The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[tomphil]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Where did it say that?

Doesn't make sense to me considering the owners were so tight fisted in spite of the incoming millions.

Somewhere in media land but also other reports said a free transfer.

For them to release him on a free it would mean he had Rovers lined up otherwise he'd have sat out his contract till summer.

Unlikely he'd walk away from that security for a big drop in pay and by the same token if they wanted rid they'd have had to pay him up.

So it might well be like for like money to keep everything straight forward, they let him go free as a mark of gratitude for service and he walks into guaranteed money for 6 months without stinging Sheff U.

We once did similar with Micky Gray from Sunderland.

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Arguably five really as JRC has been in midfield (Tronstad, Travis, JRC, Buckley, Garrett).

Im sure one of our loans will be a centre mid too.

I'd forgot about Buckley. 😁

[tomphil]

38 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Where did it say that?

Doesn't make sense to me considering the owners were so tight fisted in spite of the incoming millions.

 

Edited June 9 by tomphil

[davulsukur]

9 minutes ago, tomphil said:

 

And yet, despite chucking money down the drain by taking him on good wages, we are lining ourselves up to do the same again.

[Andy]

9 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Nicko news this morning 

Tyjon has changed agent increasing the likelihood of a move to United

Adam Owen wants to knows his exact role is in the pecking order at Rovers management team

Gestede wants to become Director of Football, he is taking a degree in the field and shadowing execs at Rovers on a placement

John Fleck is training with Rovers in a bid to win a contract 

100% guarantee you that he's wrong on this.
RG has a career aspiration and it isn't as a DoF.
Possible he'll stick around at Rovers, but it won't be in that area ^

Unsure on the rest, could be accurate / could be as made up as the RG bit.

[tomphil]

12 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

And yet, despite chucking money down the drain by taking him on good wages, we are lining ourselves up to do the same again.

I'm sure there'd be a massive drop in any wage offer for a contract this time but anything other than a cheap pay as you play is utterly diabolical.

But if he has the right connections his foot is already in the door and nothing makes sense at this club. Every single signing is obviously a gamble so why in the first place sign a player where the odds are so heavily stacked against him even playing.

####### stupid at best.

Edited June 9 by tomphil

[Forever Blue]

12 minutes ago, Andy said:

100% guarantee you that he's wrong on this.
RG has a career aspiration and it isn't as a DoF.
Possible he'll stick around at Rovers, but it won't be in that area ^

Unsure on the rest, could be accurate / could be as made up as the RG bit.

It was in the LT months ago that RG was shadowing Swag because RG wanted a role as a club director/CEO and he was trying to learn the ropes. 

[Mercer]

8 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

It was in the LT months ago that RG was shadowing Swag because RG wanted a role as a club director/CEO and he was trying to learn the ropes. 

Of all the 'mentors' to choose!

IMO, makes very little sense to shadow and 'learn' from Waggott (still chuckling) unless Rovers were the only club to provide him with an opportunity to get some 'work experience' in that area. 

[Lucimo]

33 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I'm sure there'd be a massive drop in any wage offer for a contract this time but anything other than a cheap pay as you play is utterly diabolical.

But if he has the right connections his foot is already in the door and nothing makes sense at this club. Every single signing is obviously a gamble so why in the first place sign a player where the odds are so heavily stacked against him even playing.

####### stupid at best.

It's frankly diabolical taking him on full stop. The guy will need games to get up to speed in the reserves which he'll need paying for and it is highly likely he'll break down before fit enough for the first team.  Absolute joke that we are even considering it. If only we had owners that took an interest, they would spot the idiocy of it a mile of.

[chaddyrovers]

40 minutes ago, Andy said:

100% guarantee you that he's wrong on this.
RG has a career aspiration and it isn't as a DoF.
Possible he'll stick around at Rovers, but it won't be in that area ^

Unsure on the rest, could be accurate / could be as made up as the RG bit.

Ok thanks Andy. 

I'm surprised Gestede wants to go into club management after his career. 

He has been spot on so far this summer. 

You not heard from your source about Owen joining us as technical head/director? 

 

 

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, Lucimo said:

It's frankly diabolical taking him on full stop. The guy will need games to get up to speed in the reserves which he'll need paying for and it is highly likely he'll break down before fit enough for the first team.  Absolute joke that we are even considering it. If only we had owners that took an interest, they would spot the idiocy of it a mile of.

This is exactly why they end up making cutbacks because they allow this shite to go on just like the wasting of 6/7 mill on a player then walking for nowt alongside several others. Then every so often they say hey where is all the money going, why isn't income increasing and why aren't we being promoted ?

Common denominator is the deadbeats they allow to run the gaff and their own ignorance.

One will never change but they could change the other.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

Of all the 'mentors' to choose!

IMO, makes very little sense to shadow and 'learn' from Waggott (still chuckling) unless Rovers were the only club to provide him with an opportunity to get some 'work experience' in that area. 

I dunno, it's a perfect opportunity to learn exactly what not to do!

[M_B]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Where did it say that?

Doesn't make sense to me considering the owners were so tight fisted in spite of the incoming millions.

It certainly contradicts the Travis leaving to save his wages rumour. Not that I really ever believed it. 

[M_B]

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

 

Edited June 9 by M_B

[roversfan99]

23 minutes ago, M_B said:

It certainly contradicts the Travis leaving to save his wages rumour. Not that I really ever believed it. 

It is hardly unbelievable that in a season where the cuts got gradually more and more aggressive, that we loaned out a senior player to save money.

That being said, there was maybe a personal issue with Tomasson thrown in.

Im still not having that Fleck came in on big wages. We had no money.

[chaddyrovers]

JDT and Travis clearly didn't get on and the fact that Travis asked to leave twice before he left for Ipswich where he didn't play that much at all. 

[roversfan99]

There was clearly a personal issue but there was also clearly instruction to reduce costs as much as possible as was evident all season so probably a bit of both.

[tomphil]

23 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It is hardly unbelievable that in a season where the cuts got gradually more and more aggressive, that we loaned out a senior player to save money.

That being said, there was maybe a personal issue with Tomasson thrown in.

Im still not having that Fleck came in on big wages. We had no money.

WE'd just received the first Wharton instalment so there was a few quid floating around otherwise we'd have got no one at all.

Also both those signings were experienced players and both would be on good money.

I'm not having it that some guy would walk away from 25/35k a week to come here because he 'might' get a game.

[KentExile]

4 minutes ago, tomphil said:

WE'd just received the first Wharton instalment so there was a few quid floating around otherwise we'd have got no one at all.

Also both those signings were experienced players and both would be on good money.

I'm not having it that some guy would walk away from 25/35k a week to come here because he 'might' get a game.

He likely didn't.  He will have received a percentage of what was left of his contract with Sheff Utd for them to cancel it, and Rovers would have paid the remainder

[Mercer]

7 minutes ago, tomphil said:

WE'd just received the first Wharton instalment so there was a few quid floating around otherwise we'd have got no one at all.

Also both those signings were experienced players and both would be on good money.

I'm not having it that some guy would walk away from 25/35k a week to come here because he 'might' get a game.

You are absolutely right.  Balance of his SU contract would have been about £500k gross.

IMO, a scandalous waste of our so called 'scarce resources' and for what!?

Worse still, seemingly we want to do it all again but presumably on a 12 month contract!  IMO, the height of feckin stupidity and indefensible.

[M_B]

39 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It is hardly unbelievable that in a season where the cuts got gradually more and more aggressive, that we loaned out a senior player to save money.

That being said, there was maybe a personal issue with Tomasson thrown in.

Im still not having that Fleck came in on big wages. We had no money.

It never rang true to me, not when we turned down a fee for Gallagher, with also the chance to shift the biggest earner's wages off the books. 

I think it was all to do with the fall out. 

[roversfan99]

14 minutes ago, tomphil said:

WE'd just received the first Wharton instalment so there was a few quid floating around otherwise we'd have got no one at all.

Also both those signings were experienced players and both would be on good money.

I'm not having it that some guy would walk away from 25/35k a week to come here because he 'might' get a game.

As @KentExile said, he likely was paid off. Even if we only pay £5k a week it is still a saving for them.

You say there was a few quid knocking around. I know Fleck didnt cost a fee but Venkys blocked any permanent Maguire deal because they wouldnt spend.

[Mercer]

7 minutes ago, KentExile said:

He likely didn't.  He will have received a percentage of what was left of his contract with Sheff Utd for them to cancel it, and Rovers would have paid the remainder

Maybe so but I'll wager it cost us at least £300k including employers national insurance at 12/14%.  IMO, not a calculated risk but utter recklessness given the lad's injury record, and nature thereof, over recent times.

[chaddyrovers]

25 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

There was clearly a personal issue but there was also clearly instruction to reduce costs as much as possible as was evident all season so probably a bit of both.

Travis wanted to leave that we deffo know. 

Do we even save money on Travis given we made 6 signings and Buckley returned from his loan spell? 

Edited June 9 by chaddyrovers

[tomphil]

31 minutes ago, KentExile said:

He likely didn't.  He will have received a percentage of what was left of his contract with Sheff Utd for them to cancel it, and Rovers would have paid the remainder

The whole point of another club taking over the remainder of the contract is to allow the player to move free, as in no pay off and no fee.

The wages stay large because there is no pay off nor signing on fee so it's a straight forward deal nobody loses out and the next club just picks up the tab for 6 months.

Edited June 9 by tomphil