The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[rob_of_the_rovers]

264 pages without a single whiff of a transfer, that's an impressive amount of nonsense generated

[TheRevAshton]

Confirmation that Semir is gone... wonder who's next?

[Dreams of 1995]

Getting rid of players without any new lads coming in the door is worrying 

Say what you want about Telalovic - at least he was a body. Jack Vale probably replaces him 

[Polky]

6 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Confirmation that Semir is gone... wonder who's next?

He’s a club legend.

His sale has ensured that Waggott’s Bus will have petrol for the 24/25 season.

Thank you, Semir

[MarkBRFC]

Think it's clear that Vale coming back into the squad replaces Telalovic.

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Confirmation that Semir is gone... wonder who's next?

hope you have a good career Semir and I hope your move to Ulm works out for you. 

[lraC]

16 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Am I understanding this right?, if Venkies put in 2 mil to the club they have to match that? effectively doubling "their" expense

You are, although they could end up getting the bond money back, if the court accept that they have used the funds, for the purpose stated.

The fact that they are not prepared to do that any more, speaks volumes, in my opinion. 

[Eddie]

At this rate we will have about 16 first team players by the time the season kicks off.

It's easy to dismiss sales of squad players, but we are seeing the gradual reduction in quality across our entire squad. It's impossible to not be concerned by this number of departures when there are no signs of anyone new joining. 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

1 hour ago, RoversClitheroe said:

The end game must be extremely close.

Have to hope that @Mercer (who's rarely right, although I love your posts) is correct in that people in the USA are taking an interest in us, can only hope that there are murmurs globally that they are looking to sell up soon.

@Kamy100 have you heard anything?

PLEASE dont do this to everyone....the B'stards will just happily announce not for sale.

The Club continues to crash and burn.

Edited July 10 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

You are, although they could end up getting the bond money back, if the court accept that they have used the funds, for the purpose stated.

The fact that they are not prepared to do that any more, speaks volumes, in my opinion. 

Not to defend Venkys (I want them gone as much as the next person), but I suppose the bond situation could be a bit complicated.

Say they send us 5m for the running of the club and we then go and sign a player for 4m. Is a court likely to look favourably on that? Even if they can point to running costs, there's a chance that it could be seen as them funding a transfer which would fall outside of the essential elements that they may be allowed to fund at this point.

Now, the counter to that is that they are more than wealthy enough to risk losing 10-20m to keep funding this club in the way that a proper owner should. But they aren't proper owners.

[chaddyrovers]

17 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

We clearly have a difference in how we define backing. According to you, every single manager is backed because every team signs players of some description.

I have fully explained about your argument is about the amount of backing they received. Correct? what would you define has Backing? how much? 

Without our backing we wouldn't sign anyone. Correct? 

So we know what the current situation which is just frees and loans, so lets get some signings in the coming weeks. 

Would you not agree that signing Campbell or Connolly would actually improve our striker area? 

[TheRevAshton]

Very telling that the 2 players we bought for a fee in the last 12 months, have been promptly moved along... conveniently, right around the time that the next set of instalments will be due.

Edited July 10 by TheRevAshton

[G Somerset Rover]

3 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Very telling that the 2 players we bought for a fee in the last 12 months, have been promptly moved along... conveniently, right around the time that the next set of instalments will be due.

A damning indictment of our recruitment team too.

Rovers just absolutely stink from top to bottom - a shell of this once proud club. 

Edited July 10 by G Somerset Rover

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

I have fully explained about your argument is about the amount of backing they received. Correct? what would you define has Backing? how much? 

Without our backing we wouldn't sign anyone. Correct? 

So we know what the current situation which is just frees and loans, so lets get some signings in the coming weeks. 

Would you not agree that signing Campbell or Connolly would actually improve our striker area? 

I recall you also claimed that Coyle was backed because he signed loads of players notwithstanding that they were all cheap freebies and loans.

Backing would depend on what has come in. Loads of money has come in, but backing certainly is never merely being allowed to register players without a fee.

Neither have records which suggest that they would score goals with any regularity to improve us particularly. Maybe thats the best possible scenario amidst a pitiful budget, im not criticising your suggestions, and both are obviously better than having to play shit like Vale or 16 year old kids, but we should have money to spend and without it we massively cap quality.

[Exiled_Rover]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Not to defend Venkys (I want them gone as much as the next person), but I suppose the bond situation could be a bit complicated.

Say they send us 5m for the running of the club and we then go and sign a player for 4m. Is a court likely to look favourably on that? Even if they can point to running costs, there's a chance that it could be seen as them funding a transfer which would fall outside of the essential elements that they may be allowed to fund at this point.

Now, the counter to that is that they are more than wealthy enough to risk losing 10-20m to keep funding this club in the way that a proper owner should. But they aren't proper owners.

Are transfers not an essential element to running a football club?

Edited July 10 by Exiled_Rover

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

They will run us into the ground, I have no doubt about that.

Past tense?

They already have.

[rigger]

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

At this rate we will have about 16 first team players by the time the season kicks off.

It's easy to dismiss sales of squad players, but we are seeing the gradual reduction in quality across our entire squad. It's impossible to not be concerned by this number of departures when there are no signs of anyone new joining. 

It depends how good those 16 prove to be.

[lraC]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Not to defend Venkys (I want them gone as much as the next person), but I suppose the bond situation could be a bit complicated.

Say they send us 5m for the running of the club and we then go and sign a player for 4m. Is a court likely to look favourably on that? Even if they can point to running costs, there's a chance that it could be seen as them funding a transfer which would fall outside of the essential elements that they may be allowed to fund at this point.

Now, the counter to that is that they are more than wealthy enough to risk losing 10-20m to keep funding this club in the way that a proper owner should. But they aren't proper owners.

You have a very valid point there and in my opinion stating as they have, that they are protecting their investment, already leaves them on rocky ground. using the funds to purchase a new player, could add further weight to their issues.

I know for a fact that Waggott had to itemise to the penny, what the funds were being used for, when the two previous amounts were released and he stated that a precedent had been set and full expected the third amount to be released.

As we now know, that as yet, has not transpired.

[AndyB]

2 hours ago, tomphil said:

It's probably what kicked off the issues with the Vs and their authorities in the first place and all the property and Akon stuff is collateral damage.

I'd wager there is a stand off between the two and of course as always with this ownership and its problems it's the team and fans that suffer from something that is nothing to do with us.

Apart the idiotic social media cult who blame fans for everything 'if we got 20k' everything would be fine nonsense.

Too right, they put over £30million into the Akon venture

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/ed-seizes-immovable-properties-worth-over-rs-24-cr-of-venkateshwara-hatcheries-under-fema-provisions20231009204844/

Edited July 10 by AndyB
Wrong number, it was more than I thought

[JHRover]

12 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Very telling that the 2 players we bought for a fee in the last 12 months, have been promptly moved along... conveniently, right around the time that the next set of instalments will be due.

Agree. Were those two the only cash buys last summer? Coincidence? I doubt it.

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I recall you also claimed that Coyle was backed because he signed loads of players notwithstanding that they were all cheap freebies and loans.

So Graham, Stokes, Feeney were cheap freebies? really? 

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Backing would depend on what has come in. Loads of money has come in, but backing certainly is never merely being allowed to register players without a fee.

So what sort of figure do you want to spend given what we have receive in the last 12 months? Its a simple question

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Neither have records which suggest that they would score goals with any regularity to improve us particularly. Maybe thats the best possible scenario amidst a pitiful budget, im not criticising your suggestions, and both are obviously better than having to play shit like Vale or 16 year old kids, but we should have money to spend and without it we massively cap quality.

We don't have money to spend because without funding the owners we need to pay the season bills with it. 

On Connolly and Campbell, I think both improve our striker area and gives us something different to Gallagher, Leonard and Tyjon. On Tyjon is a great prospect and someone who will be part of this season first team squad. He is a great talent who we have convince to stay here instead of moving to Man Utd where he wouldn't be playing first team football.  

[KentExile]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

So Graham, Stokes, Feeney were cheap freebies? really? 

 

All 3 were on the football scrapheap and signed for Rovers on free transfers

No matter how well Graham did for Rovers (especially alongside Dack), he was a free transfer because Sunderland no longer wanted him

Edited July 10 by KentExile

[roverblue]

Who’s next out the door?
 

Sammy, Gallagher, Dolan or Hyam would be my guess. Sammy is the golden goose don’t think the others would fetch much 

[Theaxe15]

35 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Think it's clear that Vale coming back into the squad replaces Telalovic.

Like for like. Shite for shite

[davulsukur]

48 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Confirmation that Semir is gone... wonder who's next?

Not concerned he has left, he was a poor transfer. 

The concern is that Vale is his replacement.