I can’t remember the last time I looked on the LT prior to the training ground news. Now I realise why. Quite terrible journalism. There’s a story to be had with Rovers if they bothered. Let’s start with a recent timeline of Waggot, like JH put together, and his links with clubs’ “developments”. There is no smoke without fire.

I have a pair of Bronz BX2s right now. They are passive speakers and unfortunately the amp died not long back so I’m using a cheap amp atm. The Mrs on the other hand was (is) a fantastic DJ when she’s up to it. She has a pair of JBL eon speakers, but I haven’t quite gotten around to finishing the bar / den / entertainment room so they are gathering dust along with the rest of her equipment. It’s a touchy subject...... JBL do fantastic headsets too if anyone is after a pair, I would highly recommend.

Has his post been deleted? Put much better than I would Miller, and quite honestly the fact he still isn’t understanding what is meant by legacy of Jack Walker - despite excellent posts by Matty and Revidge also - suggests to me he never will. Having never met Jack, and only remembering the later years of his ownership, I think I can still firmly say that he wouldn’t have sold Brockhall to downgrade and risk our category A academy for a short term financial gain. “Cut throat” business man or not (are you purposely trying to get a reaction Joe?) The idea that the majority agree with this is wrong. A majority of our fans don’t post on social media I would guess and even that isn’t unanimous in supporting this. There will always be some contrarian figures who want to be seen to be reasonable, against the grain, “able to see all sides” but the reality of the matter is that there’s not a positive take on this if you bother to look at the plans in depth. I am yet to be answered (three times I’ve asked him now) what’s to be positive about this training ground? There’s nothing proposed we haven’t already got and, in actual fact, we are losing more than we are gaining. So whilst it is not disrespectful to Jack to “see the positives in a training ground” it is blatantly disingenuous to be claiming there are positives when the proposals show for certain this is a downgrade.

Sorry I should have caveated with in the long term. I said beneficial too, not profitable. A land sale will be profitable but to who? We (BRFC) will only see a portion. A lot will go to developers and given Mark Venus track record I’m far from comfortable with that at the moment. Imo it is not remotely beneficial, finance or otherwise, to sell off such good land in order to effectively downscale and also whilst these lot are in charge, because I don’t trust them to spend it wisely. As a fan I can’t even see a benefit yet because im thinking of the day these lot leave as our future. The more they take the less we have to offer for a prospective buyer. Ambition could lead to us needing that space again. I don’t understand how anyone can have a good thought about this with the long term in mind.

You can’t use “could” as a pro. Sorry. Nothing they have done has ever been as good as something Jack has done *30 YEARS AGO* It isn’t financially beneficial to the club either. Again, I’m struggling to see any pro to this. Look at the facilities we have, look at the facilities they now propose and tell me again what are we gaining from this? We being Blackburn Rovers btw.

This in a nutshell. Selling off land for development is final. Once them homes are built we will never be able to house our training centre there again. We may not use them pitches now but an ambitious owner might do. Selling land devalues our club - they have done enough of that already. I am still waiting for someone to list actual positives of this development except for people other than the club. The proposals do not replicate what we have whatsoever. It’s a downscaling operation and it has all been laid out for us in those plans. If you don’t come to that conclusion then you either don’t understand the plans or quite frankly don’t care enough. This IS a black and white thing. Theres no room for “other opinions” tbh because it is either a good thing or a bad thing and no in the middle. I would argue selling our land is a bad thing when the reality of the refurb is that it’s downscaling. I wait to be proven wrong though.

But that’s not the case. 30 years isn’t old in a buildings life cycle - that point is moot. It is the facilities within it that count. It isn’t a more pragmatic use of the space. We are halving our real estate, we aren’t seeing the true value of that because there’s plenty of people to be paid in a housing development. We shouldn’t be looking at cutting costs in training / development. We want to be a Premier League club and this isn’t a premier league development. Next?

Ok I’ll bite. What’s the advantage, having seen those plans, in comparison to the facilities we already have? Where does “state of the art” come into it? From my first glance it appears we are downscaling massively, even down to parking spaces. By nature that means less bodies. We are also selling a fine piece of real estate for people who don’t deserve it. A gift jack left us. What’s the benefit?

Some people make me laugh. Almost as if the last 10 years haven't happened. I bet we heard the same when Rhodes got sold too. Sell off your assets and it is hard to get them back. We are sat on a wonderful piece of land there that over time may be redeveloped into a true state of the art facility if we ever get an interested owner again. People fail to see that. There's life after Venky's, so why sell off our parting gifts from Jack to make their life easier now? Wake up and smell the coffee ffs.

What’s the bet Mark Venus oversees those plans?

Does anyone know if it is possible to download the current drawings for the STC/JTC centres anywhere? The only real way to tell if they will upgrade to the same spec is to measure and compare. I assume the drawings will be released for the PA very soon.

30 years is nothing in a buildings life cycle. I doubt they built it so it was impossible to upgrade. Waggot is talking out of his arse just like he has done throughout his time here. First Coventry, now here. Luckily we will have chance to appeal this so all is not quite lost yet.

This will be difficult to do yet. The planning application will only mention the land owner - Rovers - so it will take a leak to find out developers, Venus’ role etc. What does need some investigating is the similarities between management team at Coventry and here. The ultimate end result. Did they promise to reinvest the money gained at Cov? Is the same consultant involved? Sharpe has a lot to get his teeth into and he better do it otherwise I don’t think sections of this fan base will forgive him. As for the people happy about it they are selling themselves short. We were never consulted. Fans ARE the stakeholders of this club - without us there is no Blackburn Rovers so this idea we are indebted to Venkys is ridiculous. I’m not happy about it but I am at least slightly relieved the planning apps are linked and one development cannot be done without the other. My next concern moves to the facilities they plan to build. To date they haven’t done anything better than Jack....and he did it “30 years ago”. Time to change? I suspect not.

I think this also puts an end to any Mowbray Out stories. Not a chance he is leaving whilst his pal has 170 houses on the horizon. There is no smoke without fire. Coventry fans know the score. Wherever Venus goes it seems houses aren’t far behind, on the land of the club he rips off. Scumbag.

It is mind boggling that the LT aren’t running with this. No pressure, no outrage.

Something that sticks out to me is the application to merge the two centres. https://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11287/land_at_blackburn_rovers_training_centre_and_academy.pdf If you scroll to page 14 of that is lists the facilities at either training centre. How is it going to be possible to merge those facilities and maintain the standard? For a start, the car parking alone will be cut considerably, meaning less bodies in the centres. They are going to need squeeze pitches, pools, treatment rooms, boot rooms, changing rooms all into one smaller space. It is a downgrade and there is nothing else that can be said. In this respect the only possibility is to build upwards but you can be damn sure that won't be allowed for in the planning application, or at least I'd assume not!

I wouldn't know Chaddy. It all depends on the size of the plots. It could social housing or they could be aspirational homes. Given the drive to build new houses the developer is already in the driving seat. https://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11287/land_at_blackburn_rovers_training_centre_and_academy.pdf That is the outcome of the attempt to get Brockhall listed as a Community Asset. Unsuccessful unfortunately.

Of course. This is only a “screening opinion” for if the development will require an environmental impact assessment. As far as I am aware this predates the actual planning application. I’m also fairly certain given the location of the development it will require an EIA. It may be classed as a brownfield site but the surroundings aren’t and 170 plots will bring it with it traffic, noise and strain on services / infrastructure. Once that is put together the PA will go in and then I believe we can object at every possible turn. There’s actually quite a few “community interests” that get developments overturned. Recently in my area Aldi lost a case to build a supermarket on a nature reserve that is really nothing more than wasteland. If the residents object enough the council will listen. It will be in the Ribble Valleys council as much as ours to listen to the people. I don’t think this will be as clear cut a case as: this is our land we are building homes on it if we have a concerted effort to campaign against it.

Land is usually acquired on a plot by plot basis. So the hectares is kind of irrelevant - the starting point would be “170 plots”. That is if you was to sell the land with planning application already signed and approved. It does raise value of land but it also puts a caveat on that the land is used for residential purposes / whatever the planning application says. It is possible to of course apply to change that after but why would you if you have paid for it already? 170 plots is a big development and they will stand to make millions on that.

If they have got to this point I will assume they have already sought engineering / architect input. Forming drawings and specifications takes time and money. This has been planned for some time now. They are scum. Magott and Venus are shysters. We need to be in the ground because today would be vociferous. They know we can’t voice our anger and so they have chosen a pandemic to kick start the process because once the approval is in and the spade is in the ground there is nothing we can do.

Definitely concerning. Everything we always knew was going to happen with Venkys. Not a mention of this from the board whatsoever. You have to wonder what the plans for the mixed academy will be. They will all be available to download once the application is in.

This is asking if it is to subject to an environmental impact assessment or not

I wonder how it smokes

Pete Doherty - Last of the English Roses

I don’t think Carrick is unrealistic personally. I think we are an attractive proposition. We are one or two players out from being one of the best squads in the league. It is our management of that squad that lets us down.