I can't agree on that, he looked lost alot of the time playing chase the ball, that being said he looked better at the end than when he started

Pre season starts on Monday, busy weekend ahead to get Ismael what he demanded!

Would you be comfortable if he needed to start games for a prolonged period due to injury/suspension?

Replacing our 3rd choice midfielder, who had started the last 4 games and was likely to get a lot more game time as the squad creaked towards the end of the season, with a guy that couldn’t get in the Plymouth side was fully on Rovers. Huge drop off in squad depth.

Question for you both. I get the fact he's experienced and can do a job as a late sub if we are leading. But a squad player can be needed for a period of time to start games should the first choices get middle. If like for a spell this season, Forshaw was needed as 3rd/4th choice to play 5/6 games or more from the start, would you be comfortable that the overall quality of the team wouldn't dip too much?

Serious comments only please this is not a laughing matter ok-hod? 😂

Lucas Joao anyone?

Fair comment, not saying Rovers effed up on that, the point is the squad player could do with being more of the quality of Baker than Forshaw.

More than happy to have Forshaw back. Decent squad player, plenty of experience and a able to pass that on to younger players. Thought he did well last season when he came on as a substitute, Like Weimann, a handy player to have on the bench.

if signing crap and over the hill players continues with our better players sold or leaving for nothing, as we all suspect,we`ll be battling relegation bring on the protests,losing every week is nailed on to get even the most mild mannered fan riled up

The baker debate is irrelevant because of all the monumental f ups rovers have done Stoke recalling him from his loan spell under a new manager isn’t one of them

Well......it was a far better squad when we had Baker before he arrived!

Different type of argument altogether. I don't think even proponents of Forshaw's limited abilities would be advocating he start. For me, if he isn't starting he is just blocking the pathway of a younger player coming through. The experience should come from the starting x1 not the fringe players. So either it's a sign he's likely to be replacing Travis or Tronstad directly or he's going to be filling out the squad in which case it's a completely pointless and ultimately counterproductive signing.

There's a term used by doormen "jacket filler", for someone who has the long jacket and his badges, but they don't get involved if shit hits the fan, they're just there making up the numbers. Forshaw is the footballing equivalent, he'll do fuck all useful and is pretty much just an extra body making up the numbers. Not sure how anyone can dress it up as a useful signing, awful waste of money when funds are tight.

Experience and know how. Could do a lot worse Looked more like the Forshaw we knew about towards the end of the season. Usual crew in hysterics - in effect, it’s another part of what was a good squad staying. Can’t complain

Wow......well, that's one way of spinning it. Chaddy would be proud of you for that one. Simon Garner had better fetch his boots down out of the attic. VI might fancy sprucing up the attack as well.

The only positive about the Forshaw signing is that he adds experience. However, Tronstad and Travis have plenty of experience and they are basically captain and vice captain, so there is enough between them to help younger players. Clubs that sign Squad fillers aren't ever going to achieve anything. At best, they'll stand still. A much better plan would have been getting Tronstad and Travis onto new contracts 6 months ago, selling Buckley, signing 2 new players (probably from abroad), one with a reasonable amount of experience and the other a bit younger, who can challenge and develop. You've then got the likes of Montgomery also involved and pushing the rest/getting minutes. As it stands, Travis, Tronstad and Forshaw all walk for nothing in 12 months and we need to spend a lot money on a huge problem that could have been avoided well in advance.

Mate my pants are already down and I'm handing my money over as we speak

Forshaw signing is OK for me if he's an "as well as ..." but not if he's an "instead of ...". So if we sign others (of quality) and keep hold of Trav/Tron then his dressing room presence/experience will be useful. The reality is of course that we don't sign quality and we lose Trav so if that was to be the case then this is another low water mark moment. As an aside I like Garrett, he has attitude. Hope he has an impressive pre season and breaks through (oh and he's free so in the current climate what the heck).

No doubt next signing will be Woodrow 😔

Doesn't even make sense on a pay to play contract - where he is paying us to play.

Spot on, if he's first or second replacement, then OK signing. If he's a starter, then obviously not. As you say, the longer the season went on, the better he got, which shouldn't be a surprise given he hadn't been playing at Plymouth. It also looks like a signing with Ismael's blessing to me, which bodes well going forward.

It would be fair assessment, but clearly not one you agree with. Then again, CM’s aren’t your strong point so maybe young Chadster’s presumed assessment is accurate 😉

Fucking annoying isn’t it!

It will be "Ismael wanted the signing" and then questioning anyone by saying "dont you want Ismael to have final say." Not realising or purposefully missing the fact that you can believe that the manager should have final say AND sometimes disagree with his choices.