2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[speeeeeeedie]

4 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Squad list announced:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/september/08/rovers-submit-2025-26-squad-list/

 

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Grim reading.

Only 23 players including a keeper completely out of favour and various sick notes.

Indeed. All 4 of the 2024-25 preferred defenders are gone. Club captain gone. 2nd top scorers both gone. The manager went earlier too. 

It's going to be a rough season.

[M_B]

28 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

We will see. Assuming they become established and their value goes up and they want better money, I am sure we wont agree with that either.

Just to clarify. You dont have any worries at all with our inability to get new contracts sorted for current players?

It isn't inability, they've just signed 10 players, they're more than capable of penning contracts, it's choice.

I'd rather they'd kept Dolan in particular, and Britain, although I can't say I let it "worry" me when it's so obvious what's happening.

If the personnel and makeup of the club hadn't changed it would be more of a worry. 

[London blue]

1 minute ago, M_B said:

It isn't inability, they've just signed 10 players, they're more than capable of penning contracts, it's choice.

I'd rather they'd kept Dolan in particular, and Britain, although I can't say I let it "worry" me when it's so obvious what's happening.

If the personnel and makeup of the club hadn't changed it would be more of a worry. 

I'm begging you to state you understand the difference between signing new players and offering improved contracts to current players.

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, M_B said:

It isn't inability, they've just signed 10 players, they're more than capable of penning contracts, it's choice.

I'd rather they'd kept Dolan in particular, and Britain, although I can't say I let it "worry" me when it's so obvious what's happening.

If the personnel and makeup of the club hadn't changed it would be more of a worry. 

Obviously it is choice. They are choosing not to pay competitive Championship wages. Hence why nearly all of our signings are from smaller leagues abroad, often players relegated so their wage demands will be comparatively tiny.

You make it sound like the likes of Travis and Hyam in particular just werent very good and we chose to discard them.

[M_B]

7 minutes ago, London blue said:

I'm begging you to state you understand the difference between signing new players and offering improved contracts to current players.

Please tell me you understand the difference between inability and unwillingness.

 

[bluebruce]

If anyone has missed it, the need for Venkys to give the Indian government a bond equal to 50% of what they send us (previously 100%) has been removed entirely. Obviously this has happened a week after the window closed.

[London blue]

5 minutes ago, M_B said:

Please tell me you understand the difference between inability and unwillingness.

 

You said: "they've just signed 10 players, they're more than capable of penning contracts."

Again, they were obliged to sign those players, otherwise we wouldn't have a squad.

The fact that a number of new, low value contracts have been offered has no bearing at all on whether they either can't or won't offer improved terms to current players.

They HAD to sign new players. They had no choice. 

[M_B]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Obviously it is choice. They are choosing not to pay competitive Championship wages. Hence why nearly all of our signings are from smaller leagues abroad, often players relegated so their wage demands will be comparatively tiny.

You make it sound like the likes of Travis and Hyam in particular just werent very good and we chose to discard them.

You keep on saying it's inability when it clearly isn't.

I've never once said they're no good, but it's obvious what has happened/is happening and you just keep on yearning for something which clearly isn't going to happen.

As I've been saying for weeks, whether the new process works depends almost solely on how good the recruitment department is . They've  got a lot on. 

[BRFC.]

29 minutes ago, M_B said:

It isn't inability, they've just signed 10 players, they're more than capable of penning contracts, it's choice.

I'd rather they'd kept Dolan in particular, and Britain, although I can't say I let it "worry" me when it's so obvious what's happening.

If the personnel and makeup of the club hadn't changed it would be more of a worry. 

In fairness it’s 10 players who will be on 8 grand max and probably not many suitors. 

[BRFC.]

12 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

If anyone has missed it, the need for Venkys to give the Indian government a bond equal to 50% of what they send us (previously 100%) has been removed entirely. Obviously this has happened a week after the window closed.

Would rather they sold the club 

[M_B]

10 minutes ago, London blue said:

You said: "they've just signed 10 players, they're more than capable of penning contracts."

Again, they were obliged to sign those players, otherwise we wouldn't have a squad.

The fact that a number of new, low value contracts have been offered has no bearing at all on whether they either can't or won't offer improved terms to current players.

They HAD to sign new players. They had no choice. 

Showing the "ability", or knowhow to physically draw up a contract, new or otherwise.

They're quite capable of drawing up a contract, if it's to their liking. 

[London blue]

1 minute ago, M_B said:

Showing the "ability", or knowhow to physically draw up a contract, new or otherwise.

They're quite capable of drawing up a contract, if it's to their liking. 

But "new or otherwise" is dismissing the point entirely.

I'm talking specifically about the extension of existing players.

[roversfan99]

15 minutes ago, M_B said:

You keep on saying it's inability when it clearly isn't.

I've never once said they're no good, but it's obvious what has happened/is happening and you just keep on yearning for something which clearly isn't going to happen.

As I've been saying for weeks, whether the new process works depends almost solely on how good the recruitment department is . They've  got a lot on. 

Yes I am yearning for something that isnt happening. I am also desperate for Venkys to sell up, that isnt happening either but it doesnt dampen that desire at all. 

My and many other peoples point is that it is a huge problem that we are unable to get any contracts sorted with current important players. Its not the odd one which would be understandable. Us being able to sign new players from abroad at a fraction of the cost of wages of those leaving doesnt disprove that.

I dont get why you are being so pedantic about whether its an inability or a choice as the end result is the same either way. You could argue it is an inability within the very low budget set under the owners. We certainly have been unable to sort contracts out, that is a fact. 

[chaddyrovers]

8 hours ago, bluebruce said:

You haven't responded to what I said. Why won't you acknowledge there is a systemic problem at the club with renewing deals and it isn't acceptable? I'm not talking about individual deals, I'm talking about the very clear pattern. We all are. You seem to be the only one who isn't seeing/acknowledging it. Instead you keep resorting to trying to justify each fuckup.

Its something I acknowledge weeks/months ago. I just don't fixated on the issue. Players move on and new players come in. 

We cant match what players want. We have a wage budget and we are sticking to it. Should we pay more than what we can afford, it that right approach. If you pay one 25k then others we demand the same then you are going to be over your budget. Then your squad players will demand more for their role in the team.

 

RF99 complaints that players are taking all the money out of the game then wants us to pay more than our budget is. Massive conflict there Don't you agree? 

[M_B]

48 minutes ago, London blue said:

But "new or otherwise" is dismissing the point entirely.

I'm talking specifically about the extension of existing players.

I'm struggling to know what your point is.

If they wanted to renew contracts, they could've done, they just chose not to . The other argument would be whose decision was it?

[NeilInBristol]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

If anyone has missed it, the need for Venkys to give the Indian government a bond equal to 50% of what they send us (previously 100%) has been removed entirely. Obviously this has happened a week after the window closed.

Incredibly convenient timing for them

stinks

Thanks for sharing

any news on what happens next with their court case? 

[Tomphil2]

49 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its something I acknowledge weeks/months ago. I just don't fixated on the issue. Players move on and new players come in. 

We cant match what players want. We have a wage budget and we are sticking to it. Should we pay more than what we can afford, it that right approach. If you pay one 25k then others we demand the same then you are going to be over your budget. Then your squad players will demand more for their role in the team.

 

RF99 complaints that players are taking all the money out of the game then wants us to pay more than our budget is. Massive conflict there Don't you agree? 

 

I doubt any club in this league pays all players the same it's impossible.

We are paying Cantwell at least 20K pwk therefore by your definition Tronstad, Carter, and all the other established pros are asking for that as well.

It's a nonsense excuse thrown around to deflect the low balling low wage model we now operate.

[bluebruce]

22 minutes ago, NeilInBristol said:

Incredibly convenient timing for them

stinks

Thanks for sharing

any news on what happens next with their court case? 

Just got it from the court case thread and wasn't sure if it had been mentioned here. @wilsdenrover is the one who has been brilliant in keeping tabs on what's been happening with these billion adjournments and caught that this part of things had been resolved.

I don't think their court case will affect us anymore, but if I were Venkys my next move would be to get some of that money they've put up for the bond back.

Basically the need for more bonds is over because the amount they've paid into bonds already considerably exceeds the maximum fine payable as a result of the case. I think we are talking either 7.7 mill or 8.8 million quid in fines (currency conversions seem to have slight discrepancies) and I think it was something like 25 or 30 million already paid in bonds, but the proper numbers are all in that thread. I expect they'll want that difference back, and then to not pay or minimise the fine, but ultimately I don't think we have to give a shit about that anymore, and thus it's probably be more gratifying for most of us if they suffer as much financially as possible. Some would argue freeing up their constraints on funding us is a bad thing in the long game anyway.

[chaddyrovers]

6 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

 

I doubt any club in this league pays all players the same it's impossible.

We are paying Cantwell at least 20K pwk therefore by your definition Tronstad, Carter, and all the other established pros are asking for that as well.

It's a nonsense excuse thrown around to deflect the low balling low wage model we now operate.

Granted. 

But if you wage bill 20m for the season that's £384k a week. 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its something I acknowledge weeks/months ago. I just don't fixated on the issue. Players move on and new players come in. 

We cant match what players want. We have a wage budget and we are sticking to it. Should we pay more than what we can afford, it that right approach. If you pay one 25k then others we demand the same then you are going to be over your budget. Then your squad players will demand more for their role in the team.

 

RF99 complaints that players are taking all the money out of the game then wants us to pay more than our budget is. Massive conflict there Don't you agree? 

You are just making up random figures and suggesting that players are wanting wage structure shattering amounts based on nothing, purely to defend the club.

The concept of a wage structure does not invalidate the point that it is extremely damaging to be in a position where we cant keep any of our main players on new deals. It depends what that wage structure is and the ceiling to ours is clearly not competitive enough.

You keep saying fixating because you are underappreciating the fact that as expected, the issue has totally undermined the whole summer window. The overhaul has been more than anyone including the manager would have wanted because instead of topping up a solid core of players with a few additions, we have had to blow apart that core and replace it with cheaper replacements from abroad, all at the same time.

Your last jibe is just totally out of context and is not specific to our club. If the TV money for everyone goes up, and wages across the board go up, yet ours keep going down, that doesnt keep us competitive.

[Tomphil2]

You can have a wage structure that's fine that's understandable and i think we've had one since TM and Venus introduced one alongside Waggot.

But rather than hard line it seemed more about ballpark figures where as long as you had a few on low wages the top end could be stretched for the odd player.

Now its been mentioned that they just want 3 brackets of c1-3k, 5-7k, 7-10k but whatever your structure it's also about how you move people around within it.

A player like Dolan for example (just using his name not exact figures) who has amassed over 100 appearances and become a mostly first choice starter on the bottom end of the wage bracket is entitled to expect to jump to the top bracket not just go up to the next bracket and get a 2 year deal with a years option.

That seems to be an issue here.

[wilsdenrover]

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

You are just making up random figures and suggesting that players are wanting wage structure shattering amounts based on nothing, purely to defend the club.

The concept of a wage structure does not invalidate the point that it is extremely damaging to be in a position where we cant keep any of our main players on new deals. It depends what that wage structure is and the ceiling to ours is clearly not competitive enough.

You keep saying fixating because you are underappreciating the fact that as expected, the issue has totally undermined the whole summer window. The overhaul has been more than anyone including the manager would have wanted because instead of topping up a solid core of players with a few additions, we have had to blow apart that core and replace it with cheaper replacements from abroad, all at the same time.

Your last jibe is just totally out of context and is not specific to our club. If the TV money for everyone goes up, and wages across the board go up, yet ours keep going down, that doesnt keep us competitive.

1. Chaddy has previously said we should offer key players £15,000 a week.
2. The suggestion is made that our new wage limit is £10,000 a week.
3. Logically point 1 should lead to him being critical of point 2.
4. Apparently not…

 

[wilsdenrover]

9 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

You can have a wage structure that's fine that's understandable and i think we've had one since TM and Venus introduced one alongside Waggot.

But rather than hard line it seemed more about ballpark figures where as long as you had a few on low wages the top end could be stretched for the odd player.

Now its been mentioned that they just want 3 brackets of c1-3k, 5-7k, 7-10k but whatever your structure it's also about how you move people around within it.

A player like Dolan for example (just using his name not exact figures) who has amassed over 100 appearances and become a mostly first choice starter on the bottom end of the wage bracket is entitled to expect to jump to the top bracket not just go up to the next bracket and get a 2 year deal with a years option.

That seems to be an issue here.

I think you’ve outlined perfectly the difference between a wage budget and a wage structure.

The first is a very arbitrary limit, the second is more fluid and would have reasoning behind why a player is in a certain range and what’s necessary for him to move into a further one.

If these are clearly conveyed to the players they then can’t be in any doubt as to what they need to do to achieve a pay rise.

The club should also be keeping an eye on other clubs’ pay structures so what we offer can be adjusted to remain as competitive as possible.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Tomphil2]

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think you’ve outlined perfectly the difference between a wage budget and a wage structure.

The first is a very arbitrary limit, the second is more fluid and would have reasoning behind why a player is in a certain range and what’s necessary for him to move into a further one.

If these are clearly conveyed to the players they then can’t be in any doubt as to what they need to do to achieve a pay rise.

The club should also be keeping an eye on other clubs’ pay structures so what we offer can be adjusted to remain as competitive as possible.

 

 

Also some seem to like to throw the entire club  wage bill or annual losses into the first team squad wage bill instead of the other way around. 

[wilsdenrover]

If we can afford to pay more be critical of the fact we’re not willing to.

If we can’t afford to pay more be critical of what’s lead to this.

Neither position, in my opinion, is defendable.