Vinjay

Yeah I'm sure there isn't ulterior motive as to why he's seemingly included everything up to the Salford/Trafford border. ?. Ironic for Stuart to complain about parochial thinking and then he starts this thread.

...and a face transplant. People like Allardyce and Dyche have no marketing appeal.

You mean generating more income from Indian sponsorship (primarily) and exposure of Rovers within India which was promised? No haven't thought about it at all. ?. Relegation isn't the only excuse they were already defaulting on their promises including the Academy they were supposed to build. Certainly people knew Venkys wanted exposure for their core brand as well but you can have multiple mutual interests. Of course it certainly stopped their expansion here becoming known as a symbol for idiocy. They had intentions no doubt (genuine ones in this instance) having registered Venkys Xprs UK but according to Companies House that was "dissolved" (basically it was a registration and nothing else) some time ago.

Fencing to split the home/away sections you mean rather than barriers, nets, etc? Of course fencing wouldn't be behind the goals that's illegal anyway. Speaking of fencing removed there was a story in the LT not long ago about someone unhappy with a fence outside their house. The reaction though was laughable with stuff like only staying upstairs because they were too distressed to look outside. Goodness sake wait to get it removed (which happened) before you come across as the biggest snowflakes imaginable. Yes it's slightly off topic (I assume that's why my post on the wrestling thread was removed) but it's only 3 lines.

Ultras. ? Ultra lite more like it. I've never liked watered down tagging. Real ultras are in places like Argentina and to an extent countries like Italy.

Better avoid any marketing seminars. ?

Probably and that explains a lot of what's wrong with the fanbase. If you have some local sponsors then they could be presented differently barring more notable exceptions like Euro Garages if they changed their outlook on football sponsorship. There's no logic in your argument. It's like the pinned thread on here where there's references to "rather have local sponsors than some American razor company" that's the kind of parochial mentality people won't understand. It's just local mentality for the sake of local mentality and seems almost designed to hold the club back for small minded reasons. Like I say in the Championship you're hardly likely to get global sponsors (though it's certainly more prominent than 2nd tiers in virtually any other country) but in the PL this attitude is (and was) nonsensical. People mocked Singh's title and yes some of that was because he was incompetent and his "advising" seemed to consist of long distance phone/skype calls. Some of it however was simply an aversion to the word global or do you think I'm being paranoid? I don't think it's just paranoia at all I truly believe some people simply disliked his job title. It's the same thing with people talking about local Ewood business, etc. Even with the windfall 23 times a year in the Championship local newsagents at Ewood (for example) still have that advantage over other areas of the town. Unless they expanded to nonsensical proportions based on 19x EPL games a year then there's no reason a drop in income should threaten their whole operation. How many people have gone out of business (excluding job cuts at the club itself which is different anyway) due to Rovers dropping from the top flight? Can you name any examples? Make an exception on public houses anyone entering that industry should see the red flags a mile away. Businesses like hairdressers, etc have minimal startup costs anyway. Does matchday revenue really make that much of a difference to them? Why would more people specifically decide to get their hair cut before attending a football match than any other time? Also they would be more likely to use barbers closest to their homes in the majority of cases anyway. With Ewood residents it won't make a difference. Then you could look at niche businesses such as flower stores, etc but football fans don't exactly queue round the block to buy stuff like that do they?

Rovers were not "dead and buried" that's for sure hence why the club had 5 months to rectify things. Turns out it didn't require that much time. That squad was good enough for PL level whoever the manager was (though Allardyce was obviously better than Ince) don't feel it was the same at all. Rotherham went down the following season that said just as much about the squad as the manager. If Allardyce had quit in summer of 2009 who's to say 2009-10 would have worked out much differently? Barring of course another bad manager like Ince and let's not pretend that wasn't a possibility. It was a bit different at WBA as Pulis was in the role too long, needed replacing but someone worse took over.

...but are they smaller in terms of market than Peter Jackson's? There's nothing good about "little local sponsors" though they might regard that as patronising anyway. I never liked that WEC Group banner on DE either it summed up much of what was wrong with the club's outlook. Of course the club was in the PL then so there should have been a wider range of prominent potential sponsors than there is now. Why hand jewellery over to some store for safekeeping anyway was it damaged or in need of repairs? Buy a safe perhaps. It's not comparable to putting money in banks, etc either. Perhaps Ainsworth's just offered more money and the club took it. So Peter Jackson pulled out considering it's a competitor and all. Could be as black and white simple as that. I'm not sure such sponsors have a contract anyway so to speak other than purchasing rights for a set period. I don't know if there's a renewal window or "first rights" but I'm sure most people who want to sponsor the club aren't going to be turned down. Would it really matter to the club having 2 jewellers as sponsors even if you could argue it's better to have as wide a range of companies as possible? Couldn't the club actually pay someone far more nationally prominent to act as MOTM sponsor and keep it silent? For appearances though I can understand that would be rather embarrassing if it leaked out. Still I've always thought that it might be worth having more prominent sponsors even if you offer them cheaper deals, etc but I guess at Championship level it's better to grab the money where you can get it. The club's local mentality didn't help but people wouldn't listen when this was mentioned. I know the TIME shirts were popular but CIS (those shirts were popular as well and the 97-98 one in particular being my personal no 1) were more national and quite a lucrative deal when signed in 1996. TIME were more local as were Crown Paints who should never have been as prominent to sponsor the shirt. They sponsored Liverpool once yeah but that was 1980's advertising standards. I think there's a place for regional sponsors even at the most globally centred clubs but the key word is "place" isn't it?

If it's a rich benefactor, etc then you can absorb the risks. Some people seem to feel as if Jack was putting the club at risk. That's not true at all it's not like he would have gone nuts and spent 200 million in one go once Abramovich, etc became involved in English football. Most likely he would have forseen a trend (as I did) and looked to sell. It's possible he may have tried to keep the club but without the sheer weight of restrictions that the trustees imposed. That's not putting a club at risk. All elements of industry carry some level of risk what UEFA are doing is catering to Man United, etc and their whims. The real problem is if Tv deals, etc completely collapse but football continues to be a cash cow at the highest level. The EPL rights continue to rise even if they peak does that mean the bottom is going to hit essentially? Sky are not ITV Digital. If something happened to Sky then BT or someone else would pick up the pieces certainly at EPL level. It's strange how you ignore some things (like my feelings on who was behind Maddox Ltd and just to note I'm referring to some PMs myself and Perth exchanged not that Anderson thread) but my words are suddenly seized upon in other circumstances. Then if I try to explain or "justify" it's ignored. Who's the one who called out his family/trustees most? Hardly anyone else said a thing they are the main catalyst for all those bad feelings which developed. I'm not claiming to be perfect (and I've done some regrettable things but people have limits) but you're making more out of it than the reality really was. FUP, etc are more important issues than me I just happen to be one of the most outspoken against it. After what happened to WBA under Williams, etc you can scrap that nonsense argument about guaranteed survival. Even if the WFIT had spent a bit more that wouldn't have been guaranteed either. Hence why a takeover would still have been the way forward (and what I believe Jack would have wanted because only the best was enough) but with a process more intensive than one that led to the club being sold to people who didn't know relegation existed.

Well I'm not gonna go out of my way to attend any games but in principle it's still wrong to steal a place from someone who earned it. I'm not opposed to women playing football but men's football is the draw and people can take any silly homophobic insinuations out of it. That's how it is and those on here who are extremely pro feminist still haven't attended a women's match in their lifes for most part. Certainly not every week though I imagine a number attended the England women Euros games at Ewood about 13 years ago. Most sports still realise this though certain pro wrestling companies (which does attract a number of real sports fans) are trying to shove women's revolutions down people's throats. You're right it isn't a draw and if that's being anti-diverse then too bad. I won't deny part of it is to fire back at Man United and the FA are not exactly wonderful either are they?

Despicable. Man United would probably steal a place from a team of disabled kids never mind women. The club should have put out a few expletives and aimed attacks at the FA and Man United in that statement. An appeal even if financially backed sometimes isn't enough in contrast to outright condemnation.

It's a slap in the face to Jack's memory and how anyone can support it on here is ridiculous. Hypothetically if the sanctions were points reductions (2017 would be the best example perhaps) I don't care if it made a difference between relegation and survival. Or for that matter 6th place and 7th that's less important to me than defending a rule that states Jack Walker's actions were unfair. It's a disgrace and even if clubs are punished inconsistently I refuse to highlight this as any justification for enforcement. I'll never compromise on this view and shouldn't be expected to do so. It's as black and white as it gets. If Jack had won more League titles in the 90's then Man United would have pushed for the rule sooner. Of course some may feel the fanbase could have been doubled or tripled with more success but we won't know will we? Of course the club didn't help itself after Jack died marketing outreach wise in many ways.

Never really seen much appeal just staring at away fans for a hour and half anyway.

They were not even playing Galatasaray anyway. OK it was another Istanbul club but who's to say this particular fambase were as hostile? Those stabbings with the Leeds fans took place before the game but are Galatasaray really going to set out in numbers to attack fans of a club they aren't even playing? People on here didn't have any hostile issues with Genclerbirligi did they (besides the dreadful performance and that wasn't their fault) and Glenn + SteB organised some fans game didn't they? I guess since the clubs were not certain to ever meet again (Galatasaray are pretty much European qualifier certainties every season) in European competition that was OK. It probably showed not all clubs were like Galatasaray (of course Genclerbirligi were not based in Istanbul don't know how far away they are) but I think some Leeds fans just want an excuse to pretty much hate everything. Sometimes they bring it on themselves they wanted Cellino but who couldn't have spotted what he was like? It was obvious he was a nutter before he bought the club every bit of evidence predicted it. Is it really about defending these 2 murdered fans for some of them? OK those who went haven't forgotten the sheer hostility of the occasion and Galatasaray as a club didn't handle the situation with much dignity. What Kewell did though was pathetic as if he cared about improving relations he's just a jackass. Don't really see though how basically hating all Turkish people (they even booed Tugay as if he's the type of guy who goes round stabbing people) is standing up for the honor of murdered fans. It's just bigotry and something else for Leeds fans to hate. Of course they don't tolerate disrespect much (which I like in some ways) but there's a balance. If it was them playing Millwall today there's a reason why Leeds/Millwall is one of the bigger games of the season for the local police whether it's in Leeds or London. There's a number of fans who just generally want an excuse to be aggressive.

Most people put it down to a bad manager though it didn't help selling your 2 established centre backs in pre-season even if one was a prat. Why shouldn't the club aim for midtable I don't see it as unattainable. I'm not quite certain about playoff pushes, etc but I don't think some of these players need to "reestablish themselves". Mulgrew, Lenihan, Graham the obvious examples and most people probably see Dack as a competent Championship player. Raya was voted GK of the year no reason he can't do alright at this level. I have doubts about Mowbray and certainly some questions just haven't been answered yet. Still I believe he can take Rovers to a midtable finish this season even if it's 16,17th rather than top half. I want to think bigger than that and contemplate playoffs this season but you have to believe people are capable of it. Some of the squad might be but some aren't. So not exactly reaching for the stars but mostly keeping clear of the relegation zone without much trouble. Beyond that is up to Mowbray and certainly the owners have to provide the needed backing. That's far from certain. I don't think it's fair to demand a playoff finish this season anyway. If the season is relatively secure then next summer is key to direction really. If things don't move on then (or the club gets sucked back into a serious relegation battle) that will be the major concern.

Evans was probably complaining about any fans being there at all. 13,000 + (No more than 1000 for opposition surely?)

Here's a lengthier document on Anderson's appeal. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5afd92f7ed915d30f04c0987/Jerome_Anderson_v_HMRC.pdf Should be noted that in 2009 Anderson borrowed money from a Jersey registered entity, Maddox Limited. Now granted there's a number of financial firms in Jersey but can't anyone see anything suspicious here? It's not that large an island (people know each other particularly in financial circles) and the timing is subject to scrutiny. Who are Maddox Limited really? The names involved could simply be someone's postman or a shell company of some sort. Anderson borrowed this money in 2009 who else was he doing business with around the same time? Who else was offering him an incentive to find buyers? I believe Anderson borrowed this money via a third party that was in reality connected to the Walker family. Maddox Limited were that entity. If the Academy failed then Anderson had his takeover fees to use as collateral (maybe just the takeover itself no need for direct repayments) not to mention other money he had raised over the years. More likely to be the family than the trustees perhaps but it all adds up to the overall plot. Sightings of Anderson at Northchoke in the past as well...tell me it's less plausible than some of the other stuff? It certainly isn't. If they are indeed whom I suspect them to be then it proves even further evidence of collusion and conspiracy between Anderson and the Walker Family. I became aware of this approx 2 weeks before the Telegraph reported it (most likely after a Times journalist mentioned it on twitter is where they got it from) and a couple of people knew longer. So I've had time to contemplate this and I haven't changed my opinion from weeks back. One of the admins on here didn't even bother to notify people that Anderson had lost an appeal even though he has automatic searches setup for any legal issues involving Anderson. Granted he's hardly likely to be in the poorhouse over this but it's not bad news is it?

Bad example to set as a mod. Don't think I've brought up the subject of those chants before (though I have on twitter) but obviously I don't like such chants. The problem is that stabbing tweet was obviously aimed at their whole fanbase. It had nothing to do with Jack as did most of the tweets that only seem to mention him because it involves Boring Name FC. They don't mention anything of significantly more importance such as the Walker Family/trustees. Which one do people think Jack would have been more bothered about? That's supposed to be a rhetorical question. A lot of the people who engage in those chants are thick sheep and when it comes to stupidity of football fans it's pretty widespread. There's some truly malicious ringleaders no doubt. I saw a tweet about a Rovers fan who died a few days back and a number of responses were from Boring Name FC fans. Didn't see any that were of an abusive nature either. Tired of excuses both ways two wrongs don't make a right in many instances.

...and what damage did that do exactly? OK it was certainly ignorant but besides that what else? Did anybody seriously think it was gonna disrupt the whole promotion presentation/speeches, etc? I've seen some of those Rovers fans complaining guilty of far more ignorant things with long term/sour taste after effect. Man United fans don't normally run on the pitch (beneath them no doubt ?) but are still the worst and most ignorant fans in the country. Yeah off topic but you're the one taking a baseless swipe. As for that type of drunken stupidity it's hardly solely football related either. More like the same idiots who were involved in those 2011 riots. Even that was an overreaction with some media treating it as civil war than something that would settle down after a few days. Most probably didn't even give a toss about what "instigated" it.

You think Southgate is a better manager than Allardyce?

I have commented on it. Bit hard when you didn't watch it but tried all the same. There's always been double standards over diving on here and while I've never really endorsed cheating it's never been something I've relentlessly confronted either. Did I care when Olsson dived? No. Did I care when Diouf dived and people kept whining on about it (and to be fair some of his other personality traits) after he signed here? No. It had no long term implications besides being virtually the only thing I can remember about such a dull game. I would still rather seeing someone dive and win a penalty than being cancelled out with this VAR (at least we don't have to call it "technology" in every sentence now as if it's on a par with rocket science) trash. Took a dig at Ashley Young recently on here for his history of diving so yeah maybe there's some hypocrisy there when it's convenient. Thing is though as I've said it's not something I go out of my way to endorse (or condemn) to begin with.

Be interesting to see the reaction on here if Olsson dives and Sweden benefit...?

Oh come on Revidge didn't think you would pander to this simplistic rubbish. As for "avoiding" Brazil if you're so damn scared of them isn't it just "prolonging the exit" anyway. I honestly tire of this rubbish about penalty curses and such. It's a knockout tournament. 4 years ago Germany won the damn thing now they have 2 poor games and that's it. Brazil had one of the most humiliating things in the history of football happen to them (and that's no hyperbole) but 4 years later they seem to be getting over it and believe me the scars from that were worse than losing a shootout for the Brazilian public. In all likelihood though nobody has "curses" or things to get over. They just need to have a few good games and get lucky whether "avoiding" anyone or not. As if losing to Belgium was a "deliberate choice" that's just laughable and mind numbingly disrespectful.

The so called "penalty curse" is it anything more than cherry picking? England won a penalty shootout in Euro 96 (granted at that point there was only one significant penalty shootout loss 6 years prior) so it's hardly implausible. I think there's something to be said about the mental aspects having failed England in the past (you could argue that in general) but the current players shouldn't have that weight constantly hanging over them. In WC 98 yeah Batty missed but I think that was more about him not being a naturally brilliant penalty taken than some curse. In 1996 it was SOUTHGATE of all people (LOL at that irony now he's the one to end this "curse" right?) and he wasn't a brilliant natural taker either. The other penalties since to be honest I've forgotten who missed/failed. Why am I being controversial ladyboys? Try sticking to some other of the posts on this thread though guess it's "controversial" to call them out as well?Just suggesting the criticism of Colombia might be excessive. If that's controversial then bloody hell must be losing my touch. ? I didn't watch the game but knowing posters on here like I do it's hardly a stretch to wonder if the claims aren't a bit exaggerated.