.

The trend at the moment is that one person posts something which they know will @#/? people off. Then others respond out of frustration (and it's getting worse), then others respond to the responses defending the instigator.

Very simple fix to this. Although one mod in particular would likely ban the 10 and protect the 1 out of some kind of warped moral duty.

A bit of live and let live would easily resolve this Stuart. For the life of me I can't work out why you get so wound up about Chaddy. He seems harmless enough to me, glass perpetually half-full but as far as I'm aware he hasn't killed anyone.

[AggyBlue]

  On 11/06/2016 at 10:50, Stuart said:

That's right, let's blame and suppress the views of the 10 rather than sort out the one.

This is Britain 2016, folks.

Reverse democracy at it's finest. Britain has been like this as long as I can remember.

[Mike E]

Stuart, could you drop your obsession with chaddy? It's getting beyond irritating imo.

At least criticise all who mention Nixon equally. Perhaps you'll try and stop david brent from posting next?

Chaddy posts links from all sources of Rovers news and it all gets discussed. Please just drop it. If the ignore function isn't enough, then at least learn to skimread so it doesn't bother you so much.

You might think 'chaddy gets away' with posting links, but they are literally harmless tidbits. You on the other hand are quite lucky that your persistent harassing of another poster hasn't led to a ban. Just because you can't control your emotions, it doesn't give you a right to dictate how someone should post when they are not breaking the site rules. Especially while you ARE breaking them (no personal attacks).

By all means criticise/discuss the rumours themselves, but don't attack the poster. Play the ball, not the man.

[Al]

  On 11/06/2016 at 09:51, chaddyrovers said:

If we want a new right back why not look at Billy Jones from Sunderland. Out of contract this summer

Might be worth considering but at 29 he's too old for you to recruit. Or have you changed your mind again?

[Neal]

  On 11/06/2016 at 10:37, SoldierMo said:

Anyways back to transfers....a mate of mine with PNE connections seems to think they have offered Spurr a contract

Girlfiend is from Blackburn.

  On 11/06/2016 at 09:51, chaddyrovers said:

If we want a new right back why not look at Billy Jones from Sunderland. Out of contract this summer

Good shout.

[adsfortheblues]

From what I've heard, we've made enquirers in respect of Bogdan at Liverpool, Dan Crowley at Arsenal and Will Keane at United. As well as making an approach to Graham (obvious one).

[Dunnfc]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:17, adsfortheblues said:

From what I've heard, we've made enquirers in respect of Bogdan at Liverpool, Dan Crowley at Arsenal and Will Keane at United. As well as making an approach to Graham (obvious one).

Steele is better than Bogdan surely?

[chaddyrovers]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:09, Al said:

Might be worth considering but at 29 he's too old for you to recruit. Or have you changed your mind again?

Sorry Al thought he was only 28.

Good full back and has played in the north end before

[roverandout]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:12, Neal said:

Girlfiend is from Blackburn.

Good shout.

WHAT????

[chaddyrovers]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:17, adsfortheblues said:

From what I've heard, we've made enquirers in respect of Bogdan at Liverpool, Dan Crowley at Arsenal and Will Keane at United. As well as making an approach to Graham (obvious one).

Wouldnt want Bogdan at all.

[adsfortheblues]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:19, Dunnfc said:

Steele is better than Bogdan surely?

I would say so too pal. However with Eastwood gone and Raya likely to go on loan, maybe that is the reason, I'm assuming anyway.

[Neal]

Was just looking and Adam Le Fondre is still under contract, thought he was a free agent.

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:22, roverandout said:

WHAT????

Not sure I follow.

[DE.]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:17, adsfortheblues said:

From what I've heard, we've made enquirers in respect of Bogdan at Liverpool, Dan Crowley at Arsenal and Will Keane at United. As well as making an approach to Graham (obvious one).

Ugh, no thanks to Bogdan. Worse than Steele. Was flabbergasted when Liverpool bought him.

[Al]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:19, chaddyrovers said:

Sorry Al thought he was only 28.

Good full back and has played in the north end before

Always appreciate a witty reply. If that was how it was meant.

[Al]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:17, adsfortheblues said:

From what I've heard, we've made enquirers in respect of Bogdan at Liverpool, Dan Crowley at Arsenal and Will Keane at United. As well as making an approach to Graham (obvious one).

I wonder if Will Keane's brother who plays for Burnley would talk him off us. He said he hated playing for us.

[T J Hooker]

  On 11/06/2016 at 09:36, david brent said:

I am grateful to chaddy for posting Nixon's Rovers related transfer tweets on here, and I think the board is a lesser place without the info. Whatever people say about Nixon, he is the only national journalist to my knowledge who covers Rovers.

So I will summarise what he has tweeted in the last 24 hours.

Loan deal for young attacking David Dunn esq midfielder, has played plenty of games and scores goals. Club, agent and player agreed. Need to sort financials. Keeping quiet on the name as a bigger club also want him.

If people don't want to read this they can ignore it!

bostock?

[Stuart]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:03, Mike E said:

Stuart, could you drop your obsession with chaddy? It's getting beyond irritating imo.

At least criticise all who mention Nixon equally. Perhaps you'll try and stop david brent from posting next?

Chaddy posts links from all sources of Rovers news and it all gets discussed. Please just drop it. If the ignore function isn't enough, then at least learn to skimread so it doesn't bother you so much.

You might think 'chaddy gets away' with posting links, but they are literally harmless tidbits. You on the other hand are quite lucky that your persistent harassing of another poster hasn't led to a ban. Just because you can't control your emotions, it doesn't give you a right to dictate how someone should post when they are not breaking the site rules. Especially while you ARE breaking them (no personal attacks).

By all means criticise/discuss the rumours themselves, but don't attack the poster. Play the ball, not the man.

I'm going to try to see past your threat, Mike.

Myself and Al (and others) have made a very reasonable request:

Why can Nixon quotes - which are harming the messageboard - not be separated from the transfer thread?

[LDRover]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:57, T J Hooker said:

bostock?

Come on TJ, the post wasn't that bad.

[unsall]

  On 11/06/2016 at 12:03, Stuart said:

I'm going to try to see past your threat, Mike.

Myself and Al (and others) have made a very reasonable request:

Why can Nixon quotes - which are harming the messageboard - not be separated from the transfer thread?

. Why are Nixons quotes harming the message board,we have a separate thread for definite links,this thread is for any snippets of info,some good info some rubbish,that's what it's all about sharing everything you hear,hoping some of its true,what's the point of the thread if you restrict certain people posting,you'll end up with a Nixon thread,Wheelock,thread and anybody else else thread,stop moaning at Chaddy every time he gets any info,any snippet is better than nothing,it's makes it more interesting.....

[adsfortheblues]

  On 11/06/2016 at 11:48, Al said:

I wonder if Will Keane's brother who plays for Burnley would talk him off us. He said he hated playing for us.

Yes, I've heard about that pal. I don't rate will Keane myself but then again that's the market we are in I suppose. Michael can shove his finger up his ass, he's no grant Hanley 😁

[Neal]

Will Keane is tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurd.

[Stuart]

  On 11/06/2016 at 12:36, unsall said:

. Why are Nixons quotes harming the message board,we have a separate thread for definite links,this thread is for any snippets of info,some good info some rubbish,that's what it's all about sharing everything you hear,hoping some of its true,what's the point of the thread if you restrict certain people posting,you'll end up with a Nixon thread,Wheelock,thread and anybody else else thread,stop moaning at Chaddy every time he gets any info,any snippet is better than nothing,it's makes it more interesting.....

Hence the Twitter rumour thread suggestion.

But Nixon specifically has history on this board. He was one of Kean's biggest defenders. He is also crap and predicting but never wrong.

Some people want to read his postings and some really, really don't. I'm not trying to restrict posting but asking that it is separate to allow this to be ignored (given the failings of the ignore facility) and keep threads on track. Ironic, eh.