7 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Nice win for Villa 2-0 away to Preston. The seem to be getting their shit together. Luckily for them, they really need to get promoted soon. Wolves looking nailed on to go up too. So it seems money really does buy success...except in League 1 

Going to be one or two running into difficulties in the near future. Sheffield Wednesday well off the pace despite massive spending - hard to see how that can carry on if they miss out again. Derby have been having a go for years and need to go up. Norwich will be running out of money soon. Middlesbrough spent £50 million and aren't even in the top 6.

Also goes to show with clubs like Cardiff and Sheffield United right up there despite minimal spending that it can still be done for the less well funded clubs (not our problem as we have 'billionaire owners' who 'never say no' to spending money - its only FFP that stops them). It wouldn't surprise me if both those clubs had smaller wage bills than Rovers looking at the sort of players they have signed and that we appeared to be handing Whittingham more than Cardiff were which again just rubs more salt in the wounds.

Tomlinson has signed a new deal until 2019

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2017/november/tomlinson-signs-new-deal/

2 hours ago, philipl said:

What is going on at PNE?- this is looking like a serious promotion challenge. As for Notlob. A bit early for getting the record books out (save that for Palace?) but...

Doing very well on small crowds and minimal finance. If it wasn't them I'd be happy as it is another mythbuster episode to prove that you don't need massive gates and loads of money to compete (Mike Cheston).

I don't think they'll last the pace. Some stronger squads and more experienced operators starting to gather just outside the top 6. Villa are coming good, Boro will be up there, Fulham won't be far off.

Quite pleased about Notlob. Worst case is we have another local derby in League One next season but much better if we're back in a higher division than them.

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Just face the fact that Rhodes is yesterday man and King is the man who made the most of his career. 

 

 

I'm still struggling with this. You say it is a fact that Rhodes is yesterdays man, and you seem to have decided his 'legs have gone' aged 25. Have you any real basis for either of those statements or is it just because he's been playing at clubs where he isn't guaranteed 1st team football and so his opportunities are more limited?

In terms of career achievements I think that will be decided once both players have retired.

1 hour ago, islander200 said:

How did he have chance after chance?He rarely played up front for us and he never had a consistent run of games in all his time here..He was also quite young at the time and I do think a more experienced manager would have got more out of him.Eddie Howe didn't take him to Bournemouth on the back of one game against Stoke he seen potential in him,he didn't start great at Bournemouth but Howe stuck with him and he is now being linked with moves for 20 million. 

So presumably you would take Gestede back over King too?You speak a lot of sense most the time but saying you would bring back Rhodes over King at this time is madness

He made 70+ appearances for Rovers, and was at the club from 2012 to 2015 so plenty of chances to establish himself as a regular in the team and hot property. If he was doing the business on the training ground every week then at some stage in that time period he would have been given a chance to play in his favoured position.

I remember clearly being relieved in 2014 that he was going into the final year of his contract as he had offered nothing to the cause and he was a big earner we were close to getting rid of. Prior to the FA Cup games in early 2015 he had been nothing other than a regular treatment room visitor and bench warmer.

Hindsight is great but at Rovers he was a waste of space really.

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

King every day. 

If the choice was Gestede or Rhodes? I would pick Gestede every day. Simple bring more to the table that Rhodes..

Thats crazy. 

You based it on what each player brings to the table 

Rhodes bring goals if you set the team up for him. No pace or hold up play

King brings goals, pace, movement and strength. 

 

Not for us in the Championship he didn't. He can do it when he wants to as shown at Bournemouth with the big boys and in glimpses when at Rovers. He either couldn't or wouldn't do it every week in the rough and tumble of the Championship. That might partly be down to the manager but I'd argue if he was that good and that determined then he would have forced his way into the first XI and stayed there.

Amazing you refer to King bringing goals yet in 2.5 years at Rovers he scored about 3. Lovely that he's netting for Bournemouth in the Prem with a decent team supplying him but there was none of that whilst at Rovers and he spent more time away injured than he did actually playing.

Just now, islander200 said:

He hardly ever played up front though JH.If Mark Hughes or someone of his ilk had been at the football club when King was here then in my opinion we would have seen a lot more of King playing as a frontman and got a lot more out of King.

If tomorrow morning Rovers had the choice of signing either Jordan Rhodes or Josh King you would choose Rhodes??

Yes I would. I'd work on what they offered during their times at Rovers. Rhodes did the business consistently with a good attitude, King didn't. King had chance after chance in his time at Rovers and for whatever reason couldn't or wouldn't do it here. 

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I wouldn't say King did nowt. He gave a Premier League Club ( Stoke ? ) a real chasing in the F A Cup at Ewood.  Something that neither of Gestede or Rhodes could have done.

Like I say, 1 game in 2 and a half seasons when he knew he could make a name for himself. Rhodes and Gestede maybe didn't have the individual ability of King but they churned out consistent performances each week in the league rather than a once in a blue moon show like King. 

How many goals did King even notch for us? My memory is of someone constantly getting a sight on goal then fluffing his chances.

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Thankyou. 

Rhodes wouldnt be in my team. 

Samuel brings pace and strength Rhodes doesnt. 

40 goals strikeforce that is on the bench in the championship whilst King is scoring goals in the Premier League. Rhodes hasnt. Gestede hasnt regular

We aren't in the Premier League and won't be for a long time. We aren't in the Championship any more, one of the reasons being that we sold off that 40 goal strikeforce and trousered the dosh.

King did nowt for Rovers in 2.5 years, Rhodes and Gestede did. 

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Rhodes wanted out for 12 months before hand. A

Hardly the model.pro is it? 

What King Has done in Premier League is irrelevant? Really. Wonder why you say that?

Make no sense? Really. We didnt get promotion with them in team. King is being link with Everton now and scoring PL goals for past 2 seasons. Whilst Gestede and Rhodes careers have gone backwards. 

Rhodes thanks for memories but no thanks. 

Yeah the FA Cup which we won 4-1 against Stoke but Gestede and King that day was great. 

Its a bit late in the day to start hailing King as a brilliant talent. He was at Rovers for 2.5 seasons and apart from a couple of games was useless. If he's decided to knuckle down at Bournemouth then good for him but I saw very little from him at Rovers to wish he was back here. If he came back tomorrow but then reverted back to the King we had last time then we wouldn't really benefit from it. 

Whether its down to his attitude, fitness or his manager, nobody can say his time at Rovers was a success.

Rhodes in 3.5 years said he was upset we didn't allow him to speak to Middlesbrough. After that he was fit, ready to play and banged 11 more league goals in before he was sold. 

Rhodes did the business for Rovers. King did nothing except beat Stoke in the cup but has since done well.

Just now, islander200 said:

King was rarely ever played as a striker though.Not excusing his attitude but I don't know how I'd feel never getting a game in my best position where he has since gone on to prove he has a lot more talent than both Rhodes and Gestede

He put the effort in for the FA Cup game because he knew he could make a name for himself. And that's exactly what he did, tore Stoke a new one and on that game alone got a move to Bournemouth and he's  thrived in the spotlight of the Premier League.

If he'd have done what he did vs Stoke in the games vs Yeovil, Doncaster and Millwall then we might have got in the play-offs or at least his value would have rocketed and we could have cashed in on him.

When you look what he's done since he's undoubtedly a talent, but big question marks for me on why he never did it in the Championship. He'll only be remembered here for the Stoke game precisely because in 2.5 years that was the only game he really stood out.

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

You dont know how King and Gestede partnership would have done. Look at the Stoke Cup game. Gestede and King ripped them apart. 

Which striker is scoring goals in the Premier League whilst one is on the bench for a championship club? 

I wouldnt want him back either. 

Strange. You wouldn't want back a model professional who scored 80+ goals in 3 years for us yet you would want a player back who had 1 good game vs Stoke in almost the same period of time.

What King has done since is largely irrelevant as he seldom did it here. Either because he was 'injured' or couldn't be bothered.

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

We sold Rbodes at the right time. His legs were going. He is no longer the Rhodes we had here and I doubt he will reach those highs ever again. 

WOULDNT sign him again

His legs were going? What makes you say that? He was 25 when we sold him so something wrong if he was losing his fitness at that age, especially for someone who always appeared professional and looked after himself.

He was so successful for us and Huddersfield because he was the main man and in the team every week. He had 20+ a year for 6 years running and none of it was down to his legs. He'd had 11 goals the season before we sold him.

At Middlesbrough and Wednesday he hasn't had the run in the team he had with us, as they have plenty of other options to pick from. That's why he isn't scoring.

I just don't understand why Sheffield Wednesday spent so much money on Rhodes to then leave him sat on their bench. 

Surely they watched videos of him playing for us and Middlesbrough and knew exactly what they were getting. So why shell out £8 million+ and his wages and then not start him? Fair enough if they were going to play him for 90 minutes every week and set up to his strengths because he'll always score 20+ a season if he's given enough time in the team, but as a squad player expected to come off the bench and compete with Fletcher, Hooper, Joao, Winnall etc. for a place in the team, he seems a very expensive and limited option.

For a mid table or bottom half side where he is the main man in the team every week he'll do the business, but at a side that needs to get promotion where he's one of 4-5 quality forwards, I don't get the point in spending what they did when they must have seen his limitations at Rovers and Middlesbrough.

Notice that Leon Clarke scored a couple. I seem to remember him being linked with us a couple of years ago when Bowyer was manager.

Sheffield United seem to have assembled a side with little money spent. Clarke's one of those who would have ended up useless if he'd come here yet seems to be doing the business elsewhere. A forward line of Clarke, Ched Evans, Clayton Donaldson and Billy Sharp doesn't look like much yet they've had a strong start to the season and could well be up there.

At the end of the day the current product is abysmal. I believe that is because Rovers have chosen to neglect this particular area of the operation and prefer to churn out a programme as cheaply and quickly as possible with scant regard for the quality of the product.

We can debate all day whether the club should move towards a digital future. I believe in a mid=way point whereby a quality programme is produced and sold in paper form as it always has been but a scanned version is available to download and save to your computer if you prefer. I could scan all the programmes so far into the scanner at work in 30 minutes and email it out as an attachment to a mailing list if people want it that way. Its not difficult if there's the will to do it.

Every week clubs up and down the country prove that it is perfectly viable to produce a comprehensive, quality matchday programme and charge £3 for it and can make it work. The only reason Rovers don't is because they can't be bothered. 

Anyone spot a pattern emerging here? That's right, we've only one director, he's got enough on his plate to worry about a programme that he probably never reads, and so it falls between the cracks whilst the show rolls on with the minimum done to produce one. Same applies to the matchday 'entertainment' with the same old music played over and over again at a volume so low I struggle to hear what it actually is. It hardly lends itself to building up an atmosphere pre kick off. Some poor soul not able to do the job has probably had the programme job thrown upon him a few weeks before the season began because they suddenly realised nobody else was around to do it. 

Shoddy operation. Normally a commercial or communications director would hold such responsibility and employ/delegate the programme job to someone capable with requirements attached as to content and quality. This being the same club that pleads poverty yet treats a potential income stream with such disdain!

16 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

It would appear that Birminghan City will let Carsley do the job for a while with him bring in Paul Williams as a coach today..

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/birmingham-city-confirm-lee-carsleys-13636792

I think Carsley would be a good choice for them. 

Karanka and Pardew arent suited to them. 

Dont need a big name manager

Carsley had an impressive stint at Brentford a couple of years ago, but I'm sure he said he didn't want that job permanently so unless things have changed he might not fancy front line management. Most managers at Brentford have done well in recent times. Steady club with low expectations and content fanbase.  It will be interesting to see how he goes on at a basket case club who think they are bigger and better than they really are and who will get stuck into the manager and players if results don't pick up quickly.

7 minutes ago, J*B said:

I disagree with 'couldn't care less attitude' as I know its not the case, I know the marketing people at Ewood and know they'd love to create a brilliant programme, but budget cuts are all over the place and things like programmes are first to go, especially when readership is so low. It wouldn't surprise me if for your average league game the programmes actually make a loss, so of course its going to get cuts - which is in turn going to reduce the quality (whether thats physically or in content). 

All it takes is the club to hire someone (that costs) or trust the existing marketing team to create something different and modern. Theres money to be made for anyone who can execute a brilliantly interactive digital download programme... or should I say convince Pasha that its worth doing. 

My point is how/why are budget cuts affecting production of a quality programme when Rochdale etc. are able to do it perfectly well on much lower revenues? Each programme sold must make the club some money, so surely it is in the club's interest to sell more by offering a better product?

If our programme is a loss maker then is it the case that all league club programmes are a loss maker? If not then what are they doing differently to us?

All it takes is to pay someone who is retired/semi retired with an interest in Rovers/football who can spend the fortnight between games compiling some interesting facts and typing up some interviews, ringing opposition fans for their views etc. Everyone else manages it apart from the lazy club who treat such things as an irritant. The 'reports' on recent games are a joke. I could do better over my lunch break.

32 minutes ago, J*B said:

I do realise that, but an app would offer much more interactive reading at a fraction of the price. Its the way the world is going and unfortunately is a case of get on board or stay at the station. Eventually it will happen and I see no reason why it shouldn't happen now. A subscription service at say £1 per home game for all programmes or £2.50 one off download - brilliant, read it on the way in, pre match, half time, full time, whenever you want. It would also reduce the pressure on the writer as you could include content e.g. interviews, training ground footage. Its really simple stuff, but unfortunately as a club we seem to be happy to be left behind. See 'Radio Rovers' which could have been retained for hardly any cost and made accessible via an App also. Make it a subscription service and start bringing money in for once. 

Whether to offer an interactive service is another issue. To begin with we need to get our house in order and offer a programme that is worth buying/reading. The current 'effort' is the culmination of years of a couldn't care less attitude whereby even the basic things of matchday such as the programme and entertainment are falling well short of what should be expected.

Until there is acceptance at management level that the existing programme and content is frankly an embarrassment for a club of this size then efforts to transfer it to digital format will be a waste. Nobody bar those who collect or have a habit of buying programmes will part with £3 every game to read that rubbish.

I understand that these days of internet, twitter etc. that a matchday programme no longer offers the breaking news and inside track on club activity as it might have done 20 years ago but it doesn't excuse a complete lack of effort or imagination. I suspect the individual who has been handed this responsibility isn't really up to the job but like with other things at the club its a make do and mend patch-up job rather than going out and finding someone to do the job who will actually be good at it.

I've always seen the matchday programme as an opportunity to showcase the club. It is the one thing away supporters will buy and take home with them to read through and learn about this club. I therefore would like to see a professional effort where supporters of other clubs are impressed with the standards we offer. There are clubs I have visited over the years and I buy their programmes and some are packed from front to back with interesting information contained in a smart, professional design. At least we've moved on from the cartoon days where the programme looked like a 'Match' magazine but the content has dropped instead. Visiting supporters will get arguably the worst value for money product in the league, vastly inferior to those seen at most League Two clubs. As our customer base is multiple times larger than clubs in this league I refuse to accept that it cannot be done if the club want it to.

It also irritates me when I see our honours as 1x Premier League title and 2x First Division title. It should be 3x Premier League/First Division.

Lets suppose that out of the 3,000 they produce that 2,500 are sold for £3 each with the other 500ish given out to corporates/players or not sold.

The club will make something on a programme sale. It won't cost £3 per unit to produce a programme. I'd be surprised/bemused if a programme cost more than £1.50 to print/assemble although I know very little of the printing industry. Lets suppose the club 'only' makes £1 per programme sale. If they sell 2,500 per game that's £2,500 before any sponsorship receipts. Over a season that's £60,000.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the club to employ someone on £10-15,000 a year to take responsibility to produce a proper programme. One a fortnight shouldn't need a full time employee. I'm sure there are some Rovers fans who would enjoy preparing a programme if they were paid to do it.

A wild idea I know but maybe if the programme was actually worth reading and contained interesting things then maybe more people would buy them thereby increasing revenues?

I know it got mentioned at a Fans Forum meeting the other year that people weren't happy with the standard of the programme so instead of taking steps to improve it they suggested reducing its size and price. Seems they've managed to reduce the size, but have overlooked a price reduction.

37 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Preston have made some great signings from the League of Ireland for absolute peanuts. I don't know why we don't do the same. Daryll Horgan and Sean Maguire would have been great signings for us. Both in the Ireland squad, I would say they got them both for less than €250,000 

To be honest not to dissimilar business to we were doing under Bowyer. Spending relatively small amounts on young players who would develop and become worth more.

30 minutes ago, meadows said:

I hope Bolton stay up. If we go up it's a Derby. I know it's a Derby if we stay down & they go down but I don't really wish them any Ill-fortune. If nothing else they provided a textbook example of how to bounce back despite financial strife which means Mowbray ought to have no excuse. Their problem - and in fairness the chairman made it perfectly clear to the fans in advance - was that not only would there be nothing to spend this season, there would also have to be swingeing cuts and even at this early stage it seems unlikely they won't come straight back down. 

Apparently under the terms of their embargo they have been limited to one in-one out with arrivals on a maximum of £4,500 per week. With that sort of restriction on arrivals I think anyone would struggle massively, but for Bolton they arguably now have a weaker squad than the one that won promotion last season, or certainly not significantly stronger. Makes our and Mowbray's resources look like PSG.

At least their manager had a formula to grind out the results every week in this league even with meagre resources. I'm not yet convinced that Mowbray possesses such a plan.

2 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I wonder where we would be had we stayed up? My head says somewhere around where Birmingham are, unfortunately. 

Tough one to second guess really. If they'd have continued with the policy of the last few seasons then probably where Birmingham are now, however if they'd have 'rewarded' Mowbray with a bit of money to spend and he'd made some astute signings there's no reason we couldn't be higher.

Interesting that the current top 6 contains Ipswich, PNE, Sheffield United and Cardiff. None of whom have spent big. Sheff Utd just come up after a long spell in the 3rd division, Ipswich and Preston have spet very little and have been astute in their business, Cardiff not spent much more. Experience and good management reaping rewards rather than the chaos at other clubs. Meanwhile the big spenders like Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and Villa are struggling to get going.

Birmingham's decision to give Rowett the boot as they were just outside the play-offs last season looking like being the poor decision most thought it would be. Zola nearly took them down and now Redknapp has left them 2nd bottom having spent a fair amount in the window. Be nice to see them and Bolton come down.

It really is woeful. Yesterday they did a 'report' on the last 4 games - MK Dons, Stoke, Rochdale and Scunthorpe - each 'report' amounted to one page, 2/3 of which is covered by a photo, with about 10 lines of a 'report' and the team. 

No fixtures for U23s so clearly they aren't interested in getting more people to Ewood/Leyland to watch.

Worst programme in the Football League bar none.

1 hour ago, meadows said:

Still no Under 21 Fixtures listed. Absolute joke that Rochdale can produce a far superior programme for their 3,000 diehards 

About time Rovers reduce the price on their programmes to £1.50 or £2 rather than £3. Its one thing churning out rubbish but then having the audacity to charge the same as other clubs who put effort into producing their programmes is something else.

If Rovers aren't going to take it seriously then nobody can force them to but they should charge a price that reflects the sub-standard quality. 

As Rochdale and Scunthorpe have shown recently, it is perfectly viable to produce a good quality programme and charge £3 for it even if the customer base is only 3 or 4 thousand. No excuse for Rovers to produce such rubbish with a customer base of 10,000. Just laziness.