fixed it for you

Cant, even if all parties wanted to. They can only sign scholarship deals at most until they turn 17, and then can only sign 3 year contracts at most until they turn 18

I think that something in that range may be seen as a barrier to a players freedom of movement. But a fair share (much more than the current amounts, in the case of sell on fees, something like 5% for each and every year that the player was in the clubs academy, maybe capped at 50%) of future monies earned through either sales or performance would not be. Probably irrelevant either way as it wont happen, as it would not benefit those with the finances to grease the wheels of the current system

If you bought a stand alone "walk on" ticket to each game, instead of a season ticket, wouldn't you end up inadvertently funding Venkys running the club to a greater extent? Edit - to clarify, I am in no way stating that those who buy individual tickets are supporting the current regime, just that if it is a conscious effort to do this (as Rigger is suggesting) rather than being unable to commit to a season ticket for finance/time reasons/etc, that is in effect, then is that the inadvertent consequence?

Something like that, also fixed add on's (at a decent level) for future sell on fees, prize money (once the player is playing a certain amount of games) etc

I agree, My comment was based on the below post Personally wouldn't put anything past those in charge. If it is "within" then I imagine Waggott creamed his pants whilst rubbing his hands together & congratulating himself on his own genius at shafting a new employee as soon as he was through the door

Depends on if the break clause (if true) is within 3 months, or after 3 months. If it is after 3 months, then they will obviously wait. If it is within 3 months, he should be binned immediately, if not before 😉

He was subbed off in the 88th minute, not at the beginning of the half. I don't think we have to worry about this particular one

not quite, Oxford, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Derby will be the bottom 4 But Rovers probably in the bottom 6 or 7

Just seen Ipswich's accounts from last season (made public last week) The narrative was plucky little Ipswich punching above their weight. The reality was that their accounts show that their wage bill last year was a shade under £40M (£38,982,000). Rovers by comparison was about half of that (£21,981,656) Shows what is required to get a team promoted

Hope this happens, partially just so that Rovers will have some competition in the race to be relegated first next season Sheffield Wednesday have to pay their players by Monday or face a three-transfer window embargo Maybe a possibility of organising a joint protest against terrible owners though?

But why do I get the feeling that he will be here until the season ends, and then a replacement will not be signed up until July. Giving them a ready made (but still terrible) excuse as to why they didn't do any early transfer business

If that is the case, then we need to bin him off asap, every second he is here is a wasted one

https://www.uniquesg.com/ He was with them when he signed for West rom anyway

Impossible to know without knowing the ins and outs of the contract. A contract can state whatever someone writes in it (and whatever is agreed to)

We can but hope The sad thing is, that he is probably not in the top 75% of things/people wrong with the club But it would be a start

For a second I genuinely thought he was going to show some self reflection about his nightmare start over this past month or two https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/april/04/ismael-laments--nightmare--start/ But no

The game was clearly gone by the third minute

that sounds wildly exaggerated

5, I think Not counting mishit crosses that ended up on target

The fact that he was signed to send crosses in.... when we had Buckley playing as a false 9, still boggles my mind

Cauley fucking Woodrow We are saved!

I wonder if there has ever been a lower number recorded.... by anyone

0.01 expected goals according to Sky