The January 2026 Transfer Window

[davulsukur]

1 hour ago, roverblue said:

My wager…First incoming on 30th Jan - on loan, with no prior football league experience but ‘highly rated’. In the meanwhile we sell Geuye, Pickering, Ribeiro, Tronstad and De Neve 

 

Selling Tronstad would relegate us.

Absolute suicide, so yeah, expect the club to do this.

[DutchRover]

Just now, davulsukur said:

Selling Tronstad would relegate us.

Absolute suicide, so yeah, expect the club to do this.

"Well we had to sell him now or risk losing him for free in the summer"...

[KentExile]

33 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I think we stumbled across the 3-4-1-2  that we are playing now by accident.

I think the same, which in turn means that they are now left with a question of stick or twist?  

If they intend to stick with the back 3 beyond the end of this season, then surely they need to get the U21s/U18s etc playing the same system.  It also makes little sense to keep either of Pickering or Ribeiro (an argument could be made for keeping one of them until the end of the season, purely to offer defensive stability off the bench, but neither would have a long term future with that system

If hey decide to twist & move back to a back 4, then is that in January?  Which would be very risky, or at the end of the season?  In which case, any transfer business done in January, will will either have to be short term loans & contracts and leave us with another big rebuild in the summer, on top of the recurring contract issue.. Cantwell, Toth, Pratt, Kargbo, Pears, Montgomery, Doherty, Carter, Garrett, Edmondson will only have a year left (*), Tronstad, Hedges, Forshaw, Dlamini, Tyjon & the lesser spotted Mullarkey-Matthews will be out of contract (assuming they are not sold beforehand) etc

 

* Not saying some of those players are the answer, but they have all featured kin our first team squad at some point, & that's that is a lot of contracts or new signings to sort

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[DutchRover]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

Sorry to quote myself, but this may well be the case.

Given all the talk during the summer of alignment between academy teams & first teams, (I seem to recall Adam Owen being talked up as the man to implement this) you would have thought that if the back 3 was here to stay, then that system would also be imposed from U21 level down. 

However, both the U21s & U18s have continued to play with the original back 4 tactics which they have used all season. which would seem an odd choice if the back 3 is anything other than a temporary measure (not that logic seems to drive too many choices at Rovers these days)

But I am sure the ever nebulous "project" will change again over the next 6 months anyway, so who knows 😉 

Seems possible, especially with the Reyes link, but selling Pickering and pursuing Gibson says back 3, though completely illogical planning is our forte.

Whatever is cheapest today is the plan I reckon, tomorrow be damned

[KentExile]

2 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

Seems possible, especially with the Reyes link, but selling Pickering and pursuing Gibson says back 3, though completely illogical planning is our forte.

Whatever is cheapest today is the plan I reckon, tomorrow be damned

yep

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, KentExile said:

I think the same, which in turn means that they are now left with a question of stick or twist?  

If they intend to stick with the back 3 beyond the end of this season, then surely they need to get the U21s/U18s etc playing the same system.  It also makes little sense to keep either of Pickering or Ribeiro (an argument could be made for keeping one of them until the end of the season, purely to offer defensive stability off the bench, but neither would have a long term future with that system

If hey decide to twist & move back to a back 4, then is that in January?  Which would be very risky, or at the end of the season?  In which case, any transfer business done in January, will will either have to be short term loans & contracts and leave us with another big rebuild in the summer, on top of the recurring contract issue.. Cantwell, Toth, Pratt, Kargbo, Pears, Montgomery, Doherty, Carter, Garrett, Edmondson will only have a year left (*), Tronstad, Hedges, Forshaw, Dlamini, Tyjon & the lesser spotted Mullarkey-Matthews will be out of contract (assuming they are not sold beforehand) etc

 

* Not saying those players are the answer, but they have all featured kin our first team squad at some point, & that's that is a lot of contracts or new signings to sort

I think the under 21's and every group will move to playing 3 at the back at start of next summer if we are sticking to back 3 long term

Edited 1 hour ago by chaddyrovers

[KentExile]

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think the under 21's and every group will move to playing 3 at the back at start of next summer if we are sticking to back 3 long term

Why wait?  If there is a plan, then implement it now

We do have some talented wide players at U21 & U18 level, not "retraining" them as wing backs/strikers/midfielders (I am sure there would be different solutions for different individual players) means we end up with talented players who we cant use in a year or 2

Obviously if there is no plan to continue with the back 3, the above is not a concern, but that will instead throw our entire January window into the bin at the end of the season

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

Seems possible, especially with the Reyes link, but selling Pickering and pursuing Gibson says back 3, though completely illogical planning is our forte.

Whatever is cheapest today is the plan I reckon, tomorrow be damned

Reyes would probably a striker if he can him. He could work the channels like Ohashi and run in behind whilst Gudjohnsen stays more central and be the fox in the box/focus point

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Why wait?  If there is a plan, then implement it now

I dont know is the honest answer

[KentExile]

6 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I dont know is the honest answer

We do have some talented wide players at U21 & U18 level, not "retraining" them as wing backs/strikers/midfielders (I am sure there would be different solutions for different individual players) means we end up with talented players who we cant use in a year or 2

Obviously if there is no plan to continue with the back 3, the above is not a concern, but that will instead throw our entire January window into the bin at the end of the season

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[47er]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

A well run club would have targets for various budget possibilities. 

Well yes but we're not a well-run club and our financial woes mean they probably won't be much good aka De Neve etc

Edited 1 hour ago by 47er

[M_B]

50 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

"Well we had to sell him now or risk losing him for free in the summer"...

It's the age old dilemma. Well, not that old, only in recent years has the player held the power. 

[KentExile]

10 minutes ago, M_B said:

It's the age old dilemma. Well, not that old, only in recent years has the player held the power. 

Or the club could just offer them the going rate, & do so without waiting until they have 6 to 12 months remaining on their existing contract

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[M_B]

1 minute ago, KentExile said:

Or the club could just offer them the going rate, & without waiting until they have 6 to 12 months remaining on their existing contract

Well yeah, maybe they have. Depends what suits one's narrative a lot of the time.

If he's hellbent on moving nearer home, then he will do. If he moves to another British  club then someone was telling porkies.

Dilemma still remains though as we don't know the facts, if it's sell him or keep him and lose him for nothing, which would you choose? 

 

 

[KentExile]

1 minute ago, M_B said:

Dilemma still remains though as we don't know the facts, if it's sell him or keep him and lose him for nothing, which would you choose? 

 

 

But we can recognise patterns

[M_B]

2 minutes ago, KentExile said:

But we can recognise patterns

We can, but players running/being allowed to run their contracts down is also a fact of football life.

I wish he'd sign but if both parties are at loggerheads, would you sell or keep ? 

[KentExile]

15 minutes ago, M_B said:

We can, but players running/being allowed to run their contracts down is also a fact of football life.

I wish he'd sign but if both parties are at loggerheads, would you sell or keep ? 

Given his importance to the team and likely fee, Tronstad worth far more in the team for the next 6 months.

Same applies to Hedges, even his biggest detractors can surely see he is a far better option at wing back than De Neve

In Tyjons case, as he has no value to our first team, sell

 

But these things should be sorted well before the last 6 months of a players contract.  With at least 2 years left (in the case of players who are in their mid 20s or younger), discussions should be started (at reasonable wage levels, not at the ridiculous self imposed limits we currently operate under), and if it is obvious that no deal can be made, then they can be made available for transfer before short contracts decimates their value

Edited 38 minutes ago by KentExile

[Hasta]

Just now, M_B said:

We can, but players running/being allowed to run their contracts down is also a fact of football life.

I wish he'd sign but if both parties are at loggerheads, would you sell or keep ? 

In a relegation fight you’d keep him clearly. 

[Crimpshrine]

7 minutes ago, M_B said:

Dilemma still remains though as we don't know the facts, if it's sell him or keep him and lose him for nothing, which would you choose? 

 

No dilemma at all. Keep him.

If we sell, we are massively increasing our chances of relegation. Any income from selling him now would almost certainly not be sensibly reinvested in the team.