All Activity

Depending who we will appoint and what sort of level of experience will determine my opinion and whether its just CEO title or whether they do have the sort of responsibility I would expect? No I don't believe the CEO or DoF should have the sole responsible to sack the head coach but it should owner should be involved and back decision in conjection with the CEO and DoF

Good job we didn’t get a home FA Cup tie (and no potential replay these days, of course) as presumably we’d be scoping out playing at Chorley (or maybe Clitheroe?) for that extra fixture too?

Apart from a few what a horrific list to pick from. Venkys,Kean etc all there for the wrong reasons.

No love for the Yak! He was a breath of fresh air that season, you could see his quality a mile off!

Nothing is happening with the pitch. They are just moving a game to another ground so there isn't an extra game played on it before our next home game.

For me this is the only game we have a chance of winning before the break for the FA Cup 3rd round. Milwall will bully us all over the pitch next week. Even though we have a good record at Middlesbrough, they are absolutely flying and won't have a better time to see off there bogey club. Despite our decent away form, you just know that Sheffield Wednesday's first home win of the season will be against us. Then two home games against Wrexham & Charlton which we will probably take 1 point from on current home form. We have to win on Saturday to give us some breathing space.

Interesting statement Chaddy. Do you suspect (like I do) that it will just be a CEO title rather than in responsibility?

'Failed to find a candidate' What a shambles..nobody wants the job it seems,nobody wants to work under the Punatics. Everything that is wrong with our Club laid bare. Now,NOW is the time for the Coalition(?) to be stepping up the pressure!

No, just the back 3

Sounds like the role is that dummed down nobody actually wants it. Which means either it stays vacant or we get another no mark like Gestede into the role who has no skills or background in running a football club.

Rob Coar is running the club?! Behave.

my point was people on here saying his injury was fake and he was being left out cos of these possible clauses.

well he ain't currently and its Robert Coar running the club like it was for a period of time of the summer. I like said previously, we will see how much power this new CEO appointment by who we actually appoint

I didn't realise Ismael had tactics.

Thanks 🙂 To me, that only references the injury, none of the rest of the speculation If he is still here in February, and surpasses 50 league appearances, then I will concede that all of the speculation should be put to bed. I suppose Rovers could put an end to any speculation even sooner and give our captain & star player a contract extension

Sounds like the job advertisement may as well read "Wanted, human shield, please apply within"

Can you post Cantwell's statement for me, in full, with a link. To my recollection he said something along the lines of "there are rumours which are false", he did not go into any clear specific's Bennetts was an extended contract, but that also comes with financial tie ins, so in my book is similar to the other two

The Ultimate List should just end in November 2010 with a black page.

Cantwell's statement was very clear and to the point. Point A and B are possibilities of course but so us that Cantwell's injury problems need that period of time to recover. Also he wanted to be right injury wise. He isn't starting but we are slowly introducing him after injury On Bennett point, wasnt it a new contract after so many starts with him?.

It depends what part of the speculation/conspiracy we are actually talking about a - That at 50 league appearances, Rovers are due to pay a fee to Rangers b - That at 50 league appearances, Cantwell is due a pay rise/bonus payment c - That one or both of the above is true and Rovers did not want to stump up the cash d - That the injury to Cantwell was either completely untrue or overexaggerated so that he could be sold before he reaches that appearance threshold & Rovers had to stump up the cash e - That a sale has already been agreed Personally, I would find both a & b to be very believable to the point of at least one of them being highly likely, and we have seen before under these owners, (Salgado & Nelson come to mind. Elliott Bennett stated similar in a recent interview), that they have simply not played players due to financial reasons, so I do not see how anyone can get upset about people speculating based on prior events with the same owners Edit - Herb - I presume you mean given Cantwell's injury? If so, then when did Spurs give an "injured" Ryan Nelson a nice Premier League contract and salary when he joined them from us? I am aware that there was no fee, but they still would have parted with money for Nelsons wages & signing on fee Chaddy - which part was Cantwell debunking? He only ever mentioned the injury , although if he did, then please can someone feel fere to post the link to that for me please as I have missed that

speculation from where? who has said this is the case or even the possible on this? is this conspiracy theory from some? We have had Cantwell's comments on this issue and he made them through his own means, so should we not believe him?

I’d be surprised if someone would pay good money for him TBH.

Starts on Wednesday for Edmondson - drew 1-1 - withdrawn on 75 minutes whilst 1-0 down Not involved in matchday squad Olson & O'Grady-Macken - lost 1-0 Boggan - won 3-0 - this will be his final game unless his loan is extended

Can't blame folks for having pause though.