2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[M_B]

15 minutes ago, ben_the_beast said:

It would beg the question for any sane club, what incentive is there to ever sell at all. Utterly ludicrous statement. 

And yet, Ismael said we'll only be signing one more, unless someone goes out. 

[47er]

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

On a similar note I was struck by the comments underneath Jackson's latest match report in the LT.

I'd say the Club plants who post non stop on there all day out themselves in fairly obvious fashion as the ones arguing vehemently that no-one could possibly ever be interested in buying us.

At worst - you dont know until you try.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/25395788.blackburn-rovers-self-sabotage-typical-difficult-week/

Usual culprits, usual crap. Must wake up thinking "who can I insult today?" That question of "who would buy us?" has been answered a thousand times but they still ask it---every day!

If they are a representative group of Rovers fans, we are doomed but thankfully they are not.

 

[47er]

3 hours ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I wasn't being smart, it's just that some never even gave him a chance right from the off, in fact he was getting grief before he'd even started.

Ha! The old "Give him time  FFS!" Some people can spot a conman and a bad move before others.

[islander200]

58 minutes ago, M_B said:

And yet, Ismael said we'll only be signing one more, unless someone goes out. 

Yeah that could be due to squad size and them not willing to add more players to the wage bill without moving others out. 

Where has the 3.5 million gone that we got for Brittain?

 

[OnionBalaji]

20 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Yeah that could be due to squad size and them not willing to add more players to the wage bill without moving others out. 

Where has the 3.5 million gone that we got for Brittain?

 

 

Along with the £40m from Wharton, Szmodics, Raya…

 

 

 

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Come on chaddy. Are the actions of this football club, one who cannot offer competitive wages to get any proven first team players to sign, befitting one that genuinely cares and is striving for promotion

 

We offer we can afford. Wages are higher than turnover. You have budget and you sign players you can, sell players you don't want or players who want to leave

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

You seem a bit paranoid about the alignment

 

 

I dont paranoid by anything in life. Its people like yourself who enjoy looking for things that aren't there. 

 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

New players will always say the stuff about pushing for Premier League etc.

Just dismissed everything again!

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont think hes a good manager. Maybe you disagree now.

We see if he a good manager or not based on this season result. It's 2 games. One game where we should at least a point if not the win tbh

[roversfan99]

Wages are higher than turnover across the Championship. Why are we now justifying our total inability to get any senior players to sign new deals?

If anyone sees what is going on at this club and thinks that its got a genuine ambition to get into the Premier League. Then they havent been paying attention.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, M_B said:

I wasn't being smart, you didn't answer the question. Your prerogative but you didn't.

Your answer was to this question, do you want the best for the club?

Obviously we all want what's best for the club. It was a simple question which only needed a simple answer.

 

I did answer the question, and simply enough for the vast majority of people to understand. And I've explained why at length. Even though the question was pointless in the first place. I'm sorry you didn't grasp it, but we're clearly done here.

Edited 8 hours ago by bluebruce

[Mattyblue]

Guess what our wages will be higher than turnover in League One too… presumably we shouldn’t expect to compete there either.

[KentExile]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

We offer we can afford. Wages are higher than turnover. You have budget and you sign players you can, sell players you don't want or players who want to leave

Rovers are not unique in this regard

In most, if not all cases, if a club wants to remain in the Championship (let alone aim to compete for promotion), then wages have to be higher than turnover

The below is based on the most recent accounts of all Championship clubs:

 

https://www.matchdayfinance.com/post/championship-financial-results-season-2023-24

Championship clubs are generally unprofitable, primarily because their staff costs significantly exceed the revenue they generate. 

Staff costs before player sales totaled £1.12 billion, which amounted to 122% of total turnover—£161 million more than revenue. In such a scenario, financial losses are unavoidable.

 

 

However, in order to progress, other clubs such as Middlesbrough, Bristol City, Coventry, Millwall etc, reinvest upwards of 70% of transfer fees received into transfer fees for new signings to improve their squad.

Edited 2 hours ago by KentExile

[K-Hod]

5 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

We offer we can afford. Wages are higher than turnover. You have budget and you sign players you can, sell players you don't want or players who want to leave

 

 

I dont paranoid by anything in life. Its people like yourself who enjoy looking for things that aren't there. 

 

Just dismissed everything again!

We see if he a good manager or not based on this season result. It's 2 games. One game where we should at least a point if not the win tbh

But they are there and have been there for the last 15 years.

[alexanders]

However, in order to progress, other clubs such as Middlesbrough, Bristol City etc, reinvest upwards of 70% of transfer fees received into transfer fees for new signings to improve their squad
 

we have been above both of them lately 

[KentExile]

34 minutes ago, alexanders said:

However, in order to progress, other clubs such as Middlesbrough, Bristol City etc, reinvest upwards of 70% of transfer fees received into transfer fees for new signings to improve their squad
 

we have been above both of them lately 

It has been 3 years since Rovers finished above Bristol City, and the season before last, Rovers were at the bottom end of the table below both. 

At the very least, their spending shows their ambition to progress, whilst Rovers cuts show the exact opposite.  Being above them for a season is one thing,  We can see a general trajectory for clubs over more than a season though. 

What are the odds on Rovers finishing above them (or Coventry, Or Millwall, or Norwich?, who also reinvest to a similar degree) this season?    Obviously yes, there is a chance, but if you had to stake your family home on it, which way would you bet?

Edited 2 hours ago by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

Can it be explained to me how someone can use wages being above turnover as an excuse whilst also (within the last week) saying we should be offering our key players £16k a week to stay.

Thank you in advance.

[KentExile]

15 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Can it be explained to me how someone can use wages being above turnover as an excuse whilst also (within the last week) saying we should be offering our key players £16k a week to stay.

Thank you in advance.

Minimum

On 16/08/2025 at 09:13, chaddyrovers said:

Our key players around 6 or 7 should be on a certain around 16k to 25k, then your next 6 or 7 players should be around 10k to 15k with rest below that but with incentives bonuses in all contracts based on appearances, goals and clean sheets. 

That sort of wage scale would put Rovers on a level playing field with other Championship clubs (excluding those in receipt of parachute payments, or Birmingham/Wrexham), but is obviously not compatible with reducing wages to turnover  (unless we double or treble turnover at the same time I suppose?  But that sounds rather fanciful)

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

11 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Minimum

That sort of wage scale would put Rovers on a level playing field with other non-parachute payment Championship clubs, but is obviously not compatible with reducing wages to turnover  (unless we double or treble turnover at the same time I suppose?  But that sounds rather fanciful)

Ah, my back of a fag packet calculation has those 12 players (using the middle of those pay bands) taking up around two thirds of our turnover. - before bonuses.

That leaves one third for the remaining (based on 23/24 accounts) 219 members of staff.

Doable??

 

[London blue]

7 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

We offer we can afford. Wages are higher than turnover. You have budget and you sign players you can, sell players you don't want or players who want to leave

We see if he a good manager or not based on this season result. It's 2 games. One game where we should at least a point if not the win tbh

I can't believe there are people out there happy to defend the contract strategy that has led to the current situation. 

Do you honestly believe it's the right thing to do, or are you just willing to back whatever the club does?

On the second point, as always, no-one is allowed to form opinion until such time you deem it sensible. His record, to me, isn't good enough and this season so far (and I'm going to count the loss to Bradford, thanks VI) is very bad.

[KentExile]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Ah, my back of a fag packet calculation has those 12 players (using the middle of those pay bands) taking up around two thirds of our turnover. - before bonuses.

That leaves one third for the remaining (based on 23/24 accounts) 219 members of staff.

Doable??

 

I suppose they could in theory reduce wage to turnover based on that.  Depends on how much some of those others (Pashas salary, Waggots gardening leave etc) are being paid, and what else they decide to cut costs on.  Half time tombola for head coach position maybe?

But if we are looking to have a wage to turnover of less than 100%, then not without increasing turnover significantly

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

But they are there and have been there for the last 15 years.

The last year wages were below 100% of turnover was the last year we were in the Premier League.

Perhaps we should try to return there 🤔

[RoversClitheroe]

1 hour ago, London blue said:

I can't believe there are people out there happy to defend the contract strategy that has led to the current situation. 

Do you honestly believe it's the right thing to do, or are you just willing to back whatever the club does?

On the second point, as always, no-one is allowed to form opinion until such time you deem it sensible. His record, to me, isn't good enough and this season so far (and I'm going to count the loss to Bradford, thanks VI) is very bad.

I think there's only one?

That one still hasn't read the real minutes yet.

So unsure if a viewpoint can be valid anymore.

[Tomphil2]

The whole point of billionaire owners is so a club like us of limited means because of the area in which we reside can then compete with a lot of those from much larger catchment areas leading to bigger crowds and income.

That's the whole point of it but they've even managed to feck that up now so what's the point of them ?

To just provide their mates well paid jobs and their agent mates regular commission ?

[Lancaster Rover]

When you've got someone buying National League Morecambe who have no players, a cat 3 academy (for a year until EFL cat 3 status is removed), no training ground and don't own their own ground for £7 million quid (plus 6million yearly operating costs) the idea than nobody would buy Rovers is absolute nonsense. 

I know we're talking completely different levels there but if someone is sinking £13 million with absolutely no chance of a return into a basket case national league club with a terrible catchment area then surely Rovers looks a cracking investment!

Edited 12 minutes ago by Lancaster Rover

[KentExile]

Just now, Lancaster Rover said:

When you've got someone buying National League Morecambe who have no players, a cat 3 academy (for a year until EFL cat 3 status is removed), no training ground and don't own their own ground for £7 million quid (plus 6million yearly operating costs) the idea than nobody would buy Rovers is absolute nonsense. 

Suppose the running costs are quite low then

Who needs a training ground when you have no players?  Why bother with a ground even  😉 

[DutchRover]

Squad size is not the issue people seem to be making out. I make 19 that we need to register (Toth, Miller, Alebiosu, Hyam, Carter, Wharton, McLoughlan, Ribeiro, Pickering, Tavares, Tronstad, Henriksson, Forshaw, Hedges, Cantwell, Kargbo, De Neve, Ohashi, Gueye), plus three academy guys (Michalski, Montgomery, Tyjon).

We ought to have 5/6 slots left to register guys, assuming we offload/deregister those who I would expect (Pears, Trav, Buckley, Garrett, Leonard?)

Edited 5 minutes ago by DutchRover

[Leonard Venkhater]

9 hours ago, 47er said:

Ha! The old "Give him time  FFS!" Some people can spot a conman and a bad move before others.

Weird! Thought I was going a bit mad....

I read your reply-apparently to my post-and I was thinking I never typed those words.

Just checked back and it was M-B..