Just now, OsloRover said:

Compared to this Cardiff side we’ve got gold

Just a shame its the 'gold' that turns your skin green 😉

Yet Lowe & Benson remain in position after yet another change in Manager/Coach... Let him bring his own staff I might be able to get behind him, the fact he only gets an assistant like all his previous incumbents its just more of the same shit different day.

16 minutes ago, 47er said:

Lol at that one. You're a trier!

A manager going off on a club rarely ends well on the managers future in the game. We may like it but what happend to the managerial careers of John Gregory & Mike Newell two mangers to do just that?

As it turns out JDT is smarter than them all as he played a blinder in the presser today without burning the upper management down with fire and brimstone, but left it in no doubt that the circumstances are not right in upper management and he was gagged.

4 minutes ago, booth said:

It's quite clear that if he asked to go, and they wouldn't let him, then he's bound by contract or he'd be away.

I'm not sure why people are debating this.

It's also easy to work out what happened.

He got us to within a whisker of the play offs.
They told him the project had changed.
He asks if he can leave as this isn't what he signed up for.
They shit themselves and say no. A manager leaving the club on a relative high would be strange and raise questions.

Like the cowards they are the allowed the situation to decline till he was dragged down with them.

Nail & Head comes to mind

1 minute ago, DeeCee said:

Depends on the wording of the contract.

They are right to a certain extent, unless its an open ended contract in which case there is no end date specified. However what they are not taking in to context is that by not appearing for your duties you are breaching the contract and therfore are open to legal recourse, sure in the case pressented JDT could refuse to having his contract "paused" in which case Rovers can sue JDT for breach of contract that could cost him pottentially millions of pounds, especially when Rovers would have grounds of trying to find a solution.

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

His contract ends on a certain date - neither JDT nor BRFC can change this without agreement.

 

Not when one walks out without the other parties agreement. If JDT walks out and Rovers don't agree he cannot just leave without consequences. Media/Sports contracts are not like regular employment contracts as you are classed as a commodity with a monetary value.

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

What do you mean by pause his contract?

His contract is paused, as in the time left on the contract when walked out upon is no longer ticking off and still needs to be worked off when they return to work.

1 minute ago, islander200 said:

JDT can't walk away without the club's blessing even if he does it without a payoff

If he walks without the club agreeing they can place him on gardening leave and he wouldn't be able to take another job till the contract he signed here had ended 

Or they can not put him on gardening leave and can just pause his contract until he returns to work.

18 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

i`ve had colleagues walk out various reasons,can`t recall any of them getting sued for breach of contract,they just did`nt get their monthly pay or anything owed to them,got to be the same contractual situation has`nt it,football is still a job after all

When was the last time a company paid to get you to switch firms? Football contracts are not regular employment contracts

8 minutes ago, DE. said:

Depends on my financial situation. I would assume JDT is not living paycheck to paycheck and would be able to find work elsewhere with his reputation and his achievements last season with us and Malmo recently. I can't imagine he'd be destitute the moment he left Rovers. Sometimes it's about more than just money. 

I'm sure he could find work. Ultimately though he will be out of work with zero income but the same expenditues until an offer is made of getting back in to work, all while eating away at any savings he has. Or he gets a pay off that gives him some time to recharge and have an ability to wait on the right offer to come along while his expenditures are took care of and his savings unaffected. Again i'm an option 2 guy.

We could go back and forth on this all day. Truth is it really don't matter we will never agree and we are talking hypotheticals.

15 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

A much more reasoned and polite response that I was composing.

I owe you one.

Then I suggest you use the block button as balanced discussion is clearly not for you 👍

6 minutes ago, DE. said:

I would agree that at a normal club the onus would be on them to remove the manager if they feel the situation has reached an untenable point. This isn't a normal club, however, so JDT has to consider his own reputation and how much it could be damaged by remaining at this circus for too much longer. For the past year he's sucked it up and continued on amidst the nonsense happening above him, but at some point he may have to accept enough is enough and move on for his own sake. You'd think it has to be a pretty miserable working environment for him at this point. 

Oh sure but would you walk away from a potential £500k+ pay-off with no job on offer elsewhere? I know I wouldn't no matter how misserable I am, and my employers would be in no doubt how pissed of I am. The only way to get rid is pay me what's needed for me to leave.

2 minutes ago, DE. said:

We don't know JDT's state of mind or demeanour so stating this as fact rather than opinion isn't helpful. 

If the manager is so angry about the transfer window and state of the club that he's being blocked from speaking to the press then you can't spin that as a good thing. It's an untenable situation that, if true, would leave little choice but for JDT to leave. How can the players believe in the coach if he's made it clear he doesn't think they are good enough for what he wants? 

We have all seen his pressers/media the last 6 months he is not afraid to take jabs/mock Waggott his state of mind and demeanour has been eaten away over a period of time, he isn't the jolly happy go lucky manager that arrived in June 2022.

It might be an untenable situation or he might grin and bear it until an oportunity arises, ultimatley though if its untenable it's on the club to sack him and pay him off or mutually agree a package with him to leave, not for him to walk away with nothing.

Ironically this is one of the times Waggot has done right by JDT in pulling him from the presser. The club has a duty of care over all employees and to put JDT out there in a club sanctioned duty while aware of JDT's state of mind and demeanour could have bit them on the arse. I remember John Gregory & Aston Villa getting fined £10's of thousands back in the day after Villa allowed Gregory to do media after Dwight Yorke joined Man Utd where Gregory said "If I'd Had A Gun I Would Have Shot Dwight Yorke". So them actually be proactive for once and not letting JDT have the chance of ruining his reputation (the clubs is shot so who really care about that at this point) is a good thing.

Hope JDT gets a nice big fat payoff and takes Venkys for every penny he is owed.

3 minutes ago, alex l said:

 

 

Here we go

Wonder if the kids basketball hoop is a permanent arrival or if it's also on a try before you buy deal 🤑

5 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Selling to repay loans to the Bank of India is what you said

Which are caused by our yearly losses. I assumed BoI were covering via a loan with Venkys as a guarantee, which has been shown to be not the case.

4 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Why pretend you were suggesting Wharton’s sale was some sort of Venky’s exit strategy? You’ve just pointed out the futility of that argument above. It’s ok to just admit you were misinformed.

At what point did I allude to it being a Venkys exit stategy? the fuckers aint going anywhere, selling to cover losses so we aint hit with a points deduction is my take.

7 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Fair enough. Keep the losses coming and only another 75 years or so before we owe more than Venkys are reportedly worth and we can be rid of them then. Only really have Szmodics left worth any real value and we don't invest in anything but Loans so no worry on unearthing another gem, I'll be long dead but at least I can sleep tonight knowing they wont be around in the year 2100 😁 Night All

8 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Reducing the debt… I presume you are referring to the debt OWED TO VENKYS??

No that's owed to the bank, that Venkys guarantee. You may not like it but that debt is on the club, sure it has been largely caused by Venkys but it's us as a club will suffer. Let's say the BoI call in the debt you do realise one of the Assets Venkys put up as a guarantee is the club itself, right? Do you think an Administrator would broker a £22m sale of a 19 year old, 2 Cap U20 international?

3 minutes ago, Bethnal said:

This is an inane take. Paying down debt by selling assets which you then don’t replace, when you run at a loss means you’re just delaying the inevitable.

The point I assume mattyblue is making - correctly - is it’s not a good deal for the club because the funds aren’t being reinvested to try and create more saleable assets.

The owners have created the conditions for this cycle and are visibly so inept that they cannot recognise the futility of their actions.

Look the debt needs clearing the only way of doing so is selling! Sure some money needs to be reinvested but that's a Venky issue that is seperate to the fact £22m for a teenager with less than 50 apps for a Championship club with no International caps above Under 20's level is a decent deal.

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

In what way is it reducing debt?

Are you serious?

12 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

You are posting very oddly tonight.

For something to be a ‘good deal’ to a party it has to benefit said party.

So for the third time is this a ‘good deal’ for Blackburn Rovers?

Yes it is, because the money goes into the club, and the club is bigger than Venkys. Even if the bank take it all it ultimately still benifits the club by reducing debt.

11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

A ‘good deal’ for the agent, a ‘good deal’ for Adam financially, a ‘good deal’ objectively for a lad not yet 20.

But I’ll repeat how is this a ‘good deal’ for Blackburn Rovers when you yourself know we’ll hardly see a penny?

Ok so by thinking, selling Sam Gallagher for £50m wouldn't be a good deal either I guess?

11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Decent deal for who then? Certainly not Blackburn Rovers.

£22m for a teenager with less than 50 apps in the Championship who isnt a U21 capped player moving to a non European competing team in the Premier League is a decent deal. Whatever happens to the money doesn't change the fact the deal is decent.