Lewis Travis…The Man Who (wanted to leave)

[aletheia]

8 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Anybody who refuses to play for Blackburn Rovers goes down a long way in my estimation.

Gestede should be on his way then.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, aletheia said:

Gestede should be on his way then.

He should have never been allowed back in the first place.

[BRFC.]

9 hours ago, M_B said:

 

The good news here is that the club might actually be starting to work more "normally". Cashing in on both Britain and Travis who wouldn't sign contracts is a welcome change of direction. 

If you genuinely believe the club is going into a good direction you’re a fool, unless the venkys have all of a sudden decided to sell the club that is. It is more worrying they’re unable to tie down key players for me

[Eddie]

30 minutes ago, BRFC. said:

If you genuinely believe the club is going into a good direction you’re a fool, unless the venkys have all of a sudden decided to sell the club that is. It is more worrying they’re unable to tie down key players for me

It is smarter than letting players leave on a free. That is undeniable. 

[DE.]

If there's one thing that should be obvious by now, it's that even when the club appears to be running "sensibly", the owners will find away to sabotage everything in due course. It's as inevitable as our annual post-Christmas collapse. 

[JHRover]

We've been down this delusional track before. Remember when Mowbray was here? People convincing themselves we were building sustainably, following a plan, working normally. 

Then we had the Broughton / JDT experiment and that was another occasion of us acting normally and putting in place a structure that would take us somewhere and last. They made sure that lasted all of 12 months before they smashed it to smithereens. 

We completely changed track under Eustace to a traditional model of bringing in short term relatively cheap options and relying on our established players, we made sure that was abandoned after 8 months by appointing Gestede over the top of him and refusing to extend any contracts.

Now we are on to experiment 4 in the space of 4 years. Might work, probably won't because even if it goes well the ownership/regime will either introduce further budget cuts or remove those overseeing it and go down a different path again in the near future. 

It isn't normal, it isn't healthy, it isn't sustainable. The only thing it is doing is (in theory) cutting losses every year whilst the club is being hollowed out from within with good people being forced out and replaced with nonentities who don't understand the club. 

On the topic of cost cuts despite all the evidence pointing that way I still wouldn't be surprised to see losses exceed £15 million again, that's the one constant here under Venkys.

[G Somerset Rover]

17 minutes ago, DE. said:

If there's one thing that should be obvious by now, it's that even when the club appears to be running "sensibly", the owners will find away to sabotage everything in due course. It's as inevitable as our annual post-Christmas collapse. 

This is why I'll never get carried away under this lot. Even if Ismael pulls off a minor miracle with our new cohort and we're in and around the top six come the new year, it means nothing. We will never get promoted under Venky's - they and Pasha will see to that. Just as they have done on multiple occasions already.

Edited 8 hours ago by G Somerset Rover

[Crimpshrine]

11 hours ago, M_B said:

The good news here is that the club might actually be starting to work more "normally". Cashing in on both Britain and Travis who wouldn't sign contracts is a welcome change of direction. 

How can selling decent Championship players with vast experience and replacing them with cheaper, unproven players be good news  ? It is cost cutting which could turn out to be false economy once all the saleable playing assets are gone.

The policy is driven by Pasha wanting to save money for his employers not by any ambition to build a decent team.

[Gordon Gekko]

So glad we are out, did they really say that? Jees

[philipl]

Travis was a very competent defensive midfielder and reliable yellow card collector who is the sort of player oppositions prefer not to come up against.

A great servant of the club but at his age time to cash in from football while he still can.

Good luck to him.

In the cold world of money, he is worth more to Derby than he is to Rovers.

As someone else posted, Adam Wharton was a kick in the balls of every Rovers supporter. This is business.

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

Travis was a very competent defensive midfielder and reliable yellow card collector who is the sort of player oppositions prefer not to come up against.

A great servant of the club but at his age time to cash in from football while he still can.

Good luck to him.

In the cold world of money, he is worth more to Derby than he is to Rovers.

As someone else posted, Adam Wharton was a kick in the balls of every Rovers supporter. This is business.

Good business would have been retaining the squad that got us into the top 6 last season for low cost - simply by offering appropriate new terms to Batth, Hyam, Travis, Brittain, Dolan and Tronstad.

Good business would be investing from a position of strength whilst things are going well on the pitch and not totally dismantling a good squad for no real reason other than saving on wages and giving Rudy a project to prove himself. 

End of the day if Derby finish 21st and we finish 22nd then they are laughing all the way and our business has cost the club tens of millions and possibly its existence by sliding into League One. 

We can say with some confidence that we wouldn't be in relegation trouble had we kept last season's squad intact. Can we say the same now with what business we have done? I don't think so. 

[M_B]

3 hours ago, BRFC. said:

If you genuinely believe the club is going into a good direction you’re a fool, unless the venkys have all of a sudden decided to sell the club that is. It is more worrying they’re unable to tie down key players for me

Not disputing the contract bit ,but if the player isn't signing, then sell them.

 

[Waggy76]

2 hours ago, philipl said:

Travis was a very competent defensive midfielder and reliable yellow card collector who is the sort of player oppositions prefer not to come up against.

A great servant of the club but at his age time to cash in from football while he still can.

Good luck to him.

In the cold world of money, he is worth more to Derby than he is to Rovers.

As someone else posted, Adam Wharton was a kick in the balls of every Rovers supporter. This is business.

I agree to a point but whoever the replacement is will be a downgrade and as been for 15 years !

[M_B]

2 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

How can selling decent Championship players with vast experience and replacing them with cheaper, unproven players be good news  ? It is cost cutting which could turn out to be false economy once all the saleable playing assets are gone.

The policy is driven by Pasha wanting to save money for his employers not by any ambition to build a decent team.

You've either misunderstood or you're deliberately being awkward. How many players have we lost for nothing? If a player isn't going to sign ,or the manager doesn't want him, then he should be sold if there's a decent fee involved.

As opposed to losing them for nothing, which has been the way for some time.

If bringing £6/7 million in rather than nothing isn't good news, you'll need to explain. 

[EgyptianPete]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

We've been down this delusional track before. Remember when Mowbray was here? People convincing themselves we were building sustainably, following a plan, working normally. 

Then we had the Broughton / JDT experiment and that was another occasion of us acting normally and putting in place a structure that would take us somewhere and last. They made sure that lasted all of 12 months before they smashed it to smithereens. 

We completely changed track under Eustace to a traditional model of bringing in short term relatively cheap options and relying on our established players, we made sure that was abandoned after 8 months by appointing Gestede over the top of him and refusing to extend any contracts.

Now we are on to experiment 4 in the space of 4 years. Might work, probably won't because even if it goes well the ownership/regime will either introduce further budget cuts or remove those overseeing it and go down a different path again in the near future. 

It isn't normal, it isn't healthy, it isn't sustainable. The only thing it is doing is (in theory) cutting losses every year whilst the club is being hollowed out from within with good people being forced out and replaced with nonentities who don't understand the club. 

On the topic of cost cuts despite all the evidence pointing that way I still wouldn't be surprised to see losses exceed £15 million again, that's the one constant here under Venkys.

Just listened to Mowbray on tippy tappy, when asked why did he not ask Venkys for more money when we had a chance of promotion he said I didn't want to ask for more, they are lovely people etc etc. Oh an he thinks Pasha is a good guy

[Crimpshrine]

36 minutes ago, M_B said:

You've either misunderstood or you're deliberately being awkward. How many players have we lost for nothing? If a player isn't going to sign ,or the manager doesn't want him, then he should be sold if there's a decent fee involved.

As opposed to losing them for nothing, which has been the way for some time.

If bringing £6/7 million in rather than nothing isn't good news, you'll need to explain. 

It doesn't affect the transfer budget, it just means the club has more money to pay the bills without Venky's needing to send more funds from India.  So in terms of team strengthening it makes no difference if we get a fee or not.

The outcome is the same. Cost cutting and downgrading. So, not good news.

To be honest, I would rather we got no fees from player sales meaning Venky's would either have to cough up more funds or decide enough is enough. Preferably the latter.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Crimpshrine said:

It doesn't affect the transfer budget, it just means the club has more money to pay the bills without Venky's needing to send more funds from India.  So in terms of team strengthening it makes no difference if we get a fee or not.

The outcome is the same. Cost cutting and downgrading. So, not good news.

To be honest, I would rather we got no fees from player sales meaning Venky's would either have to cough up more funds or decide enough is enough. Preferably the latter.

Honestly, I just don’t understand why anyone wants the owners to put more money in?

How can anyone want to end this terrible tenure and expect them to be ambitious at the same time?

Complete contradictions. Getting money for players back into the total budget for running the club, saves the need to go cap in hand to the cunts.

I want us to wipe our own face, to cut our own cloth accordingly, even if it impacts any sort of ambition we may for promotion.

 

[JHRover]

6 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Honestly, I just don’t understand why anyone wants the owners to put more money in?

How can anyone want to end this terrible tenure and expect them to be ambitious at the same time?

Complete contradictions. Getting money for players back into the total budget for running the club, saves the need to go cap in hand to the cunts.

I want us to wipe our own face, to cut our own cloth accordingly, even if it impacts any sort of ambition we may for promotion.

 

But if the club wipes its own face then we get the worst of both worlds IMO. 

We have a miniscule budget, which is uncompetitive in the modern day Championship, and highly likely to result in relegation at some stage or another from which we will never come back if sustainability is the aim

And at the same time of this little to no pressure on the bastards in India to take steps to offload the club. No financial pressure just means they can leave us to rot for longer with zero pressure on them. 

At least if the club continues to drain them of millions of pounds a year, money they HAVE to find from either sales or their own pockets, this maintains a degree of pressure on them. If they reach a stage where the cupboard of players to sell is bare and they haven't got the ability at the Indian end to shovel the cash in then a default beckons which brings the whole thing crashing down.

I see it a bit like when Hitler talked about the Soviet Union - need only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. The trouble is kicking in the door - the best and probably only way of doing that with this lot is financially - a pressure on them to transfer cash - we have seen first hand that in the last 4 years they have been actively cutting this in any way they can. They are under pressure, clearly, the more this can be maintained the nearer breaking point is. 

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

But if the club wipes its own face then we get the worst of both worlds IMO. 

We have a miniscule budget, which is uncompetitive in the modern day Championship, and highly likely to result in relegation at some stage or another from which we will never come back if sustainability is the aim

And at the same time of this little to no pressure on the bastards in India to take steps to offload the club. No financial pressure just means they can leave us to rot for longer with zero pressure on them. 

At least if the club continues to drain them of millions of pounds a year, money they HAVE to find from either sales or their own pockets, this maintains a degree of pressure on them. If they reach a stage where the cupboard of players to sell is bare and they haven't got the ability at the Indian end to shovel the cash in then a default beckons which brings the whole thing crashing down.

I see it a bit like when Hitler talked about the Soviet Union - need only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. The trouble is kicking in the door - the best and probably only way of doing that with this lot is financially - a pressure on them to transfer cash - we have seen first hand that in the last 4 years they have been actively cutting this in any way they can. They are under pressure, clearly, the more this can be maintained the nearer breaking point is. 

I don’t think you realise how rich they are - their businesses could be putting a few million a year into us, well after we’re all in the ground and it wouldn’t touch the sides.

 I don’t disagree with you regarding the competitive cost element, we’d be in serious trouble with our revenues against our costs / facilities if we went into the third tier again without that backup.
 

The problem is though, I don’t want this cycle to continue. I’d rather be a mid table championship club that has a budget decided by revenue, not investment. There are other reasons, for example (we’ve had this discussion before) the potential future sale of the club being easier with less debt / constant losses.
 

[RevidgeBlue]

30 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Honestly, I just don’t understand why anyone wants the owners to put more money in?

How can anyone want to end this terrible tenure and expect them to be ambitious at the same time?

 

Realistically, the only way they're ever going to VOLUNTARILY sell the Club is if we get promoted and another party offers them something approaching the figure they want for it.

[JBiz]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Realistically, the only way they're ever going to VOLUNTARILY sell the Club is if we get promoted and another party offers them something approaching the figure they want for it.

You sure? Explain to me how you know how much they want for it?
 

How do you know they have an arbitrary figure in mind? What about if they just see it as a trinket or line in their P&L?

Edited 2 hours ago by JBiz

[Crimpshrine]

30 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I want us to wipe our own face, to cut our own cloth accordingly, even if it impacts any sort of ambition we may for promotion.

I would be happy to be self sustainable as long as the ambition was still there. For example in the 80s - I loved those times when we constantly pushed for promotion or the playoffs without any real cash behind us.  We managed to do this because we were well run by people who cared about the club.

However, we have billionaire owners who take no interest and yet you are happy for them to put no money in and admit we are not aiming to achieve promotion ?  What is the point in a football club with no ambition?

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, Crimpshrine said:

I would be happy to be self sustainable as long as the ambition was still there. For example in the 80s - I loved those times when we constantly pushed for promotion or the playoffs without any real cash behind us.  We managed to do this because we were well run by people who cared about the club.

However, we have billionaire owners who take no interest and yet you are happy for them to put no money in and admit we are not aiming to achieve promotion ?  What is the point in a football club with no ambition?

Re the part in bold - that is the crux. We don’t have people who care, we don’t have a high level of expertise at the top. Doesn’t matter what “projects” (including the current Rudy / VI one) you’re running, if the people running the club from the top don’t have that expertise and care, you end up with people like Steve Waggott.

Re the second paragraph - when they’re not putting money in, they’re not involved. That’s an immediate improvement for me. I don’t want their money. I don’t want my club to get further and further into “gift loan” debt with a set of cunts who don’t have that “care and expertise” that we both agree is needed.

I also think that rovers are surely a more attractive proposition for alternative investment IF we are doing what we did in the 80s that you reference, aka punching above our financial weight, and being ambitious despite not having the backing or the crowds.

[Crimpshrine]

3 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Re the part in bold - that is the crux. We don’t have people who care, we don’t have a high level of expertise at the top. Doesn’t matter what “projects” (including the current Rudy / VI one) you’re running, if the people running the club from the top don’t have that expertise and care, you end up with people like Steve Waggott.

Re the second paragraph - when they’re not putting money in, they’re not involved. That’s an immediate improvement for me. I don’t want their money. I don’t want my club to get further and further into “gift loan” debt with a set of cunts who don’t have that “care and expertise” that we both agree is needed.

I also think that rovers are surely a more attractive proposition for alternative investment IF we are doing what we did in the 80s that you reference, aka punching above our financial weight, and being ambitious despite not having the backing or the crowds.

Fair enough but the other option is that they put some of their massive wealth towards a promotion push while the FFP situation allows it. I imagine Rovers would be a much more attractive proposition to potential new owners if we were in the Premiership. 

[K-Hod]

Owning a football club unless you're one of about five, that actually makes loads of money, is effectively an exercise in philanthropy.

I.E.- you're gonna lose a lot of money if it's your plaything.

If that doesn't sound good to someone, it's probably not for them.