All Activity

The blocker was of their own choosing but yes that excuse/reason (take your choice) is no longer there. The order suggests the maximum fine Venkys will receive from the adjudicating authority will be around £7.7 million* Mere chicken feed to them surely… * assuming I’ve done the currency conversion correctly!!

just in time now that the window is closed and they don't have to spend anything.

It was rumoured to be Dakota Biotech who were the shirt sponsor last season. From the stills I have seen it doesn't appear that they have a shirt sponsor this season. https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/july/05/rovers-women-confirm-new-front-of-shirt-sponsor--/

I’ve no idea if that’s good news or not but it should remove the blocker that seemed to be in place

guarantee condition removed… https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showlogo/1757322518_a0cd37f819e860dc_587_79662023.pdf/2025

I dont think the rules are different but their window closed ever so slightly after ours. For example, they were selling Idah and wanted a striker called Dolberg who in the end chose against joining. So they went for Iheanacho very late before the deadline. To get the deal done, he agreed to rip up his contract at (I think) Sevilla so that he was a free agent when the Scottish window closed to allow him to then sign for free.

We have gone one step further and literally signed a replacement for our captain who is injured right now with an unknown return date.

Obsessed with it? Hardly by stating the fact a player is highly injury prone. No good in having a good player if they are only available about 50% of the time it’s not rocket science

Agree, 1 by decapitation, 1 by a thousand cuts. Same result.

Just had a quick glance, the rules seem to be different in Scotland.

Never said anything different. We dont however know the full story behind this alleged offer of outside investment. Even if it existed, the terms being offered might might have been completely unrealistic. Bottom line is I dont think the owners really want to own a men's or a women's team any longer. The only job for Gestede and Pasha et al is to extract any remaining value whilst keeping themselves in lucrative employment for as long as they possibly can. Id say they're merely finishing off the process initiated and perfected by Waggott over many years personally, but like a player who's injured for a long time and who suddenly turns into Pele in the minds of the supporters in their absence, Waggott seems to have turned from public enemy number one or maybe two to Sir Stephen of Sandwich Kent on a galloping white steed or something since he was potted.

I agree there's enough injuries now to make not bringing Beck (if even we could have, which I doubt) back a good call. 30 years of watching rovers has brought me to the point that if anyone has a significant injury record just don't sign them no matter how good they are. It's not just the time they are out, it's the time for them to get back up to speed and the disruption and uncertainty they bring to the squad. JRC is another one where Charlton have taken a really big gamble.

Ah, does the Scottish window have different dates then? Saw something about Celtic trying to loan someone. But may have been more generalised

There isn't a separate loan window. Free agents can join any time as long as they were free agents before the window shut.

Come on Rev, don’t start slipping back into your old ways now. Occam’s Razor. There is no pro women’s team here because the owners don’t want to fund a pro women’s team.

Very few players play forty odd games a season. I don't know what your problem is with him. You're obsessed with it.

Ignoring the inane conversations above from all of Sartre's waiters, does the loan window now also shut? And free agents?

Allegedly Waggott sourced potential backing for the women's team from a Company which in return would have wanted to acquire a stake in the same but the owners refused. As it was a good news story about Waggott which emerged more or less immediately after he got potted I'd treat it with a lorryload of salt myself but whether or not that part is true it does seem to be the general consensus he didnt want to take the blame for the women's team being binned off.

Missed double figures for Bolton missed double figures for Dundee missed double figures for us (20 plus) already injured for Derby I’d say that’s a pattern and not just ‘ a number of games’

Really, who offered that?

Exactly this. Its an excellent deflection tactic to start going off on tangents about individuals. Its the pattern. The indefensible pattern.

He joined slightly late, played 24 times and picked up one reasonably serious injury which kept him out for a number of games. Hardly "all the time".

Yep. Then you lose the Championship TV money and it's "How can we possibly compete with the "Boltons" or "Bradford's" of the Division. Rinse and repeat.

I’d much rather a fit left back than one who is injured all of the time

You haven't responded to what I said. Why won't you acknowledge there is a systemic problem at the club with renewing deals and it isn't acceptable? I'm not talking about individual deals, I'm talking about the very clear pattern. We all are. You seem to be the only one who isn't seeing/acknowledging it. Instead you keep resorting to trying to justify each fuckup.