I really don't understand this obsession with pace in modern football. Of course it's an asset but for me pace has to be aligned with other things like good decision making or a final pass. See Kargbo for evidence of this. Everton had a lad playing last night and on his first run my thoughts were he's exceptionally quick. However he kept running down blind alleys and didn't look like he could pass water. He got the hook after offering no threat.

Takings are more important than points here. Then we get the happy clappers running around saying lets make Ewood a fortress when the club itself routinely does the opposite.

I think I'm done with BRFCS if we end up at, Adam Wharton wasn't that good anyway.

I think it is the reality for most academy guys at all clubs, very rarely you get an Adam Wharton type who is too good to ignore, but more often the first team has holes (from injury or sales) and the manager chooses a guy who has impressed him in training, not u21s. Whether they sink or swim is up to the player and their ability. Not saying manager won't have been told by academy coaches or watched games himself, but there is a great degree of personal preference and luck involved.

Modern footballer for me. He can run a bit, tackle a bit, head the ball a bit, pass the ball 20 yards. Has he got the “ X” factor ? Can he make play ? Not that I can see.

I was thinking the very same thing on the drive home.

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

That’s what a stand full of away fans buys you.

He certainly didn't stand out for me.

Did Montgomery not stand out at under 21 level either? Certainly doesnt look close to being at first team level.

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

Hottest day of my stay so far. We’re further down the coast, nearer to Almeria, but it was 39C on our terrace yesterday.

He will wriggle out of an answer then say down the line that hes already answered.

Still like to see how he's getting on. Out of the many that's left our club

I've wondered similar at times. I cannot comment on their performances for the U21's, but I get the impression the academy players are all much of a muchness. Excluding the obvious Wharton's and Tyjons, the optics are that you get your opportunity if the manager at the time likes you and you take on board his tactics, if you don't, chance gone.

There have always been midweek games, long before Sky came along. We play Millwall at Ewood in a 12.30 kick off soon - do you really think it's fair on their supporters setting off at some ungodly hour?

The last year wages were below 100% of turnover was the last year we were in the Premier League. Perhaps we should try to return there 🤔

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

I can't believe there are people out there happy to defend the contract strategy that has led to the current situation. Do you honestly believe it's the right thing to do, or are you just willing to back whatever the club does? On the second point, as always, no-one is allowed to form opinion until such time you deem it sensible. His record, to me, isn't good enough and this season so far (and I'm going to count the loss to Bradford, thanks VI) is very bad.

Ah, my back of a fag packet calculation has those 12 players (using the middle of those pay bands) taking up around two thirds of our turnover. - before bonuses. That leaves one third for the remaining (based on 23/24 accounts) 219 members of staff. Doable??

A really good performance from the under 21's in what was a really enjoyable game although I, along with some other people almost didn't get in. A simple process of paying to watch a match was so difficult and frustrating. The was no Batty in the squad which surprised me. We were the better team in the first half and although the game did ebb and flow we created three good chances and had a Leonard goal disallowed for offside. I spoke to a couple of old refereeing colleagues at half time and they were really impressed with Rovers. The second half was more even with Everton probably shading it and Goddard making some smart saves. He was desperately unlucky with the goal which rebounded off his back/head after hitting the post. We were unlucky to lose particularly in those circumstances. Defensively we were solid and although sometimes sloppy in possession by and large did well in the midfield area. Leonard worked extremely hard up front and looked strong although it was obvious his touch is lacking after his injuries. I don't get the reasoning behind having Mullarkey-Matthews on the bench for the first team (in a similar way to Montgomery). He was arguably Rovers least impressive performer last night and has never really showed me enough to warrant such an elevation.

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)

Can it be explained to me how someone can use wages being above turnover as an excuse whilst also (within the last week) saying we should be offering our key players £16k a week to stay. Thank you in advance.

Oh and a miracle.

Good job scouts don’t turn up for the last fifteen minutes.