The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[briansol]

15 minutes ago, JamieUK said:

Atcheson is only 17. Getting 15-20 games between now and January in the National League North will likely bring him on more than being in the U18s/U21s. As a defender he'll get much more of a hard time and education coming up against some shithouses there!

Spot on! Especially true for defenders. The standard of the top two tiers of Non-league has improved greatly. For most parts National Conference is on par with League Two and most teams are full-time professionals.

U21 is too much of a playground with a lot of quick technical players having a field day against stand-off defending that are better ball players then defenders. That's why a lot those matches are 4-3 etc, and why when stars at that level get a reality check when they go out on loan. A football league defender earning a wage to provide for a family will smash you before you attempt the first step-over.

 

[chaddyrovers]

19 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Even if we bought those 2, off the back of £40m+ brought in, over 2 years worth of losses, and even allowing for the self inflicted financial issues, then its a poor do.

I though we had moved on to the strange alternative of a 29 year old Japanese striker.

I know thats what Eustace would do. Im saying that I would chuck him in straight away because Pears is rubbish.

fully understand that point but we aren't in the room and with the knowledge what we got to spend on De Lange. In ideal world we will get this De Lange deal this week/early next week. Yes not ideal granted, but then on the other hand we have been playing hard ball with Szmodics. Personally, lets just get both deals done and we can move on and bring this De Lange in, then a wide player as Szmodics player plus CM and LB. 

Also you just can't a new keeper into the team without him knowing the players and try to some understand of the team, tactics and his role. yes it would be great to sign him a couple of weeks ago

Edited August 6 by chaddyrovers

[KentExile]

13 minutes ago, briansol said:

Spot on! Especially true for defenders. The standard of the top two tiers of Non-league has improved greatly. For most parts National Conference is on par with League Two and most teams are full-time professionals.

U21 is too much of a playground with a lot of quick technical players having a field day against stand-off defending that are better ball players then defenders. That's why a lot those matches are 4-3 etc, and why when stars at that level get a reality check when they go out on loan. A football league defender earning a wage to provide for a family will smash you before you attempt the first step-over.

 

Seems that the plan is to get a lot more youngsters out on loan than we have seen previously

Stuart Jones' role changed over the summer and he is now also overseeing loan moves for our players ages 17-21

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/july/09/rovers-announce-academy-restructure/

Can only be a good thing if they are getting tested in genuine competitive games, it seems at least some of our various "head of," are useful,  Jones certainly is

Edited August 6 by KentExile

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

So have we moved on from De Lange for the sake of a few hundred grand to try and borrow someone?

No we haven't. We asked about Rushworth a couple of weeks ago

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I would want a longer term goalkeeper. Wasnt there a second goalkeeper at PSV who we apparently wanted? Not that £1.25m should be beyond us.

Yes I agree we want a long term number 1. PSV's Keeper Drommel would be loan according to Alan, which I think isn't ideal to be honest. We need a perm keeper signing. 

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Assuming that some of the rumours about goalkeepers this summer have been true, small cash buys, aging freebies, loanees, it doesnt scream of a club with a plan. 

Eustace wants a new keeper we all know this confirmed by him and Waggott at Fans Forum. The free agent keepers cos of maybe low budget we had, lack of transfer movement outgoing wise. We seen some now. I feel someone like De Lange is the right fit in terms playing at good level of football, Being a number 1 for the last 2 season, experience and good age. 

4 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Seems that way. But still seems very scattergun, young keepers on loan, pensioners on frees and bidding for ones in between. 

I dont have the most confidence but I just hope we get De Lange, well a player that matches that criteria.

You will have a range of different lists and targets depending on fee, wages and how much you rated that. 

[simongarnerisgod]

47 minutes ago, JamieUK said:

Atcheson is only 17. Getting 15-20 games between now and January in the National League North will likely bring him on more than being in the U18s/U21s. As a defender he'll get much more of a hard time and education coming up against some shithouses there!

dominic calvert lewin spent a few months at stalybridge celtic,it brought him on loads,as you said,it`s proper no nonsense stuff at that level,you either sink or swim,the refs don`t help you either,you have to basically disable someone to get a booking🙂,it`s football in the raw

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

That is a big concern, whoever we bring in now that its beyond the point where he can start as number 1.

My fear is that we sign a veteran and he naturally falls into being backup. If we sign someone like De Lange who clearly has the credentials to be number 1, I would still prefer him to be put in as soon as possible but it would take bravery on Eustace's behalf.

Say Pears keeps a clean sheet, he is still proven over a period of time to be sub par.

I mean, it's only beyond the point he can start as number one in this game. They could still start the next game or maybe the one after, if we get them in today or tomorrow. In fact the cup game could be a perfect opportunity to blood a new goalie.

It's not ideal that we didn't get them weeks ago, but sometimes deals take time and I'd far, far rather we take time and get the right one but they miss maybe 3 games (if it drags on to next week) than get the wrong one to go into games from day dot.

Once the new goalie is ready, I'd dislodge Pears immediately unless he's been playing out of his skin, and drop him as soon as he doesn't. Regardless of clean sheets or not making a high profile mistake.

[chaddyrovers]

19 hours ago, JHRover said:

Always an excuse for not spending what we bring in, isn't there?

It used to be that we needed to sell before we spend. We did that. Then you used the old excuse of FFP rules preventing it and meaning we had to use the cash towards running costs.

Then the last few windows have utterly destroyed using FFP as an excuse you have adopted the 'we only receive it in gradual instalments' line. Whether we do or not the same could apply to incoming signings so it is as broad as it is long. Also nothing stopping our great owners from stumping the cash up in advance to enable spending and them later recouping it from future instalments.

I'm intrigued by your default determination to avoid just accepting the truth that they are now funding the club through asset sales.

And no, the two cash signings made are likely well short of even the money received for Gallagher, Wahlstedt and Telalovic. The fee for the Japanese signing has been widely reported as very low.

Not at all, 

FFP is still around and the owners problem over the last 12 months, we had to sell Wharton to cover that season loses. Not great and not any of us wanted but we were always going to have £20m from sales to over the £60m debt over 3 seasons. Owners can only put in roughly £40m over those 3 seasons. Plus you have also take into account that the owners might not to cover all the loses all the time and the club has to cover some by selling a player or 2. 

FFP isn't an excuse its a fact which you completely don't understand or wanted to ignore it. Other clubs have had to sell players like Hull to cover themselves FFP wise or Boro aswell over the summer or the last 12 months. I ain't a fan of FFP but that's the rules so you by themselves. Your 

[bluebruce]

57 minutes ago, JamieUK said:

How old is he? 😂

18 next month 😉 

[simongarnerisgod]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Not at all, 

FFP is still around and the owners problem over the last 12 months, we had to sell Wharton to cover that season loses. Not great and not any of us wanted but we were always going to have £20m from sales to over the £60m debt over 3 seasons. Owners can only put in roughly £40m over those 3 seasons. Plus you have also take into account that the owners might not to cover all the loses all the time and the club has to cover some by selling a player or 2. 

FFP isn't an excuse its a fact which you completely don't understand or wanted to ignore it. Other clubs have had to sell players like Hull to cover themselves FFP wise or Boro aswell over the summer or the last 12 months. I ain't a fan of FFP but that's the rules so you by themselves. Your 

absolute bollocks,our wage bill is minscule to what it was and there is no way we are still losing 20 million a season,it`s absolutely no excuse for not spending money on the team

[bluebruce]

35 minutes ago, briansol said:

Spot on! Especially true for defenders. The standard of the top two tiers of Non-league has improved greatly. For most parts National Conference is on par with League Two and most teams are full-time professionals.

U21 is too much of a playground with a lot of quick technical players having a field day against stand-off defending that are better ball players then defenders. That's why a lot those matches are 4-3 etc, and why when stars at that level get a reality check when they go out on loan. A football league defender earning a wage to provide for a family will smash you before you attempt the first step-over.

 

I fully buy into this...my issue is just I think it's one tier below where I think we should get Atcheson playing. With our youth loans, it almost always seems to be at least one tier below where we should be able to get them. Atcheson is highly regarded, turns 18 next month, and I'd have hoped he could attract a National League loan really. It's hard to learn enough about a player when they play 4 whole tiers below where we are, to decide where they should be in our squad. I do accept it may help him develop his game though, especially physically and in terms of grit, just wish it was a smidge higher level.

I can't think of any of our players that have gone on loan to National League North and amounted to anything here. Not saying that hasn't happened, and I know it will have happened sometimes at other clubs, and hopefully someone can give me one or two examples of Rovers Academy players doing this then kicking on here. But generally speaking for us it seems to be the graveyard for players who are promising but maybe not quite all that. I remember Dan Pike seemed on the verge of the squad, a couple of loans to Fylde in the NLN and he vanished.

[roversfan99]

36 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

fully understand that point but we aren't in the room and with the knowledge what we got to spend on De Lange. In ideal world we will get this De Lange deal this week/early next week. Yes not ideal granted, but then on the other hand we have been playing hard ball with Szmodics. Personally, lets just get both deals done and we can move on and bring this De Lange in, then a wide player as Szmodics player plus CM and LB. 

Also you just can't a new keeper into the team without him knowing the players and try to some understand of the team, tactics and his role. yes it would be great to sign him a couple of weeks ago

Pears doesnt look familiar not only with his team mates but with what a goalkeeper is meant to do.

19 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

No we haven't. We asked about Rushworth a couple of weeks ago

Yes I agree we want a long term number 1. PSV's Keeper Drommel would be loan according to Alan, which I think isn't ideal to be honest. We need a perm keeper signing. 

Eustace wants a new keeper we all know this confirmed by him and Waggott at Fans Forum. The free agent keepers cos of maybe low budget we had, lack of transfer movement outgoing wise. We seen some now. I feel someone like De Lange is the right fit in terms playing at good level of football, Being a number 1 for the last 2 season, experience and good age. 

You will have a range of different lists and targets depending on fee, wages and how much you rated that. 

Has a loan for Drommel back onto the radar or was that initially reported?

[roversfan99]

18 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Not at all, 

FFP is still around and the owners problem over the last 12 months, we had to sell Wharton to cover that season loses. Not great and not any of us wanted but we were always going to have £20m from sales to over the £60m debt over 3 seasons. Owners can only put in roughly £40m over those 3 seasons. Plus you have also take into account that the owners might not to cover all the loses all the time and the club has to cover some by selling a player or 2. 

FFP isn't an excuse its a fact which you completely don't understand or wanted to ignore it. Other clubs have had to sell players like Hull to cover themselves FFP wise or Boro aswell over the summer or the last 12 months. I ain't a fan of FFP but that's the rules so you by themselves. Your 

Assuming that the £20m losses prior to player sales continue indefinitely. One thing you never factor in is that a proportion of those losses arent eligible for FFP regulations.

But one thing is for sure. We are absolutely nowhere near the FFP line, we will be even further away once Szmodics goes. I suspect there wont be a club in the league with a buffer as big as ours.

It is as simple as the owners dont have any interest in the club or reinvesting even a reasonable chunk of the considerable sales proceeds in the way of ambition. Their sole focus is clawing back as much as possible.

FFP isnt even worth mentioning in the transfer thread in the near future as it is not an issue whatsoever so that excuse is off the table.

 

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Assuming that the £20m losses prior to player sales continue indefinitely. One thing you never factor in is that a proportion of those losses arent eligible for FFP regulations.

But one thing is for sure. We are absolutely nowhere near the FFP line, we will be even further away once Szmodics goes. I suspect there wont be a club in the league with a buffer as big as ours.

It is as simple as the owners dont have any interest in the club or reinvesting even a reasonable chunk of the considerable sales proceeds in the way of ambition. Their sole focus is clawing back as much as possible.

FFP isnt even worth mentioning in the transfer thread in the near future as it is not an issue whatsoever so that excuse is off the table.

 

We’ll be closer (but I very much doubt we will)  to breaching FFP if the owner’s don’t finance the loss because without that the limit is only £5 million a year.

[islander200]

20 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Pears doesnt look familiar not only with his team mates but with what a goalkeeper is meant to do.

Has a loan for Drommel back onto the radar or was that initially reported?

Nixon hasn't said anything else about Drommel since he put up the Lange story 

[KentExile]

It seems that Fadz may be showing signs of mental decline

“You can’t not want to get promoted. For me, we want to get promoted."

He makes Chaddy seem like a pessimist 😉 

Edited August 6 by KentExile

[M_B]

2 hours ago, rob_of_the_rovers said:

That's how we ended up losing Kaminski

Tomasson chose Pears, simple as. 

[JHRover]

48 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Not at all, 

FFP is still around and the owners problem over the last 12 months, we had to sell Wharton to cover that season loses. Not great and not any of us wanted but we were always going to have £20m from sales to over the £60m debt over 3 seasons. Owners can only put in roughly £40m over those 3 seasons. Plus you have also take into account that the owners might not to cover all the loses all the time and the club has to cover some by selling a player or 2. 

FFP isn't an excuse its a fact which you completely don't understand or wanted to ignore it. Other clubs have had to sell players like Hull to cover themselves FFP wise or Boro aswell over the summer or the last 12 months. I ain't a fan of FFP but that's the rules so you by themselves. Your 

Another thing that irritates me about your comments is that you attempt to compare us to other clubs - in this case Hull and Boro. You are attempting to normalise what has gone on at this club over recent years by comparing it to other clubs.

It isn't normal, it isn't acceptable, and it cannot be justified with reference to a set of rules the league brought in.

For years you banged the drum that our 'plan' under Mowbray and Waggott was the right one. You parrotted their claim that we were doing things 'right' by building 'sustainably' and that in the medium to long term we would be laughing and all these other reckless clubs - Boro, Bristol, Stoke, Hull and others - would suffer the painful consequences through points deductions and embargoes.

Never happened. Infact we've sold off far more talent and value than any of that lot in recent years yet remain in a far worse state in terms of squad, expectations, finances.

The difference between us and those clubs is that they actually have tried to get somewhere. If they are having to make some cuts due to FFP those are temporary blips in their ultimate aim to get promoted.

It is absolutely nothing like the fire sale and financial chaos we have witnessed here over the last 2-3 years. 

I am well aware of FFP but it seems you are only aware of half of it. Income and revenue is just as important as sales and cost cuts yet this receives very little focus other than a shrug of the shoulders 'it is what it is'.

Having brought in upwards of £30 million since this time last year (Kaminski £2 million, Phillips £2 million, Wharton £20 million, Raya £5 million, Gallagher £1 million - all at a considerable undervalue I might add) it is utterly unacceptable to be in the position we are right now having spent such a small sum of money on 2 players and signed a few free agents.

Like with Armstrong a few years ago such income should have funded a comprehensive rebuild of the squad. Now we are cobbling together a team for the season in the hope we've got enough to survive whilst Boro and Hull are among the favourites for the top 6.  Why can they do that and we be in such a dismal situation?

It teaches us that FFP is irrelevant here, I think it always has been, we have evidence before our very eyes that even when we bring in a vast sum of money very quickly there is no intention on the part of the hideous people in India to put that back in. It has been a sham from the word 'go'. 

Like with FFP, like with rogue secretaries and inept staff, like with all sorts of other lies about the situation fundamentally they will always find an excuse to not reinvest and you stand ready to accept these excuses and repeat them as fact each and every year.

[Ricceh]

21 minutes ago, KentExile said:

It seems that Fadz may be showing signs of mental decline

“You can’t not want to get promoted. For me, we want to get promoted."

He makes Chaddy seem like a pessimist 😉 

Better than being perpetually bitter and gloomy like myself though.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, simongarnerisgod said:

absolute bollocks,our wage bill is minscule to what it was and there is no way we are still losing 20 million a season,it`s absolutely no excuse for not spending money on the team

Yeah they got rid of about 25% of it....just in time for the 20% budget cut.

Another amazing coincidence.

[M_B]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

I would agree with that - if Pears had demonstrated that he's a consistent, reliable keeper. He has done utterly no such thing.

That said, at this stage any keeper we bring in shouldn't be starting Friday. It's too soon, they'd have had a day of training in the best case scenario. Not long enough to build any rapport with their defence, and would have only been in the country a couple of days. They wouldn't be at their psychological best or ready to slot into the team. As someone else said, if they ballsed up in their first game under those conditions it could knock their confidence for a while.

So I'd be starting Pears on Friday now come what may. Even though I don't rate him. Then if he ballses it up (which is probably about 50% likely, the new lad comes in. If the new lad had arrived a couple of weeks ago, different story. What I certainly don't want to happen though, is Pears have that run of form he is prone to where he's not making huge high profile mistakes, but is making a consistent series of small mistakes (like bad positioning, palming it into danger areas) and gets to keep his shirt because he isn't doing a Wigan. That's happened before, like when Kaminski should have come back into the team.

I don't particularly rate Pears, but there's also no way he's as bad as some make out, and his age means there's time to improve .

It's the usual situation, point out the mistakes but don't acknowledge any pluses. The Wednesday game was a howler at a crucial time, but Pears kept clean sheets in 3 of the last 4 against Southampton, Leeds and Leicester. 

It would be a different situation if Eustace had to choose a keeper to start the new season, but we're not in that position. For me, if Pears and the team start well, he stays in. 

 

[K-Hod]

Problem with Pears having the shirt to lose, given what he’s been like before, he’ll drop a clanger before long, it’s just a matter of time.

So, knowing that as we do, why not look for a better ‘keeper who’s less likely to make so many mistakes?

Standards are already that low down at Ewood, they shouldn’t be amongst the fan base too. Very sad indeed.

[Exiled_Rover]

3 minutes ago, M_B said:

I don't particularly rate Pears, but there's also no way he's as bad as some make out, and his age means there's time to improve .

It's the usual situation, point out the mistakes but don't acknowledge any pluses. The Wednesday game was a howler at a crucial time, but Pears kept clean sheets in 3 of the last 4 against Southampton, Leeds and Leicester. 

It would be a different situation if Eustace had to choose a keeper to start the new season, but we're not in that position. For me, if Pears and the team start well, he stays in. 

 

Any professional GK that can't displace Pears should consider another occupation - or at least football several tiers down the pyramid.

[B16Rover]

Ritchie to Pompey seems good business.  Can't imagine they're paying significantly.

[roverandout]

I'll put my money on Portsmouth going for another promotion while we flounder near the bottom 

[Theaxe15]

2 minutes ago, roverandout said:

I'll put my money on Portsmouth going for another promotion while we flounder near the bottom 

Their squad is awful. Even their own fans are questioning it.  Not saying they won’t do better than us but promotion contenders they won’t be.