2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[London blue]

3 minutes ago, FE123 said:

If we don’t sell, you’re the same person who will be complaining about us letting him go on a free next season.

As would I.

Both scenarios suck, but I'd rather we raised £0 from the sale in the hope it expedites the removal of Venkys and/or Suhail.

[Gav]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Not a concern to this learned poster to the LT:

 in reply to Gary Ginger

Roverend14th July 10:52 pm

User ID: 5471465

Agree, Travis, in particular has held the club to ransom way too often now. Get what we can for him and let’s add some pace and power in that midfield.

Last Updated: 9 hrs ago

 

 

 

Former member of this site ☝️

[JHRover]

Just now, FE123 said:

If we don’t sell, you’re the same person who will be complaining about us letting him go on a free next season.

Normally I would complain about losing important players on free transfers. Of course in normal circumstances a few million in now rather than nothing in a year would be an important factor, because it could affect our budgets and FFP compliance.

But we are well past normal here. 

As above, we aren't interested in getting better, reinvesting, protecting our assets. We have made no effort to keep him - we want rid. 

Normal footballing considerations that just about every other club and fanbase focuses on are not in play here. We are in a crisis situation and different rules apply. 

The reason we want rid isn't because they want to improve the team or spend his money on new players. They want rid because the owners want to save themselves money and are liquidating our assets to do so. The sooner they can't do that the nearer we get to breaking point. The less money they are able to collect from player trading the more they have to cough up in Pune and the more has to go into the Indian bond. 

I don't want us to sell another player for as long as this Regime owns and runs us. I want this club to drain them of funds to the point they can't do it any more and have to give it up. I want the whole rotten setup to collapse as soon as possible.

I am living in daily fear of Adam Wharton leaving Palace, because it probably means a windfall of £6-10 million for this lot which will be like winning the lottery. 

Unfortunately a lot of people still think this sort of cash is going to make a difference to us and our squad. It clearly isn't. 

 

[DE.]

2 minutes ago, FE123 said:

If we don’t sell, you’re the same person who will be complaining about us letting him go on a free next season.

It's a lose-lose scenario so it doesn't really matter. We sell him now and he's replaced by an inferior player. Money won't get reinvested. We wait a year and he goes on a free, same situation just one year later. We also have a player in the team not fully committed because he's already mentally detached. 

Just the usual where we get shafted either way. 

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, FE123 said:

If we don’t sell, you’re the same person who will be complaining about us letting him go on a free next season.

I agree, he also seems to want the club to be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

If the future is a fan owned or least local investment shared with that, then Rovers need to be in the realm of being fiscally safe, not adding more debt to the owners, who seemingly have a ridiculous expectation to get back their investments.

 

[Tomphil2]

21 minutes ago, FE123 said:

If we don’t sell, you’re the same person who will be complaining about us letting him go on a free next season.

You've already highlighted why there'll be moans either way, he SHOULD have been tied down nearly every one of the ones walked for free would've committed earlier IF the club had shown them something.

If you invest in players to grow and sell then it's an absolute priority to always make sure you have something in place to protect that asset the excuse of a bit of poor form doesn't wash.  At the very least you'll get your modest invest back if they are protected with a contract but don't actually fulfil the potential you had in mind.

Otherwise it's pointless we might as well just exist entirely on loans and freebies on low wages.

Edited 6 hours ago by Tomphil2

[rigger]

3 hours ago, lraC said:

To be fair, he does normally hold his hands up, when obviously wrong.

His arms must be tired.

Edited 5 hours ago by rigger

[rigger]

39 minutes ago, FE123 said:

On Brittain. Sign a deal or sell at this point.
 

impressive end to last season, seems to suit Ismael as a manager, perhaps we should’ve tied him down last summer. But I for one was quite critical of him at that point, seemed to be a passenger when us as team where under the pump.

Sad to lose him, particularly to a rival, but as many others have stated, we have lost a lot worse and recovered.

We have also lost a lot better and recovered.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Not a concern to this learned poster to the LT:

 

 in reply to Gary Ginger

Roverend14th July 10:52 pm

 

User ID: 5471465

Agree, Travis, in particular has held the club to ransom way too often now. Get what we can for him and let’s add some pace and power in that midfield.

Last Updated: 9 hrs ago

 

 

 

That Rover End Dude is either the most obvious Club plant of all time or clinically insane. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

Always amongst the first to comment on anything that happens and always toes the party line.

Prior to the January transfer window he didn't want us spending any money and in his eyes putting the Club's financial future at risk. He wanted to build slowly.

However that works.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

I imagine there will be a name or two thrown out by Nixon/Elliot this week to distract the fanbase though, it's how we operate.

It's started already.

Seemingly according to Nixon on his Patreon page we're ready to offer Hyam a new deal.

Doesn't float my boat but might placate some people I suppose.

[Tomphil2]

'Build slowly'  when in the position we were in is just insane spoon fed club propaganda by those who benefit most from the secure employment and financial re-embursment a mid table forever Championship club provides for them.

It's akin to saying no i won't take the fantastic early retirement package iv'e been offered and take a chance on a new job. i'd rather work on my current wages another 20 years because i feel that would make more sense.

[roverandout]

Most of the let posters are as thick as pig shit

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

'Build slowly'  when in the position we were in is just insane spoon fed club propaganda by those who benefit most from the secure employment and financial re-embursment a mid table forever Championship club provides for them.

It's akin to saying no i won't take the fantastic early retirement package iv'e been offered and take a chance on a new job. i'd rather work on my current wages another 20 years because i feel that would make more sense.

The risk of "going for it" is that you might get promoted then instantly relegated and sacked I suppose.

Easier and a lot less hassle in the long run to plod on indefinitely in the lower reaches of the Championship with no pressure or expectations of success on you.

[London blue]

I'm so sick of this husk of a club.

As if losing your players for nothing over and over again wasn't bad enough the attempted gaslighting by Gestede and co. is so galling.

Dolan, Bath and Weimann leave for free. Brittain is being sold for buttons buuutttttt Hyam might sign a new deal. 

[riverholmes]

1 hour ago, davulsukur said:

When has Trav held the club to ransom?

Before his loan move to Ipswich, if I remember rightly, there were rumours that he fell out with the manager.

I have no idea what went on but in the end Travis didn’t make the cut at Ipswich and all was forgiven, it seems, when he came back.

[JHRover]

34 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I agree, he also seems to want the club to be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

If the future is a fan owned or least local investment shared with that, then Rovers need to be in the realm of being fiscally safe, not adding more debt to the owners, who seemingly have a ridiculous expectation to get back their investments.

 

Why is the future being fan owned? I don't think that is a sensible proposal. No other examples of this working.

Why can't we just do what everyone else has done and get better owners, more importantly ones prepared to invest

[JBiz]

9 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Why is the future being fan owned? I don't think that is a sensible proposal. No other examples of this working.

Why can't we just do what everyone else has done and get better owners, more importantly ones prepared to invest

You don’t think being fan owned is a sensible proposition but you think a sensible response is “do what everyone else has done and just get better owners”.

The way you make it sound, it should be easy to sort, crack on.

[joey_big_nose]

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Why is the future being fan owned? I don't think that is a sensible proposal. No other examples of this working.

Why can't we just do what everyone else has done and get better owners, more importantly ones prepared to invest

If we could be owned by a fans group or a consortium including fans I would take that . I can't really see anyone who would buy us and put money in without expecting it back. The number of unconnected owners who come into a Championship club and it works out is pretty minimal. Often turns into a total disaster.

While not having wealthy owners would mean we would have to balance the books, we are closer to doing that now anyway. I think I'd prefer supporting a club run by fans with less resources, than gamble on another owner who may not be engaged for the long term. Even with less cash I would imagine an engaged fan owners would prioritise much better (e.g. getting key players to sign contracts...).

Fan owned models while not big in the UK do exist - Hearts, Exeter, AFC Wimbledon.

[47er]

50 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

That Rover End Dude is either the most obvious Club plant of all time or clinically insane. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

Always amongst the first to comment on anything that happens and always toes the party line.

Prior to the January transfer window he didn't want us spending any money and in his eyes putting the Club's financial future at risk. He wanted to build slowly.

However that works.

He also argues that the fans, can't expect much in the way of transfers because our attendances are so low!

[Emerald Isle Rover]

18 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Why is the future being fan owned? I don't think that is a sensible proposal. No other examples of this working.

Why can't we just do what everyone else has done and get better owners, more importantly ones prepared to invest

Not everyone 

hull and sheff w fans would argue otherwise 

[davulsukur]

24 minutes ago, riverholmes said:

Before his loan move to Ipswich, if I remember rightly, there were rumours that he fell out with the manager.

I have no idea what went on but in the end Travis didn’t make the cut at Ipswich and all was forgiven, it seems, when he came back.

Is that holding the club to ransom? I thought he was told he wouldn't get as much game time as he was hoping for, had an opportunity to go on loan and took it? 

Don't tell me that the club weren't happy to offload his wages for 6 months.

[47er]

1 hour ago, Gav said:

Former member of this site ☝️

Really? Do tell!

[Crimpshrine]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

I agree, he also seems to want the club to be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

If the future is a fan owned or least local investment shared with that, then Rovers need to be in the realm of being fiscally safe, not adding more debt to the owners, who seemingly have a ridiculous expectation to get back their investments.

 

The club has no debt to the owners.

The only money the club needs to pay to the owners ( via a subsidiary) is rent on the training ground.  

The money they have spent over the last 15 years are simply running costs, not investments. 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Crimpshrine said:

The club has no debt to the owners.

The only money the club needs to pay to the owners ( via a subsidiary) is rent on the training ground.  

The money they have spent over the last 15 years are simply running costs, not investments. 

The club has plenty of debt to the owners - £134 million in the last set of accounts. 

Whether they’ll get even a penny of that back is an entirely different thing. 

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

The club has no debt to the owners.

The only money the club needs to pay to the owners ( via a subsidiary) is rent on the training ground.  

The money they have spent over the last 15 years are simply running costs, not investments. 

Technically, (as with Jack) aren't the amounts that have been run up long term loans to the owners with no realistic expectation they'll ever be repaid?

Unless of course we got promoted and stayed there for a number of years.

Edit: Wilesden beat me to it.

Edited 5 hours ago by RevidgeBlue