Adam Wharton

[arbitro]

Man City have put a £35m price on James McAtee.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

30 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Man City have put a £35m price on James McAtee.

Who in my opinion is deeply average.

[javiertorres]

On 04/06/2025 at 05:08, RoverCanada said:

Quibbling over the fee we should have gotten for Wharton is ultimately beside the point, as much as we can enjoy pedantic arguments about how we'll obviously receive more than £18m in the end, how much 'credit' we can give for add-ons/sell-ons (as we can debate re: Raya's sale), benchmarks like how much Bristol City received for Alex Scott (eg, I've seen it reported as 'up to' £25m), speculating as to how much we would've gotten if we had at the very least waited until the summer and had a proper bidding war, etc etc etc.

The main issue is that it was obviously a replay of the Tom Cairney sale: a distressed seller forcing a star player out the door to alleviate immediate cashflow concerns due to our owners suddenly being unable (and unwilling) to properly fund the club despite their (allegedly) massive wealth.*

Hell, it's somewhat frustrating how much we did get for Wharton given the Rovers hierachy can simply deflect any critique saying it was a record fee, it reflected the market at the time, hard to say no when PL club comes calling, etc. I can't immediately recall if they've referred to FFP... blah blah blah, it's all bullshit. They'll obviously never publicly admit it was driven by cashflow needs.

Some times I wonder if one angle of attack is to mock Venky's for not being able to properly fund their 'play thing'. For all the talk of making the club 'sustainable' etc, fuck that, you're quasi-oligarchs. Why aren't you pissing away your wealth to chase footballing glory, like the other vain owners across English football?

---

*Linked to how much of an 'impediment' it is for Venky's to provide a 'guarantee' for every £ they send abroad. As can reportedly be the case for the super rich, a lot of their wealth is tied up in illiquid assets, is needed as collateral for other loans, etc., so regularly scrounging together ~£10m+ to send over isn't necessarily something they're capable of doing at a flick of a switch (probably also reflecting general in-fighting, poor planning, indecision, bureaucracy, etc within the Venky's empire). And whether the money set aside in the guarantee still earns interest or does it just sit there and have its nominal value eaten away by inflation I've generally found it a bit odd that they've consistently relied on that bank overdraft (at 2% plus BOE rate) for day-to-day funding of the club, which hurts Rovers' bottom line relative to just sending over a bunch of cash, but perhaps that reflects competing interests for cash within the Venky's empire. Anyway, I'm straying into a separate (unending) discussion!

tldr; I just had some coffee.

Brilliantly put this isn’t just about Wharton’s fee, it’s about the recurring failure of the club’s leadership to act in long-term interest. The idea that £18m (or whatever the final total with add-ons ends up being) is “fine” falls apart when you remember why we sold: not because it was the best deal, but because we were desperate. Again. The Cairney comparison is absolutely spot on. And what makes this one sting even more is how the club hides behind the “record fee” label as if it justifies the timing or structure. It doesn’t. They talk about “reflecting the market,” but anyone tracking valuations even casually through something like rb's transfer outlook  could see that his value was only going one way. I don’t know what’s worse: that we cashed out under pressure again, or that the board seems to think fans will accept this as “good business.” It’s not. It’s short-termism wrapped in PR speak. And as for Venky’s… yeah, it’s beyond parody at this point. Either fund the club properly or stop pretending you’re in it for anything other than preserving your balance sheets. Other owners for better or worse  throw money at ambition. Ours look for overdrafts and FFP cover stories. No wonder we’re stuck standing still while the game moves on.If we do get a cut from a future sale, great but let’s not pretend that was some masterstroke of negotiating. More like a consolation prize for fans who deserve better.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

4 hours ago, javiertorres said:

Brilliantly put this isn’t just about Wharton’s fee, it’s about the recurring failure of the club’s leadership to act in long-term interest. The idea that £18m (or whatever the final total with add-ons ends up being) is “fine” falls apart when you remember why we sold: not because it was the best deal, but because we were desperate. Again. The Cairney comparison is absolutely spot on. And what makes this one sting even more is how the club hides behind the “record fee” label as if it justifies the timing or structure. It doesn’t. They talk about “reflecting the market,” but anyone tracking valuations even casually through something like rb's transfer outlook  could see that his value was only going one way. I don’t know what’s worse: that we cashed out under pressure again, or that the board seems to think fans will accept this as “good business.” It’s not. It’s short-termism wrapped in PR speak. And as for Venky’s… yeah, it’s beyond parody at this point. Either fund the club properly or stop pretending you’re in it for anything other than preserving your balance sheets. Other owners for better or worse  throw money at ambition. Ours look for overdrafts and FFP cover stories. No wonder we’re stuck standing still while the game moves on.If we do get a cut from a future sale, great but let’s not pretend that was some masterstroke of negotiating. More like a consolation prize for fans who deserve better.

10/10

[simongarnerisgod]

7 hours ago, arbitro said:

Man City have put a £35m price on James McAtee.

there is no one stupid enough to pay that,even at todays inflated market prices,he`s a decent player who`s fallen into the trap of being in a massive squad where he`s never going to get 1st team action