43 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

any sale involves a process due to th ACV in place. They were followed up on it and said its not something they need to look to do at present.... i.e. probably a last resort but certainly the process cannot be kept under the radar.

Well Derby County/Villa managed it. Still waiting for an answer on that which perhaps nobody knows but the Rovers Trust should have looked into it right away. It does seem however that there will be notification here if the club chose to take that route. Who would be able to stop Venkys selling it to themselves anyway and who would want to given the situation? Fake bidding war?

18 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

2. Legal - but only if true market value - but Rovers Trust put an ACV on Ewood & the value of the stadium will I suspect be relatively small beer - kicks the can down the road for one season

Derby County's supporters put an ACV on Pride Park as did Villa's on their own stadium. That didn't stop the "sales" so to speak. So obviously if Venkys are to sell to what is effectively themselves (who else would feasibly buy it besides new owners for this reason?) the issue might not even come up. I'm sure there was little advance warning of the Villa/Derby examples. I've asked this question before and it wasn't expanded on unfortunately. Here's a paragraph from stadiumdb.com.

Even if they don't, there's one more issue: facing the fans. Back in 2011 the Localism Act was introduced, which allowed communities (football supporters included) to list buildings as Assets of Community Value (ACV). Villa Park is among stadia which were listed as an ACV.

Such move means precisely that the owner cannot sell the stadium without giving the local community a chance of placing a counter bid. And the community, represented by Aston Villa Supporters Trust, was not informed of the transaction until weeks after it was completed. The law has been broken.

“The Trust is concerned to read the news today, that despite the recording of an Asset of Community Value on the stadium, a transfer of ownership may have taken place. We are attempting to clarify the details. When they are available we will seek an urgent meeting with the club.” the AVST have written on June 28.

If Venkys want to sell it to themselves and it's an effective way of getting round FUP could the ACV hold things up? It was recently noted by the club itself wasn't it?

48 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Did anyone ask if the owners or management had any genuine desire to (legally) circumnavigate FUP rules or are we just going to meekly accept it?

What do you think? My only real hope is that numerous clubs file a joint lawsuit (perhaps headed by Manchester City) and crush UEFA in court. When they drop it the EFL will drop it.

Also perhaps it's time the coward who leaked the 2004 sacking comes forward or gets outed. I've narrowed it down to two people though and neither have a conscience.

Any mention on Soccer Saturday or did Anderson's mate not allow it?

Am I correct in saying Tony's had other health issues in recent years? Sure I can recall someone saying so but not recent enough to suggest same thing.

I know who the characters in my script would be.

6 hours ago, Mike E said:

FWIW, my Dad tells me that in his opinion, 'Mr. Blackburn Rovers' is reserved only for those who completely commit themselves to, and sacrifice for, the club:

Jack Walker

Bob Crompton

Tony Parkes

I asked about Dougie and Clayton:

'Wonderful players, but no not quite.'

As far as I know Clayton never asked for a transfer and prior to doing the ground tours probably wasn't offered a job. He's certainly on a par with Parkes for longevity though in all due respect it's not like people were kicking Tony's door down. So really that gives Clayton the edge for me. 

I don't really see much point for the petition other than "backslapping self credit". The club don't do many decent things but the Clayton/Douglas ends are there so why would be any objection to Parkes. Sometimes all people need to do is ask or bring it up at the fans forum.

2 minutes ago, USABlue said:

Gut wrenching it really is.  Amazing lady too, you can see the love in her when she looks at him.  Good luck Tony.  Enjoy them walks.

Good to see some people have decent children. 

On 30/01/2020 at 22:42, Pedro said:

That was Vinjay wasn't it?

He knew full well who it was.

11 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Eh? Kidd wasn’t sacked in 1999/2000 because we were seriously worried about going to the third division! But because he’d done a piss poor job, spent a fortune on shite and wasn’t going to get us straight back up to the Premier League.

We were a bloody big club for that level in those days.

I don't believe for a moment that's what Jack Walker thought. Neither am I saying it's what the vast majority thought.

2 hours ago, The Hypnotic said:

Tony Parkes has always been there for us, saving us whenever called upon.

"Saving" is a bit over the top. 1996 the club was rock bottom of the table when Harford left but that squad was capable of much better. Eriksson ? and Hodgson both agreed to join when the club wasn't mathematically safe so there wasn't too much concern. Some of those players were still around in 1999 but the number of injuries was ridiculous. Chris Sutton said in his book that the players "virtually managed themselves" without coming across spiteful towards Parkes. 99-2000 if anyone thinks that squad was gonna go down in that league they are mad. Would have stayed up easily even if Kidd stayed.

7 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Great old ground but looks sad barely half full. Sheffield's a great football city and both clubs should be in the Premier....Wednesday have been badly managed for decades.

Agree about the Leppings Lane stand though. Football with all its riches should have paid for it to be knocked down and renamed

I know people in Sheffield may refuse to call it anything other than Hillsborough but they must tire of it being a byword for disaster. 

Wasn't sure where to put this but Singh did an interview weeks back that has just been released. Obviously mentions Rovers.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/16-shebby-singh/id1482741659?i=1000463229162&fbclid=IwAR3wUjO0uIKAfV4urr4BgBAmmvvQ44Fb9tP1_kK9_wIkIeqsJij5NaAUaBc

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

The didn’t want the debt, the running costs and “hassle” of unearthing the next Phil Jones would be my guess.

Not sure Jack would have wanted that either. ?

According to "4000 holes" on Twitter this year will see the induction of Jack Walker.

7 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

5 unnamed Championship clubs 

Cowards.

Wasting my time suggesting this but would have been nice if fans of both clubs got together and organised an anti-FUP demonstration. If the EFL complained then throw their mental health "concern" back in their lying faces. If Rovers fans can get together with Blackpool fans to protest lousy ownership then they could do this as well. I'm too stubborn to not suggest this even though nobody is going to back me up.

People are saying complaints from Steve Gibson prompted this. It wasn't Jack's fault that they were deducted 3 points so if this is a way of getting back at him that's pathetic. Maybe he should have blamed his arrogant (and incompetent) manager at that time and ask if he would have done the same to Man United. I doubt it.

Not to mention employing an absolute racist thicko like Jonathan Woodgate. So who the hell is he to tell people how to run things? Jackass.

Quite ironic. Rooney played most of his career at a club that was one of the strongest FUP advocates and now the tables have turned. 

5 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Those rules were not in place when Jack Walker was here...move on. Just because those rules exist now, does not mean anyone is labeling him a cheat. Walker was about a model owner as you could get

There were no good intentions. It was brought in because clubs like Man United whined to UEFA and two faced hypocrites like Dave Whelan backed them. If Jack had won more league titles they would have campaigned for the same thing then. Anyone who defends it on here has "FUP syndrome" kinda like "Stockholm Syndrome" with the club being held captive by bad owners AND corrupt rules. That clown at Accrington labelled Jack a cheat so yes that's exactly what pro FUP people are doing.

6 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

One way around it is to stop wasting millions on dud strikers and playing them on the wing...just a thought.

You have a point but I just can't look at it like that. What am I supposed to say "damn they should have spent the money more wisely because of those rules that label Jack Walker a cheat?"

43 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

‘Bottom feeders’? That may have been their reputation in the early days, not anymore.

The majority of fans I speak to tell me a combination of..

’They put more money in than Jack ever did’, ‘we should be grateful to them’... and of course, the old favourite... ‘they were just badly advised’.

People like that are poison and the reason others are at point of past caring.

Good owners have been victims of FUP as well. Look at Leicester, Man City, etc. I don't see why all the blame for FUP seems to be getting directed at Venkys. If they consider getting a stadium sponsor for instance can't really blame them under such circumstances. They can try to seek a way round it so people should be hoping Sheffield Wednesday win their case against the EFL.

32 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I’ve said this before, but just so nobody forgets, we basically have these FUP concerns because we spent £12 Million on strikers that don’t score anywhere near enough goals.

 

Have them because of a corrupt governing body.

9 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

What on earth is the connection between FUP and a mental health campaign ?

Because it's a corrupt rule that causes maximum pain and suffering to fans.

4 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

To be fair, that’s most unlike you....

I wish...