January Transfer window 2022

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

I don't think that registration is a concern. Don't we have Magloire in there as well who could easily be ditched, and I doubt we are going to sign 3 or 4 to begin with.

Well if Magloire and Poveda drop out of squad registration list so that's gives chance of 3 signings which I would like us to sign. A right wing back/full back, winger and striker. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

A bad January widow whilst doing well would be peak Venkys

Hopefully they surprise us 

[JHRover]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

You know exactly where the Armstrong money has gone to meet the FFP rules and the club isn't in embargo this season, How many more times does this need saying?

He was backed last season. He signed 11 players last season. He has been more than financial backed in the past 3 seasons. 

on the contract issues, Rovers have offered new improved contracts but as Waggott said in the fans forum that's their player agents have advised them not to sign at this stage. 

Oh, I thought it was the training ground sale that was needed to avoid an embargo?

Which one is it? Or is it both? We need to sell a £15 million player AND our training ground just to avoid an embargo?

I've asked you before - what difference would an embargo have made in the summer?

It might have meant that we weren't able to sign Edun (though we probably would have been able to because the League allow spending provided it falls within certain criteria even under an embargo)

I've also asked you before - what evidence do you have to support your claim that Rovers have offered new improved contracts apart from Waggott saying so?

Do you not accept that Waggott might not be entirely truthful on that front given it is his name next to it when things go wrong?

It is interesting. You so willingly and readily accept Waggott's comments in the fans forum as the truth (even though he has lied/exaggerated many times) and believe that the players are holding off signing new deals yet you also seem to accept that Mowbray and the management team haven't been offered new deals yet.

Why would the owners sanction offers for the players if they haven't offered the manager new terms?

Here's a conspiracy theory for you - maybe, just maybe, Mowbray and the players are all in the same boat - contracts expiring and not a peep from our reclusive owners as to whether they will be getting new terms or not.

[Gav]

20 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

A bad January widow whilst doing well would be peak Venkys

Hopefully they surprise us 

We have been fed a steady stream of how the club and owners have changed, seen the light, January will go some way to proving that point, if the promotion push is supported.  

[RoverCanada]

37 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Oh, I thought it was the training ground sale that was needed to avoid an embargo?

Which one is it? Or is it both? We need to sell a £15 million player AND our training ground just to avoid an embargo?

At least going by my guesstimates (and depending on how the apparent 4-year FFP window was applied due to Covid + Covid-related allowed exemptions...), the answer is apparently both.

1 hour ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

This include the academy "sale"

Yes, added to 2020-21 under the 'player sales + STC sale' column. I assumed an £8m profit for that sale as that's same profit Reading recorded for selling their own training centre.

Otherwise, I think our only real player trading profit last year would've been whatever we got for the Josh King sell-on, which would've been about £500k. Come to think of it, I overlooked potentially getting another £500k or so due to Raya getting promoted with Brentford, so maybe add another £0.5k of player trading profit to my 2020-21 guess.

Edited December 7, 2021 by RoverCanada

[roversfan99]

48 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Oh, I thought it was the training ground sale that was needed to avoid an embargo?

Which one is it? Or is it both? We need to sell a £15 million player AND our training ground just to avoid an embargo?

I've asked you before - what difference would an embargo have made in the summer?

It might have meant that we weren't able to sign Edun (though we probably would have been able to because the League allow spending provided it falls within certain criteria even under an embargo)

I've also asked you before - what evidence do you have to support your claim that Rovers have offered new improved contracts apart from Waggott saying so?

Do you not accept that Waggott might not be entirely truthful on that front given it is his name next to it when things go wrong?

It is interesting. You so willingly and readily accept Waggott's comments in the fans forum as the truth (even though he has lied/exaggerated many times) and believe that the players are holding off signing new deals yet you also seem to accept that Mowbray and the management team haven't been offered new deals yet.

Why would the owners sanction offers for the players if they haven't offered the manager new terms?

Here's a conspiracy theory for you - maybe, just maybe, Mowbray and the players are all in the same boat - contracts expiring and not a peep from our reclusive owners as to whether they will be getting new terms or not.

Call me naive but I doubt that Waggott would outright lie about offering new deals.

For me the issue falls with how much we have offered these players, something I suppose we will never know but having been told that we have offered as much as we can, how difficult the pandemic is in India and various lines about our wage budget needing to be slashed, I suspect that they have not been offered competitive amounts. But the amount we can offer these falls on the owners if indeed it is down to money rather than Waggott in that case. 

Bang on about the training ground trick AND Armstrong sale though, both in different accounting periods too. Many keen to delude themselves in thinking that Venkys are doing everything possible to support us.

[booth]

On 05/12/2021 at 22:13, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

We were - not sure how many games in that was though. I always bear that run in mind when it comes to playing teams who have just come down early in the season. You can give them far too much respect, but at the same time they'll sometimes have the quality to take their chances tight games. Rhodes, N. Gomes and Pedersen in particular repeatedly came to our rescue in those opening weeks in games we didn't really deserve much from. Hull, Leicester and Leeds away spring to mind as games where we got out of jail, but there are probably others.

 

Suffice to say the rest of the league quickly cottoned on that there was nothing to fear from us under Kean and we quickly dropped towards the relegation spots.

I remember we were winning against play and were truly dreadful. It was obvious the wheels would fall off when Kean got found out.

[only2garners]

1 hour ago, Gav said:

We have been fed a steady stream of how the club and owners have changed, seen the light, January will go some way to proving that point, if the promotion push is supported.  

Certainly that was the message Steve Waggott was giving at the last FF. He talked about having budget left over to spend and that this season there was a real opportunity given that several clubs that were expected to challenge had had bad starts. the club have targets identified and were also mindful that should the club get an offer for any player that they could not refuse that replacements were also to be identified.

Of course it's one thing identifying targets and another getting deals signed but he certainly gave the impression that he was expecting January to be busy.

[Gav]

28 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Certainly that was the message Steve Waggott was giving at the last FF. He talked about having budget left over to spend and that this season there was a real opportunity given that several clubs that were expected to challenge had had bad starts. the club have targets identified and were also mindful that should the club get an offer for any player that they could not refuse that replacements were also to be identified.

Of course it's one thing identifying targets and another getting deals signed but he certainly gave the impression that he was expecting January to be busy.

Thanks for that o2g.

The way the club went about its business in the summer was appalling as far as I'm concerned, coupled with contract rebels sat in limbo, it doesn't bode well for January.

But time will tell. 

[1864roverite]

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Oh, I thought it was the training ground sale that was needed to avoid an embargo?

Which one is it? Or is it both? We need to sell a £15 million player AND our training ground just to avoid an embargo?

I've asked you before - what difference would an embargo have made in the summer?

It might have meant that we weren't able to sign Edun (though we probably would have been able to because the League allow spending provided it falls within certain criteria even under an embargo)

I've also asked you before - what evidence do you have to support your claim that Rovers have offered new improved contracts apart from Waggott saying so?

Do you not accept that Waggott might not be entirely truthful on that front given it is his name next to it when things go wrong?

It is interesting. You so willingly and readily accept Waggott's comments in the fans forum as the truth (even though he has lied/exaggerated many times) and believe that the players are holding off signing new deals yet you also seem to accept that Mowbray and the management team haven't been offered new deals yet.

Why would the owners sanction offers for the players if they haven't offered the manager new terms?

Here's a conspiracy theory for you - maybe, just maybe, Mowbray and the players are all in the same boat - contracts expiring and not a peep from our reclusive owners as to whether they will be getting new terms or not.

To help you out! ONLY TM has not been offered a new contract! Trawl through his comments and he has said so himself on a good few times.

[only2garners]

30 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

To help you out! ONLY TM has not been offered a new contract! Trawl through his comments and he has said so himself on a good few times.

It was also confirmed by Steve Waggott at the Fans Forum.

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, 1864roverite said:

To help you out! ONLY TM has not been offered a new contract! Trawl through his comments and he has said so himself on a good few times.

Yes I know he's said that.

My point was why is the assumption that the owners are organised enough to agree to offer improved contracts to multiple players (at substantial cost to them) but aren't organised enough to make a decision on their manager (who they have met and like several times) and who would cost much less to keep at the club than those players?

I think the most likely scenario is that nobody has been offered new deals. Nobody can be because they require approval from the bosses in India for the additional cash they will require.

It is interesting that NONE of these players have accepted the 'improved' offers made by the Club. Not one. Almost as though there are no improved offers there to accept...

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

Oh, I thought it was the training ground sale that was needed to avoid an embargo?

Which one is it? Or is it both? We need to sell a £15 million player AND our training ground just to avoid an embargo?

look at RoverCanada reply to you. 

But you could always work out the Rovers finances yourself given the info out there

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

I've asked you before - what difference would an embargo have made in the summer?

It might have meant that we weren't able to sign Edun (though we probably would have been able to because the League allow spending provided it falls within certain criteria even under an embargo)

yet again, I have answered several times already so why keep asking the same question time after time?

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

I've also asked you before - what evidence do you have to support your claim that Rovers have offered new improved contracts apart from Waggott saying so?

Do you not accept that Waggott might not be entirely truthful on that front given it is his name next to it when things go wrong?

It is interesting. You so willingly and readily accept Waggott's comments in the fans forum as the truth (even though he has lied/exaggerated many times) and believe that the players are holding off signing new deals yet you also seem to accept that Mowbray and the management team haven't been offered new deals yet.

Why do I need any evidence given thats I am not one who doesn't want to believe the club? 

Waggott and Mowbray have confirmed to several different media people, fans forum and other fans that these players have been offered new improved contracts. 

Mowbray have said he has no talks on a new contract for himself

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

Why would the owners sanction offers for the players if they haven't offered the manager new terms?

Cos they want to see How Mowbray does this season before judging whether to give him a new contract or not. 

I don't see the rush either in offering him a new contract or not before end of the season

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, only2garners said:

Certainly that was the message Steve Waggott was giving at the last FF. He talked about having budget left over to spend and that this season there was a real opportunity given that several clubs that were expected to challenge had had bad starts. the club have targets identified and were also mindful that should the club get an offer for any player that they could not refuse that replacements were also to be identified.

Of course it's one thing identifying targets and another getting deals signed but he certainly gave the impression that he was expecting January to be busy.

Did anyone make the point to him that it would be completely pointless letting DL RN and JR go for a  relative pittance in January due to the contract situation then spend a similar amount bringing in inferior players?

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

To help you out! ONLY TM has not been offered a new contract! Trawl through his comments and he has said so himself on a good few times.

Does that mean Waggott has been offered a new contract?

I sincerely hope not.

 

[rigger]

36 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Does that mean Waggott has been offered a new contract?

I sincerely hope not.

 

I bet it is an improved contact as well.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Yes I know he's said that.

My point was why is the assumption that the owners are organised enough to agree to offer improved contracts to multiple players (at substantial cost to them) but aren't organised enough to make a decision on their manager (who they have met and like several times) and who would cost much less to keep at the club than those players?

I think the most likely scenario is that nobody has been offered new deals. Nobody can be because they require approval from the bosses in India for the additional cash they will require.

It is interesting that NONE of these players have accepted the 'improved' offers made by the Club. Not one. Almost as though there are no improved offers there to accept...

It's fairly easy to explain contract offers for those players but not for TM. They are all players who are good enough for this club. Until this recent run there were serious question marks over whether TM was. Even Venkys must have been contemplating a change next summer. If I were them I wouldn't be rushing to a new deal now either just because we have hit form, wouldn't be our first false dawn. I'd watch how December, Jan, or maybe the rest of the season goes.

He is also a deal much likelier to get over the line easy. I doubt he wants a significant pay rise and he knows he is on a cushy number here. He isn't coveted by other clubs like I should think those players are. Nobody will be stepping in to give us compo in the way that we can likely get fees for the players in Jan (not that I think we should go that route if we are well positioned).

Finally, if you have a player on a long deal and decide you don't want them, you can try to sell them. If that fails you can loan them out and get some of the wage off your bill. Even if you're struggling for suitors for a bit you'll usually shift them eventually. And most of all, you're not forced to play them. But your manager stays in charge until you pay off most of the rest of their contract, and you need to ditch them as soon as you've decided they're not good enough or your club will likely continue to rot. They need to be fired, paid off and replaced (possibly for a compensation fee), all quickly.

Basically it's a very different type of decision to renew your manager's deal to renewing your players'. He is the most important role at the club and isn't a tradable asset in the way the players are.

[CambridgeRover]

Spend what we can on one quality attacking midfielder. 

[rigger]

14 minutes ago, CambridgeRover said:

Spend what we can on one quality attacking midfielder. 

Or hope that Dack makes a successful recovery.

[tomphil]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Did anyone make the point to him that it would be completely pointless letting DL RN and JR go for a  relative pittance in January due to the contract situation then spend a similar amount bringing in inferior players?

Sadly i think this is the reason Park is now here as they knew there'd be a turnover of players in the next 6 months.

They haven't got a specialist recruitment guy in just to sign loans and the odd cheapo. They were managing to do that ok themselves this fella imo is here to oversee another big turnover between now and next August.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, CambridgeRover said:

Spend what we can on one quality attacking midfielder. 

You mean like Rothwell ?

[JacknOry]

5 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

You mean like Rothwell ?

Among the top assisters in the league this season now. If he could shoot properly he'd be in the PL. 

[Fraserkirky]

Honestly, I think Nyambe is gone in January, Rothwell I haven’t given up hope yet. 

[Paul Mani]

I can’t believe there’s still so much back and forth on IF the players have been offered new contracts. OF COURSE THEY HAVE! It’s been reported via direct quote from the manager and CEO in the media and SW confirmed it to me in person after the Sheff U match.

The reason they don’t need to offer Mowbray one is because managers aren’t seen as assets until they’re wanted. Weirdly, if we continue to perform like we are we may be in danger of having the decision taken from us. There will be chairman looking up the league at Tony and his academy based team wondering if he could do a job for them….🙈

Whether it be the players or the manager, we HAVE to make sure we’re prepared for all scenarios….

SW said that he would try to sell any player who hadn’t signed a contract by Jan. My guess is that he’s seriously reconsidering that as we now sit so high in the table. But if we are going to cash in on any player we must have excellent replacement options (think Pickering) and agreed budgets.

in terms of the manager, the club also need to decide what they’re doing soon. If he’s staying next year then get the deal done. If not then hopefully they’ve communicated that to him AND lined up a replacement. 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

The reason they don’t need to offer Mowbray one is because managers aren’t seen as assets until they’re wanted. Weirdly, if we continue to perform like we are we may be in danger of having the decision taken from us. There will be chairman looking up the league at Tony and his academy based team wondering if he could do a job for them….🙈

 

We can but hope.......... Souness situation mark 2.

Never thought we'd be so lucky as to have lightning strike twice mind!