1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Not if you buy it on the Rovers website I'd assume. If 50K Rovers fans buy a match day pass for B'mouth then I doubt Waggott will be happy handing that money over! 

So you think that when the Rovers ticket office sell away match tickets on behalf of ever other league club Rovers get to keep all that money?!! ? ?

9 minutes ago, arbitro said:

But last seasons BCD Saturday 3 pm kick off away from home were part of the deal to season ticket holders at Rovers (presumably most clubs did the same). I think extenuating circumstances was the reason cited but those circumstances are still relevant for the foreseeable. As somebody mentioned it seems like clubs are looking to capitalise on the situation.

The BCD at the end of last season was different. ST holders had paid for something that could no longer be delivered to them. Which is why I suppose you were so insistant on asking for a refund at the time rather than accepting the streaming offer. 

A season ticket at Ewood is what it says on the tin. I don't think charging 10 quid to view an away game is any different to buying a match ticket to attend the same game. 

They've not been able to sell any away tickets for 6 months! Charging a tenner for away fans to get the stream doesn't seem like capitalising on the situation to me! It's a commercial necessity to try and get some income. 

6 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Clubs don't normally make money from away tickets. Who will keep the money from match passes sold by the away club?

The away club I assume. So if you choose to watch Bournemouth on 12th October then Bournemouth will get your 10 quid. Just like they would get your 20 (or 30) quid if you went to the actual game. 

And as mentioned earlier, I suspect the reason midweek matches are different is because Sky have the rights to show all Championship midweek games live on the red button, and were doing before lockdown. I suspect they will do so again. Don't think it's a ploy to confuse people. 

6 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Reading it again, it's obviously a way of getting more money out of people by making away fans buy weekend match passes for away games on top of their ST.  

Which isn't unreasonable. Kind of like having to buy a match ticket if you go to an away match really! 

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Yeah, doesn't make much sense does it? 

What stops an away fan buying a match pass from the home website? Only asking because i've no idea how it works!

Nothing, but it says clubs can't offer Saturday away games as part of any season ticket package. 

But nothing to stop Rovers fans going on the Bournemouth website on 12th September and buying that game as a one off. 

I guess Sky Red Button will be back for all midweek fixtures which is why those away games are available to stream for ST holders. 

On 24/08/2020 at 23:27, JHRover said:

It will be astonishing and shameful if 4th division recently bankrupt Bolton shift anywhere near the number of season tickets we do. But the way it is going they are going to be close, assuming we ever bother to put any on sale.

The bonus here for Bolton is that the cash in the bank is enabling them to recruit ahead of an expected promotion season, whilst we wail about lack of income and money

It's neither astonishing or shameful - that's just ridiculous and provocative language designed to fire more bullets at Rovers. 

No seats can be allocated, seats likely to be imposed by clubs around their grounds with little or no choice of area

How does that stack up for people who just want to sit where they used to sit? 

No arrangement yet in place for the first few games which will certainly be BCD

No EFL or Championship agreement yet in place on iFollow streaming arrangements home or away 

No concourse refreshment sales are likely to be allowed 

Guidance needed on other concourse facilities

All summer I've read that not having STs on sale was hampering our ability to use cash and sign players, whilst Luton and Bolton were racing ahead. 

So where's the cashflow problem now, are we paying Gent with Bitcoin? 

Some people on here need to take a step back imo 

3 hours ago, Amo said:

Keep it behind closed doors. No need to hang the guy out to dry in public, but Mowbray has form for this kinda thing

From what I have heard (crucify me now, I'm sure it will happen ) this is the final throw of the dice. Behind closed doors has been done long ago. And it's Chapman who has lost the whole dressing room (not just the manager and senior players) because of his abysmal attitude to his colleagues and the club.

He's been thrown a lifeline in the meaningless games at the end of last season and now in these few games. 

Ball entirely in his court. Some promising signs imo, but he has broken bridges to repair. 

If he can't the best for everyone is he goes, but who would take him now? 

3 hours ago, Ossydave said:

Why the hell are people STILL paying for shite like this and ifollow. GET IPTV. Flawless coverage all game tonight, again.

Whilst I have a tiny bit of sympathy when it's Sky or BT having their content stolen and sold on by criminals for their own profit, in this case I really don't. 

This is Blackpool and Rovers trying to provide a service to their fans at a reasonable price, and maybe bring in a few thousand quid whilst they can't sell any tickets.

Edit - and just by the way, if everyone went down your route of stealing the coverage, how would there even be any TV pictures available? 

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

£5.99 for a match? Pass.

The pricing strategy is all wrong. They should be getting people to sign up for the platform not cashing in. Is this Blackpool’s in-house media team?

And the marketing: “Match graphics” wow - you won’t have to remember the score! “four cameras” no way! “Commentary” talking pictures! “Replays” wave to the future (or the past)!

You do realise that the "pricing strategy" has nothing to do with BRFC don't you? 

And "the platform" is not iFollow, it's something called InPlayer which Blackpool have used to make their home friendly games available to their fans? 

I don't know if you took advantage of the free YouTube coverage of the Fleetwood game on Saturday, I for one was delighted to get pictures of a game I'm not allowed to travel to. 

Same tomorrow. Don't care if the money benefits Rovers or Blackpool, God knows they've been through shocking times recently so if my money helps them and not us then so be it. And 6 quid is a whole lot less than I'd have spent physically attending the match. 

Which I'm not allowed to do. 

Just open an incognito tab, you'll be able to read as many articles as you want. 

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Maybe the idiots are those who don't seize the opportunity to make much needed funds.

Funds which can't be spent because they might need to be paid back.  Absolute lunacy to suggest Rovers are missing out on anything by not having STs on sale.  And I don't know why you are giving Luton Town sales updates on here - who cares if they have shifted 200 more since the middle of last week?  It's irrelevant.

Also, do you even remember posting the below not even 3 months ago?  Then, you were slating the club for not refunding you 60 quid for games you couldn't watch.  Now, you are slagging the club off for not taking money - almost on false pretences - off the very same loyal ST customers!  Which would inevitably lead to the same refund conundrum that you were so indignant about in May!

On 29/05/2020 at 11:03, JHRover said:

In terms of potential refund on my season ticket i have not yet decided what i am going to do yet.

I'm struggling with the idea that i should refrain from getting a refund to the tune of £60+ on games i haven't been able to go to. I have many other bills to pay, I don't get a great salary and already spend far too much of it going far and wide every week watching Rovers. Meanwhile Rovers have a wage bill of millions of pounds and to my knowledge nobody in the hundreds of employees down there have yet taken a wage cut or lost any money. Waggott is on £300,000+ a year, lord only knows how much the players are on, not to mention the invisible owners rep, and whilst it is nice they have deferred some of those wages this is a DEFERRAL and not a CUT or REDUCTION. 

I also have a series of other issues and gripes on my mind that are telling me not to wave away a refund. I am unhappy that the club dishes out hundreds of free tickets for league games whilst taking my season ticket money and i ask why i should subsidise that. I also ask myself why i should pay for games that i won't be able to watch whilst i fully expect a large number of non-essential people to be able to gain access to Ewood for these 'behind closed doors' games whilst many are being paid to do so - Community Trust, office staff etc.

14 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I'm not necessarily talking about the most loyal. I'm talking also about those fans who aren't that bothered about going who after months of inertia from the club might just decide they are better off doing something else with their money. Once gone they aren't coming back.

But also the regular renewers who go every season, as the economic damage increases from what is was in March and April more and more are likely going to be struggling for cash and be less willing to throw money Rovers way.

The ones that "aren't that bothered" I'd suggest wouldn't be the ones spending 300 quid blind on a ST. And the ones who might be concerned about their future financial situation won't be spending 300 quid on anything they don't need - new TV, holiday in Spain, ST which might not let them in to the ground until after Christmas.

BTW, if they were on sale now I'd have bought mine. But I'm actually grateful that BRFC have taken the sensible approach and aren't going to sell until they can tell me what I'm buying.

10 hours ago, JHRover said:

We are starting from a standing position of 0 season ticket holders and I believe every week that goes by will see less and less prepared to renew.

If we had been on the ball in February or March we wouldn't have this.issue

So what you're saying here is that the most loyal fans who are prepared to throw 300 quid at the club now, totally blind as to the product they might be getting, will for some reason decide not to spend that money with the passage of time or once it becomes clear what actually is being sold??

That just doesn't make any sense.

16 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

He made errors here fairly regularly, and was quite raw as youd expect from a goalkeeper years away from his peak. I never felt totally confident with him in net because you always felt an error wasnt too far away.

That being said, he is talented and he was ours. Its much easier to stomach your goalkeepr making mistakes if they decline over time as he matures and if he is ours to keep so we get to see the benefits of a goalkeeper becoming more consistent and performing to a higher level.

The problem was not necessarily losing Raya in isolation. We put the proceeds (and a bit more) in to buying a poor striker. We then decided to loan a goalkeeper of the same age with less ability who was more error prone, knowing that even if he did improve, which he didnt, that Brighton would benefit and we would have no one again come this summer.

If we go and sign another young goalkeeper on loan, unless he is one of the rare consistent exceptions at a tender age, then he will make mistakes that will cost us points and again we will know that any improvements that he makes will only benefit someone else.

Thats why we are crying out for a permanent addition and ideally one who is a bit older. 

There is no way to defend the transfer business of last summer because it is all connected. Raya has despite todays mistake improved this season, helped by a better defence but also from all accounts having developed individually. Not perfect by any means though.

Ironically I think I recall Gallagher being linked to Brentford last summer, albeit it was almost certainly nonsense. But they are better off this summer in having Raya (and the 1.5m difference) rather than signing Gallagher and a short term goalkeeper who would now have gone back.

Raya (and/or his much praised Brentford coaches) have just cost them £160 million. 

8 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

They are discussing Brentford in my paper today and I saw this quote " they possess the second best defence in the division, three masterful great Danes in midfield and arguably the league's finest goalkeeper in David Raya ". So we manage to go from selling arguably the best goalie in the league to loaning arguably the worst in the league.

Maybe time to switch newspapers.

2 hours ago, K-Hod said:

Covid has affected every football club, not just ours. Lesser clubs have managed to get their act together, but we are just hanging about seemingly

Some clubs (not sure if they are lesser or not) have had them on sale and then taken them back off sale. That's chaotic, it's not having their act together. Imagine the mayhem when those clubs have to decide who gets to sit where. 

Hanging about is the correct thing to do in these circumstances. 

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The worst thing that could happen would be that due to the uncertainty, no one takes them up on the offer. You would then be proved right. And what harm would be done even if that happened? Nothing.

And what harm is being done by the club taking the sensible option to wait for clarity before going on sale? None at all. 

Because in about 5 weeks time Luton are going to have to start handing some of that money back. Or issuing free iFollow passes.

Perhaps Rovers saw the uproar on here last time they went down that route.  In some peoples eyes every single decision Rovers take is the wrong one.

I think the club are doing the right thing here.  Why start selling something when they can't at this stage accurately describe what is actually for sale?

And there's no evidence the club needs "help" in terms of cashflow, other than they made it clear they'd prefer not to refund 8,500 part-STs from last season.

But we're just through July month end and there's nothing to suggest Rovers didn't meet all of their normal payment commitments.

Given the uproar on here when the iFollow / no refund policy was announced a couple of months back, you'd think the club would get some credit for taking a sensible approach and not taking money off loyal fans just because they could if they wanted to.