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.

20 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Villa are another big club. Everton are also a big club but not because they've been finishing in the top 10 of the Prem for the last 10 seasons but never winning anything. They are historically just a big club. Chelsea were a big club in the 50's, 60's and 70's using your criteria. They struggled in the 80's but you only seem you seem to think they have become 'big' since Abramovic took over.

You seem to put money and league position before all so we'll agree to disagree. It's all a bit Sky Sports for me, sorry.

Money and league positions work hand in hand. The reason the likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal have maintained their status at the top of English football has been because they have had more money than most over a long long time. We temporarily overcame that thanks to Jack Walker, Chelsea and City are currently doing it and are therefore among the elite and challenging for glory.

Leeds, Forest, Villa are things of the past. Living off past glories whilst occupying 2nd and 3rd division slots. Sheffield Wed have even less to go off as they haven't had any period of success other than a League Cup in the modern era. 

Prior to Abramovich rocking up Chelsea had won 1 league title in their history and a few FA Cups. Less than we had pre-Walker. Since his arrival they have won it all and have been challenging for trophies every season. They might have been big a long time ago, but had since lost that status. Same for City. Were big in the 60s and 70s, then in the 90s and 00s they weren't big, then the Arabs made them big by pouring billions in. If a billionaire took over Derby/Sunderland tomorrow and spent what the Arabs had spent at City I'm sure they would eventually become big clubs too. 

Its ultimately all relative. Compare Leeds to other Championship clubs and they are 'big'. But I don't think that makes them 'big' in English football, as take away distant glories and above average fanbases and they are miles behind the true big clubs who will be winning trophies and dominating the game.

Forest haven't been in the top 20 clubs since 1999, and even then they were a poor, struggling side. Infact you have to go back to the mid-80s to when they were actually a decent top division side. That isn't a big club when you compare to Liverpool/United/Arsenal. 

If you go to League Two then I'm sure Luton are a 'big club' relatively speaking. They aren't a big club in English football. Same applies to the 2nd division sides mentioned above.

16 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

By your definition Leicester are bigger than Everton yet you fail to mention them. Liverpool haven't won the league for nearly 30 years, Everton longer. Playing in the top division on a regular basis doesn't make you a big club. Leeds will always be a bigger club than B'mouth even if B'mouth finish 10th in the top division for the next 20 years on the spin.

History, crowds, prestige, tradition,  trophies won, reputation, infrastructure etc all contribute to being a big club. Not just money and league position.

No, because by my definition the big clubs are the ones who are nearly always in the top 6-7 of the top flight and have been for years and years. Ever presents in the top division, regularly challenging for the league, and European qualification.

Leicester aren't bigger than Everton by that criteria, because whilst they had one freak league win and CL qualification it was a 'one off'. Nobody expected it, precisely because Leicester aren't a big club and so nobody thought they could compete with those big clubs. Everton have been mainstays in the Premier League and whilst they haven't won owt for a while have almost always been in the higher positions whilst the clubs I referred to earlier have wallowed in the lower divisions.

We had a Premier League win, that doesnt make us bigger than Liverpool because it was unfortunately a one off and our period in that club at the top of the Prem only lasted for a few years and we haven't been near since. 

Whilst Liverpool haven't won the league in a long time they have maintained their status as a big club. They have been regulars in the Champions League, won it not long since, regulars in the knock out and latter stages, several title challenges, numerous other trophies. Not what they once were but haven't done what pretenders like Leeds/Forest have and been in a 20 year exile from the top division, nor have they done what Villa did and ended up making up the numbers in the top division before eventual relegation. Another lot who reckon they are big off past glories/above average crowds but don't have the results to back it up.

I agree that Leeds will always be bigger than Bournemouth, but that doesn't mean Leeds are a big club. We will always be bigger than Rochdale, that doesn't make Rovers a 'big club'. We are bigger than most in League One, Leeds are bigger than most in the Championship, but by the standards of English football they are no longer a 'big club'. That distinction lies with the small number who are the mainstays at the top and who hoover up the best players, most money and most trophies. United, Arsenal, Liverpool have been there for a very long time. Everton have been on the edges of that club, as have Spurs. City and Chelsea have broken into it in the last few years due to massive financial backing which has propelled them into it. Chelsea weren't a big club before Abramovich came along. He's made them one. Maybe one day when his money has gone they'll revert back to what they were. Maybe if Leeds get promoted and survive they will eventually start to break into the big club again and become a member. 

Put simply I refuse to class anyone outside the Premier League into 'big club' category. You wouldn't be in this league if you were big. 

On 8/26/2017 at 11:52, blueboy3333 said:

By any definition Forest, Leeds and SW are 'big' clubs.

As far as my criteria go they aren't. They are 'bigger' than most in the Championship at the moment, have been big in the past, and could be big in the future. At this moment in time they aren't big. They're in the 2nd tier. 

Forest haven't even played in the top division this century, now 19 years and counting with several seasons in the third division;

Sheff Wed haven't been in the top division since about 2001 some 17 years and counting with several seasons in the third division;

Leeds haven't been in the top division since 2004 some 14 years and counting with several seasons in the third division.

Meanwhile clubs like Swansea, Brighton, Bournemouth, Watford, Palace, QPR, Fulham, Burnley, Rovers, Blackpool, Bolton, Wigan, Huddersfield and Stoke have done what they haven't been able to do.

Ignoring the League Cup which has more recently been won by ourselves, Swansea, Birmingham and Middlesbrough, none of those 3 clubs have won a major trophy in generations.

Big clubs compete at the top of the game for trophies, win trophies, play in Europe and are regulars in the top division. Therefore United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton and City. Not really any others at this moment in time. If Leeds go up, stay up, and start challenging those above for honours then they'll be big as they once were.

12 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Rovers were the attacking side all game and we started well but after we went 1 nil up we didnt keep the ball well enough and not convert our chances. We had enough in the game  

Boro were a defensive side and started 4-4-2 and after 10 mins went 4-1-4-1 and play on the counter. 4 shots 3 goals. 

Nuttall was quiet and the worst game ive seen him play. Rankin-Costello went quiet after his goal. Tomlinson and Hardcastle had ok games were good and poor points. 

Travis and Doyle were very good and got forward every opportunity and put in some good crosses in. 

Grayson kick out was a sending off and stupid to do but you can see why he did. 

The ref was rubbish and no idea of what he was doing. Boro number 5 was in the ref ear at every opportunity to put pressure on him and he cracked

I agree. The referee let all sorts go unpunished in the first half and then in typical textbook fashion started handing out the yellows once the 60 minute mark was passed. Very inconsistent in his handling of the game.

Lewis Travis seems to be excelling in his wing back role where he is encouraged to get forward and put crosses into the box. First half in particular last night he had a lot of joy and they struggled to contain him but then second half seemed to get a grip. In the second half Doyle seemed to come to the fore more and more of our chances came down the left hand side through him rather than on the right through Travis.

Second half we had bundles of possession and looked dangerous every time we went forward but just didn't get that chance and most of our attempts ended up off target. Middlesbrough defended quite well.

One of the most one sided games I've seen at that level for a long time so extremely frustrating to end up with nothing. They were clinical in putting away 3 of the 4 or 5 chances they had all the match and I don't recall them getting into our box more than 3 or 4 times and I think we only had one save to make.

A pleasure to watch them tonight against a strong Wigan side containing numerous first team and experienced pros. Unfortunate not to beat them in normal time so to go through on penalties was the least they deserved. I like Travis at wing back, Grayson had an excellent game, Platt very good, Nuttall a real presence up front which was the downfall of the U23s last season. To be honest there was no weak link.

All in all very impressed. Energy and understanding from back to front from start to finish. 

I find it odd/bizarre that Mowbray decided to recruit the 3 players he did on deadline day given the displays of those in U23s this season. But that's up to him and he will be judged on results. One or two of this lot won't be hanging around if we keep taking other clubs kids instead though.

What do other clubs do to provide commentary services to people who are blind/partially sighted?

Genuine question because I'm almost certain every other Championship/League One club doesn't have their own radio station.

15 minutes ago, Paul said:

I can't help but think you're overthinking this. If your quote is directly from the Rovers website the meaning is absolutely clear. Both ST holders AND 1875 members qualify for £18 tickets  

Plain English should always be applauded. 

So what if you're both? Where's the benefit for a long term season ticket holder who also joined the club? I'm not trying to be a moaner or argumentative, I'm just puzzled as to how this scheme actually works.

I was led to believe that as a season ticket holder if I paid the additional £5 to join the 1875 club then I would have advantages over non-members. This would either be by way of priority on ticket purchases or alternatively discounts on ticket purchases. Looks like I'm getting neither over someone who could ring up this morning and become an 1875 member. Likewise why should someone who hasnt bought a season ticket but has paid £5 or £10 for 1875 membership get the same benefits as someone who has paid for both?

So it might appear to be 'plain English' but I'm afraid it is anything but plain sensible or logical.

The Ts & Cs of 1875 membership on Rovers' website clearly state that members will be entitled to a discount on home match tickets, and yet I'm not getting a discount over non-members because all season ticket holders are seemingly entitled to £18 tickets. I also have it on good authority that a discount will not apply for members for the home game in the Checkatrade Trophy vs Stoke City (on sale from today apparently, try finding that out on Rovers' website and you deserve a medal if you do!) So there's another one where logic is going out of the window, and another home cup game where my 1875 membership has achieved nothing and I wonder what the use was in buying it. 

3,000 seats left empty in the Darwen End.

Looking at the online planner they've blocked off E04 in the Riverside (1,000+ seats) along with W01 and W07 in the Jack Walker (1500)

Blackburn Upper Tier remains closed (3,000 seats)

Therefore capacity currently at around 22,000 maximum.

Why does this club have to reduce capacity by more than 25% for this fixture?

'Fortunately' for the organisers demand for tickets in the home end is likely to be at an all time low so they won't have to worry about shutting down vast swathes of Ewood.

Would they have got away with this if Rovers were still in the Premier League and likely to sell out the home ends?

Looking forward to seeing Ibrox capacity reduced by 10,000 the next time Celtic are there, or Old Trafford down to 55,000 when City go there, or the Emirates down to 45,000 when Spurs go there because those nasty supporters can't be controlled otherwise. 

On the Rovers website it says that the £18 adult price applies to 'season ticket holders and 1875 members'. Otherwise it is £22 for 'general admission'.

A couple of issues.

Firstly, how do we interpret 'season ticket holders and 1875 members'? Does that mean if you are EITHER a season ticket holder OR 1875 member that you qualify for the reduced price? Or does it mean that you have to be BOTH  a season ticket holder WITH 1875 membership to qualify? I suspect it is likely to be the first option, but the way they have set it out on the website could actually mean either.

If it is indeed the case that you only need to be one of either a season ticket holder or 1875 member then where is the reward/incentive for season ticket holders? It seems to me that someone could go out and buy a 1875 membership without being a season ticket holder and then qualify for the same benefits at the same time as a lifelong season ticket holder who has shelled out £300 every year for his seat. Doesn't really seem right to me that.

I think the 1875 scheme should either be only open to season ticket holders or in the case of home cup ties it should mean holders of BOTH get an additional discount.

Why are tickets not on sale for this yet? Just over a week until the fixture takes place, 3 days since it was announced the game would be on the Wednesday, 4 days since the draw was made. I envisage a record low crowd for a Rovers v Dingles game which I suspect is exactly what the 'authorities' want too.

Picked up the first edition of the new Rovers programme on Saturday. The new cover design features an old map of Blackburn and this week had a picture of Danny Graham and Blackburn Cathedral. It seems each edition will feature a different player and 'landmark' of the area on the cover.

Got me wondering how on earth they are going to manage to find 24-26 landmarks from Blackburn to have on each programme cover this season.

Expect to see Darwen Tower, Town Hall, King George's Hall, Railway Station, after that can't think of many other things they could use.

http://accringtonstanley.co.uk/2017/08/west-brom-date-confirmed/

Looks like we're on the Wednesday, unless Sky get it moved again.

43 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Burnley making a 15 million bid for Chris Wood from Leeds according to the sun

Lol. One good Championship season and they're at £15 million?

If being well managed and having a canny manager means £25 million on Jack Cork and Chris Wood I'd sooner not thanks.

My understanding was that media services were 'outsourced' to a company which operated everything for the club. I think that bloke Neil Yardley was the one behind it (Creatv).

http://www.creatv.co.uk/broadcast/

I expect this arrangement won't come cheap and attempts to save money on that front might ne the reason behind it stopping.

The cost of running a radio station for a few hours on a matchday might not be so much but the cost of outsourcing all media duties to a 3rd party will cost. Clearly no-one at the club is capable of sorting out themselves.

Another legacy of our Premier League days which was always going to end eventually whilst in the 2nd and 3rd tiers.

42 minutes ago, AAK said:

I didn't realise there was any around Ewood? Can only think of next to the travellers site, is that council owned?

The car parks around the campsite including the one opposite the Empire Theatre and the one opposite the Fox and Hounds are all council owned. The club collected money from fans and sent it to the council to operate them on matchday with the council employing the stewards etc.

A major health hazard with all sorts of potholes, glass, waste dumped yet the council allow it to remain so.

2 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

There won't be 31,000 on at Ewood again in my lifetime.

The maximum capacity will only be about 25,000. They'll block off 2,000+ seats in the Darwen End at the front and sides and another 2,000-3,000 seats in the Riverside and Jack Walker which has been the regular thing whenever a decent crowd has turned up. Some bright spark came up with the idea and now it happens every time there is a large away following.

Ewood Park is actually blessed in that in theory pretty much every seat in the ground should be occupied if the demand is there. 4 separate stands means no need for seats to be netted off as police can provide a buffer between stands. Unlike at modern bowls where a block either side needs to be used to keep away fans from home fans.

Just imagine the police trying to tell Arsenal/Liverpool/Man Utd to reduce their capacity by 5,000 for a buffer zone! Wouldn't happen yet it does at Rovers.

40 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I believe that for recent league meetings between us and them the planning starts months in advance with meetings between both clubs and police. Given the short notice I wonder if the normally rigid travel arrangements might be relaxed as they were for the FA Cup replay over a decade ago.

I would love Rovers to restrict the ticket allocation to them to a bare minimum whatever that is. Last time we went there we only got just over half of the Shittyfield End but that was a league game. As somebody said earlier the pound signs will be lighting up in Chestons eyes.

I'm afraid the opposite will apply. The only concern of Cheston's will be maximising the away allocation as much as possible. He might even open the mothballed Legends Lounge for them like last time. Any buffer zone will be taken from the home areas so expect the end blocks of the Riverside and Jack Walker stands to be shut down with some season ticket holders being told to move elsewhere.

I expect the maximum allocation the police will allow will be about 5,000 or so. They'll be bricking it and won't be able to cope at this short notice with 7,000+dingles coming down the motorway. They might even struggle to find bus companies prepared to risk their vehicles being trashed which might prevent the ludicrous travel arrangements.

Lets also remember that the strict travel arrangements were actually relaxed for the Dingles last time they came to Rovers as West/North Lancashire based fans were able to travel to Ewood outside the convoy on independently arranged buses. No such freedom was afforded to Rovers fans for the return fixture. I suspect the excuse is that owing to Ewood's proximity to the motorway and vastly superior facilities that it is much easier to control/manage fans and buses than at their cesspit in the town centre.

Not happy with this draw at all. 

The positives? At least we're at home and won't have to travel to their place under any circumstances, and we've a chance, albeit a small one, of re-starting the clock by beating them. Other than that I'm struggling.

The downside? Mass hysteria for the next fortnight. Almost certainly will be a Sky TV game meaning it is shifted to Wednesday/Thursday and will damage the home gate. Expect Rovers to get greedy and charge £25 a ticket, missing out on a chance to pack the ground. Worst of all we'll have Lancashire Police doing their bit to ruin the occasion. Expect military style regulations in place, vast swathes of Ewood netted off for 'segregation'. They do enjoy wrecking the 'occasion' so they'll be busy in their offices tomorrow scheming new ways to make it as difficult as possible to attend and Rovers will just take it.

That's before we get round to the football and those scum coming to Ewood Park as heavy favourites sitting 2 divisions above us and it brings into focus our demise that it will be considered a minor miracle if we manage to beat them, which is itself sickening.

I'd sooner just never have to play them, ever again. I'd be quite happy in life if I never had to watch Rovers play them for the remainder of my existence such is my hatred for them and the people who organise the fixture.

So potential opponents are:

Southampton, Bournemouth, WBA, West Ham, Leicester, Stoke, Palace, Swansea, Dingles, Watford, Hull, Boro, Newcastle, Brighton, Reading, Sheff Wed, Huddersfield, Fulham, Norwich, Brentford, Cardiff, Villa, Leeds & possibly Sunderland/Derby.

26 minutes ago, AggyBlue said:

Isn't it so the smaller teams get a big team in the draw and therefore better gate receipts?

 

Mike Cheston will be rubbing his hands at the prospect of a Darwen End sell out on the way...

54 minutes ago, 47er said:

Anyone else notice the attendance figures for the Championship? Apart from Burton Albion, (and QPR) absolutely enormous.

Some big clubs down there now, (or is it up there?)

Seems that there has been an influx of 'smaller' clubs to the Premier League in recent years.

In the 90s and 00s the Premier League featured the likes of Derby, Sheff Wed, Leeds, Forest etc. Even Rovers, as one of the 'smaller' clubs in there were still regularly getting 25,000+ crowds season after season. 

Now traditionally smaller, much less supported sides have managed to get into the Premier League and many survive in there, keeping the bigger clubs away from the top league. In years gone by their reputations and fanbases would have been a major advantage, but not any more. Swansea, Watford, Dingles, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Stoke, West Brom - all sides who aren't part of the traditional 'big boys' elite. 

Obvious reason behind it is club 'size' and support is becoming less and less important in a world of sugardaddies and TV money. Another reason I get annoyed when people point to Rovers' crowds as a reason why we can't compete anymore when infact the number of people through the turnstiles is getting less important each season.

Be interesting to see how Coventry approach the game tomorrow. A bit like us in that they are strongly tipped to bounce back and win promotion this season, I wonder whether they'll treat the Cup as a distraction and field their reserves to protect themselves for league business or whether they'll go into the game with a full strength side looking to keep momentum going after Saturday's win.

Any Coventry supporter who has bought an early bird season ticket gets a ticket for this game thrown in for free.

Seems like a sensible way to try and boost the gate for what will probably be a poorly attended fixture.

Coventry have said there will be a cash turnstile/tickets available on the night