Does anybody have an assessment of Ethan Walker? It looks like he suffered an injury in the game against Porto in mid-November. Doesn't look as though he's recovered from it, yet.

On 11/01/2023 at 21:15, CambridgeRover said:

Read some rumour about the left back Gabriel Suazo. Not sure if there is any truth in it but saw it 

Suazo is at Beşiktaş for talks. I think we can safely rule this one out.

15 hours ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

What type of forward is he? 

I can't remember. 😁 I just recall him standing out as one who could break into the first team.

I'd be OK with selling Brereton Diaz and getting Dennis in return for six months. Dennis will be a good striker at this level, and I think it would allow us to take at least some funds to put towards a permanent forward in summer.

I think we have to read the script. Keeping Brereton Diaz is going to be a distraction for the next four or five months due to his contract situation. I'm not convinced he's going to play to the expectations we have of him with this ongoing situation.

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I guess the problem with staff being casual that they isn't much loyal from them with alot of being young adults and probably want more secure work its leads to these sort of problem.

That's not a new problem. I worked in the kiosks at one point for a short time. It's a high staff turnover. It's normal, but they come and go.

In other news, I see Todd Kane has gone on loan to Charlton. Hard to break the habit I guess!

I wonder if Harry Leonard will be on the bench for this one. He's training with the first team, and his game time against Valencia last night was being managed.

I watched him a couple of times in pre-season and he was impressive.

39 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

if he was that good stoke would`nt have sent him back

Or the manager that signed him is no longer there and the current manager wants to bring his own players in?

3 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Has Kilkenny been officially written off by people who have never seen him play?

Yes, as well as people who don't bother doing their homework and lazily conclude he can't get into the Stoke first team when he's injured. 🤦‍♂️

Frankly, I'd never heard of him until now. I have no idea if he's good or bad. At all. None of us do. But we'll all draw our own conclusions before he's picked up the pen.

52 minutes ago, ItsRoverZ said:

Very very underwhelming signing if true, lad can't even get into a Stoke side sat in 18th

Kilkenny was unlucky considering he was signed on loan by a different manager than the one they have now. O'Neill signed him, only managed to get a few games out of him until his injury, and I presume Neil doesn't fancy him.

Joe Linton charged with drink-driving.

6 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

It doesn't really matter what Pears does in League One. It's a shit level we can't make any judgements from.

It did for Scott Wharton, and most of that was in League Two.

I disagree with the pear pair of you, but I'll leave it at that. 🙂

5 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Because he will never ever improve enough to be good enough to be our first choice keeper. Neither will he ever improve enough to command a transfer fee worth speaking of. This isn’t writing him off, we need backup for Kaminski, obviously and he’s adequate as that - and we can’t say that for certain about any of our young keepers just yet, so if we did loan him out we’d have to waste time and resources bringing another keeper in.

I'd say it is. I think it's unfair to write him off before he's barely had a chance at regular first team football. We bemoan players not getting a chance in the first team, and although the goalkeeper situation is clearly different, the only way to see if he's got the mettle to ever be our number one is if he gets regular first team football.

Maybe we can conclude one of two things in this window. If Pears gets sent out on loan, I think that indicates that the coaching staff believe he'll come good, and potentially number one if Kaminski ever goes. If Pears doesn't get sent out on loan, perhaps they don't think much of him, and are happy to let him bench warm (rot).

I guess we will see.

7 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I see we are repeating the cycle of Pears having a few alright games and people thinking he can therefore be relied on until he costs us games again. Short memories. It wasn't just Wigan, he was crap the season before too.

Brereton Diaz was crap and virtually everybody on here had written him off well before he had his breakthrough last season. I'm not sure why a player is judged based on what they were like two years ago or even one year ago. If they right the wrongs, and show that they are going to improve, then I don't think we should cut our nose off to spite our face.

Also, in no way have I (or anybody else) said Pears is reliable. The suggestion is merely to send him on loan to continue developing and see what comes of it.

Nobody is saying Pears is ready and deserves to take over from Kaminski (that would be ludicrous), only that it's probably a good time to let him be number one in a reasonable league to see what he's really made of.

8 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

I don’t think there’s a great deal for us to gain in loaning out Pears. He’s only ever going to be a back up keeper and he’s never going to command a transfer fee (even though we were daft enough to pay one), so while he might want to play more we need him to do what he was signed for - sit on the bench. Loan him out and we’re relying on a debuting kid if Kaminski gets injured.

As a slight aside, Mowbray had another howler binning off Fisher to accommodate Pears.

Pears has shown good signs of improvement from whenever I've seen him play this season. Writing him off when he is still only 24? I think he's better than what you give him credit for.

I don't see what benefit comes of Pears bench-warming here. For me, he's shown enough that he can cut it as a number one in League One. Send him there and see how much further he can improve, like Carter and Wharton did.

As for Fisher, he's also just 24, but he's currently bench-warming at Swansea City, isn't he? I don't understand how that makes swapping him out for Pears a "howler".

There is an opinion piece suggesting Pears should go on loan to Portsmouth for the rest of the season. Portsmouth have had their on-loan goalkeeper recalled by West Brom.

An article from Jackson last month stated the Rovers would consider loaning Pears out.

I think it would make sense, particularly if we were allowed to stipulate a recall should Kaminski be injured. He made a couple of howlers in his earlier cameos for us, but I can only put that down to inexperience. I think he's been reasonably impressive, otherwise, and game time in League One is surely beneficial to all.

Motherwell interested in loaning Markanday according to reports in Scotland.

I'd like Markanday to stay. He sounded like he wanted to stay and fight for a place in the team, which is healthy, tied in with him feeling as fit as he did before his injury.

2 minutes ago, longsiders1882 said:

Stories now seem to back this up, suggestions he's out for a couple of months. Big loss for us.

Please don't go and get van Hecke on loan! 😢

Gabriel Suzao was mentioned earlier in the thread. This article claims that Olympiacos, Fenerbahçe, and Beşiktaş are all interested, with the latter two having been in touch with one of his agents. The agent said that Europe is where Suazo wants to be.

I don't really understand what sort of money would be involved in bringing him here, i.e., his wage demands. Ironically, it feels as though free transfers are a paradox for us if we want to keep our wage structure intact. Can we compete with the aforementioned clubs when they are perennially playing in the European competitions, and the probable bloated wage demands a player like this might have?

It feels like a non-starter.

Andreas Schjelderup is about to sign for Benfica. I'm not sure if Benfica were ever interested in Vetlesen based on Twitter rumours that I mentioned, but if they were, I assume that means Vetlesen is now off the cards for them.

I've seen figures of €6m-€7m bandied around for Vetlesen. If that's the ball-park figure, it would take the bi-decadial Venky war chest to get him. I still think that this figure won't be spent in the January transfer window, and Vetlesen must be attracting superior suitors.

Was wondering why van Hecke couldn't be loaned to Feyenoord in this window. It's because Brighton already have eight players loaned to clubs outside England. I found that quite astonishing, but having checked Transfermarkt, and it is correct.

Feyenoord cannot afford to purchase van Hecke permanently in this window because they are prioritising a midfielder.

If Rovers are prioritising a forward and a midfielder, I suspect that also rules out a permanent move here, even if the fee is modest. I wonder if a loan deal could be on. It would be a huge boost to get him, even if it's just for a few months. Who knows what it could lead to thereafter?

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

Let's see Mola in his proper position he seems like a lively player we often need to be closing down quicker in midfield.  He certainly isn't a LB or LWB that's obvious and i'm no fan of shoe horning players in anywhere just to see how they cope.

Unless I'm mistaken, Edun has largely been competition for the left wing-back role. With Mola staying, Sharpe has suggested that this has now opened the door for Edun to leave on loan. Reinforced by the fact that Mola has been a stand-in operator on the left side of our defence (name your position), I'd suggest that Mola hasn't been brought in to play as a midfielder. He's here as competition for the left side of defence based on evidence so far.

On the subject of Goodison Park, it'll be demolished soon. I went there around 13 years ago for an away game. Having been used to the facilities at Ewood Park, and not being a frequent away traveller, I was amazed by the away end. I believe they just call it "The Paddock".

I took a load of photos, but the majority have friends/family in them, so I'd rather not post them here, but here is a couple of the concourse area. The interesting angles, nooks and crannies, rounded walls of brick, etc., are a rarity. You can imagine how it would have looked before the modern bits and pieces and garish colours were added. These stands are grade-listed. I suppose they will keep bits and put it in a museum.

And a few looking onto the pitch and towards the other Leitch stand.

8 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

It is very odd, and the fact Dundee's is the same as Ewood but other Leitch grounds are normal rectangular shape would indicate some local factors are at work rather than Leitch himself designing them that way

I made an edit to the "theory" section while you replied.

Molineux - another Leitch project - is similar. In fact, it is possibly the most prominent ground where you can still see the effects of an angled stand today. Wolves house the away supporters in it. It is subtle, but the angle is there.

Here is a top-down map drawing.

You could as say the same of Goodison Park. Leitch was the architect of the Bullens Road Stand and the Gwladys Stand. Here is an artist's depiction of the plan.

9 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

So why did he design the Ewood and Dens Park stands in this way and why did the Rovers and Dundee directors allow him to do it?

I'm not sure.

Here is an aerial photo of Ewood Park before the Riverside Stand was reconstructed. It probably shows the stadiums wonky-ness  at its best.

I find it interesting that the Nuttall Street Stand and the Darwen End Stand seem to be right-angled to each other.

I had a theory that the pitch was originally parallel to the longer section of the Nuttall Street Stand, and right-angled to the Darwen End Stand appropriately. When the other two stands were built thereafter, the pitch was then re-aligned to the grander Riverside Stand.

I then found this drawing, which probably puts my theory to bed.

To me, it looks like the Nuttall Street Stand (to the right) is under construction. If you observe the detail closely, you can see that the roof is unfinished, and there are wooden planks and all sorts of rubble. Given that the Nuttall Street Stand was completed in 1907, I would perhaps put this drawing at 1906-1907.

At this point, I understood that the Riverside Stand wasn't yet built. It's documented as being constructed in 1913. I believe this refers to the pre-1987 Riverside Stand that many on here will be familiar with. However, does this mean that the above drawing depicts an even older Riverside Stand?

Here is another photo which is from 1906. Based on the drawing, above, the stand in the photo looks to be an old-old Riverside Stand. I'm fairly certain it isn't the Nuttall Street Stand because a) it looks a little too small, and b) the white buttresses appear to match those of the Riverside Stand in the picture, above.

This is like a mystery. I wonder if we'll ever get a definitive answer as to the storyline of Ewood Park during this point in time, and the conclusion as to how we got our wonky stadium.