Just now, 47er said:

Another fact---safer is not the same as safe.

Comparing it to smack? Is that anything other than ridiculous?

If we’re using our own experience- the advert we used when winning the league was for a product that’s far more difficult for me to kick.

The difference between inhaling something burning, and something in vapour / evaporated is night and day.

Whilst Id agree with anyone that the legality of nicotine is worth discussion - vaping is inherently safer. 
 

That’s a fact, not opinion.

3 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I can't believe that you are actually allowed to advertise any kind of nicotine product. It's absolutely mental. 

In my humble opinion they should ban all advertising of gambling, vaping and junk food/energy drinks.

For those arguing that vaping is less harmful than smoking, well smoking is less harmful than meth or heroin. Fuck it let's just advertise that stuff. We could even do a deal to rename the stadium. "Coming live from Uncle Jack's Smack Shack it's Blackburn Rovers verses West Bromwich Albion"

 

Vaping companies and tobacco companies are selling the same thing. They are the same thing.

Ridiculous comparison 

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

I hadn't looked too closely into it mate...sorry.  just a thought.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d be made up if TC returned in his prime but I just can’t see how it’s possible 

6 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Flog him to Fulham and get Cairney in with the deal.  That would do me. Some coin to us too.

How on earth could anyone expect us to sell someone with 4 months contract and get a key player of a rival, who’s contracted for another 2 years, and probably on more than our most expensive player…

With a transfer fee too?

Come on sparks, this isn’t realistic 

14 minutes ago, Silas said:

Thought it was just me. Quite surprised by the negative reaction tbh.

Vaping is way healthier (still issues with it, I get that), doesn't stink like fags, and is much, much cheaper so you hopefully minimise poorer households wasting extortionate amounts on cigarettes that are needed for other essentials like food and utilities. 

And is a vital stepping stage to people giving up totally. 

I do understand, (or have heard), the issue with all the fruity flavours and bright, funky colours encouraging the younger generations to take it up.

But what is people's major issue with it? The product itself or that the logo/branding is a bit naff?

Genuinely interested to know. Bit shocked by the general consensus. 

Only problem I have is that part in bold, as it’ll ultimately end up meaning people are addicted to nicotine without even ever smoking.

Similar to the alcopops, but I guess this probably is hypocritical, as I enjoy the odd bitter lemon IPA

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Yes, because obviously Rothwell was a key member of their first X1 at that point.

Boring.

Have you considered;

1 minute ago, bluebruce said:

So he basically a one-contract player (think he has only had one here?) who loves to fuck off on a free. Maybe we were never keeping him. Wonder if his agent is an ass.

Maybe it’s better for his remuneration? 

15 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

No issue at all for me.

He is made for that Buckley role. He does press well even if its maybe not his best attribue like Buckley, although we arent a constantly pressingly team.

He is such a good player when fit, definitely a better all round player than Buckley who himself is really developing. We are very reliant on Brereton to score, Dack will give us a regular source of goals whereas Buckley is very poor in front of goal, and his passing is also very good.

Obviously we shouldnt and neednt rush him back so sub at first, but when fit he definitely makes the team.

Maybe it’s just my interpretation but part of the reason why we’ve been far better this season is creating chances with less possession? Ie countering from chances forced through pressing?

I agree with everything else you say, I just think it may be more suitable now to use him in one of the forward roles as sub, as opposed to that number 10/ F9 role 

1 minute ago, JacknOry said:

United offered him a new contract, he turned it down (ironically) and joined Oxford.

United “allowed his contract to expire” you say? 😂 

3 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Hope he can find some form with you. He has not been on it last few games. 

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

He has been more Brereton than Diaz for sure.

😁😁

0 in last 2, but 10 in last 12… maybe a bit premature to get on his back 😂 

15 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Very interesting listening to mowbray talking about Markanday. Towards the end he spoke at length about potentially letting one of the three out of contract players go if it meant reinvesting the funds, and more specifically about if they didn’t want to be here. Might well be TM’s normal bollocks but wouldn’t be surprised to see Nyambe sold towards the back end of the window. Just a feeling nothing else.

Mellor - where did you get this interview from if you don’t mind me asking?

1 minute ago, BRFCS.com said:

Not long until Dack's back, but where should we play him? Have a read of some of the options laid out in Matt's article here and then let us know what you think below ...

https://www.brfcs.com/magazine/articles/to-dack-or-not-to-dack./160

Bit of an issue really

A few people have remarked how he is probably most suitable to the false 9 or one of the deeper central roles

Im concerned about the amount of pressing he would be expected to do in Buckley’s position

I think he will most likely be used as an impact player in his return, one of the front 3, for the final 20/30 minutes.

Where to start with this!

Firstly - the actual issue is another knock on from pandemic, according to Recoverite (it would seem).

The choice of sponsor isn’t a problem for me, vaping is far healthier than smoking and is partly an aid to quit whilst cigarettes are still legal. Much prefer a local company too, over a big betting / alcohol / some government dodgy donor like Randox.

The timing obviously isn’t great, but surely to god, someone at the club must’ve flagged those horrendous shirts before signing off?

You can literally see the other logo below! 
 

In a time when were about to have a run of being on TV for a month, surely something else could’ve been organised and in a more professional manner?

3 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Maja also, more recently, scored 3 in the Prem if I remember rightly.

You are correct - for Fulham last year. I’d completely missed he spent some time on loan for them.

8 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

I was more referring to the praise our owners were getting...stop trying to pin the racist shit up there mate...sad as fuck

I ignored it the first time....grow up..

 

 

You literally said it was a signing about attracting other fans;

“I've never seen him once🤷‍♂️ although looking at the Rovers PR machine on LinkedIn its going to town on the fact he's South Asian and Indian heritage and our brilliant owners etc...

Looks like a signing to attract more of the Indian heritage fans to me...”

What is wrong with pointing out that I think this is irrational and a stupid thing to criticise? I never said anything about being racist either, I said I don’t understand why anyone would choose one specific issue aka his lack of statistics (league/first team football) in the face of everything else?

Just now, Sparks Rover said:

He's a good player from the league appearances I've seen him play.  Ask the Sunderland fans.

Listen, this guy might be the dogs tatties , and if he is 👍  but to not have 1 league appearance and such a long contract is a bit of a gamble in my opinion. 

Maja scored once in 17 games at this level.

I would be far more concerned if we’d spent millions on him, than this particular deal.

I doubt you would’ve even brought up his lack of league experience, if you hadn’t took an irrational offence to “PR going into overdrive” due to the potential of his background attracting different communities to Ewood.

2 minutes ago, Ossydave said:

 

He had a good return at leagues 2 and 1 level though. 11 goals in 18 games at MK Dons (at league 1 level) in his most recent season in England. Those are good numbers.

Similar statistics playing for a lesser team than Sunderland….

I don’t think there’s much difference between this guy and Maja.

Healey has had knee problems early in his career however.

2 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

I've never seen zerfuulk either, so same goes for him...I want Maja, he's top player...what are you talking about...?  If I ain't never seen them why should I get all excited?

Unless I’m mistaken, Maja has scored 1 goal in 18 appearances in the championship.

You’ve never seen him play for us.

Why so interested / confident in him?

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Did we?

Who?

Nzonzi

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not worth arguing with you on this as you're being deliberately provocative.

1) Doesn't make sense

2) Pay him what he wants then

3) Evans, Bennett, Mulgrew, Downing, Graham plus running a squad in the past with 14 or 15 midfielders in it.

4) Your last point doesn't make any sense whatsoever either. Who's going to pay a fee for them once they're out of contract? And replacing them with similar quality would cost far more than coming to an agreement with them.

Having ones opinions dissected shouldn’t feel provocative, end of the day all opinions are subjective.

Let me explain further; 
1. The player wanted to leave Spurs. The supposed rationale was game time. Spurs surely can’t be critiqued on his contract, are they supposed to bench Son and co to give into his wishes?

He chose to move on. Hence the similarity with our players contracts being up to them and their representatives.

Some players want money, some want to move house, some want guaranteed games, some might want to play abroad. The whole point is this “the club allowed the contract to expire” is false, IMO of course

You can complain about those given extensions after league 1, and I agree with some of that “sentimentality” probably cost extra Bob, but at the end of the day the would’ve / could’ve stuff is easy in hindsight.

Not many here would’ve made Rothwell our top earner last season for example, and I’m sure now many would be all for it.

I also never suggested we’d get a few if they’re out of contract - I just remarked, if you’re so confident they’ll leave for free, tell us how you know the future?

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

No, Spurs obviously haven't demonstrated their willingness to give this lad enough of a chance at first team level.

Just as we've mishandled Nyambe over the years by shunting him in and out of the team and all indeed all three of the out of contract players by not prioritising deals for them but handing out deal after deal for players that didn't warrant it and running an extremely bloated squad.

Mismanagement of all 4 players in their different ways by the respective Clubs.

Let's hope we benefit from Markandy because we'll suffer badly if we don't go up and the other three leave for nothing.

Couple of things you can ignore for that entire argument;

1. Many players would’ve put up with having a top premier league club and on the sidelines or sent on loan.

2. Nyambe has had several issues with his hamstrings, is well documented “a top lad” to quote TM.

Deal after deal for player who didn’t want it and a bloated squad… why not give some examples? Also don’t forget to add how you specifically know these players haven’t been offered anything worthwhile?

To conclude, make sure you include how you know they’ll leave for free, and how they won’t be replaced if they do.

Cheers Rev

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

But surely there are loads that played well that don't make it as professionals...picking those 4 our conveniently backs up your argument.

I've never seen him once🤷‍♂️ although looking at the Rovers PR machine on LinkedIn its going to town on the fact he's South Asian and Indian heritage and our brilliant owners etc...

Looks like a signing to attract more of the Indian heritage fans to me...

Ah that’s why you’re not waxing lyrical about this. Figures.

14 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Correct.

4 wrongs don't make a right.

End of the day, players have the ultimate say. There is no getting away from it.

The fact a Spurs fan would move 200 miles and down a division is not about his wage now, or his choice of club.

4 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Healey would be a shite signing - end of.

Right, no more discussion - Clitheroe has decided for us

15 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Tied down to 2026 as well.Good work by all involved

Silly Spurs “allowing his contract to run down”….

Or another example of a player who has taken the decision to leave?
 

Either way - he is an exciting signing in my book.

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The LT reported that our other main attacking target that we have a bid in for is for a loan to buy. Even if he is unhappy in France, as their main striker and 2nd in the league you would think that they would need a permanent offer to sell a key asset.

The point he was making (I think) is some loan to buys are organised to be permanent after the initial period.