Academy & U21s

[rigger]

finished 3-3.

[Tom]

45 minutes ago, rigger said:

finished 3-3.

Another game with a youth team throwing away a lead 

[rigger]

8 minutes ago, Tom said:

Another game with a youth team throwing away a lead 

It might be the case that the match results don't matter (no promotion or relegation). So nobody practices defending a lead as a team.

[arbitro]

In the space of six days we have yielded two goal advantages on three occasions.

At any level of football that puts a big question mark against the quality of defending.

I noticed Matty Litherland was missing last night again and he wasn't in either team last week when we had back  to back games. Given that we are throwing away leads like confetti I can only think his absence is down to injury (although there hasn't been any mention of this anywhere).

[KentExile]

Tom Bloxham Interview

There is more, click on the link above for the full thing, but I found the below to be interesting

 

When asked about his conversations with senior figures at the club, Bloxham was straightforward. “I wouldn’t say I had many. I must say I was surprised my move to Grasshoppers was made so difficult,” he admitted.

RoversXtra understands that Blackburn were firm in negotiations with Grasshoppers, initially pushing for a high sell-on clause while removing the training fee. After a lengthy process, an agreement was finally reached on September 1st, with a 25 percent sell-on clause in place, which allowed the training fee to be waived.

When asked about the general feeling among the youth players at Blackburn, Bloxham chose his words carefully. “I don’t want to speak on behalf of others, but a lot has changed during my two-year spell at Blackburn,” he said.

When asked for his thoughts on the ownership at Blackburn, Bloxham admitted it wasn’t an area he could give much detail on.

Bloxham said “I can’t comment on the ownership, I honestly haven’t got much insight to tell, unfortunately, or I would,” he explained. “Football is a business at the end of the day, and the club is always looking to make and save as much money as possible.”

That said, he did open up about frustrations over how his own situation was handled during his move to Grasshoppers. “I would’ve liked my transfer to be dealt with a lot better. What they did was allowed, but morally I feel it was wrong. To release a player and still ask for compensation and sell-on fees, to the point it could have stopped a move happening, was just so frustrating from my end.”

He also revealed just how complicated the move became behind the scenes. “It took involvement from the EFL, FA and PFA to speak to Blackburn and help this move to Grasshoppers get over the line, and perhaps without them it wouldn’t have happened. For them, I’m very grateful for their involvement.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:19 by KentExile

[KentExile]

 

Edited yesterday at 15:51 by KentExile

[arbitro]

It's always a good feeling to beat that lot and today was no exception. 

We started quite slowly and could have conceded in the first minute as Eze sloppily let a high ball bounce and just about recovered to get a challenge in with the help of some assistance from the keeper.

However once we got a foothold in the game we were dominant and could easily have won by more although Burnley did miss a couple or dolly's. 

It was good to see Harvey Higgins looking fit and healthy. He showed some neat touches when he came on and was only denied a scoring return by a good save from the Burnley keeper who was outstanding.

It was good to see our youngsters seemed to have an understanding of our disdain for that lot - no doubt aided and abetted by the locally born lads.

[KentExile]

report from the 3-3 draw last night

[Upside Down]

17 hours ago, KentExile said:

Tom Bloxham Interview

There is more, click on the link above for the full thing, but I found the below to be interesting

 

When asked about his conversations with senior figures at the club, Bloxham was straightforward. “I wouldn’t say I had many. I must say I was surprised my move to Grasshoppers was made so difficult,” he admitted.

RoversXtra understands that Blackburn were firm in negotiations with Grasshoppers, initially pushing for a high sell-on clause while removing the training fee. After a lengthy process, an agreement was finally reached on September 1st, with a 25 percent sell-on clause in place, which allowed the training fee to be waived.

When asked about the general feeling among the youth players at Blackburn, Bloxham chose his words carefully. “I don’t want to speak on behalf of others, but a lot has changed during my two-year spell at Blackburn,” he said.

When asked for his thoughts on the ownership at Blackburn, Bloxham admitted it wasn’t an area he could give much detail on.

Bloxham said “I can’t comment on the ownership, I honestly haven’t got much insight to tell, unfortunately, or I would,” he explained. “Football is a business at the end of the day, and the club is always looking to make and save as much money as possible.”

That said, he did open up about frustrations over how his own situation was handled during his move to Grasshoppers. “I would’ve liked my transfer to be dealt with a lot better. What they did was allowed, but morally I feel it was wrong. To release a player and still ask for compensation and sell-on fees, to the point it could have stopped a move happening, was just so frustrating from my end.”

He also revealed just how complicated the move became behind the scenes. “It took involvement from the EFL, FA and PFA to speak to Blackburn and help this move to Grasshoppers get over the line, and perhaps without them it wouldn’t have happened. For them, I’m very grateful for their involvement.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Says everything you need to know about the people who run the club.

[KentExile]

 

 

 

[bluebruce]

On 30/09/2025 at 13:10, KentExile said:

Tom Bloxham Interview

There is more, click on the link above for the full thing, but I found the below to be interesting

 

When asked about his conversations with senior figures at the club, Bloxham was straightforward. “I wouldn’t say I had many. I must say I was surprised my move to Grasshoppers was made so difficult,” he admitted.

RoversXtra understands that Blackburn were firm in negotiations with Grasshoppers, initially pushing for a high sell-on clause while removing the training fee. After a lengthy process, an agreement was finally reached on September 1st, with a 25 percent sell-on clause in place, which allowed the training fee to be waived.

When asked about the general feeling among the youth players at Blackburn, Bloxham chose his words carefully. “I don’t want to speak on behalf of others, but a lot has changed during my two-year spell at Blackburn,” he said.

When asked for his thoughts on the ownership at Blackburn, Bloxham admitted it wasn’t an area he could give much detail on.

Bloxham said “I can’t comment on the ownership, I honestly haven’t got much insight to tell, unfortunately, or I would,” he explained. “Football is a business at the end of the day, and the club is always looking to make and save as much money as possible.”

That said, he did open up about frustrations over how his own situation was handled during his move to Grasshoppers. “I would’ve liked my transfer to be dealt with a lot better. What they did was allowed, but morally I feel it was wrong. To release a player and still ask for compensation and sell-on fees, to the point it could have stopped a move happening, was just so frustrating from my end.”

He also revealed just how complicated the move became behind the scenes. “It took involvement from the EFL, FA and PFA to speak to Blackburn and help this move to Grasshoppers get over the line, and perhaps without them it wouldn’t have happened. For them, I’m very grateful for their involvement.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find this situation very confusing, as I was under the impression that compensation was only due when the club have tried to keep the player, not when they release him, and that we would have even less rights to money if the player moved abroad. I understand there's a difference between training compensation and general compensation but still. Also although Grasshoppers aren't giants I'd have thought they'd have enough money to just pay any training compo due for a player like Bloxham, who I think we only had for 2 years, rather than putting a 25% sell on in (unless he's really just there to pad out the youth numbers and they have zero expectation he would make it). Training compo is pretty low in general usually.

Didn't we just get fuck all from Espanyol for Dolan? None of this negotiating seemed to crop up then. Think I did read something about us getting a minimal training compo for him (like 200k or something, guess Espanyol would just pay that), but thought I heard it turned out we weren't eligible for it.

[KentExile]

45 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I find this situation very confusing, as I was under the impression that compensation was only due when the club have tried to keep the player, not when they release him, and that we would have even less rights to money if the player moved abroad. I understand there's a difference between training compensation and general compensation but still. Also although Grasshoppers aren't giants I'd have thought they'd have enough money to just pay any training compo due for a player like Bloxham, who I think we only had for 2 years, rather than putting a 25% sell on in (unless he's really just there to pad out the youth numbers and they have zero expectation he would make it). Training compo is pretty low in general usually.

Didn't we just get fuck all from Espanyol for Dolan? None of this negotiating seemed to crop up then. Think I did read something about us getting a minimal training compo for him (like 200k or something, guess Espanyol would just pay that), but thought I heard it turned out we weren't eligible for it.

I thought the same

It all sounds very strange

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, KentExile said:

I thought the same

It all sounds very strange

I feel like @wilsdenrover is the only man who could clarify the situation.

[wilsdenrover]

55 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I feel like @wilsdenrover is the only man who could clarify the situation.

I’ll try but you might have more faith in me than I do 😁😁.

As he’s moved abroad it’s the FIFA regulations which apply.

Their rule regarding training compensation makes no reference to having tried to retain the player (see below)

I believe the figure due for Bloxham would have been 120,000 euros (2 years at club x 60,000) or thereabouts (part years at a club are prorated). 

(I’ve made the assumption Grasshoppers are a category two club for training compensation, the highest category a Swiss club can be in).

We got nothing for Dolan as he was 4 days too old for this FIFA rule to apply to him.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[bluebruce]

37 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’ll try but you might have more faith in me than I do 😁😁.

As he’s moved abroad it’s the FIFA regulations which apply.

Their rule regarding training compensation makes no reference to having tried to retain the player (see below)

I believe the figure due for Bloxham would have been 120,000 euros (2 years at club x 60,000) or thereabouts (part years at a club are prorated). 

(I’ve made the assumption Grasshoppers are a category two club for training compensation, the highest category a Swiss club can be in).

We got nothing for Dolan as he was 4 days too old for this FIFA rule to apply to him.

 

 

I dunno, sounds like you nailed it to me.

So strange how if Dolan had moved in the UK we were due pretty decent compensation. If he was 4 days younger but moving abroad we were due bog standard compensation. But if Bloxham had moved within the UK we were due nothing, yet when he moved abroad we were due what, for him, was pretty good compensation for us.

It's almost like the authorities are just making it all up as they go along with no cohesive, rational strategy...