v Oxford United (h) - 09/12/25

[Elrovers]

3 minutes ago, M_B said:

That Cantwell thing's gone quiet🤔

Yeah was a load of bollock. He even came out on insta and pretty much said it was too. 

[London blue]

I said it at the time and I'll repeat, the club's currency is secrecy and deceit.

I don't think anyone should be to blame for formulating theories when a lack of information is provided.

[Andy]

3 minutes ago, London blue said:

I said it at the time and I'll repeat, the club's currency is secrecy and deceit.

I don't think anyone should be to blame for formulating theories when a lack of information is provided.

Yeah, this.

Even when something highly likely bollocks, such as the Cantwell thing, the combination of silence from the club and the history of malfunction enables conspiracies to be taken as truths.

Can the club come out and quash every rumour? No, of course not.

But their communication efforts seem to be funnelled into a Twitter burner account, a food tec teacher and Mr Red Top Rag Nixon.

Communication is such a simple thing. But get it wrong and you expose yourself to things like this.

[Herbie6590]

Your BRFCS POTM is Ryoya Morishita

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Elrovers said:

Yeah was a load of bollock. He even came out on insta and pretty much said it was too. 

You can only say the Cantwell thing is bollocks if he's still here after the January transfer window closes.

The speculation about whether he might have an add on clause in his contract after 50 games is slightly different, may or may not be correct, but those including myself who flagged it up as a possibility acknowledged it as such.

Id personally stilĺ be surprised if he's here in February.

[RevidgeBlue]

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb on the conspiracy theory front.

Cantwell now on 45 League appearances. 4 more takes us right to the end of December. The 50th if he doesnt miss any inbetween, would be Wrexham on New Years Day.

It couldn't happen again could it, mysteriously absent again in January before being sold?

[ageoftherover]

7 hours ago, M_B said:

That Cantwell thing's gone quiet🤔

Can't blame folks for having pause though.

[Herbie6590]

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You can only say the Cantwell thing is bollocks if he's still here after the January transfer window closes.

The speculation about whether he might have an add on clause in his contract after 50 games is slightly different, may or may not be correct, but those including myself who flagged it up as a possibility acknowledged it as such.

Id personally stilĺ be surprised if he's here in February.

I’d be surprised if someone would pay good money for him TBH. 

[chaddyrovers]

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You can only say the Cantwell thing is bollocks if he's still here after the January transfer window closes.

The speculation about whether he might have an add on clause in his contract after 50 games is slightly different, may or may not be correct, but those including myself who flagged it up as a possibility acknowledged it as such.

Id personally stilĺ be surprised if he's here in February.

speculation from where? who has said this is the case or even the possible on this? is this conspiracy theory from some?  

We have had Cantwell's comments on this issue and he made them through his own means, so should we not believe him? 

[KentExile]

12 hours ago, M_B said:

That Cantwell thing's gone quiet🤔

 

12 hours ago, Elrovers said:

Yeah was a load of bollock. He even came out on insta and pretty much said it was too. 

 

12 hours ago, London blue said:

I said it at the time and I'll repeat, the club's currency is secrecy and deceit.

I don't think anyone should be to blame for formulating theories when a lack of information is provided.

 

9 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb on the conspiracy theory front.

Cantwell now on 45 League appearances. 4 more takes us right to the end of December. The 50th if he doesnt miss any inbetween, would be Wrexham on New Years Day.

It couldn't happen again could it, mysteriously absent again in January before being sold?

 

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

I’d be surprised if someone would pay good money for him TBH. 

 

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

speculation from where? who has said this is the case or even the possible on this? is this conspiracy theory from some?  

We have had Cantwell's comments on this issue and he made them through his own means, so should we not believe him? 

 

It depends what part of the speculation/conspiracy we are actually talking about

 

a - That at 50 league appearances, Rovers are due to pay a fee to Rangers

b - That at 50 league appearances, Cantwell is due a pay rise/bonus payment

c - That one or both of the above is true and Rovers did not want to stump up the cash

d - That the injury to Cantwell was either completely untrue or overexaggerated so that he could be sold before he reaches that appearance threshold & Rovers had to stump up the cash

e - That a sale has already been agreed

 

Personally, I would find both a & b to be very believable to the point of at least one of them being highly likely, and we have seen before under these owners, (Salgado & Nelson come to mind.  Elliott Bennett stated similar in a recent interview), that they have simply not played players due to financial reasons, so I do not see how anyone can get upset about people speculating based on prior events with the same owners

 

Edit - Herb - I presume you mean given Cantwell's injury?   If so, then why did Spurs give an "injured" Ryan Nelson a nice Premier League contract and salary when he joined them from us?  I am aware that there was no fee, but they still would have parted with money for Nelsons wages & signing on fee.  Not trying to be confrontational, just highlighting that there have been occasions where injury/fitness concerns have been exaggerated in public, but the "buying club" have had no issues

 

Chaddy - which part was Cantwell debunking?  He only ever mentioned the injury , although if he did, then please can someone feel fere to post the link to that for me please as I have missed that

Edited just now by KentExile
based on a reply, I amended last part from "Cantwell never mentioned specifics" to only mentioned the injury"

[chaddyrovers]

11 minutes ago, KentExile said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It depends what part of the speculation/conspiracy we are actually talking about

 

a - That at 50 league appearances, Rovers are due to pay a fee to Rangers

b - That at 50 league appearances, Cantwell is due a pay rise/bonus payment

c - That one or both of the above is true and Rovers did not want to stump up the cash

d - That the injury to Cantwell was either completely untrue or overexaggerated so that he could be sold before he reaches that appearance threshold & Rovers had to stump up the cash

 

Personally, I would find both a & b to be very believable to the point of at least one of them being highly likely, and we have seen before under these owners, (Salgado & Nelson come to mind.  Elliott Bennett stated similar in a recent interview), that they have simply not played players due to financial reasons, so I do not see how anyone can get upset about people speculating based on prior events with the same owners

 

Edit - Herb - I presume you mean given Cantwell's injury?   If so, then when did Spurs give an "injured" Ryan Nelson a nice Premier League contract and salary when he joined them from us?  I am aware that there was no fee, but they still would have parted with money for Nelsons wages & signing on fee

Cantwell's statement was very clear and to the point. 

Point A and B are possibilities of course but so us that Cantwell's injury problems need that period of time to recover. Also he wanted to be right injury wise. He isn't starting but we are slowly introducing him after injury

On Bennett point, wasnt it a new contract after so many starts with him?.

[KentExile]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Cantwell's statement was very clear and to the point. 

Point A and B are possibilities of course but so us that Cantwell's injury problems need that period of time to recover. Also he wanted to be right injury wise. He isn't starting but we are slowly introducing him after injury

On Bennett point, wasnt it a new contract after so many starts with him?.

Can you post Cantwell's statement for me, in full, with a link.  To my recollection he said something along the lines of "there are rumours which are false", he did not go into any clear specific's

Bennetts was an extended contract, but that also comes with financial tie ins, so in my book is similar to the other two

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Can you post Cantwell's statement for me, in full, with a link.  To my recollection he said something along the lines of "there are rumours which are false", he did not go into any clear specific's

Bennetts was an extended contract, but that also comes with financial tie ins, so in my book is similar to the other two

 

[KentExile]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Thanks 🙂

To me, that only references the injury, none of the rest of the speculation

If he is still here in February, and surpasses 50 league appearances, then I will concede that all of the speculation should be put to bed.  

I suppose Rovers could put an end to any speculation even sooner and give our captain & star player a contract extension

 

Edited 2 hours ago by KentExile

[Upside Down]

12 hours ago, Hasta said:

We signed Henriksson on the 6th August, and two days later he started at West Brom, so your points about getting used to training and what Ismael wants are moot.

Morishita featured days after signing and then started the next game.

History is littered with players who move in a transfer window and start for their new clubs days after. In the case of Baradji it’s not like he’s replacing established players. We’ve got a major injury crisis so surely he should be starting even if he’s not exactly learnt every intricacy of Ismael’s tactics - especially if he’s as good as the club believe.

He’s clearly not fully right and is taking far longer than the club anticipated to be fit, which on a season-long deal is bonkers financially.

 

I didn't realise Ismael had tactics.

[chaddyrovers]

36 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Thanks 🙂

To me, that only references the injury, none of the rest of the speculation

If he is still here in February, and surpasses 50 league appearances, then I will concede that all of the speculation should be put to bed.  

I suppose Rovers could put an end to any speculation even sooner and give our captain & star player a contract extension

my point was people on here saying his injury was fake and he was being left out cos of these possible clauses. 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

I’d be surprised if someone would pay good money for him TBH. 

Will that situation ever be any different though?

Do you not think it's possible we'd let him go on a free or a nominal fee just to get him off the wage bill?