5 minutes ago, lraC said:

It would make one hell of a social media story, if the fans crowd funded a couple of grand and sent it to the club, with instructions on what it should be used for.

I believe the club have been made aware of it, so let’s see what the response is, before that route is taken.

It might sound like one of those “NMJ” things and I can understand people turning their nose up at it, but it would send a message.

Is it possible to actually walk around Ewood when there’s no matchday?

1 minute ago, lraC said:

Maybe there are worse, but I bet there is nothing to compare it to, from clubs with Billionaire owners. As is stated, there is no excuse for it, as even FFP does not come into play, when spending money on ground upkeep.

I agree however I am not convinced it is as bad as some seem to suggest.

The pictures you’ve posted; some leaves and moss, and a broken sign. Whilst I think this is worthy of discussion with the fan forum and SW, I wouldn’t call it one of the most pressing issues with Ewood park.

My main gripe this season has been the consistently bad service at half time. It was only easier Saturday because of attendance being lower in our part of the JWU.

Perhaps due to moving from riverside, (which I sat in for 25 years) I hardly see anything else of the ground these days (no need to walk round) but the concourse I go through is absolutely pristine, the toilets are immaculate, the seating area looks absolutely brand new.

Ive been to a few away grounds in the last few years that are utterly terrible. Both main Sheffield clubs are owned by billionaires and their facilities are horrendous. 

17 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Not sure that is strictly true as if i remember right although we'd been relegated he got a good starting point to go again. There was the audits, some debt written off, more share issues, pay decreases already written into some contracts kicking in. the granting of an almost championship level budget again AND a couple of million to spend.

Not exactly a clusterfuck probably actually a good time to take the reigns and he and Mowbray did well initially. Then after promotion they/he doffed out all the contract extensions that meant we were bound to keep a lot of players and their now championship wages until they themselves decided to move on.

Off the park since then there's been no real obvious signs of progress and you could say a bit of a clusterfuck with the contracts which lies at his door. Covid not withstanding but every club has had to deal with that and not everyone has owners with pockets like ours.

C minus is as good as it gets for Steve i'm afraid.

I’m only at C, but that was like a* compared to previous incumbents post Williams et al.

I agree a lot - but have you ever watched “Sunderland till I die?” A good example of how budgets in league one really are useful but the pressure that comes with it takes expertise to handle.

Equally the rebuilding process is probably a lot more difficult than we give him credit for. Think it was GE on the pod that said something like “decisions made in 2010 are still holding us back…”! 

12 minutes ago, MCMC1875 said:

I doubt there is another league or non league club with such a tip. An absolute disgrace. No excuses. 

You obviously didn’t go to away games in league 1!

26 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Jamie Vardy is of the Ian Wright mould when it comes to a route to the top, not comparable.

BB would never have played for England.

If he scores 19 goals every 23 games for the rest of his career he will be playing for PSG never mind England 😂 

22 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

They probably would off but lets not forget the terms of engagement have changed. The cheapest players now are probably on the wages that JW/JW faced.

I agree that Williams probably have increased the income sources that we need but I still maintain that the agents hold the power. Having too many players whose contracts are ending at once was always going to bring the club facing down a barallel. Do the three players have the same agent btw? 

It would be interesting to find out who their agent is. I heard that Dunn has an agency which represents quite a few of our players.

As for the CEO, how would JW have done long term with absent owners based 5000 miles away?

He left as soon as he spotted potential issues and “conflicts of interest” at the club, and who could blame him. Perhaps he knew even he wouldn’t be able to succeed in that scenario.

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Two of the three players who are in dispute did come through the Academy and have proved themself be assets as has Rothwell. We were led to believe we were on the cusp of breaching P&S rules but since then we have shed big earners, sold Armstrong and the STC. If Sam Gallagher (rumoured to be a top earner) is close to signing an extension it's a fair assumption won't be for peanuts. And if the three do leave how can we replace them and it not cost more? Transfer fees, wages and long contracts for potential new signings would surely commit the club to more expenditure than we have now.

Ordinarily I wouldn't get too concerned but given where we are it's a huge worry. And reading Mowbrays post match comments on Saturday he feels the same way.

I think it’s unsettling. I expect at least one to go.

Similar frustration with Armstrong, if we’d managed to get him a longer term deal we could’ve kept hold or demanded more…

Perhaps that’s the problem (magnified by covid, ffp, having absent owners, potentially not the best backroom staff..)

These players and their agents know the best thing for them is to wait and see. I said it Saturday, perhaps the only way all three are staying is promotion.

Mowbray again said the decision on sales lies with the owners. All my ire will be aimed for them if they allow big players to go this window.

7 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure why not, in normal times our turnover is £11m or £12m plus a £20m annual contribution from Venky's is £31m or £32m in total.

You're actually allowed to lose £13m p.a. which would give us around £25m to go at. Why couldn't we have 15 players earning around the £20k p.w. give or take two or three thousand either way?.

What is needed is more quality and slightly less quantity as we've seen this season and not the vastly overblown and padded out squads we've maintained in previous seasons.

15 players on that would probably incur around 5m in bonuses - based on a lot of assumptions.

I may be wrong - but wasn’t the last time we had any sanctions with FFP, also the last time we got relegated? 
 

Tm has mentioned “mortgaging” the club a few times recently, but I feel the biggest concerns at Ewood are those point deductions / transfer bans

5 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

That’s a very long winded way of saying ‘I agree with you’ to Matty 😃.

It’s not that simple though is it

for example - SW inherited an absolute clusterfuck.

In some ways (as we’ve discussed) I don’t think he’s done that bad.

Just now, Mattyblue said:

So JW/JW couldn’t have handled this situation any better than SW?

Come off it.

I don’t think it’s that black and white.

For example - Jack and John would’ve had our turnover in a far far better place, on the face of it…. But then if we’re languishing 15th in the championship - you could have anyone as CEO, you’re not selling tickets.

That said - men of their quality would’ve never allowed us to be in that scenario, so the comparison just ends in folly.

I still think it’s important to understand the different contexts though. With loss making rules, JW would’ve never even been allowed to spend what he did - why do you think clubs voted these rules in to begin with? Wasn’t about stopping clubs going bust, was about holding back teams without as many fans.

That said, I bet Jack would’ve found a way round the rules.

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

Comparing this set up to what Jack and JW presided over 🤦‍♂️

Under Jack Walker we’d never have been in a scenario where trying to keep hold of the likes of Darragh Lenihan would be an almighty challenge!

Under Jack there was no rules about losing money.

Under JW there was never a period or seasons where fans couldn’t attend.

That said, I’m not giving excuses to these owners, I am aware as you are, of their (potentially criminal) incompetence and the neglect they’ve shown their “baby” (other than signing cheques)..!

The point remains however. Extremely difficult time in football, and looking at the papers today - potentially more to come.

7 minutes ago, arbitro said:

When did this 'wage structure' business start? In the summer we offloaded some of the highest earners in Mulgrew, Bennett, Evans and more. Their wages were estimated at around £100k weekly or £5m yearly. In terms of the numbers we are well down and the new players coming in permanently will be on considerably less. I also remember when Waggott talked about the offer to Armstrong which was described as a bumper deal. This term is used I believe to exonerate Waggott and the owners and make the players look greedy.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/steve-waggott-reveals-action-he-took-with-adam-armstrong-before-blackburn-rovers-departure/

If we were floundering in mid table I might just understand the situation a bit more but given where we are losing three key players next month would be catastrophic in my view BUT absolutely in line with the owners dysfunctional decade of control.

The last paragraph I can understand - but from Glenn and Herbs video, 18 months ago for best part of that time, turnover dropped to record lows due to the pandemic.

I can’t see how many teams could’ve renewed with boosts during that level of uncertainty. Especially a team already literally on the wire with FFP.

Those wages free’d up this summer - I think eventually end up going to better deals for players coming through our academy, but unsurprisingly probably not enough to keep all of these players.

Finally - I would add that it’s not at all nailed on that 3 or 4 short contract players are leaving in January. That’s the worst case scenario.

7 hours ago, Miller11 said:

That’s funny, because Steve Waggott told me the following:

”It’s not all about the money with Ryan. There are other factors - his academy in Namibia is very important to him.”

This was a few weeks ago, and things may have changed, but it doesn’t support the narrative he is either greedy or unrealistic.

Besides that, people need to stop thinking of “wage structure” in such simple terms - it’s not just a one size fits all wage cap. One of the issues that has long been reported is that academy graduates get a raw deal compared to players we sign from elsewhere. Their wages are bound by a fairly rigid structure; each contract they sign is capped at an increasing amount. 

Nyambe has only played about 40 games less than Lenihan, but is 3 and a half years younger. Same age as Trav, but 60% more career appearances. He’s also younger than Harry Chapman, and has been paid less than Chapman over the course of their contracts.

So Nyambe is likely hitting his fourth pro contract, and is currently in the same pay bracket as Wharton, who is a couple of months older. Our famed structure brackets Nyambe as an academy graduate rather than a full international with 170 first team appearances to his name. It’s not about breaking the structure, but being pragmatic with its application.

Cheers Miller - really illustrates the difference between coming through and being signed. I’ve heard countless examples of this before in football, mainly through the UNDR the cosh podcasts. 
 

One thing I would add is that the difference between signing for a lower premier league or parachute club;

If our maximum is 15/18k and the maximum yearly signing on fee could be around 10% of that contract £250000. That means the maximum a player can earn in this structure over 3 years (with no division changes) is about £3million.

Whilst no paltry fee - the average wage in the division above is more than double that + signing on fee and other bonuses being double…

It’s not hard to see why there are so many championship players out of contract every season.

Finally I would add, there is no way the club could have the entire first team on that top wage bracket either - that would be more than double our turnover before even taking staff and/or any other squad/academy player into account.

4 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

Opinions challenged, great as that means more discussion and debate. Trouble is it's more generally insults that follow which makes conversation difficult. A little bit of respect goes a long way, as I'd wager almost none who post so provocatively would dare do so face to face.

A little bit of respect for the players would be a refreshing change, for example not referring to someone who works their arse off, has improved immensely and is only 19;

As nothing but a “nice lad”. 

 

13 minutes ago, booth said:

Huge bonuses for promotion?

I would imagine that’s standard for any contract below top flight.

13 minutes ago, J*B said:

Baiting - banned. I said I’d do this, stop doing it. 

But saying someone is “nowhere near as good as my 15 year olds” is just an opinion and not in anyway a inflammatory….!

Perhaps the best way to convince these players to commit is promotion?

15 minutes ago, 47er said:

Why? We are in great form, they are not. We've just comfortably beaten Bournemouth away.

What have we to fear?Just keep doing what we have been doing and the goals will come.

I agree somewhat but I would’ve never predicted this in august, to be potentially third and well in the mix with 50% of the season gone.

Way beyond my wildest imagination.

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

Your talking about the Manchester Makele there mate, ask the nobbers

Clarkson, I have better players than him in my county team.

You’d take a Preston fans opinion over your own eyes? I’d rather have Travis, Rothwell, Buckley and even Davenport from what I’ve seen of Whiteman.

Once more I can’t help but cringe at the thought of you telling a group of u16s, that they’re better than a Liverpool academy graduate you’ve barely seen.

18 minutes ago, rigger said:

You forgot to add : And been proven wrong.

This is my second attempt to respond to @Sparks Roverso will try to be more “partisan”.
 

When you consider other things said and argued over recent years - the quite un fathomable  love in for Ben Whiteman and the “I’ve got 15 year olds better than” *insert academy player name*…

Slagging Dolan and Buckley, only praising two that could leave…

I just don’t agree with those opinions.
 

Compared to my own thoughts, utterly night and day.

46 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But it's ain't. 

Telling people to do something they already know they have to do, most of us have done for 18 months, with an air of superiority? Speaking down to people as if their own concerns about safety aren’t valid?

Definition of patronising Chaddy. You might not like that opinion, but you aren’t going to alter it.

11 minutes ago, J*B said:

Rumours that it’s Bradley Johnson that’s out with COVID. It’s definitely not Brereton or Lenihan. 

In terms of prediction, I’m still struggling to believe we are 4th. I’ll say we will lose simply based on how we’ve done in these situations prior to this season. 

It really is “pinch yourself” time, if we get 3 points today 

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You may think the slogan is stupid, but it's nonetheless true,  hiding away again at any point isn't going to bring any of those people back. The only way they wouldn't have died is if the virus hadn't existed in the first place.

Unfortunately the virus did come into existence and you have to deal with the reality of the situation as it is now as best you can. Not on a theoretical  basis that you wish the virus had never happened and become all offended by a quite innocent turn of phrase with no offence intended.

Exactly the type of preachy nonsense I’m talking about.

Its as if you think you’re talking to someone who has no basic knowledge of viruses? I am aware / understand the intended message of “we have to live..” etc. I understand that people died because of it.

Thats simply patronising.
 

The sheer amount of mistakes made by those elected to take decisions to avoid deaths, is precisely why I have an issue listening to the slogans devised by the same idiots.

Especially when it’s used to play down people’s fears and concerns.

Let people decide if it’s safe for them.

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

No one says it black and white but it's personal choice and what they want to do. 

Never used the word dangerous in that context so no idea why you are quoting that. 

The quote isn't patronising or point scoring but what we have to do unless what was the point in getting vaccinated and having the lockdowns for 18 months if we never can resume normal life or the best we can

Banging head on brick wall…!

You do you, I choose for me.

Preaching, patronising is “what was the point in vaccinated if we’re having repeated lockdowns” etc

I personally will be going if the match is on…

But the whole point I am making is I won’t judge, or tell, or advise, or suggest to anyone here or anywhere what they should do or think.

That’s why I hate that stupid slogan “we have to live with the virus”… I’m sure anyone who’s lost one of the 125,000+ would’ve loved them to live through it. Needless, preachy bollox 

12 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Those are pandemic figures aren't they? In normal times we are not spending double our income on wages. How does that compare to other Championship clubs? Well I think you would struggle to find many spending less than 100% of income on wages. So that doesn't really explain how others can afford to renew contracts whereas we can't.

That also ignores the absolutely massive wage savings made last summer - Bennett, Downing, Bell, Evans, Williams, Mulgrew, THB, Elliott, Trybull, Holtby, Armstrong - how much a week you reckon saved there alone? Pushing £100,000 a week would be my estimate. Anyone else in this league achieved such wage savings recently?

This is all very important.. because the figures often produced for wages are out of date. Add to that the pandemic impact which everyone else has had to deal with along with the Armstrong cash boost and I really am struggling to comprehend it.

We are supposed to believe that they were offering Armstrong a substantial wage rise to try and keep him here. Still don't understand why they couldn't use that money and his wage savings to split between these others to keep them.

No, that figure is from the podcast with Herbie and Glenn entwistle from 2017-21

I imagine during the covid closures, it was probably way higher for those short times, however the main income is ST and TV and that wasn’t impacted in the first season of closures (back of 19/20), but has been impacted since (2500 in 20/21) and this year (2500 reduced tickets) with people out of the habit or switched off a mid table finish.

I don’t think we “can’t afford to renew”.. I think it’s more the plans have been altered partially due to low turnover anyway (ffp) and covid uncertainty.

Glenn Entwistle (I think) made a good point that renewing someone like Rothwell above the top wage earner, means you’re renewing the rest of team within 12 months.

Same with Armstrong. I believe there was an upgrade, probably one to make him our top earner - but I bet that wasn’t even half his signing on fee +
wages over 3 years at any premier league or parachute club.

The video also mentioned Brentford as a perfect example of team with similar turnover in terms of tickets, but far, far, less overheads with academy / facilities.

A team promoted, as best example as we can use that it is possible to compete with parachute payments. They did it with savvy transfer business, and selling players on for huge profits.
 

I guess this is our best chance to move forward, and I am unsettled about the proposition of losing these players, namely our captain, for nothing.

Finally, I agree, many teams in this league will be well above 100% on wages - the difference is what the 100% figure is, for example when Kean was manager first season in the championship, we had 16m upfront to play with before even took turnover into account.

That’s the biggest mistake in the Rao’s ownership, and one we’re still “paying” for.

10 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Plenty of people Including Whitty and Vallance have used that quote. 

Surely that's works the other way when they are preaching to others about not going and shutting down parts of our lives? 

Why is it always so black and white in Chaddy world?

You find me a post where someone saying “anyone who disagrees in shutting all football is dangerous?”

That slogan is patronising, political point scoring and basically annoying AF