2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[DackDackGoose]

Hmm started just over 60% of games in a relegation season in Belgium.

Could go 5 at the back with pickering and Carter as overlapping Centre backs (joke)

Need a creative CM/goalscoring winger if 5 at the back, any current formation looks toothless. A joke if we sell Travis to accommodate this formation 

I'm sure we'll see a few pish signings like this

[rigger]

36 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

One probably won't be here and the other shouldn't be within a million miles of a professional football Club.

 

The way the Rovers are being run, we are a million miles from a professional football club.

[lraC]

38 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

LT reporting the Travis links now, I worry that is the first step by the club before we sell him

I would be very surprised if we hold onto him, as it is looking increasingly likely that the latest request for funds, is not happening.

As, we saw with the court hearing, the owners were attempting to have the need for a bond removed, but it was only reduce to 50%. I have a feeling they are worried that the bond will be lost, as well as the seized properties and assuming that is the way they are thinking, then the only way to keep us afloat is to sell.

[cesus]

When you read a LT sub headline of "Wrexham flex financial muscles", when they are coming after our captain.

Of all our downfalls, I never ever thought getting strong armed by Wrexham would be one of them.

I think Trav was excellent last season, and would be very good at pretty much any team in the league. He would also highly likely be seen as a steal by clubs with more than our 50p budget.

[Tomphil2]

The situation with Travis just like one or two others is engineered a year or 18 months in advance by the club so they don't have to commit to bigger longer contracts, bonuses and signing fees it's rather obvious now.

Yes the players and their agents play a part but i'd suggest that is often once they realise nothing or nothing worthwhile is coming from Rovers. Once the wheels are put into motion well in advance the players are on their way it's just a matter of when not if and it's mostly by design.

Ewood bean counters care not a jot to lose good players it's all about finding cheaper replacements and you could argue in this case that we will get a decent fee but we know were that will go.

Venkys have long since blown every opportunity to mould the Brentford model instead having a benefactor we need their money just to survive to now a sell to survive model, we need sales money just to survive and continue the managed decline a bit longer.

A player on a better contract commands a better fee, gets a better signing on fee from that as well but if it was signed 12 months ago it might have cost the club an extra 5k a week.  They don't want that, can't be arsed with it so just leave things to chance till it's too late then shrug the shoulders.

'He wanted to go'  'We did all we could'  and the age old chestnut 'But we offered to make him the highest player' - a month before he knew he'd get more or the same elsewhere.

 

[davulsukur]

The fact that there isn't even a contract offer on the table for Trav, Tronstad or Hyam tells you everything you need to know about the clubs intentions. More than likely hoping to offload all 3 and replace with a cheaper alternative from some relegated Belgium 2nd division team

[davulsukur]

16 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

The situation with Travis just like one or two others is engineered a year or 18 months in advance by the club so they don't have to commit to bigger longer contracts, bonuses and signing fees it's rather obvious now.

Yes the players and their agents play a part but i'd suggest that is often once they realise nothing or nothing worthwhile is coming from Rovers. Once the wheels are put into motion well in advance the players are on their way it's just a matter of when not if and it's mostly by design.

Ewood bean counters care not a jot to lose good players it's all about finding cheaper replacements and you could argue in this case that we will get a decent fee but we know were that will go.

Venkys have long since blown every opportunity to mould the Brentford model instead having a benefactor we need their money just to survive to now a sell to survive model, we need sales money just to survive and continue the managed decline a bit longer.

A player on a better contract commands a better fee, gets a better signing on fee from that as well but if it was signed 12 months ago it might have cost the club an extra 5k a week.  They don't want that, can't be arsed with it so just leave things to chance till it's too late then shrug the shoulders.

'He wanted to go'  'We did all we could'  and the age old chestnut 'But we offered to make him the highest player' - a month before he knew he'd get more or the same elsewhere.

 

Yep, this is how I believe they operate as well.

Keep players on less money for as long as possible. Then offer them a new deal on similar terms, if they sign it, then great. If not, try and shift them out or let them walk for free at the end of the deal. If they need to source a replacement, it's a player on less than the outgoing one or at best, same terms. 

It's all about cost cutting, nothing more.

[DutchRover]

Hopefully Glen and the Coalition have something up their sleeves, because the 25% cut in wages (in real terms versus inflation) is killing us. The only way we will head on the current model in non-league.

[K-Hod]

13 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Yep, this is how I believe they operate as well.

Keep players on less money for as long as possible. Then offer them a new deal on similar terms, if they sign it, then great. If not, try and shift them out or let them walk for free at the end of the deal. If they need to source a replacement, it's a player on less than the outgoing one or at best, same terms. 

It's all about cost cutting, nothing more.

They'll spin it as 'we need to work within our wage structure' or some rubbish.

Then some fans incapable of critical thought will blame the player for being greedy. Rinse and repeat.

[davulsukur]

1 minute ago, K-Hod said:

They'll spin it as 'we need to work within our wage structure' or some rubbish.

Then some fans incapable of critical thought will blame the player for being greedy. Rinse and repeat.

Exactly that. Putting the blame onto the player via the media is a tactic I'm sure they already use.

[Gamst]

34 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

The situation with Travis just like one or two others is engineered a year or 18 months in advance by the club so they don't have to commit to bigger longer contracts, bonuses and signing fees it's rather obvious now.

Yes the players and their agents play a part but i'd suggest that is often once they realise nothing or nothing worthwhile is coming from Rovers. Once the wheels are put into motion well in advance the players are on their way it's just a matter of when not if and it's mostly by design.

Ewood bean counters care not a jot to lose good players it's all about finding cheaper replacements and you could argue in this case that we will get a decent fee but we know were that will go.

Venkys have long since blown every opportunity to mould the Brentford model instead having a benefactor we need their money just to survive to now a sell to survive model, we need sales money just to survive and continue the managed decline a bit longer.

A player on a better contract commands a better fee, gets a better signing on fee from that as well but if it was signed 12 months ago it might have cost the club an extra 5k a week.  They don't want that, can't be arsed with it so just leave things to chance till it's too late then shrug the shoulders.

'He wanted to go'  'We did all we could'  and the age old chestnut 'But we offered to make him the highest player' - a month before he knew he'd get more or the same elsewhere.

 

Any model whose main objective is to save money will always lead to ruin eventually. There may be times when they strike it lucky and get a good manager or sign a hidden gem, but the overall direction of travel will be downwards. This has clearly been the sticking point with our good players who are running out of contract. They have done well and understandably expect to be paid accordingly and the club refuses as its overriding objective is to scrimp and save. When does it stop? Today is Travis and Tronstad, but in 5 years will we be competing with Accrington to meet the demands of a league 2 plodder? They may try to advertise it as a Brentford model or a Sunderland model but in actual fact it’s a Venkys model of degradation. Those models take proper planning and some decent strategy and investment to it pull off. They need a strategy with a genuine desire for improvement as the main objective and not money saving. A completely flawed model that raises the ultimate question, why on earth do they bother? 

[lraC]

12 minutes ago, Gamst said:

Any model whose main objective is to save money will always lead to ruin eventually. There may be times when they strike it lucky and get a good manager or sign a hidden gem, but the overall direction of travel will be downwards. This has clearly been the sticking point with our good players who are running out of contract. They have done well and understandably expect to be paid accordingly and the club refuses as its overriding objective is to scrimp and save. When does it stop? Today is Travis and Tronstad, but in 5 years will we be competing with Accrington to meet the demands of a league 2 plodder? They may try to advertise it as a Brentford model or a Sunderland model but in actual fact it’s a Venkys model of degradation. Those models take proper planning and some decent strategy and investment to it pull off. They need a strategy with a genuine desire for improvement as the main objective and not money saving. A completely flawed model that raises the ultimate question, why on earth do they bother? 

The model of having to appeal to a court, to allow them to send funds, without a bond model, isn’t one I’m not familiar with, from any other club.

It must be unique to Rovers this, as surely it is one that has never come up before. 

[Tomphil2]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

They'll spin it as 'we need to work within our wage structure' or some rubbish.

Then some fans incapable of critical thought will blame the player for being greedy. Rinse and repeat.

It looks to me like they have a low wage cap for home grown players that doesn't apply to buys, freebies and Prem loans.

No wonder they get fed up and decide running their contract down is favourable to a small rise or a 2/3 yr contract with years option on the same money.

[simongarnerisgod]

very apt for our upcoming belgain "superstar"😁

[Mercer]

This thread is truly depressing.  I've never known such disillusionment so early in a transfer window.

Can't see any hope for optimism at all.

Think Brittain and Travis already out of the door with Tronstad and Hyam scampering after them. 

Will be staggered if we avoid relegation this season.

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

The situation with Travis just like one or two others is engineered a year or 18 months in advance by the club so they don't have to commit to bigger longer contracts, bonuses and signing fees it's rather obvious now.

I think this is stage 2. 

18 months ago we were offering contracts. They were to players we knew would leave or deals that were representative of their true market value, but we were at least holding talks and putting a contract on the table. I believe Broughton on that front. 

Now we are openly avoiding negotiations. In Travis and Tronstad we have two players who have publicly stated that they would like to stay and that they've yet to hear anything. That's insane. Does their willingness to stay guarantee a deal? No. But it does mean that talks should have been held.