Gregg Broughton

[RevidgeBlue]

16 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

I just read from you that if they could get through the court case so back to funding it as previously and appoint execs more to your liking etc then my interpretation of your post was that you’d be willing for them to stay. 

If that is incorrect and regardless of legalities and appointments you’ve unequivocally had enough and they have to go whatever, then great, totally with you.

IF all the hypothetical conditions I listed were met and they kept out of it I could tolerate them staying but imo they won't ever be, therefore they need to go.

I don't have any affinity towards them as owners whatsoever but imo you don't turn away billionaires lightly. It's a bit like like the question Caroline Aherne famously asked Debbie  Mcgee

"So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels then? ".

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

If it was put to the vote it’d make the elections in North Korea look tame.

[Herbie6590]

 

[Herbie6590]

[Mattyblue]

A landslide on brfcs maybe, I’d imagine it’d be closer to a 52/48 situation in the wider fanbase.

’Vote Venky or be Bury’

Edited March 30 by Mattyblue

[roversfan99]

The main source of income at this level is often player trading. The owners have rejected £12m of potential fees for players that left for frees, such behaviour is hindering us. Add to that, yes none of the 22m Wharton money was reinvested, but even before the court issues, the Armstrong sale wasnt reinvested either. In the last 3 seasons, only 5m of a banked 40m+ (including Kaminski too) and a further potential 12m that Venkys stopped us getting has actually gone back into the team, some before and some after the court case. Its little wonder why the current squad is so poor. Mowbray and then Tomasson have helped us to sign and/or develop assets that have done step 1 of what we need to do, have players we can make considerable profit on. Its the owners that have interfered to stop that profit coming to fruition or when we do make sales, none/a very tiny fraction of the proceeds dont go back into the team.

Thats why I dont get how @J*B and @RevidgeBlue you think that Waggott going could be more beneficial than Venkys going. He is out of his depth and his incompetence is limiting our attendances and our income, but those limitations are on a far smaller scale than the figures ive mentioned that are directly attributable to the owners. Doesnt mean he doesnt need to go aswell, of course he does.

And why do people keep peddling a myth that even before the court issues, that Venkys invested as much as they possibly could within FFP? Not true.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

 

Quality stuff from someone who knows the history of the Club inside out.

That should wipe the insincere cheesy grin off his smug face for a while.

We could do with a similarly well researched list of questions for Waggott and get them all into the public domain somehow. Need to ramp up the pressure on these chancers.

And yes the pressure needs to be turned up on the owners as well before anyone starts. If there are any legitimate ways of embarrassing them back at home then that would have more impact than chucking a handful of tennis balls on the pitch at Ewood I'd have thought.

(Although if the latter is to be done again it needs organising properly and about a thousand people throwing them so it doesn't look to the outside world like the work of a couple of cranks)

[RevidgeBlue]

55 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The main source of income at this level is often player trading. The owners have rejected £12m of potential fees for players that left for frees, such behaviour is hindering us. Add to that, yes none of the 22m Wharton money was reinvested, but even before the court issues, the Armstrong sale wasnt reinvested either. In the last 3 seasons, only 5m of a banked 40m+ (including Kaminski too) and a further potential 12m that Venkys stopped us getting has actually gone back into the team, some before and some after the court case. Its little wonder why the current squad is so poor. Mowbray and then Tomasson have helped us to sign and/or develop assets that have done step 1 of what we need to do, have players we can make considerable profit on. Its the owners that have interfered to stop that profit coming to fruition or when we do make sales, none/a very tiny fraction of the proceeds dont go back into the team.

Thats why I dont get how @J*B and @RevidgeBlue you think that Waggott going could be more beneficial than Venkys going. He is out of his depth and his incompetence is limiting our attendances and our income, but those limitations are on a far smaller scale than the figures ive mentioned that are directly attributable to the owners. Doesnt mean he doesnt need to go aswell, of course he does.

And why do people keep peddling a myth that even before the court issues, that Venkys invested as much as they possibly could within FFP? Not true.

You keep talking with the benefit of hindsight. I don't suppose you'd have been complaining too much about not selling Rothwell and Brereton if we'd been promoted during either of the last two seasons.

Something which seems a million miles away now.

[roversfan99]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

You keep talking with the benefit of hindsight. I don't suppose you'd have been complaining too much about not selling Rothwell and Brereton if we'd been promoted during either of the last two seasons.

Something which seems a million miles away now.

I dont think you can be making a 12m gamble when those funds would be so useful and substantial. The Brereton bids were before the season had started so thats no excuse. We wouldnt spend 8m on a loan for a season. And the Rothwell bid was one the owners went against the manager on.

And there is also the 15m sale that was never spent. So Mowbray had left us with sellable assets. One the owners pocketed, the other 2 the owners declined. 

[tomphil]

Selling BBD that summer would've been the wisest thing to do when there was time to bring in others, that's not really hindsight it would just have been the right trading thing to do.  Wouldn't have been popular in some parts but sales of good players never are but it's nothing new.

Selling him for c8 mill when in a great position in the league was a no no for me and that wouldn't have made sense at the time unless it was forced.

People are paid hundreds of thousands in high up positions inside the club to make these decisions for the good of the club not the player or his agent, can hardly put Brereton in the good servant category and when push comes to shove it was an awfully misquided signing.

The model and the ultimate aim, supposedly trading and growing our way to promotion, must always come first. However you must never sabotage a promotion chance you MUST strengthen it and by the same token you must never weaken a relegation battle especially if you can't strengthen it.

Shocking shocking club this is under these current clowns.

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, tomphil said:

Selling BBD that summer would've been the wisest thing to do when there was time to bring in others, that's not really hindsight it would just have been the right trading thing to do.  Wouldn't have been popular in some parts but sales of good players never are but it's nothing new.

Selling him for c8 mill when in a great position in the league was a no no for me and that wouldn't have made sense at the time unless it was forced.

People are paid hundreds of thousands in high up positions inside the club to make these decisions for the good of the club not the player or his agent, can hardly put Brereton in the good servant category and when push comes to shove it was an awfully misquided signing.

The model and the ultimate aim, supposedly trading and growing our way to promotion, must always come first. However you must never sabotage a promotion chance you MUST strengthen it and by the same token you must never weaken a relegation battle especially if you can't strengthen it.

Shocking shocking club this is under these current clowns.

I dont recall any bids for Brereton mid season. Just the ones including from Nice in the summer when Tomasson came in.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont recall any bids for Brereton mid season. Just the ones including from Nice in the summer when Tomasson came in.

We've been known to actively try and sell players before.

I think the truth with BBD was we were being too nice again with the player just like the others who left for nowt because no one at Ewood really gives a toss and the owners only seem to become involved or made aware at the last min.

If he was made available at that point someone would have bought him, where did the 8 mill talk come from ?

Anyway as i said way too nice they knew the Spanish club wanted him and he wanted to go there so no boat rocking just let him run the contract down and go for free. I often wonder if these issues are the real reason they decided to ignore Mowbray and let him walk as he seemed to have a job for life here.

Waggot should have been booted straight through the door after him i'd lay my last fiver we'd be in a better position now even if only slightly.

[Oldgregg86]

13 hours ago, J*B said:

So interesting reading this thread and arguments over who’s most at fault. Here’s my thoughts:

I think this club can be successful whilst Venkys own us. I’d rather they didn’t own us, I’d celebrate them selling us, but realistically if they just shut up, sent us money and kept their noses out we could still find success.

I think Gregg Broughton is doing a pretty decent job considering the parameters he has to work within, which have essentially been almost-impossible. 

For me, the biggest problem at Rovers is Steve Waggott. He’s out of touch, ambitionless and happy to accept mediocrity. But the biggest problem is he’s a short term thinker. The shambles that Venkys have created is going to take a medium/long term plan to turn around and every single decision I’ve seen Waggott make is kicking the can down the road. Waggott’s age and “I’ll retire if the owners ask me” attitude mean by default he isn’t the man for the job because he hasn’t got the longevity to oversee it.

Ewood is falling down, we need a CEO that demands investment from the owners outside of FFP.

The match day experience is dreadful, we need a CEO that understands the modern day fan. 

The ticket pricing is robbery, we need a CEO that understands the local area. 

The team is desperately underfunded, we need a CEO that can generate more income for FFP and once that is generated, demand an increase of money from the owners.

The training ground is not ours, we need a CEO that can use our money to buy it back as cheap as possible - use the Wharton money if you have to. 

The standards around the club are ‘think small’, we need a CEO that can bring back Jack Walkers mantra of “Think Big”.

I agree with all that but ultimately that all comes from the 🔝 

Edited March 30 by Oldgregg86

[RoversClitheroe]

14 hours ago, J*B said:

So interesting reading this thread and arguments over who’s most at fault. Here’s my thoughts:

I think this club can be successful whilst Venkys own us. I’d rather they didn’t own us, I’d celebrate them selling us, but realistically if they just shut up, sent us money and kept their noses out we could still find success.

I think Gregg Broughton is doing a pretty decent job considering the parameters he has to work within, which have essentially been almost-impossible. 

For me, the biggest problem at Rovers is Steve Waggott. He’s out of touch, ambitionless and happy to accept mediocrity. But the biggest problem is he’s a short term thinker. The shambles that Venkys have created is going to take a medium/long term plan to turn around and every single decision I’ve seen Waggott make is kicking the can down the road. Waggott’s age and “I’ll retire if the owners ask me” attitude mean by default he isn’t the man for the job because he hasn’t got the longevity to oversee it.

Ewood is falling down, we need a CEO that demands investment from the owners outside of FFP.

The match day experience is dreadful, we need a CEO that understands the modern day fan. 

The ticket pricing is robbery, we need a CEO that understands the local area. 

The team is desperately underfunded, we need a CEO that can generate more income for FFP and once that is generated, demand an increase of money from the owners.

The training ground is not ours, we need a CEO that can use our money to buy it back as cheap as possible - use the Wharton money if you have to. 

The standards around the club are ‘think small’, we need a CEO that can bring back Jack Walkers mantra of “Think Big”.

Post of the decade.

[Exiled_Rover]

13 hours ago, Upside Down said:

And you too.

Most of the people who had any appetite have long since walked away. All that remains are the uninterested and the happy clappers.

Absolute nonsense post and, quite frankly, I'm angered that you'd consider those that still go to Ewood Park 'uninterested' or 'happy clappers'.

What an insulting and pathetic thing to say. 

[roversfan99]

@J*B you say that the team is underfunded. It is, but how can you put that at the door of Waggott? Match day experience/ticket prices are undoubtedly areas in which he is out of his depth in, he is a clown, but are they the reason we are underfunded?

In the last 3 seasons, we have sold Armstrong, Kaminski and Wharton amongst others for £40m. Added to that, the owners turned down £12m for Brereton and Rothwell. That is over £50m of potential money to reinvest. In that time, we have spent £5m.

FFP doesn't come into it, and even with a competent CEO that adds 2 or 3 thousand to the gate, it pales into significance. 

Don't get me wrong, he is a problem because hes hopeless at his job. Mind you, even if he was THE problem, that would still go back to the owners who clearly feel heis doing a good job. But stick in a good CEO and looking at the figures I mentioned above, anyone would be pissing in the wind.

You also say about the owners "if they shut up, sent us money and kept their noses out" then things could work out. The biggest if ever! Like saying if Waggott improved match day experiences and overhauled ticketing. Wont happen.

[Exiled_Rover]

13 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

IF all the hypothetical conditions I listed were met and they kept out of it I could tolerate them staying but imo they won't ever be, therefore they need to go.

I don't have any affinity towards them as owners whatsoever but imo you don't turn away billionaires lightly. It's a bit like like the question Caroline Aherne famously asked Debbie  Mcgee

"So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels then? ".

What if said billionaires had systematically dismantled a fantastic club over 14 years? Do you turn them away then?

[Upside Down]

2 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Absolute nonsense post and, quite frankly, I'm angered that you'd consider those that still go to Ewood Park 'uninterested' or 'happy clappers'.

What an insulting and pathetic thing to say. 

The complete lack of any kind of discontent towards those responsible suggest that it isn't nonsense at all.

The only thing that is pathetic is the fans who are content with the destruction of the club they claim to support.

[arbitro]

3 hours ago, Upside Down said:

The complete lack of any kind of discontent towards those responsible suggest that it isn't nonsense at all.

The only thing that is pathetic is the fans who are content with the destruction of the club they claim to support.

I think your labelling of fans that actually to go games as 'happy clappers' is crude and way off the mark for the majority. I go to home games with family and friends as do many others. I usually travel to away games with a different group. None of them are happy about the last fourteen years and certainly aren't happy about the state of the club but we all want to see Rovers win. We moan and groan sometimes and praise when we feel it's deserved. We aren't particularly vocal neither so does that make us 'happy clappers'? It's almost like you are blaming the fans who stayed loyal for the predicament we are in. Frankly it's insulting.

By the way do you watch the games at all?

[martonrover]

I think, in the main, the people still attending are those who are prepared to put up with it due to loyalty to the club, or force of habit.

There is certainly very little stomach for a fight, and many of the people who protested in the early days of Venkys have simply stopped attending.

Not attending is the only real ongoing form of protest.

If we go down and Venkys are still here next season, the attendances will be pathetic.

[Mattyblue]

Not far off 20,000 ST holders as they bought the club.

6,000 next season?

That’s your protest and it would have alarm bells clanging everywhere else (not here though, obviously).

[arbitro]

34 minutes ago, martonrover said:

I think, in the main, the people still attending are those who are prepared to put up with it due to loyalty to the club, or force of habit.

There is certainly very little stomach for a fight, and many of the people who protested in the early days of Venkys have simply stopped attending.

Not attending is the only real ongoing form of protest.

If we go down and Venkys are still here next season, the attendances will be pathetic.

I attend to see Rovers hopefully win as I believe lots do. Winning a game gives a great feeling to many and every game is another opportunity to win. 

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

I think your labelling of fans that actually to go games as 'happy clappers' is crude and way off the mark for the majority. I go to home games with family and friends as do many others. I usually travel to away games with a different group. None of them are happy about the last fourteen years and certainly aren't happy about the state of the club but we all want to see Rovers win. We moan and groan sometimes and praise when we feel it's deserved. We aren't particularly vocal neither so does that make us 'happy clappers'? It's almost like you are blaming the fans who stayed loyal for the predicament we are in. Frankly it's insulting.

By the way do you watch the games at all?

Kick off time is usually between 2 and 4 am and quite frankly a club that doesn't see games against the giants of Millwall and Plymouth Argyle as must win is not worth getting out of bed for.

I have been actively boycotting for 13 years and will continue to do so until the scum have left.

Supporting the club under these circumstances is more than just merely turning up to the games. In the good old days, yes that's what being a proper fan was all about but the situation is completely different now.

I think the fans have to shoulder a part of the blame for the state of the club. It is up to the fans to demand that the club be run properly and have ambition to do more than just exist. If the people running the club are not doing the job right then it is the responsibility of the fans to take action against them. 

As far as I’m concerned staying silent makes you complicit. 

And for those that say boycotting and protesting doesn't work, you are wrong. Boycotts and protests are some of the most powerful weapons available to the masses. The reason there is no longer apartheid in South Africa is because of boycotts and protests. 

Sadly we're not the only club in this sort of situation but we must have the only fanbase that sits silently as their club is demolished before their very eyes.

[47er]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

Winning a game gives a great feeling

Its been a while....!

[Mattyblue]

Boycotts can and do work… they just don’t work here as the collapse in crowds have shown - they couldn’t give a monkeys.