RV Blue

5 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Yes I still do. You'll be the first to know when I change my mind.  In that case I'll hold my hands up and admit that I was wrong.

Bizarre

2 minutes ago, roverandout said:

That's good because we're a lower end championship side

Yes, see the ‘selling him would be madness’ part of my comment. Let’s not pretend that he’s some special player though.

1 minute ago, Elrovers said:

You’d be dumb enough not to like hyam. Played every single minute last season and so far this season as well. Didn’t put a foot wrong last season. 

Being an ever present is impressive but to say he didn’t put a foot wrong is nonsense, he makes lots of mistakes and is probably a lower end Championship standard player. Although selling him at this point would be utter madness, of course.

Surely Cantwell and Tronstad in midfield with Gudjohnsen and Ohashi up front

Looked like his groin which is a massive concern considering his history

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Which is fair enough. That may even have been their preference. 

I'd rather have a shot at winning a tournament (even at u21 level) than be part of a squad for Andorra and a friendly against Cameroon. 

It’s definitely not his preference. He’s too good to play with the kids, already has international tournament experience and wants to get bedded into the first team ahead of the world cup.

He would obviously prefer a full summer’s break so he’s ready for preseason.

12 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

By that logic, if they similarly decided to cease funding of the Academy, and bearing in mind that few of us go to watch games there, then we shouldn't get 'worked up' about that either.

Whether people attend the women's games is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is yet another decision being made which is symptomatic of the way in which the club operates.

We just sold an academy product for £20m a little over a year ago. If the women’s team was producing players worth £20m you might have a point, but it doesn’t, so you don’t.

Does anyone know when Beck and Batth will be back?

20 hours ago, Hasta said:

Must be the worst player to have played regularly for Rovers, definitely the worst I’ve seen anyway. 

Warnock is the man all the teams around us do not want us to get, it’s a no brainer.

Only thing going for Gerrard for me is that he might be too big a name for Venkys to fuck about. 

Warnock until the end of the season makes so much sense to me. He won’t want to make any drastic tactical changes, the players will get on with him and he knows (more than anyone else) what it takes to get out of the league. There’s absolutely no point planning long term with the chicken chokers in charge, let’s be honest it’s probably now or never.
No brainer imo. 

19 minutes ago, KentExile said:

If Travis even starts, Eustace's comments suggested he may be on the bench to start with

 

I wouldn’t risk him, we’re screwed if both him and Tronstad are out for any length of time.

If Travis plays it will be in midfield surely. Makeshift right back and Travis in midfield or a makeshift right back and Forshaw in midfield?

4 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

I did. Still better than what Buckley has offered over a number of recent years, in my opinion.

I think we’ll just sign whichever bog standard Championship midfielder is currently out of favour until the end of the season to replace him, and that would replace him.

7 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

He put in a shift, drove forward occasionally with confidence, successfully completed simple passes, had a couple of powerful and accurate shots, did not get sent off/booked regularly for petulance. I'd prefer Baker to Buckley in my team.

You just described an incredibly replaceable footballer.

4 hours ago, DuffsLeftPeg said:

extra legs of JRC down the right

JRC and extra legs?

37 minutes ago, alcd said:

Suspect he never will be for this level. Powder puff finishing again and a terrible first touch ended a promising attack. Needs to be sent out on loan and a better striker brought in. Won't happen of course. 

Agreed. And to whoever said he’s better than Vale, he’s not.

1 hour ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Raya had a massive mistake in him every game when he was at Rovers.

I don't watch him enough to know if he's eliminated that from his game, but I assume he has for the money he's been sold for.

What young keeper, any keeper for that matter, doesn’t?

1 hour ago, G Somerset Rover said:

Completely off topic but given there’s not alot going on… I still cannot believe some were happy to see the back of Raya. Unbelievable.

Same when we let N’Zonzi go for peanuts, Cairney too. It’s baffling at times.

5 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

It’s apparently a gentleman’s agreement rather than a clause 

The point remains though, why? We’re not in a position to do favours.

13 hours ago, Bronzed A Donis said:

Think that kind of proves the point though doesn't it.

Speculate to accumulate or invest to strive for better. Rather than cut back.

Otherwise let's just say why can't Rovers get some lads from the soccerdome that will reduce our losses.

It's the ownership mentality of the last 13 years om show.

Is investing in the ladies team a sensible financial decision?

Is there any need for Blackburn Rovers to have a ladies team apart from purely ticking a box?

The fact that this thread is 6 years old and only 10 pages long suggests that there isn’t much interest, no matter how disgusting people find it that we’re paying amateur footballers semi-professional wages.

13 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

The Premier League clubs lost a combined £685 million in 22/23

Check Brighton’s latest accounts bud

On 03/07/2024 at 18:39, Bronzed A Donis said:

Wait until you hear about the losses in the mens game...

Wait until you and your comment likers hear about the money that can be made in the Premier League, the only reason why Championship and below clubs are accepting these huge losses.

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the women's game is not (at least currently, or in the near future) financially sustainable, as crowds, tv coverage etc do not come close to even paying the low wages mentioned in recent days

I think that without being subsidised by the clubs, there would be even less funding for the women's teams. 

As I said, I may be wrong, and am more than happy for someone to give me a steer.

Maybe the ladies should be amateurs rather than semi-professionals until it makes sense financially?