January Transfer window

[islander200]

49 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Oh give it a rest.

"At our level" Sunderland and Sheffield United are looking for a striker - yeah, they've put matching £13m bids in for one!

"Our level" indeed!

Exactly their owners have given their blessing to spend/agree to such a fee.

Our recruitment team are trying to cover multiple positions with at best a couple of million most probably. 

The budget will be pathetic and every decision will have to be run past them 

[pomster]

No news then!

 

[Exiled_Rover]

58 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Oh give it a rest.

"At our level" Sunderland and Sheffield United are looking for a striker - yeah, they've put matching £13m bids in for one!

"Our level" indeed!

Aren't they both offering it on the never-never?

i.e. a loan and a mandatory fee if they get promoted? We could do that. 

[simongarnerisgod]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

An absolute no-brainer for a player who will at least hold his value.

We will absolutely not do it. 

doubtful pne can pay that amount,especially when they`ve just shelled out 1.7 million on someone else ,just get it paid and get the lad here

[dallydally]

Bamford has gone. Good riddance. We have done well to avoid. Same applies to Hanley 

[Emerald Isle Rover]

3 minutes ago, dallydally said:

Bamford has gone. Good riddance. We have done well to avoid. Same applies to Hanley 

?

[roversinmyblood]

2 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

I know I don’t really need to explain this to you because I’m 100% sure you get it….

Disclaimer - I’m not absolving the recruitment team, who may or may not be useless.

But, the primary reason that most business for the January window hasn’t been done is purely financial. Everyone wants the highest quality possible for the lowest price (unless you’re Man City). So, effectively when you don’t have the big bucks, you have to play the game. You can even put a £2m bid in for a player like BTA and Cov can wait to accept it for a few days whilst they call every club possible to get £2.1m.

Most of the business this window will be done at the back end. We might have multiple bids in for multiple players (or not), but the fact that none have dropped in so far is unlikely because the Recruitment department are sat on their arses and more because we don’t have the 30% uplift it takes to tip the deals over.

JE seems happy with the efforts which leads to believe that the work is ongoing.

fwiw - I only care about quality. When we sign them is less important.

Or it could be we’re only going to sign loans and they don’t get sanctioned until the end of the window. 

[DE.]

25 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Aren't they both offering it on the never-never?

i.e. a loan and a mandatory fee if they get promoted? We could do that. 

Isn't that what we tried with O'Brien before we "accidentally" forgot to submit the documents on time? 

[aletheia]

The issue of money (Venkys/Raos) and clubs funding seems full of false narratives (among many others).
Happy to be corrected on any of the following – (by they I mean the Rao’s personal money).

Posted here because it feeds into the lack of player buys (which I know many of you know far better than me.)

Myths
•    they can’t fund us due to Fair Play rules
•    they can’t fund us because of the court case
•    they lose 20m+ a year
•    they keep the club afloat now

Truths
•    they can fund us in terms of players incoming (Wagott said there is no impediment) but they won’t –at least not above a very minimum level (evidence over the last few years)
•    money from assets sold will not be reinvested in players before running costs are satisfied
•    company money not theirs
•    shares issued is just company money not theirs
•    player sales and other asset selling savings now funding us
•    money raised from training ground not their personal money
•    lowering of expectations is unacceptable and unnecessary (eg. we are a small club with no available funds and should be grateful; it is not 1995 anymore; you need £100m to go up; Rovers are a small car in an ocean full of tankers)

Narrative should be
•    they regret buying us
•    they won’t sell but won’t invest anything of significance; any income is to be used on running costs before any consideration of player buys
•    annual budgets are set at a very low base leaving very little for player buys
•    they hope believe that promotion  can be done on the cheap
•    they are happy to keep us on life support in this division; Waggot/Suhail are briefed to achieve that goal
•    they hope that all focus will be anywhere but on the takeover and its implications-the EFL authorities also hope that in time it will all go away and that not enough people care (just like other notable public tragedies/mistakes are kicked down the road in the hope that memory will fade or even the guilty die)
•    it is likely that the Rao’s will be owners for the foreseeable as one of the owner’s sons is being groomed to be future custodian of the club; this son occasionally attends matches and uses Jack Walker’s box

There are many other details of all aspects of the club since the Venkys took over in 2010 that I am sure many on this board know but most of which the larger fanbase are totally unaware.

 

[islander200]

23 minutes ago, dallydally said:

Bamford has gone. Good riddance. We have done well to avoid. Same applies to Hanley 

What about Bamford?

[simongarnerisgod]

24 minutes ago, dallydally said:

Bamford has gone. Good riddance. We have done well to avoid. Same applies to Hanley 

where has he gone????

[Bbrovers2288]

There is nothing on bamford 

[Herbie6590]

12 minutes ago, aletheia said:

The issue of money (Venkys/Raos) and clubs funding seems full of false narratives (among many others).
Happy to be corrected on any of the following – (by they I mean the Rao’s personal money).

Posted here because it feeds into the lack of player buys (which I know many of you know far better than me.)

Myths
•    they can’t fund us due to Fair Play rules

 ✅ MYTH

•    they can’t fund us because of the court case

 ✅ MYTH

•    they lose 20m+ a year

The club loses c.£17/18m pa historically 

•    they keep the club afloat now

 Dubious…the Raya, Wharton, Szmodics money is contributing massively 

Truths
•    they can fund us in terms of players incoming (Wagott said there is no impediment) but they won’t –at least not above a very minimum level (evidence over the last few years)

Seems to be so 

•    money from assets sold will not be reinvested in players before running costs are satisfied

Seems to be so 

 

12 minutes ago, aletheia said:

 

•    company money not theirs

Yes & No - it’s company money but they own the company

 

•    shares issued is just company money not theirs

New shares are sold to shareholders who pay for them with their own money…if that shareholder is a company then it is money from that company (& that company’s shareholders) 

•    player sales and other asset selling savings now funding us

Yeah - as above 

•    money raised from training ground not their personal money

as above re shares 

•    lowering of expectations is unacceptable and unnecessary (eg. we are a small club with no available funds and should be grateful; it is not 1995 anymore; you need £100m to go up; Rovers are a small car in an ocean full of tankers)

Ask Luton…

 

Narrative should be
•    they regret buying us
•    they won’t sell but won’t invest anything of significance; any income is to be used on running costs before any consideration of player buys
•    annual budgets are set at a very low base leaving very little for player buys
•    they hope believe that promotion  can be done on the cheap
•    they are happy to keep us on life support in this division; Waggot/Suhail are briefed to achieve that goal
•    they hope that all focus will be anywhere but on the takeover and its implications-the EFL authorities also hope that in time it will all go away and that not enough people care (just like other notable public tragedies/mistakes are kicked down the road in the hope that memory will fade or even the guilty die)
•    it is likely that the Rao’s will be owners for the foreseeable as one of the owner’s sons is being groomed to be future custodian of the club; this son occasionally attends matches and uses Jack Walker’s box

There are many other details of all aspects of the club since the Venkys took over in 2010 that I am sure many on this board know but most of which the larger fanbase are totally unaware.

 

Comments added 👍

[aletheia]

Shareholders then but not the Raos. But yes they own the company. Expanding through share issues may dilute the company but only indirectly the Rao's fortune. And I'm sure they have other ways to offset dilution.

[aletheia]

Lots of posters come on these boards (presumably who thought they were pretty clued up)and are suprised by various facts pointed out. I was one when I learned of the horrific treatment Glen suffered (thought I knew most of the shennanigans that went on towards protesters.)  But I'll leave it there -wrong place really.

[...]

8 minutes ago, aletheia said:

Lots of posters come on these boards (presumably who thought they were pretty clued up)and are suprised by various facts pointed out. I was one when I learned of the horrific treatment Glen suffered (thought I knew most of the shennanigans that went on towards protesters.)  But I'll leave it there -wrong place really.

Start a thread? Genuinely interested 

Edited January 17 by ...

[DE.]

13 minutes ago, ... said:

Start a thread? Genuinely interested 

https://www.brfcs.com/forums/topic/31709-archived-glen-mullans-blogs/

[Herbie6590]

29 minutes ago, aletheia said:

Shareholders then but not the Raos. But yes they own the company. Expanding through share issues may dilute the company but only indirectly the Rao's fortune. And I'm sure they have other ways to offset dilution.

Expanding share capital by selling more shares to the existing shareholders dilutes nothing…not sure what you think is happening here? 🤔

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Aren't they both offering it on the never-never?

i.e. a loan and a mandatory fee if they get promoted? We could do that. 

Initially it was but they are both offering to buy him outright now I think.

Don't expect us to be competing at those sorts of financial levels but the point is they've identified their target and put steps in motion to try and get him.

There's no real evidence we've done that with anyone.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, islander200 said:

The budget will be pathetic and every decision will have to be run past them 

I would imagine that second part is a myth -Waggott allegedly was in the process of requesting funding for the January transfer window as at the end of November.

They'll have autonomy within that extra budget such as it is, if a player falls within budget there's no reason why it would have to be run by them again.

[simongarnerisgod]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Initially it was but they are both offering to buy him outright now I think.

Don't expect us to be competing at those sorts of financial levels but the point is they've identified their target and put steps in motion to try and get him.

There's no real evidence we've done that with anyone.

sheff utd have bid 10 million outright for cannon,couples of potential problems,they`de better get promoted if spending that much and though undoubtedly a good player,he`s monstrously overpriced,cannon is not exactly prolific

[Browjd]

This terrifies me: •    it is likely that the Rao’s will be owners for the foreseeable as one of the owner’s sons is being groomed to be future custodian of the club; this son occasionally attends matches and uses Jack Walker’s box

[aletheia]

1 hour ago, ... said:

Start a thread? Genuinely interested 

If you search back through the Indian Government/court case thread you will find plenty. Upside down did a sterling effort collating a lot of info.

[aletheia]

Herbie

Think I was suggesting that issuing shares to existing shareholders creates cash (at the expense of existing shareholders) but not really affecting personal wealth of directors as such. Cf most AIM shares.

[islander200]

21 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

They'll have autonomy within that extra budget such as it is, if a player falls within budget there's no reason why it would have to be run by them again.

So why didn't Danny Batth get done the previous summer?

I'm pretty sure it was due to the owners not signing off on a 2 year contract?

Why no matter who is CEO, who is in recruitment,  who is the manager do we have this carry on every window?

And of course it was the people on the ground who went to the extraordinary lengths of setting up deals for McGuire and O'Brien to then make complete idiots of themselves by not getting deals done due to administration errors 

It's the fuckin owners mate