Blow for us and the lad if it's a bad one with his contract being up

He's basically signed it committed to the deal on his 17th birthday just like the club are committed to their end say he got a bad injury.

We  should have brought in a forward of course but hopefully Giles can create more chances for us than we have been and let's face it this run has been built on the back of clean sheets keep them going and we have a great chance.

1 minute ago, yoda's brother said:

i thought he had retired lol

Played the other week looked their best player

Tbf I could not care if he gets a reducer in training that cocks up the rest of his career

So I trust we will not be paying the snake 

Have to take that point with all the players missing 

1 hour ago, Wimbledon Rover said:

These are the commercial realities of Joe Rothwell’s situation.

1)      Joe’s transfer value if he was on a 4 year contract would be around £7-10m, on the current remaining 6 months he’s probably worth around £4m at best.

2)      Joe is solely responsible for his position, we like to blame agents – but the reality is that it’s Joe’s decision whether he wants to sign or leave, that decision is up to him. He is not a victim.

3)      Joe is not injured, neither was he last week. The club take the ‘injury explanation’ route simply to placate the fans and allow the player a way back to play for the club should he not move on. A true explanation “that Joe doesn’t want to play because he wants to sign a lucrative new contract with another club” wouldn’t particularly go down well, the injury explanation suits both parties for this period.

4)      So what’s the tension? Well, the reality is Joe is on the verge of becoming a multi-millionaire with a new contract, and he is trying to squeeze every pip to maximize his commercial position. Run down his contract, and effectively that £4-£6 transfer fee gets converted into a signing on fee, or over inflated salary (not dissimilar to Aaron Ramsey and many other footballers)

5)      The stakes are high though, because if he stays and sees out his contract, and then gets injured – that millionaire dream could quite easily slip away. So the reality is he doesn’t want to play – given that lack of security. Of course, he could sign with Rovers for security and then move on, but it’s because he’s choosing to 100% maximize his transfer value, that this standoff situation develops with club – some would argue that’s he’s being greedy.

6)      But this is not good for the club either, because their leverage is close to zero, if the player claims injury and refuses to play then there is very little they can do.

7)      Conclusion, sadly for us fans, I suspect the club will have little choice, but to sell Joe Rothwell in January. Hopefully as the club matures and grows (and lets aspire to being a Brentford) – the club will learn much from this period.

Apologies for the depressing read, but these are the commercials realities – for record I hope Joe stays, and I am wrong!

No the reality is we are paying his wages there is no excuse to refuse to play ( if indeed he has) if we go down the route you are describing then players should be paid based on appearance not weekly.

If its Brentford I can kind of understand it (although it does make me agree with Ivan Tonys fuck brentford) I do not condone refusing to play as we are paying him so I'd still hold out for at least 5m

4 minutes ago, TheRoversReturn said:

Is he "refusing to play the club"? Do we have proof?

No then it's all good and he stays. If he's pushing for a move and is suddenly injured then it's snake like.

Just now, TheRoversReturn said:

Joe Rothwell is 27 and this is his opportunity to be set for life. If he stays with us and gets the same kind of injury that Dack has had twice, that's all up in smoke. He'll be considering massively improving his wages on a long-term deal. Which of us wouldn't want to receive a huge salary increase in their job which would allow him to provide for themselves and their family?

Not a lot of point in Rovers taking it personally. We took him off Oxford's hands as we offered him a better deal and the opportunity to improve despite being in the same league at the time. We don't know if it's Bournemouth, but if it is...they must be offering him a deal sweet enough to make it worth him for himself and his family. If we really want to keep him, we need to offer him close enough to what he wants to get him to stay. Timing sucks, but it is what it is.

No point taking it personally; wouldn't we all choose to do what is best for us and our family?

 

No I'm sorry he signed a contract if we turn down a bid I'm sorry he just has to get on with it refusing to play is a snakes behavior if he fit injured in an accident tonight he would expect us to pay him for the remainder of his contract so why can't we expect him to do the job he's paid for.

Tbh this might be cutting my nose off to spite my face but if he's refused to play I'd fine him a month's wages. Then I would not allow him to train with the rest of the team and make him come in at awkward times of the day for fitness training well away from the rest of the first team squad.

4 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Apart from calling us aggressive.

Pot, kettle, black

Tbf we are so are his lot there's nothing wrong with being aggressive on the pitch as long as you are not violent.

We fight and scratch for the points we might not have the expensive quality of some but we out work most over 90 mins

While we have a whole load of young players they fight for everything and battle like men to a man.

Gally took that goal so well

Thats a huge result with the squad stretched so thin for the boys to battle so well for the three points.

Ref has screwed us here but we need 1 or two midfielders so short in there change in formation has not helped in the slightest

Also that ref was card happy for a game with no real bad challenges bar maybe Collins on Wharton 

1 minute ago, USABlue said:

You can see he's been meddling I think and he will buggar it up.

A bit of credit would not go amiss. How long did we all bemoan his attempts to go three at the back well now he's got that set up and it's giving us a great platform to play like we did today and still be able to pick the win up 

1 minute ago, yankfan said:

Take the point, played nearly as poorly as the IT department. Shane for Naymbe as he didn’t deserve either of those yellows. 
 

probably means JRC and Edun as wing backs against Hull. Now just hope Luton can hold on. 

I'd imagine the new boy will take nayambes place no

1 minute ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Anyone heard anything about a player called Dante Vanzeir?

Apparently looking at a European forward on a loan to buy.

Was watching a thing about his club and how they have come from the second division and are leading the Belgian league by 7 points at the moment. He has just been capped by Belgium I'd imagine he would cost a bit. But the way they play with the high press he would fit the mould.

If we get the spurs lad and another central striker with dack returning the fire power will be there for a real go at this.

Could we not just recall him if we collect to many injuries 

Can't even hide behind ffp as we have a a garenteed 20m + coming in in the summer if we don't go up as we will have to sell Brereton this is the Time to speculate and give ourselves the best possible chance of going up.

1 minute ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

As the above poster said, surely Fisher is better than Pears?! Simply has to be.

THB will be a cracking signing for Stoke - I’m surprised a lower PL side aren’t in for him.

He has to be better than what Norwich and Newcastle have at the back