Jump to content

The New Raith Rovers Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Raith Against The Machine said:

There's the St Johnstone chairman releasing a statement that goes into detail around the timeline and the reasons behind selling Ali McCann. I'm sure some of their supporters still won't be happy about it, but that's the level of dialogue and transparency we need here. 

The Rovers board/owner/CEO/manager [delete as appropriate to find the right combination] obviously felt that this deal for Dylan Tait was the right one. From the outside, with the limited information we have, it doesn't look like it. So explain why. Give us the justification. 

Without that, it looks like the club are embarrassed by the decision, which makes absolutely no sense because they could've just not done the deal. All this speculation exists because there's nothing else. The videos with John McGlynn and Karen Macartney are excellent communication, but even a written statement would do. Just fill the void. 

Absolutely agree with you about this statement- would love it for us to be so transparent.

 

However, if our board released that exact statement they would get absolute pelters from a lot of folk on here.  It contains the phrase "couldn't stand in his way" twice.

I don't think our board can win now- say nothing and they get slaughtered for not keeping us informed, put out a statement like the St Johnstone one and they'd get slaughtered too.

 

What the St Johnstone statement does do well is make you take a step back and remember these players are human beings, not just assets of the football club.

It's a mans career we're talking about- a human being who wants to earn as much money as he can in what is a short career.

There are lots of other factors around the player too- does he want to move to a particular area etc etc.

 

We tend to look at it in black and white from the perspective of only what's best for the football club.

But this isn't football manager, this is real life and it's not as simple as doing what the football club wants and nothing else.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board have been slaughtered in the past for the use of ‘can’t stand in his way’, and rightly so, but nonetheless it is to a large degree true. We can’t indefinitely stop players moving on after success here. The Rovers will always lose their best players but I haven’t seen anybody complaining about that so it’s a bit of a moot point.

Even Celtic are now a selling club. It’s the way of the world. They held onto Edouard for a year longer than the player would’ve liked because they hadn’t had an offer they were willing to accept. Rangers have turned down plenty for Morelos. The Rovers - it appears - took the very first offer that came along, for what is reported to be what most people seem to agree is under market value. I’ve used ‘appears’ and ‘reported’ there deliberately, because we don’t know it was the first offer and we don’t know it was £100k. Because nobody has told us otherwise, so we need to go with speculation.

Of course Dylan Tait would want to move to Hibs. He’ll double or treble his salary and play for a much bigger club. I don’t think anyone has suggested holding him here against his will until the end of his contract. And I’m sure he’d have been disappointed if we turned down the bid and the move hadn’t happened. But unless his contract says so, we’re under no obligation to accept any old offer that comes in if he fancies it.

Really this is a long-winded way of saying ‘sorry Dylan but the offer didn’t match our valuation’ is a perfectly valid line to take. ‘Not standing in his way’ does not automatically mean taking the very first offer that comes along, regardless of whether you’re happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paco said:

The board have been slaughtered in the past for the use of ‘can’t stand in his way’, and rightly so, but nonetheless it is to a large degree true. We can’t indefinitely stop players moving on after success here. The Rovers will always lose their best players but I haven’t seen anybody complaining about that so it’s a bit of a moot point.

Even Celtic are now a selling club. It’s the way of the world. They held onto Edouard for a year longer than the player would’ve liked because they hadn’t had an offer they were willing to accept. Rangers have turned down plenty for Morelos. The Rovers - it appears - took the very first offer that came along, for what is reported to be what most people seem to agree is under market value. I’ve used ‘appears’ and ‘reported’ there deliberately, because we don’t know it was the first offer and we don’t know it was £100k. Because nobody has told us otherwise, so we need to go with speculation.

Of course Dylan Tait would want to move to Hibs. He’ll double or treble his salary and play for a much bigger club. I don’t think anyone has suggested holding him here against his will until the end of his contract. And I’m sure he’d have been disappointed if we turned down the bid and the move hadn’t happened. But unless his contract says so, we’re under no obligation to accept any old offer that comes in if he fancies it.

Really this is a long-winded way of saying ‘sorry Dylan but the offer didn’t match our valuation’ is a perfectly valid line to take. ‘Not standing in his way’ does not automatically mean taking the very first offer that comes along, regardless of whether you’re happy with it.

Spot on, I'd also add I hope DT gets a good reception at Starks from the punters, wish him every success in the future playing for us, Hibs, Real Madrid and Scotland😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d love to know how people can believe this was the first or only offer. With the scouts the last couple of years, I find it unlikely that Hibs was the first and only offer. It’s as frustrating as the speculation on the amount paid, we simply have no basis for accepting the first report of £100k, but people take it as gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TxRover said:

I’d love to know how people can believe this was the first or only offer. With the scouts the last couple of years, I find it unlikely that Hibs was the first and only offer. It’s as frustrating as the speculation on the amount paid, we simply have no basis for accepting the first report of £100k, but people take it as gospel.

I have no doubt the up front fee was probably much lower, no worries on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TxRover said:

I’d love to know how people can believe this was the first or only offer. With the scouts the last couple of years, I find it unlikely that Hibs was the first and only offer. It’s as frustrating as the speculation on the amount paid, we simply have no basis for accepting the first report of £100k, but people take it as gospel.

We have previous. Lots of it.

Callachan was the first and only offer and it was accepted. Sim said later that it was a mistake although he didn't admit that it cost us promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Beachbum said:

We have previous. Lots of it.

Callachan was the first and only offer and it was accepted. Sim said later that it was a mistake although he didn't admit that it cost us promotion.

And previous means we never change, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TxRover said:

I’d love to know how people can believe this was the first or only offer. With the scouts the last couple of years, I find it unlikely that Hibs was the first and only offer. It’s as frustrating as the speculation on the amount paid, we simply have no basis for accepting the first report of £100k, but people take it as gospel.

If another offer was on the table from another team then it means we'd have knocked that back, that's a positive that the club would have wanted to put in their article to make it seem they didn't just roll over at the first club that came sniffing about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody stopped to think that maybe the transfer kitty is empty, and with another season ending injury to Vaughan and the likelyhood of a few players being shunted in January that this £100k or whatever it is would go a long way to signing players or loanees in that Janyary window to consolidate our place in the championship

Who knows what the club finances are like either, time will tell of course , I hope that Tait and Bowie go on to have a successful careers in the game and go on to make us a bit more cash

Meanwhile back at the ranch its over to John and Smudger to work their magic bringing more talent through 

Edited by SirJimmyofNic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

Has anybody stopped to think that maybe the transfer kitty is empty, and with another season ending injury to Vaughan and the likelyhood of a few players being shunted in January that this £100k or whatever it is would go a long way to signing players or loanees in that Janyary window to consolidate our place in the championship

Who knows what the club finances are like either, time will tell…

It’s a good point, given that removal of restrictions looked likely toward the end of last season for this season…and just as quickly went to shite. I would hope we had planned for (relative) worst case, but…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a couple of days to mull this one over. Whilst its definitely progress that we are getting fees and sell on clauses (presumably) for our young players, it does appear we offload them fairly quickly. 

The Callachan and Bates deals I really can see why we wouldn't want to stand in the way of young guys progressing however we clearly didn't get much for these guys. We were a League 1 outfit then though and can understand the need to get players in on loan and cash to balance books. Not to mention allowing guys to move on and make some decent wedge in a limited career.

The Bowie deal was sensible at the time and could still see us net considerable sums if Ziggy continues his progress as he appears to be.

I think the issue I have with the Tait deal is it appears so unnecessary. Hibs obviously want him and, barring some catastrophe, would still want him in January. I doubt they are the only show in town. What harm would it have done turning down the deal and seeing how the situation and demand for him develops.

Worst case would be nobody comes for him in January and we retain a young player who I'm confident would be worth at least one place in the table and, if he continued his current progress, would be worth at least £100k next summer for us to give away. 

3 year deals are meant to protect us from this kind of thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. and just to add, I'm not concerned one bit about Taits performance levels dropping. However, I have far more affinity to signed Rovers players than loanees who we are only developing for others. I would far rather we had Arnott or Coulson now starting instead of Tait, much like how I felt about Adam King keeping Tait out the team last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the bald messiah pre match interview and tbh felt it was a bit of a car crash, we didn’t need to sell Dylan but “couldn’t stand in the boys way🤦🏻‍♂️“ hibs were the only offer and the fee was we can presume from my poor maths £110,000( they have brought in £260,000 in fees and Bowie was £150,000) . We didn’t need to sell but I might not get money to replace🤦🏻‍♂️  Worst interview he has done, I know how he works night and day for us he is a legend 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interview with John McGlynn discussing the deal now up on YouTube.

Says there was no financial need to sell

Says the deal wouldn’t have gone through without the loan back - as it would have left us short.

A bit unclear on whether the cash would be used for a replacement. Initially suggests loan back would give time to replace but then later says he doesn’t know if he’ll get the money from above to replace. 

Explains why he can’t hold back a player who is progressing - both for the player and the reputation of the club.

Says his intention is to use Musonda in midfield.

Mentions having brought in £260k to the club in transfers. If this is just Bowie and Tait then that’s £110k for Tait? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From McGlynn's interview the club are obviously aware of the fans' disquiet: he went on  a long apologetic discourse, answering what wasn't asked but effectively attempting to justify the Tait transfer.

I noted the softball questioning, nothing about club ambition, who will he get to replace good players etc

 

Edited by Raith_Raver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...