14 minutes ago, harryhealless1928 said:

Have to disagree Mash,  Manchester United only became Man Utd in 1902(brand change obviously)so our large collection of  F.A.Cup wins were when they were Newton Heath.

Either way can you imagine their large horde of "glory hunters" showing the magnaminity  in defeat that Leicester fans showed?

Thinking about it, perhaps you were thinking of Jimmy Forrest who did play in all the FA Cup wins in the 19th century.

3 minutes ago, harryhealless1928 said:

Have to disagree Mash,  Manchester United only became Man Utd in 1902(brand change obviously)so our large collection of  F.A.Cup wins were when they were Newton Heath.

Either way can you imagine their large horde of "glory hunters" showing the magnaminity  in defeat that Leicester fans showed?

Harry, Bob Crompton wasn't in the FA Cup winning teams - although he managed the team that won the Cup in 1928 - but he captained the title winning teams of 1912 and 1914.

22 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

That April is quite frankly disgusting.

To move the Burnley game to Tuesday at 8pm is shit. But the atmosphere will be electric. Under the lights always adds to the atmosphere imo

Having had a look at the fixture schedule it does look like that is the first available date.

1 hour ago, harryhealless1928 said:

Yes indeed I did Tyrone. Keith Newton was far better than Henning Berg(in the Premier League winning side).    Not totally off-topic as I was commenting on JRCs performance against Leicester.

That was the most magical performance from a right-back since the Newton era.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bob Crompton was winning trophies and medals for Blackburn Rovers before Man.Utd were even invented!

Manchester United were formed as Newton Heath in 1878 and changed their name in 1902 so I don't think that's quite right.

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I haven't, sorry

You see, a claim for loss usually arises from a breach of contract. I don't know, but I will look up, whether the "loan agreement" facilitates a binding contract

I'd actually more side with Mercer, in that the contract was frustrated due to negligence by Rovers, therefore as no contract was entered into there cannot be a breach

What I believe Mercer is then insinuating is that a claim arises from a 'Tort of Negligence'. It is an area of law that is complex and very difficult to prove

The claim for negligence arising under the law of tort, which is separate from the law of contract, requires that the party being sued owes a duty of care to the injured party. I can't see how Blackburn Rovers could be regarded as having a duty of care to either Nottingham Forest or Lewis O'Brien.

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think you’d have to prove negligence for costs to be playable.

At what point incompetence becomes negligence, I don’t know…

Negligence is a concept governed by the law of tort where simply put a case can only be made where one party owes a duty of care to another. That isn't going to be applicable in this case.

2 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Well for starters, Forest are now paying wages and employer's NI at 13/14% that they wouldn't have been doing should he have joined Rovers on loan.  Seemingly, Rovers were meeting O'Brien's wages in full so that's at least £500k.

If Rovers get promoted, Forest would have pocketed a £10million fee and would have freed themselves of the remaining obligations on O'Brien's contract - that's likely to be no less than £5million.

Then you have what O'Brien might want for Rovers stalling his career and maybe putting it into regression.

Should Rovers narrowly miss promotion when O'Brien might have given them an edge then that's perhapsa £500million opportunity cost including parachute payments in the event of relegation.

What a sorry and potentially huge financial mess.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Forest have put his career in to regression by signing him and then swiftly arriving at the conclusion they'd rather have Andre Ayew in their squad. I think to be sued by Forest we have to be in breach of contract. If say right at the last minute we had changed our minds and said we don't want him is there anything they could do then ?

7 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

It’s not his fault he’s out of favour at Forest. Managers take a decision in players and live or die by them. O’Brien’s contract will include clauses for how many first team appearances he makes either at Forest or Rovers, an SC gee Ed eontt try be getting them. If you’re trying to argue that Rovers won’t suffer financially by all this I’m afraid you’re just trolling again 

I think to suffer financially we would have to have been in breach of contract and the other party would have to prove loss. That's not trolling - that's the law. It's obviously down to O'Brien that he hasn't made the grade at Forest. There was no guarantee that he would get appearance money with us.

1 minute ago, jim mk2 said:

O’Brien will want compensation. His career has effectively been put on hold if not set back by 6 months to a year through no fault of his own. His earning power has possibly been reduced. This could cost Rkvers big time 

O'Brien was passed over for inclusion in Forest's squad in favour of a 33 year old journeyman in Andre Ayew who had been playing in the Qatar league and hadn't scored a goal in the Premier League for 5 years. He would be better advised taking a long hard look at himself and establishing why Forest are happy to move him on after just half a season .He signed a long term contract with Forest so is not losing out financially.

9 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I posted the same on here at the time but one or two posters thought it was ludicrous.  Well I think the chickens are about to come home to well and truly roost.

I think the report is damning and the Rovers haven't a leg to stand on.  Very much doubt this will end up in court but I would think there will be very, very substantial compensatory settlements.

They would have to prove loss to have a case against us.

1 minute ago, Darrenbot said:

Its a myth that his goal relegated Man Utd,they needed Birningham to lose against Norwich to have a chance of staying up but Birmingham won so it didnt matter what happened at a Old Trafford

All games off at the same time in those days so he wouldn't have known what was going on elsewhere. Law was an all time great.

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

That was seen as a novelty and repeatedly shown for years, as every other player did celebrate until recent times, and quite right too. 

Though thought you’d have an alternate view on that too. Football seems a bit too raucous and uncouth for you most of the time, Masher 😁
 

Yes, I suppose I am a cut above...........

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

One of those things cringey that has crept in, like not celebrating against your old club.

Where’s that ‘things you hate about football thread’…

Not celebrating against your old club is another sign of a bit of class. That all time great Denis Law scored the goal that relegated Manchester United in 1974 but didn't celebrate.

53 minutes ago, rigger said:

And from a purely selfish point of view, I want to see the Rovers win the FA cup in my lifetime.

I also want to see us win the FA Cup but as no team from outside the top flight has done so since 1980 I think getting back in to the Premier League gives us the best chance.

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I would like us to go strong, its a chance to continue with momentum and also if we win we are a game from Wembley.

There are changes we could make without unduly weakening us just to freshen things up. Thomas can't play so bring Hedges in. Brereton also should play at the weekend so maybe give him a cameo at most, and Pickering could come in for whichever full back is deemed to need a rest the most, which could be either for different reasons. And bring in Adam Wharton over Buckley.

That way you have Brereton, Buckley, Thomas and Rankin Costello or Brittain well rested for the weekend. We have 24 hours extra rest and Sheff United I would assume would go fairly strong against Spurs.

I dont want to see the likes of Edun, Vale and Garrett chucked in and the white flag held aloft before we kick off.

Those 3 players you mention in the last line of your post were all "chucked in" for our win at West Ham so it doesn't have to be a case of holding the white flag aloft.

24 minutes ago, neophox said:

Could we be in for compensation if we win the case...suing the EFL?

We would have to prove loss - which would be difficult.

10 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

We've got our tickets and are looking forward to this one

I hope and fully expect Tomasson to play a full strength team, and in view of yesterday's performance that means, barring injuries, starting with the team that played at QPR

I do not expect to see fringe players picked and to do so would be an insult to Rovers fans who have made the effort to attend and the competition

Leicester have some very dangerous players such as Maddison, Barnes and Tielemens and it will be a big test for the team

Predicting a scoreline is futile. The pressure for league points is off and I'm just hoping the Rovers players give a good account of themselves. A repeat of the excitement and fun at West Ham in the league cup would be jolly good 

 

 

 

The manager must prioritise the game on Saturday over this one which should mean several fringe players are selected - as they were for the win at West Ham. 

17 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

hopefully greg the egg has already got the targets for next season sorted,though judging his performance so far thats rather optimistic

Will he know yet what budget the owners want him to work to ?

6 minutes ago, rigger said:

No it doesn't. What it states is that he is signed on with us till June 2024, or until he signs another contract with us, when there will be a different end date.

No, the statement says the deal keeps him at the club "until at least June 2024" which could be interpreted to mean that there are provisions in the contract to keep him longer. Perhaps I have missed something but I can't see anything in the club's statement above that contradicts that as a possible interpretation.

1 minute ago, rigger said:

 

No mention of a years option, where did you get that from ?

I think it is based on the statement that he is with the club until at least June 2024 which does imply that there is an option for longer.

3 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Saw a post on the QPR thread re a new deal. He’s contacted until ‘at least June 2024’, so presumably there’s an option until 2025? 

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2021/june/Rankin-Costello-deal-done-/

Let’s get ahead of the curve with this one, ay GB!

If he's here until 2025 if we want him to be there's hardly any rush and why distract him now with contract negotiations when he should be focused on his football. Leave it until the end of the season.

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I doubt the club is capable of this level of thinking but maybe they want to be able to say ‘look how much we wanted you’ in the hope that he’ll sign for next season (if still in the championship and if Forest would still deal with us!)

I doubt if we would have anything like £10m available in the transfer market nor would we be able to put together a remuneration package that would match anything like he's on at Forest in the Premier League.

6 minutes ago, rigger said:

In my opinion, yes we would want O'Brien. What Forest think of him, has no bearing what-so-ever on how he would perform for us.   

But Forest is the only indicator in his career so far by which to judge his Premier League contribution. There are a lot of players who are good enough to get their club promoted to the Premier League but not good enough to keep them there.

11 hours ago, rigger said:

If we signed him on promotion, O Brien would take Mortons squad place, so in my opinion , yes it would be worth it.

Would we want him on promotion ? Is he good enough for the Premier League ? Forest took only 6 months to decide they wanted to move him on.

2 minutes ago, LDRover said:

As one who stated that JRC was an abysmal footballer in the past I cannot quite believe the transformation over the last month or so.

The only reasoning that I can come up with is a reality check that came with looking at the exit door. For the past 2 years, regardless of form or fitness  Mowbray always found a way to shoehorn the lad in the side, hence it all came a bit easy for him. Maybe the realisation that he may have to ply his trade somewhere less salubrious has sharpened him up because he's become a player that I could never have envisaged from the last 2 years of 'performances'.

JRC started in just 20 of the 92 league games in the last 2 years - with 4 sub appearances - so it is hardly the case that the manager was always shoehorning him in to the team.Nyambe started 64 of those games and came on as a sub in 5.