KentExile

Suppose the running costs are quite low then Who needs a training ground when you have no players? Why bother with a ground even 😉

I suppose that's why XG was invented

He always looked a similar level (maybe slightly better than) to Adam Caddick (who we released this summer) to me Neat & tidy, but nothing more

Only reason I can think of is a complete lack of competition out wide in the first team, and he is a bit of an athlete (which Ismael seems to like) which puts him ahead of Doherty, Wood etc in Ismael's thinking

I suppose they could in theory reduce wage to turnover based on that. Depends on how much some of those others (Pashas salary, Waggots gardening leave etc) are being paid, and what else they decide to cut costs on. Half time tombola for head coach position maybe? But if we are looking to have a wage to turnover of less than 100%, then not without increasing turnover significantly

Minimum That sort of wage scale would put Rovers on a level playing field with other Championship clubs (excluding those in receipt of parachute payments, or Birmingham/Wrexham), but is obviously not compatible with reducing wages to turnover (unless we double or treble turnover at the same time I suppose? But that sounds rather fanciful)

It has been 3 years since Rovers finished above Bristol City, and the season before last, Rovers were at the bottom end of the table below both. At the very least, their spending shows their ambition to progress, whilst Rovers cuts show the exact opposite. Being above them for a season is one thing, We can see a general trajectory for clubs over more than a season though. What are the odds on Rovers finishing above them (or Coventry, Or Millwall, or Norwich?, who also reinvest to a similar degree) this season? Obviously yes, there is a chance, but if you had to stake your family home on it, which way would you bet?

Match report from last night https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/august/18/report--everton-under-21s-1-0-rovers-under-21s/

Rovers are not unique in this regard In most, if not all cases, if a club wants to remain in the Championship (let alone aim to compete for promotion), then wages have to be higher than turnover The below is based on the most recent accounts of all Championship clubs: https://www.matchdayfinance.com/post/championship-financial-results-season-2023-24 Championship clubs are generally unprofitable, primarily because their staff costs significantly exceed the revenue they generate. Staff costs before player sales totaled £1.12 billion, which amounted to 122% of total turnover—£161 million more than revenue. In such a scenario, financial losses are unavoidable. However, in order to progress, other clubs such as Middlesbrough, Bristol City, Coventry, Millwall etc, reinvest upwards of 70% of transfer fees received into transfer fees for new signings to improve their squad.

That sounds unfortunate, but typical for this week

Does whoever is updating the Rovers twitter account not know who our own players are?

Eustace seemed to do ok with that in the first half of last season.

self inflicted & self imposed though

Both Hull and Sheffield Wednesday are now under a "fee restriction" rather than a full embargo, Pretty sure "fee restrictions" only impact transfer/compensation/loan fees, not what wages they can offer https://www.efl.com/governance/embargoes/

U21s are away at Everton this eve, 7pm kick off Preview score/update New convoluted rules for PL2 Participating clubs are divided into six seeding pots of five teams, based on performances over the previous three seasons. Fixtures are then determined by a draw made according to clubs’ positions in the six seeded pots. Across the 20 matchweeks, teams play each club in their own seeding pot once, as well as three or four teams from all other pots, either home or away. Results generate a combined table ranking the 29 teams, with the top 16 teams qualifying for the elimination play-offs, where teams are drawn against each other based on their final league positions. In a change for 2025-26, the eight Premier League 2 teams finishing in positions from 17th to 24th will go into a new, cross-category play-off competition, along with the top eight teams from the Professional Development League (Category 2).

Wilcox 😉 I actually just spent 5 minutes wondering if I had selective memory loss and couldn't remember one of our title winning side

has he waved his hands & pointed yet?

but we got a great deal... nobody would have paid more etc etc

That's who works on set piece coaching (I think) , so would have been who decided who picked up who "Some members of the staff got the responsibility for the set pieces, why they picked the player, the positioning has to be right. We have to move on and learn from that for the next game." Maybe having removed David Lowe from the coaching set up (although he may be on gardening leave). Ben Benson is next in Ismael's sights?

Yep, and standard across all transfers. It genuinely does seem to be an attempt to wind people up

Its definitely a FIFA regulation/law/rule. Although it is not restricted to international transfers only, or to players under a certain age (which applies to "training compensation". Also does not apply if no fee is paid (which is self explanatory as the rule itself relates to a a % of any fee paid) https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-guide-to-training-compensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football#:~:text=Article 21 RSTP is entitled,former club (solidarity contribution). Article 20 RSTP is entitled “Training compensation” and provides as follows: “Training compensation shall be paid to a player’s training club(s): (1) when a player signs his first contract as a professional, and (2) each time a professional is transferred until the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. The obligation to pay training compensation arises whether the transfer takes place during or at the end of the player’s contract. The provisions concerning training compensation are set out in Annexe 4 of these regulations.” Article 21 RSTP is entitled “Solidarity mechanism” and provides as follows: “If a professional is transferred before the expiry of his contract, any club that has contributed to his education and training shall receive a proportion of the compensation paid to his former club (solidarity contribution). The provisions concerning solidarity contributions are set out in Annexe 5 of these regulations.” PS - Sometimes I wonder if we should have a separate forum corner for discussing laws around transfers in autistic detail... so that we don't bore the rest of the forum 😉

Exactly the same law will ensure that Rovers get a cut of Rory Finneran & Camden Schapers eventual transfer fees when Newcastle & Chelsea cash in on them, even if this is not done until after they turn 27 (as is the case with Travis). This fee is on top of any fees/compensation that will have already been paid by this point and will apply to all future transfers involving them Its actually one of the few areas that are not completely in favour of the big clubs (generally speaking), as 9 times out of 10, the beneficiary is a smaller club who had their talent poached at a young age. The same law means we are due an extra slice of any and all future transfers for Adam Wharton, Ashley Phillips, David Raya etc beyond any other future sell on fees etc which were actually negotiated in their sales, so if we didn't have Venkys being recipients of the money it would benefit Rovers if they had a nomadic career but with large transfer fees, like Anelka's career maybe?

compensation is separate and additional to the solidarity payments laid out in my last post. I am pretty sure Liverpool released Travis in 2014 (rather than Rovers buying/poaching him) so there would not have been any compensation to be paid anyway. However solidarity payments are always applied to all transfers. They just tend to be such low numbers (unless the fee is mega millions) that they are often not reported on

True (ish) Travis was with Liverpool until 2014 (which apparently was the season he turned 17, so it looks like Liverpool would be due 2% of the full transfer value rather than the 2.5% that the twitter account states) Disclaimer - Sunday morning maths is not my strong point, so below is the working 😉 Though if anyone is lazy, WilsdenRover with likely be along to check my work sooner rather than later 😉 Thanks in advance Wilsden 🙂 (Edited from Liverpool 1.5% to 2% following Wilsdens fact check 😉 ) The distribution of solidarity payments is as follows: 5% of the transfer fee is set aside for solidarity payments. This 5% is then distributed among the clubs based on the period the player was registered with them, calculated from the season of the player’s 12th birthday until the season of their 23rd birthday as follows: – Season of 12th birthday: 5% (i.e. 0.25% of total compensation); – Season of 13th birthday: 5% (i.e. 0.25% of total compensation); – Season of 14th birthday: 5% (i.e. 0.25% of total compensation); – Season of 15th birthday: 5% (i.e. 0.25% of total compensation); – Season of 16th birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 17th birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 18th birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 19th birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 20th birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 21st birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 22nd birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation); – Season of 23rd birthday: 10% (i.e. 0.5% of total compensation) The distribution is proportional, ensuring that clubs that contributed more to the player’s development receive a larger share.

but not a striker, because that wouldn't make any sense would it?