Is it though if they say nope I want out and have suitors would they then not move on to a better pay packet?

Still a risk could lose form could get a serious injury. While stock is high now I doubt the ‘loyalty’ payments would/should be much of an issue

It will def be financial no doubting that but if it’s as clear cut as 10k cap then why haven’t they just rejected the offers and put in a transfer request. Would seem like the logical thing to do

Well of course he won’t re sign him Travis and tronstad on more than 10k as it stands so who in their right mind would accept lower im sceptical that its true….but as ever with venkys nothing would surprise me

We already have players on more than 10k per week so is this for new terms and new players only? If not then it’s wrong information

If only it was that simple

Batth wanted 2 years he agreed with rovers a pay packet but the issue was the length of contract as stated before the majority on here laughed when he signed last year - next man up he could easily flop at Derby as for Eustace hes like a redknapp sort of manager likes familiarity itl b a trend throughout his career

What are you basing your opinion on I’d ask? YouTube highlights? and do you think those players listed we lose them all before Xmas - highly unlikely

‘A loan however might not be beyond the realms of possibility’ I’m arguing that for this particular player in question it would be way beyond the realms of possibility for rovers

Have you watched full games? Or just YouTube highlights or stats on paper?

I’m still holing out hope that its buckley jrc dolan pears but I fear its a biggy going. I genuinely believe Travis wants to stay but I don’t see our board breaking their useless wage structure

I wish I shared your optimism but the writing is on the wall….whether it’s Dolans possible comp fee or the sale of Travis/tronstad I just don’t see a world when it comes august 9th where we still have all the untied players along with new recruits. Bare in mind we still need 2/3 more

Rodwell was consistently injured played less than 50 games in 3 seasons (which was played out publicly) and was frozen out - granted he actually did well for us but it’s not the same Carmo signed for forest and they immediately sent him on loan how/why not sure but he went to a team in Europa league so if you deem that move more relevant it’s still a million miles away from rovers status

Being touted for a price and actually sold for a price are two different things entirely. Cantwell went for less than 2million and this fella has over 30million worth of transfer fees paid for him he will play in a top division and his wages let’s not even get started on those

More chance of Ronaldinho from all those years ago

That’s not what I asked

Ask yourself the question do you genuinely think de keersmaeker was a realistic target?

A player with 2 years left on his contract itl will cost most than that upfront

Not sure from what I read Stoke were covering a certain percentage of bakers wage how true that is I’m not sure.

The restraints are fully self inflicted but we didn’t have the wages/wage structure for any of the 3 you mentioned so again I ask the question within our pathetically low structure who would have fit the mould. It’s not a defence of them it’s unequivocally pathetic but when debating these topics we have to keep it in line with the ambition or lack of the club are showing and I think forshaw was the exact replacement that ticked all those boxes we could go all day about why we shouldn’t be in that market etc but the facts are venkys aren’t funding us for player trading like they should be

I get some part of that but what I would come back with is at that stage who (within rovers restraints) was available to fit the championship ready/experienced role they were after? listen Adam forshaw isn’t the answer I’m not supporting his signing at all (I can see logically how/why it makes sense to rovers) but in jan with baker being recalled out of the blue there wouldn’t have been much other options in the mould they wanted

The baker debate is irrelevant because of all the monumental f ups rovers have done Stoke recalling him from his loan spell under a new manager isn’t one of them

I disagree on the Eustace stance. Out dirty laundry was aired publicly for all to see regarding the court case / struggling finances etc well before Eustace too the role. A quick search that any person can do would show the failed windows we have had, the failure of duty of care for some players we messed about all on top of what was already obvious re venkys so ANY manager taking us they should have done their due diligence and if they have and still accept the role then they can’t be surprised

I said the same about Eustace and I double down on it with Val. Iv zero sympathy for him he has to have known about rovers financial struggles and off field issues. He accepted all of this when he signed

Iv already made my peace with the pending season ahead and the circus that is the venkys/pasha run rovers. Buckle up going to be a very bumpy off season