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

[KentExile]

18 minutes ago, M_B said:

 In that case, why would they have signed him in the first place ? 

There has very evidentially been a lowering of the wage structure at the club since he signed.

They have signed several players in the past, on contracts which they have later decided were too high and so have later either sold or released them at the end of their contracts.

Why would Cantwell be different?

Do you think they will be tying him down to an extended deal?  The evidence of the last few years suggests not.

If not, then like Travis, Brittain, Hyam, they will be looking to cash in for what they can get in the next 6 months or so.

 

Edited yesterday at 19:07 by KentExile

[RevidgeBlue]

53 minutes ago, M_B said:

 In that case, why would they have signed him in the first place ? 

Because Eustace (according to a couple of different reports) threatened to walk out and they managed to placate him with Cantwell (on a free but high wages) and a couple of others relatively late on.

[M_B]

43 minutes ago, KentExile said:

There has very evidentially been a lowering of the wage structure at the club since he signed.

They have signed several players in the past, on contracts which they have later decided were too high and so have later either sold or released them at the end of their contracts.

Why would Cantwell be different?

Do you think they will be tying him down to an extended deal?  The evidence of the last few years suggests not.

If not, then like Travis, Brittain, Hyam, they will be looking to cash in for what they can get in the next 6 months or so.

 

The goalposts are moving on this discussion since he started playing again.

He seems too recent a signing to fall into the same category as the others, I suppose we'll find out eventually. 

 

[KentExile]

2 minutes ago, M_B said:

The goalposts are moving on this discussion since he started playing again.

He seems too recent a signing to fall into the same category as the others, I suppose we'll find out eventually. 

 

Its not about how recent a signing they are,  its about when their contracts expire

[M_B]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Because Eustace (according to a couple of different reports) threatened to walk out and they managed to placate him with Cantwell (on a free but high wages) and a couple of others relatively late on.

And according to different reports, he won't play 50 games.

As usual, people will believe things that they want to believe are true, despite there being little or no evidence . 

[KentExile]

5 minutes ago, M_B said:

As usual, people will see patterns repeating themselves, and form logical conclusions based upon that

fixed it for you 😉 

 

Edit - just because it is logical, doesn't mean it is true, but surely you can accept why people come to these conclusions?

Edited yesterday at 19:56 by KentExile

[RevidgeBlue]

17 minutes ago, M_B said:

And according to different reports, he won't play 50 games.

The main point isnt really whether he'll end up stuck on 49 games or play a handful more, but whether he'll still be here in February.

Im erring towards there not being any sort of penalty if he plays 50 games but Id still be surprised if he's here after the January window.

[RevidgeBlue]

22 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Its not about how recent a signing they are,  its about when their contracts expire

Does Cantwell's expire at the end of next season?

[M_B]

19 minutes ago, KentExile said:

fixed it for you 😉 

 

Edit - just because it is logical, doesn't mean it is true, but surely you can accept why people come to these conclusions?

Oh believe me I can 100% accept that.

I mean a lot believed the "breaking news" about Gestede being hated by everyone at Brockhall.

The fact that it just happened to "break" on the very eve of the season didn't seem to register with most. 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, M_B said:

I mean a lot believed the "breaking news" about Gestede being hated by everyone at Brockhall.

Thought that was a given. Do you contest that for some reason?

[KentExile]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Does Cantwell's expire at the end of next season?

yes

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/august/30/rovers-complete-cantwell-capture-/

[aletheia]

37 minutes ago, M_B said:

As usual, people will believe things that they want to believe are true, despite there being little or no evidence . 

Who said that? I just thought it was just an interesting proposition and it will be fun to see if it plays out or not.

[aletheia]

53 minutes ago, M_B said:

As usual, people will believe things that they want to believe are true

Indeed. Like every PR statement from the club?

[MarkBRFC]

I just can't believe that anybody thinks that there isn't a possibility of the Cantwell 50 games thing being true, with the way this club has treated other players over the years.

It might be, or might not be, but to just dismiss it ignores everything that has happened here since this lot rocked up.

Edited 13 hours ago by MarkBRFC

[Mattyblue]

Come on Todd himself (or his ‘social media manager’) posted on Insta that everything’s hunky dory, so defo nothing in it and he will be here 2nd February leading us to a glorious 21st place.

Edited 13 hours ago by Mattyblue

[M_B]

23 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thought that was a given. Do you contest that for some reason?

It was the timing of the release I didn't particularly appreciate. 

[M_B]

10 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

I just can't believe that anybody thinks that there isn't a possibility of the Cantwell 50 games thing being true, with the way this club has treated other players over the years.

It might be, or might not be, but to just dismiss it ignores everything that has happened here since this lot rocked up

It's that someone makes it up and 3 pages later it's being discussed as if it's fact.