7 minutes ago, alexanders said:

A very important part of it is not playing old players all the time which blocks the development of the young players. Without saying anything about needing a new RB or LW it is a fact that more bodies makes it tougher for our youth players to be a part of it, even getting 10-15 mins cameos. 

Again, why is it preferable to 'develop' 'young players', and in doing so likely sacrifice results, over immediate results which we were getting last season under Eustace and which should have taken us into the play-offs?

Who wins from the strategy you are so happy with?

Rovers? No chance. We sacrifice immediate results under the pretence of a longer term plan. When did we last benefit - really benefit - from a player sale?

The Wharton emergence and sale should have been our golden lottery ticket - once in a generation. And where did we get with that one? Plenty of tweets and back slapping among Rovers and the support base about 'one of our own' but naff all to actually show for it, unless you count remaining in business as being something worth boasting about. 

Gestede benefits because he can claim we are 1 window into a 4,5,6 window process which secures him 3-4 years of employment. 

Venkys benefit because it saves them yet more money.

Pasha stooge benefits because if one or two of these players come good and we sell them, even if its for a small fee, it is all profit and he can get a pat on the back from the money men in India.

15 minutes ago, alexanders said:

Batth turns 36 in Sept and Weimann 34 in August. Keeping them could be smart, but giving a 36 year old a two-year contract is no way to run a football club. Also Weimann turning 34. It’s not very sustainable long-term giving such players contracts. 

Age is irrelevant here. See Adam Forshaw's new deal.

Eustace had us in the top 6 thanks to these sort of players and if we'd have backed him even remotely in January he'd have potentially led us to promotion. I don't think anyone anywhere would have been bothered about how old Danny Batth is/was. Those signings were working a treat for us - that's what sensible clubs do with a limited budget - back a manager working wonders on it and let him keep going - Derby have clearly identified he's a man who can secure results on a meagre budget.

Nobody associated with Rovers can claim there is any sort of sustainable long term plan as much as people would like to convince themselves there is. We change executives and management more often than people change their season tickets, we deliberately let contracts run down making no effort to renew them and fail to invest or build anything remotely sustainable. 

It's a myth, please don't delude yourself that because we've been outdone by Derby on Batth and Weimann that we are following some grand long term sustainable strategy. We're firing into the dark with Gestede following Pasha's instructions because it's the cheapest way and because he might earn a few brownie points in India if a couple of them pay off.

Rovers won't benefit from it either way.

8 minutes ago, alexanders said:

I’m not saying they necessarily will be replaced by two better players straight away, but hopefully they will be replaced by to players With more financial upside if they turn out great. When it comes to the experience in the squad; we have Hyam, Wharton, Pickering, Travis, Tronstad, Carter, Cantwell and Hedges to name a few. This is spiced up with some very exciting prospects in Tyjon, Batty, Duru, Montgomery, Riordan. 

'More financial upside' 

Totally pointless issue if a) we don't renew contracts, b) we get relegated or miss promotion because of it, c) well sell them but it all goes into covering Venky losses and not back into the club. 

Again - at any other club there would be concern because the focus and priority on those running the club is to get better and improve every year.

But - at Rovers those that count - the owners and their henchman - have zero interest or concern in improvement or results on the pitch and are solely concerned with reducing costs and saving money - so the summer so far has gone pretty well for them.

I'm sure Gestede and Ismael would have liked to have been in a far better position right now but both are mere pawns and employees in Championship roles they probably wouldn't have secured anywhere else, so they'll have to put up with it or leave. 

There's loads of owners of other clubs who have attracted all sorts of negative publicity and labels of 'worst' owners in England for differing reasons. Oystons, Mike Ashley, Chansiri, Ken Anderson, SISU, Duchatelet, Carson Yeung, the other Chinese bloke at Birmingham, the one at Reading until recently, Vincent Tan at one stage.

Point is that as bad as they might have been they've all had plus points along the way, including some sporting success and took some interest in their clubs. 

More importantly than that the bad times were relatively brief. A few years or so then it burnt out because they either gave up, ran out of money or got forced out. 

No other example I'm aware of beyond Venkys of such a long term sustained spell of damage and destruction, with no end in sight, and so few positives. Basically the only ones people can dig up are that they've paid their bills. That's how low standards have sunk that the best they've got to their name is paying their bills and not allowing the club to go bust.

All those other clubs could move on, reunite, rebuild and look forward. We can't do that.

20 minutes ago, JBiz said:

You don’t think being fan owned is a sensible proposition but you think a sensible response is “do what everyone else has done and just get better owners”.

The way you make it sound, it should be easy to sort, crack on.

No I don't - aside from Portsmouth following their financial collapse no comparable sized club in England has successfully gone into fan ownership. It doesn't work at this level or size of club.

Note also that Portsmouth, despite 15,000+ a week turning up in Leagues One and Two, promptly ditched the idea and sold out to the Americans because they realised that to get back up to the top 2 divisions they needed external investment. 

It is relatively easy to find new owners yes - if you like I could name you dozens of examples across the top 3 leagues in England. No guarantees of success I accept, but there are plenty of options out there and I think we can probably agree that they'd struggle to beat Venkys in the 'unfit and improper' rankings even if they were awful. 

34 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I agree, he also seems to want the club to be cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

If the future is a fan owned or least local investment shared with that, then Rovers need to be in the realm of being fiscally safe, not adding more debt to the owners, who seemingly have a ridiculous expectation to get back their investments.

 

Why is the future being fan owned? I don't think that is a sensible proposal. No other examples of this working.

Why can't we just do what everyone else has done and get better owners, more importantly ones prepared to invest

Just now, FE123 said:

On Brittain. Sign a deal or sell at this point.
 

impressive end to last season, seems to suit Ismael as a manager, perhaps we should’ve tied him down last summer. But I for one was quite critical of him at that point, seemed to be a passenger when us as team where under the pump.

Sad to lose him, particularly to a rival, but as many others have stated, we have lost a lot worse and recovered.

Why sell?

We ain't spending the money. It isn't increasing our transfer kitty. We've already brought in his replacement and the jury is very much out on whether he's any good. Almost certainly he's inferior to Brittain. 

If we don't sell him then we get another year of a good Championship player in our ranks. If we do sell we are going to be weaker. 

More importantly than that £2-3 million for him just makes it cheaper and easier for Venkys and probably helps chief stooge with his annual bonus. 

You're trying to normalise this as just part and parcel of everyday life and that Rovers just need to move on and reinvest and try to get better. None of those things are the priority here. We aren't trying to get better or responding to events beyond our control. We have created this mess through a deliberate strategy of running down contracts and that is because the priority is to cut costs and help the owners. 

I'd rather not help them.

5 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

I think the club have been caught out by league one/two starting a week earlier than us, and haven't got the capability of finding an alternative opponent for the weekend before the season.

Most friendlies involving foreign teams or PL outfits either require a financial incentive or a degree of organisation/competence/forward planning to involve the travel/timing stuff.

Everton takes care of itself as their fans will cover the cost of hosting the game.

What this lot want is cheap and easy - a League Two side turning up on their coach from an hour up the road, but we are now getting to the stage where really we need a match on the weekend of the 2nd August and probably also one to fill the gap between getting back from Spain on 26th July having played on 25th against Elche and the following weekend - you'd normally have another one midweek there to keep building up.

16 minutes ago, ruggles1995 said:

have we really only got 4 friendlies? seems rather short, I know the squads not huge, but you would of thought 6 friendlies? 

All gearing up for a Brockhall behind closed doors clash or two with Tranmere/Morecambe/Fleetwood/Oldham/Carlisle

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Maybe Ismael doesn't want a big coaching staff or wants to more of coaching himself or is changing Johnson role within the set up. 

Hughes and Allardyce only had a number 2, first team coach, fitness coach and GK coach. 

Ismael has on his staff Whitehead has number 2, Johnson has first team coach, Benson as GK coach whilst we have Karl Hodges and Adam Yates in the fitness area of staff 

I'm well aware of all this. Attempts to compare the highly professional and Premier League standard coaching staff of Allardyce and Hughes to the current outfit is hilarious and ludicrous in equal measure.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24977075.blackburns-stance-ismaels-staff-addition/

It was clearly implied that addition(s) to the staff were potentially coming this summer, and since then Lowe has departed. So I don't think this is simply Ismael not wanting a 'big coaching staff'. Perhaps he has been informed that there isn't the budget to allow for further coaching staff which is why Lowe has been axed - to save cash?

I bet if you compare that collection of names to any other coaching staff in the division it is small.

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

They offered Lowe a different role, which he is reported has not taking. So probably trying to sort of his exit terms

Hopefully someone at the Fans Forum is asking this question for yourself 

Why do we have to wait and hope that the question gets asked in a Forum meeting?

If the media and Ismael have both confirmed it why can't the club?

15 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

are we really one down given that Eustace sent Lowe scouting the next opposition and wasn't actually coaching anyone. Maybe Ismael doesn't want 2 first team coaches but is happy with Whitehead as number 2 and Johnson as first team coach. 

Yes we are. This time last year we had 2 more than we do now. I don't really care what he was doing, and presumably we weren't paying him to sit around doing nothing, it is less than we had before.

I thought Ismael mentioned wanting to add to his staff once the season was over?

23 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Ismael confirmed the Nicko's story from about 2 weeks about David Lowe leaving us post game. 

Whitehead and Johnson did the pre match warm ups with the outfield players

I would imagine they are sorted out Lowe's payment 

on the CEO position, probably a question will be asked by someone at the Fans Forum tonight, Wouldn't be surprising if they are still interviewing or waiting for that person's notice period before the appointment is made publicly. 

Exactly. Nixon 'broke' the news weeks ago, Ismael had to answer the question after the game on Saturday and it's been reported in the Telegraph. Still no official announcement from the club, which is what I would kind of expect but hey since when do we operate by industry norms?

So am I right in thinking that there is still no announcement from the Club on the future of David Lowe, who apparently has left according to Ismael but the Club hasn't had the decency to announce it yet.

Also after the appalling statement confirming the departure of the previous CEO after 7.5 years the club is yet to announce a replacement, timescale, update or indeed who is running the club in Waggott's place at the current time?

Communication eh?

41 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

He seems to be saying "I'd like them to stay but we're going to lose them because of the contract situation".

Shrug of the shoulders, "Nothing to do with me Guv, blame it on the previous administration."

I find him completely uninspiring myself. Only here to pick up his pay cheque. Not a scrap of ambition about him.

A convenient by-product of the ever revolving exit door and turnover of staff at Rovers is that every time a new manager/CEO/Head of turns up they can just blame whoever came before them and ask for a fresh start and a clean slate.

The problem of course is that the cause of everything - the owners and their henchmen - are still here, so it just keeps on happening. 

I've no doubt people like Ismael will be saying that once we've got shut of Travis, Tronstad and Brittain 'it won't happen again' and we will learn lessons. And I suspect he will be sincere in that. But he won't be here for long and then the Regime will replace him with someone else who will be in exactly the same position. 

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

So was Lambert, Mowbray, JDT and Eustace on this scrapheap as you call it

All unemployed and desperate to get back working in the Championship. Lambert needed a steady job after the Villa experience, Mowbray was unemployable in the Championship and had been turned down by Chesterfield after the state he left Coventry in. JDT wanted a route into England to enhance his reputation and foolishly believed this was a serious outfit and Eustace needed to build on his short Birmingham spell and had been overlooked by numerous other Championship clubs over the previous 6 months.

Common denominator - all were unemployed and keen to work - and all realised after getting into the building the true nature of the Venky beast. Lambert, JDT and Eustace couldn't wait to get out of here. The first two preferred unemployment to staying here any longer, the latter preferred to gamble his career on an uphill battle to avoid League One at Derby County.

Odd one out Mowbray but he managed to get his holiday to India at the start which got his feet under the table and the assurances he wanted, and even then he was undermined and disgracefully treated in his last 12-18 months.

Ismael will go the same way as Lambert, JDT and Eustace. If he makes it to 12 months I will be amazed.

1 hour ago, Tomphil2 said:

10-14k more likely, he came from Coventry who were skint.

Funny how no one is queuing up for him with bids seeing as only a year left so it could be a case of happy to extend current terms for a few years extra security.

As has been repeated many times the alleged 10k cap seemed to be aimed at new comers ....and academy grads....

Yes the batch signed in JDTs first summer - Hyam, Brittain, Szmods - were pre further cuts so probably just above the new threshold imposed half way through JDTs second summer. He knew then it was a recipe for disaster and tried to get out. 

11 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

New contract 😂

These journalists must think we are thick as mince to believe these stories.

Also Nixon is wrong about Legia advancing in Europe, they only won the first leg 1-0 and have the second leg this week.

Got to drop one in this morning to try and soften the Brittain blow.

I'm sure it will all get sorted 'imminently' 

2 minutes ago, JBiz said:

We don’t have to accept anything but our owners have no interest, that’s a fact.

Whilst I’d support anyone trying to arrest that terminal issue, basically calling people plants and liars because they don’t “catastrophise” to a similar extent, is just dumb.

I disagree.

I think there are a lot of people out there, who knowingly or otherwise are set to defend the Venky Regime come what may.

Someone at Rovers 'leaking' something to Jackson or Nixon and then them regurgitating it to other 'journalists' isn't beyond the realms of possibility. Nor is someone invested in the regime having a spout off on twitter to defend their antics and their employers.

Anyhow,  doesn't actually matter either way because my prophecy of doom is coming true, as I said it would in January and ever since. No amount of insisting that Brittain was offered a great new deal will change that.

17 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Different argument all together - the examples I could give you all have owners that invest.

There’s a difference between being a club plant, and acknowledging that a future without a billionaire means a different reality (especially comparing parachute clubs)

Why do we have to accept a future without a billionaire? Most of this league have done