bluebruce

Does it bollocks 'require' him to refer to us that. If we were playing Tranmere or Doncaster, sure, otherwise of course he could refer to us as Rovers if he wanted. Like it's gonna stipulate in his contract he has to call us Blackburn! He calls us whatever he feels like because it doesn't matter for shit. Blackburn, Rovers, we are both. All I agree with is he is a proper Rover and loves the club.

I guess David Dunn must not be a proper Rovers fan since he called us 'Blackburn', according to some strangely obsessed people on here.

All sounds promising. If Mori is a step quicker than Dolan and plays with his head up, composed, and still has skill then he sounds like an upgrade. Gudjohnsen will be riding a high from his goal against France. Hopefully he keeps that momentum.

Had to miss the game, on the way back from a gig in Bristol and just watched the highlights on Sky...buzzing tbf. Superb efforts from Morishita and Cantwell that could easily have gone in, yes they were from distance but promising we could start scoring pearlers again. Lovely for Mori to get his full debut goal and see his helicopter celebration. Thought Ohashi's pass to him was unreal, looks like they've already struck up an understanding. How did Morishita play in general? These may be still the dark days of Venkys, and there's a lot of football to be played this season, but I'm gonna take the moments of light when I can!

Honestly that's not a bad bench, Montgomery aside. Carter and Wharton hasn't been a good starting CB pair in the past though, hopefully they are both a bit more experienced and wiser now.

We used to have one, and there's been many times I wish we still did...but I think the reason it hasn't returned is that people frequently used it in a passive aggressive way to laugh at posts they didn't agree with.

I don't think Atcheson meaningfully belongs in the conversation yet. If we are having to rely on him to start, our depth is too shallow. Further, the availability of TGH there isn't just down to his own injury status, as he is also a CM and may be needed there if there is an injury crisis in midfield.

Spin is easy isn't it? When you have enough people, enough of them are going to be gullible enough to swallow your shit, especially if that's what they want to believe. Which they do, because there is no getting away from Venkys so they'd rather convince themselves everything is fine.

A dangerous combination.

Our goal from Jayden Sargent off the bench I see, only came on in the 75th minute. There was a bit of hype about him in the U18s last season I recall. I'm struggling to find his age, but the only thing I can see is from that Rovers Xtra account 3 months ago, stating he was 15 at the time! I'd assume 16 now, but a very good sign if he is starting to play and score for the U21s already. May be one to watch. Stats: 10 league appearances for the U18s last season, with 5 assists and 1 goal over 544 minutes (equivalent to just over 6 full games, and a goal contribution almost exactly every 90 minutes). Although no goals or assists for them this season in 3 games and 198 minutes (equivalent of 2.2 full games). Only one 9 minute appearance for the U21s this season before this match, in the PL2 against Brighton, and 4 for them last season, 3 of which were in this competition, the PL Cup. None of them last season were for more than 69 minutes, but he still got 2 assists, including 1 against City in the PL2 in a 16 minute cameo. If he really is 15 or only just 16 these are promising numbers. I wonder if he'll start to break into the U21s properly this season.

Took them a whole 4 minutes to be 1 nil down. Coventry u21s operate a league below ours.

If the manager believes 3 CBs is the best formation for us, why would he allow us to end up with only 4 CBs in the squad, two of whom are highly injury prone?

Quite possible, but the guarantee condition staying in place during the window gave an excuse for the cost-cutting that the suckers in the fanbase will lap up.

If the club dies, I'm never supporting another club again. Zombie or otherwise.

Just got it from the court case thread and wasn't sure if it had been mentioned here. @wilsdenrover is the one who has been brilliant in keeping tabs on what's been happening with these billion adjournments and caught that this part of things had been resolved. I don't think their court case will affect us anymore, but if I were Venkys my next move would be to get some of that money they've put up for the bond back. Basically the need for more bonds is over because the amount they've paid into bonds already considerably exceeds the maximum fine payable as a result of the case. I think we are talking either 7.7 mill or 8.8 million quid in fines (currency conversions seem to have slight discrepancies) and I think it was something like 25 or 30 million already paid in bonds, but the proper numbers are all in that thread. I expect they'll want that difference back, and then to not pay or minimise the fine, but ultimately I don't think we have to give a shit about that anymore, and thus it's probably be more gratifying for most of us if they suffer as much financially as possible. Some would argue freeing up their constraints on funding us is a bad thing in the long game anyway.

If anyone has missed it, the need for Venkys to give the Indian government a bond equal to 50% of what they send us (previously 100%) has been removed entirely. Obviously this has happened a week after the window closed.

I would imagine this ends the interest we as fans have in this case? Venkys aren't facing any hurdles in sending money, so Blackburn Rovers aren't involved or potentially held back by this case. The only possible future ramification I can see, is that if Venkys succeed in getting the difference reimbursed between securities rendered and the maximum fine (which would be my next move if I were them), there's a vague chance they see that as money provided for Rovers already, since it was budgeted to help us, and might still be willing to put it into the club within FFP or P&S limits. Therefore won't be too stingy with the funds transferred for the next few years. That seems unlikely though, as they don't seem to particularly want to send us money, they just feel obliged.

I wonder how much this case has already cost them in legal fees...

Really, who offered that?

You haven't responded to what I said. Why won't you acknowledge there is a systemic problem at the club with renewing deals and it isn't acceptable? I'm not talking about individual deals, I'm talking about the very clear pattern. We all are. You seem to be the only one who isn't seeing/acknowledging it. Instead you keep resorting to trying to justify each fuckup.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/25447683.blackburn-rovers-sanction-loan-deal-previous-success/ George Pratt, 1 month loan to Chorley.

Why? Free agents can sign outside of a transfer window.

Brownhill is going to have to be made of rice paper to get snapped by Buckley.

He's repeating it because he's right. You must know he is. Why not just accept it's completely unacceptable to be this bad at contract renewals for so long? We can discuss individual circumstances til the cows come home, and some maybnot have been renewable realistically, but no properly functioning club does this badly with so many contract renewals. It's not really up for debate, it's only possible for it to be rank incompetence or excessive cost cutting.

However, the injury is likely only anywhere near as bad as it is because the stupid bastards insisted on continuing to play him whilst he was carrying it last season. That's how you get a recurring injury.