Transfer Window - COMPLETE. Where’s Gregg?

[phili]

4 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

I thought the 90% of turnover thing was a UEFA rules for champions league clubs?

That'd be impossible for some championship teams to achieve.

That's what the agreement is they are voting on in September, owners can inject £60m of cash every 3 years or £20m a season. Then wage budget will be 90%, 85%, 80%, 75% so reducing by 5% increments. 

[JHRover]

16 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Nah nah, JH has decided that's wrong because it goes against the arguments he's been making. It's only around a million. Source: Trust Me, Dude.

What's your source then? What good old Steve and Barry Fry (that bastion of honesty) have had to say?

[JHRover]

22 minutes ago, rigger said:

If we start winning again, I am not bothered what happens, with reference to transfers.

That's short sighted. Our opportunity to address weaknesses in the squad lasts for less than a week. Then the opportunity is gone until at least January (but we know from history that other than loans we will do very little in January so it will be next summer before anything major can be done).

 

[islander200]

12 minutes ago, JHRover said:

What's your source then? What good old Steve and Barry Fry (that bastion of honesty) have had to say?

We wouldn't be signing Szmodic and Brittain for a combined £1 million.

Nobody needs a source to realise that 

[Butty]

9 minutes ago, JHRover said:

What's your source then? What good old Steve and Barry Fry (that bastion of honesty) have had to say?

It was reported in local and national media at the time that Brittain was around 1 million with add ons and the Szmodics fee was around 1.5 million rising to 2.5. 

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

I'd bet on him to never score 20 goals again in a season in any division (and I think he will end up back in the Championship).

There is no guarantees - but I think he would score 20 for Rovers if he stays injury free. Also, I actually think he will be one of the few strikers to leave Rovers and actually do well at a higher level. Of course  if he goes to Everton he might end up back in the Championship through no fault of his own 😆

[JHRover]

3 minutes ago, Butty said:

It was reported in local and national media at the time that Brittain was around 1 million with add ons and the Szmodics fee was around 1.5 million rising to 2.5. 

National media, if they can be bothered to report on us, pick their figures from local media. Local media these days consist of Rich Sharpe and Elliott Jackson who I don't think can run anything without first someone at Rovers giving them the info.

[islander200]

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

National media, if they can be bothered to report on us, pick their figures from local media. Local media these days consist of Rich Sharpe and Elliott Jackson who I don't think can run anything without first someone at Rovers giving them the info.

And can we ask what's your source that we paid around £1 million for the 2 of them?

Let it go.You are wrong.It was more than a million we paid for them.

[phili]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

National media, if they can be bothered to report on us, pick their figures from local media. Local media these days consist of Rich Sharpe and Elliott Jackson who I don't think can run anything without first someone at Rovers giving them the info.

Your also not including the sign on fee, agent fees etc which our budget does as well as any loan fees. Once you add all that up we will have spent at least ,£3m of our possible £10m.

The problem will remain wages and new FfP rules of 90% wage budget

[bluebruce]

19 minutes ago, JHRover said:

What's your source then? What good old Steve and Barry Fry (that bastion of honesty) have had to say?

And all the figures reported in the press. Beats no source at all. It might not all be 100% on the mark for the exact figure, but turning 3.5 million into 1 million is clearly miles off base.

[Armchair supporter supremo]

55 minutes ago, phili said:

That's what the agreement is they are voting on in September, owners can inject £60m of cash every 3 years or £20m a season. Then wage budget will be 90%, 85%, 80%, 75% so reducing by 5% increments. 

With all respect, as detailed and legit looking as your posts of this nature appear..... They're usually BS

[Butty]

1 hour ago, 1864roverite said:

With a supply line even Chris brown could score goals in this team 😅

We are literally at the bottom for chances created and shots on goal this season, if Diaz goes we need to at least try and replace him. He scores goals out of nothing and without that it will be a massive loss. I’d like to see us go in for Rhys Healey if Diaz goes 👍🏻

[rigger]

36 minutes ago, JHRover said:

That's short sighted. Our opportunity to address weaknesses in the squad lasts for less than a week. Then the opportunity is gone until at least January (but we know from history that other than loans we will do very little in January so it will be next summer before anything major can be done).

 

It may be short sighted, but for me it is not as pointless as worrying about someting that will not be effected, by worrying about it. 

[JHRover]

19 minutes ago, phili said:

Your also not including the sign on fee, agent fees etc which our budget does as well as any loan fees. Once you add all that up we will have spent at least ,£3m of our possible £10m.

The problem will remain wages and new FfP rules of 90% wage budget

Other than what you have read in the papers you have no basis for those figures.

The £10 million figure is one that wasn't mentioned anywhere until it appeared on this forum a week or so ago and in the time since has seemingly become fact as to what our budget is.

The £3 million outlay we have supposedly made this summer appears to be based on what Barry Fry (one of the last blokes in the world I would rely on) said to people at Peterborough's end. He's hardly going to say they've accepted a low fee for one of their most popular players when they are aiming for promotion is he?

The 'problem' with wages is simply that Venkys and their chauffeur have decided this is the area to target to achieve their desired cutbacks. So be it, but we won't be getting much decent business done if they stick to it. Pretending it is forced by FFP is just making excuses for them, IMO.

Any 'new rules' aren't yet in place and if they do come in will be voted on by League member clubs. So if we don't like it I assume we will be voting against it...doubt we will hear much on that front.

[Claytons Left Boot]

1 hour ago, Tugayisgod said:

Although I can’t see us mentioned in this article, wouldn’t mind this guy as replacement for BBD if he goes. 
Excellent scoring record and could be available 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/the72.co.uk/2022/08/23/championship-clubs-keen-on-27-year-old-celtic-star/amp/

I am not unaware of any unrest at Celtic. They play 4-3-3 with a central striker and two wide men. Kyogo is currently starting up front (and scoring regularly) with Giakoumakis tending to replace him, part way through the second half (and also scoring regularly). 

It’s a bit of a dilemma for Celtic but, with Champions League games on the horizon, together with the two domestic cup competitions, both players will probably start to play full matches but obviously not together. Again, they will both be needed to cover injuries and suspensions etc.

It had crossed my mind what could possibly happen if Giakoumakis was unhappy with the situation but coming to Rovers never entered my head. He is quality alright and I would be delighted if we got him, should the situation ever arise. I do think he is mid to lower half Premier League though.
 

 

[phili]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Other than what you have read in the papers you have no basis for those figures.

The £10 million figure is one that wasn't mentioned anywhere until it appeared on this forum a week or so ago and in the time since has seemingly become fact as to what our budget is.

The £3 million outlay we have supposedly made this summer appears to be based on what Barry Fry (one of the last blokes in the world I would rely on) said to people at Peterborough's end. He's hardly going to say they've accepted a low fee for one of their most popular players when they are aiming for promotion is he?

The 'problem' with wages is simply that Venkys and their chauffeur have decided this is the area to target to achieve their desired cutbacks. So be it, but we won't be getting much decent business done if they stick to it. Pretending it is forced by FFP is just making excuses for them, IMO.

Any 'new rules' aren't yet in place and if they do come in will be voted on by League member clubs. So if we don't like it I assume we will be voting against it...doubt we will hear much on that front.

It was mention by Glen around 6 weeks ago from his chat with Waggott etc. So we've magically signed 2 players and a loan signing for peanuts.

I don't think we are voting against it but we'll here alot more about it soon especially for us as we don't have a training ground to sell for this 3 year cycle so the new rules do need to be in place.

Also one of the proposed fines for a breach of rules is now expulsion from the EFL.

[JHRover]

3 minutes ago, phili said:

It was mention by Glen around 6 weeks ago from his chat with Waggott etc. So we've magically signed 2 players and a loan signing for peanuts.

I don't think we are voting against it but we'll here alot more about it soon especially for us as we don't have a training ground to sell for this 3 year cycle so the new rules do need to be in place.

Also one of the proposed fines for a breach of rules is now expulsion from the EFL.

So its come from Waggott then. As predicted. He is paid by Venkys to protect them and shield them.

We've signed 2 players and a loan for RELATIVE peanuts yes. Liverpool will be delighted that we are playing Morton every week and aiding his devlopment - they are not going to be charging us a lot to do this for them provided we keep on playing him. The other two have been signed from relatively impoverished League One clubs who need to make cutbacks following relegation. Nothing wrong with that sort of policy if they are good enough but lets not make out these are big complex expensive deals, they are straight forward things that happen when a club gets relegated, needs to raise cash and a player wants to stay in the higher division.

So despite Venkys being desperate to invest and prevented from doing so only by those nasty FFP rules we are not going to be voting against the proposals and I don't expect we've ever done anything to try and have the rules removed at the League AGM either.

The rules have been in place for 8 years and during that time other than short term 'embargoes' only 4 clubs have suffered a points deduction for breaking the rules and many have beaten the system and got promoted. Some of the biggest offenders have got away with it - QPR, Leicester, Bournemouth - so if they can't even get to grips with that they won't be expelling anyone. It would make a mockery of their competition.

[phili]

3 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So its come from Waggott then. As predicted. He is paid by Venkys to protect them and shield them.

We've signed 2 players and a loan for RELATIVE peanuts yes. Liverpool will be delighted that we are playing Morton every week and aiding his devlopment - they are not going to be charging us a lot to do this for them provided we keep on playing him. The other two have been signed from relatively impoverished League One clubs who need to make cutbacks following relegation. Nothing wrong with that sort of policy if they are good enough but lets not make out these are big complex expensive deals, they are straight forward things that happen when a club gets relegated, needs to raise cash and a player wants to stay in the higher division.

So despite Venkys being desperate to invest and prevented from doing so only by those nasty FFP rules we are not going to be voting against the proposals and I don't expect we've ever done anything to try and have the rules removed at the League AGM either.

The rules have been in place for 8 years and during that time other than short term 'embargoes' only 4 clubs have suffered a points deduction for breaking the rules and many have beaten the system and got promoted. Some of the biggest offenders have got away with it - QPR, Leicester, Bournemouth - so if they can't even get to grips with that they won't be expelling anyone. It would make a mockery of their competition.

Why would we vote against the new rules, you can inject £20m a season and have to control wages, what's wrong with that? They are pretty much tailor made for us if we can start increasing turnover and to be honest your wage to turnover metric should never exceed 90% in the first place.

[bluebruce]

39 minutes ago, phili said:

Why would we vote against the new rules, you can inject £20m a season and have to control wages, what's wrong with that? They are pretty much tailor made for us if we can start increasing turnover and to be honest your wage to turnover metric should never exceed 90% in the first place.

Most clubs in this league have higher turnover than us and whilst we could grow it a bit, it won't be by orders of magnitude. And that's if we had a competent CEO at the helm, we certainly don't. Our wages are probably one of the highest to turnover ratios in the league, although that may have been addressed a little this summer, depending who we still bring in and what we pay them.

The existing rules are also in essence guided by turnover, as our losses are to a large extent dictated by our turnover. The advantage for us under these supposed new proposals is the owners being able to inject more. If they do indeed wish to.

[roversfan99]

I wouldn't get too worried about FFP, potential room to exploit, changes in rules etc

That has never been the primary limiting factor for Venkys not spending more.

That is evident by their refusal to totally relay the pitch as was expected and promised.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Butty said:

We are literally at the bottom for chances created and shots on goal this season, if Diaz goes we need to at least try and replace him. He scores goals out of nothing and without that it will be a massive loss. I’d like to see us go in for Rhys Healey if Diaz goes 👍🏻

I think he has just got a bad injury.

[chaddyrovers]

4 hours ago, phili said:

I do wonder if there are any players at Everton we would be interested in to make up the numbers in part exchange.

Not really. They have loaned out 2 players in Ellis Simms and Lewis Gibson I might have look at. I think I would want straight cash for him then we can bring in players to replace him. 

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

It would be correct to sell Brereton now because you cant let him run his contract down. The logical next step especially with Brereton being the second striker sold for big money in 12 months.

The next logical part is to spend a good chunk of that 30m combined on a proper striker. Someone like Adebajo, Riis or Tyrese Campbell, at least some those will likely be unrealistic but a 8-10m striker because aside from an unfancied Dack, there are very few goals left. That wont happen, it will probably be 2 or 3 loans between now and next week, and then the window will close and the usual suspects will either defend Venkys by assuming a big budget was there and it was incompetence that stopped it being spent and/or saying it is best not to waste money on players that dont fit the bill.

I agree with your first point that we should sell him given he wants out from media reports and We could use that fee to fund a couple of replacements like Veljko Birmancevic(suggested cos JDT knows him) and Georgios Giakoumakis(being linked with a move to championship according a poster who posted that link) for example of what we could do and who we could sign. 

You mention Tyrese Campbell as replacement for BBD and he would be very good signing I just don't see him coming here. JDT will know Riis so maybe he is realistic option but I wouldn't pay more than 4 or 5 million for him. 

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

our small outlay of £1 million or so this summer comfortably covered, the wage bill substantially reduced again

National media, if they can be bothered to report on us, pick their figures from local media. Local media these days consist of Rich Sharpe and Elliott Jackson who I don't think can run anything without first someone at Rovers giving them the info.

Just more and more excuses from yourself whilst failing to admit  we have spent around 3 million including transfers fees, signing on fees and agents fees. It all comes from the budget. But supposedly according to you its peanuts. 

You seems to failed and not willing to understand that it is unstainable for Rovers to have wages higher than our turnover and with the EFL new rules going to be voted for in September, Then Rovers are correct to lower the wage budget and cost over the past 15 months. So seems to complete and utter unwilling to accept FFP rules and clubs living within their means. 

Why did you continue to knock the club at every opportunity? 

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Butty said:

I’d like to see us go in for Rhys Healey

Out injured possibly for the season with cruciate ligament rupture in his left knee. 

happened last week

He would have be the ideally pressing forward we want and he is goalscorer. We should have signed him last January or even last summer. Rovers missed a massive opportunity here

Edited August 24, 2022 by chaddyrovers

[RevidgeBlue]

4 hours ago, Darwen Rover 007 said:

Would rather get some cash for BBD than lose him for nothing next year! 

Would rather keep BBD and lose him for nothing than end up in League 1 again.