Uh oh.

Can’t it be both? He’s asked to leave because of a lack of game time and it’s a manager’s job to keep fringe players happy. To your second question, all players should fight for their place.

You don’t consider that to be part of a manager’s job then?

I’m still just about in the keep him club but the problem as I see it is this. He tries to get players to do what he thinks they should be able to do rather than what they actually can do. It’s ‘this is my style and you must fit into’ rather than ‘this is what you can do and I’ll adjust my style accordingly’ In terms of the bit I’ve emboldened, subject to no further outgoings, I think we’d be left with the basis of a good team who need to play a slightly different way.

Keeping fringe players happy is a key part of a manager’s/head coach’s job.

Upgrading from Travis to Tronstad is of little use if you then downgrade from Travis to *insert league one youngster/academy player here*

Last season you were saying how great it was that Travis worked hard to get back into the team (after being dropped). Why is this no longer an option?

Theory number two… They want him gone but haven’t sold him in case the Indian judge knocks the fee of what he/she allows to be sent over.

I explained my logic last night.

Brilliant 😁

It wouldn’t surprise me if each position has been allocated a wage budget and Buckley returning means our midfield is costing too much. Sounds ridiculous but under this lot it sounds as likely as anything else.

Given we don’t have a pot to piss in perhaps JDT needs to adjust that mould when Travis is in the team.

The people who used to have this responsibility failed miserably but I don’t think that changes the fact this is an absolute basic requirement of his job. That’s why I wouldn’t personally put this in the + column.

I think this is only because home grown players have no book value and therefore any transfer fee received is all profit (in the accounts).

Green Day - Boulevard Of Broken Dreams

GB would put it more like this… ’I’ve ensured that our worst performers are no longer the highest paid members of our squad’

In my defence it wasn’t a Rovers match and it was already 4 nil to the team the people I went with supported. They, and I, agreed the pub was a better place to be.

You’re talking to someone who once left a match after 30 minutes 😂

Getting his t and w mixed up - what a tanker 😁

I could have told you that and I didn’t watch it 😄

Happy to 👍 In an ideal world it would be great to be able to seamlessly change one player for another (with no change of system) but Rover’s world is far from ideal. I don’t think our squad is strong enough to play the same way irrespective of which players are available. For example, I think only Wharton (A) and Sammie can fulfil the requirements of what JDT wants from their ‘roles’ on the pitch. I believe JDTs reluctance to be flexible with our style means there’s a bigger ‘drop off’ in the quality of our team (once players are missing) than is necessary. It’s obviously not his fault the squad isn’t more rounded but I think he bears some responsibility for not adjusting how we play to take account of who’s available to him. Put more succinctly… worse player(s) + same system = weaker team.

If it looks like a duck…

There’s nothing to apologise for. I’m grateful for your efforts in engaging with the club (and amazed by your patience in doing so!)

Translation ‘we didn’t know you’d find out’ edited to add - just spotted Tom’s post.