7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Totally agree. I dont see how taking one extra game seriously (one that could lead to an FA cup quarter final) would be a terminal blow to any chances of survival. Its a bit of excitement amidst a boring season as you say. And it could have a real positive boost upon the run in.

Mowbray's record in the cups was as puzzling as it was shocking. Even thinking of that Wigan game, we didnt make wholesale changes yet still lost after that Pears performance. We also lost to Morecambe at home in the League cup having only made 2 or 3 changes so it wasnt as if he was treating them as an afterthought yet his cup record was woeful.

I don't care if we win or not either. I do care about Rovers, much as I don't want to.

I've reached the point where I don't care if we're relegated and the thought of Venkys turning up to Wembley if we were to make it via the cup or otherwise makes my blood boil.

It's all pointless while they're still here. I'm absolutely certain I'm not alone in feeling that way.

8 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Largely agree with that J*B, but I did feel Sharpe was quite canny in working round the limitations of modern day local media and putting in a good few pointed articles, his replacement seems out of his depth to me.

It's the nature of local journalism. Now at least. He's only about 25 years old.

Just now, roversfan99 said:

So if we didnt get a somewhat unexpected late window club record fee, then what would have happened?

We'd have been exposed to a shit tonne of risk. Probably why we made sure a big sale did happen.

16 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I know the issue is Venkys. Thats where my blame all goes.

We were told this week that things were ok financially. Ish. Fast forward a week and we cant even spend £2.5m of a record fee to buy a striker.

Dont spend any money and the team ceases to be competitive in the league and goes down. Investing in players is also a way of making money by selling on at a profit. Its not similar to buying a car whilst you dont have a job. Its similar to not buying a bus ticket to the job centre because you dont have a job.

With all due respect, no it isn't.

It's risking defaulting on your mortgage when you've got enough in your bank to cover it for a year.

It would be wholly unacceptable for a CEO at any company to sign off on doing what you're suggesting.

Edit - any CEO of a football club will (rightly) choose relegation over administration. I'd prefer the latter, but then again I'm not employed to stop it from happening

8 minutes ago, benhben said:

I just cant get my head around why they own us.....or still want to own us. They aren't interested in us or football, we loose them money, they dont seem to be interested in promotion where the big money is, the fans don't like them, we dont get them good press, I cant see us giving them any marketing income and they've ended up in court partly because of us. Just dont understand why they are still keeping on to us. At least start putting the feelers out for a sale..

At least with people like the Glazers, Man U are a cash cow for them. To them were just an unimportant money drain. 

In too deep and keep digging maybe? If they sell they would probably have to write off all the "debt" associated to the holding company that owns the club.

9 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Low expectations dont justify people not being annoyed that weve pocketed a club record fee and not spent any.

This isn't to get at you in particular, I've read it a lot today, but it's just a completely unreasonable expectation to think we would spend it. And calling it "pocketing the cash" is completely misrepresenting the actual situation.

Given our financial issues, I'd say it would probably class as gross negligence on Waggot's behalf if we spent a good chunk of that cash, were Venkys not be able to send money over in summer and then we couldn't cover our costs. He could be held personally liable.

It's akin to selling your car when you don't have a job. You aren't going to spend that cash on a new car until you know you've got some stable income coming in.

Again, Venkys shit, Waggot commercially incompetent etc etc. But put your annoyance in the right place, getting it wrong makes it easier for people who disagree to say everyone is doing their best and this is all we can be.

The issue is Venkys, their position as owners is untenable. This window, in isolation, given the circumstances, was handled about as well as it could have been by those at Ewood (player quality is obviously an unknown at this point).

Just a quick question for those on here who are particularly down about the window, and are lamenting the club for not spending the Wharton money...

What did you expect to happen?

I'm frankly shocked that we brought anyone in at all yesterday. I fully expected every single penny we got from Wharton to go on running costs.

What would you do as GB or Waggot? It's an impossible situation for them, there is no guarantee the club will be able to pay the bills since there's no guarantee Venkys can send money over to cover our costs. We basically have no owners, but can't sell the club. The risk means they had to bring money in.

They are never going to want the club to go into admin, that would obviously be a failure of their responsibilities (even if not their fault).

This isn't me saying Waggot is doing a great job, very obviously the commercial side of the club is hugely underperforming and a lot of that is on him. I'm not saying GB is doing a perfect job either, though how people can put so much blame on him given the changing budgets and no money is absurd.

This is no let off for Venkys either, they are shit owners. They are the reason we are a bog standard second tier club that's going absolutely nowhere. I would have preferred to not sell AW, risk admin, flog him for nothing, get relegated and get rid of Venkys. But if I thought for one second that those at the club wouldn't try to avoid that scenario like the plague, then I'd be a moron and they wouldn't be fit to be employed.

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

I liked the look of Dembele tonight. Big, strong, fast, skilful, we don't have a striker like him

Big? He's 5'8"

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Do people want a pre pour pint or just they want a pint pour when order? If I was going to a pub I would want a fresh pour pint of lager so surely that's the same issue at Rovers do you agree? 

I wouldn't go to the kiosk at Half time as it takes too long and far too crowded for me in Blackburn End concourse 

It's a pre-poured pint, no pint, or a fresh pint and miss 10 minutes of the football you've paid for. I'd be willing to bet that most would choose the first of those options...

It's not like we're talking about choosing a nice IPA or session lager to mull over with mates, the pints taste like crap anyway (and are far too cold), I don't think them being sat out for 30 minutes will make a blind bit of difference.

18 hours ago, K-Hod said:

Yep, can mention the first part.

The second part, happy to raise this again, but believe me, I’ve mentioned it before and I agree for what it’s worth.

Wait times seem to have improved in Jack Walker upper, can’t speak for other stands, though!

Just to add another vote for raising the queues issue.

If you go down to the concourse when the HT whistle blows, it is a guarantee that you won't be served until after the second half starts. That's in the JW upper.

It ruins the atmosphere, people have to head down there on 30/35 mins. Not only that, the club are throwing thousands away every home game (assuming they take a cut).

Literally all it will take to resolve it is for someone to be pouring pints during the first half. Or use the 9 tap thing that was just gathering dust at the back of the kiosks.

Same issue outside before the game too.

Queuing for 15 mins plus is an expectation for me, and has been for years.

30 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Missed this game live so just got round to watching the full 90 back on Rovers TV. Sickener to lose at the end but the overall performance was exceptional even before considering going down to ten men so early. 

Think this performance makes me more optimistic for our season than either the wins against WBA or Watford.

I feel exactly the same. Apart from 10 mins after half time, we gave as good as (if not more) than we got. That's no mean feat being a man light for 80 mins or so. Probably our best performance of the season so far for me.

Also, how many managers bring two strikers on at 0-0 with 10 men? Or have one of their CBs make lung-busting runs into the opposition box at 1-1? Might have done for us in the end, but it was brilliant to watch.

To paraphrase the man himself, they played with real bravery.

43 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Ah yes youre right, Duff got games before we were relegated.

IIRC Dunn broke through in the relegation season, but Duff came through the season before and was already first choice on the left by the time Dunn started getting games, with Wilcox moving to LB.

On Jones, it was immediately obvious he was destined for the top, until Wharton has proved he can do it against top opposition, there's still a question mark. Signs are good for AW and hopefully he stays long enough to be remembered fondly. Jones left a season too early, but in retrospect he might have known how dodgy his knees were and thought it was too much of a risk not to go when he did.

45 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Think we're at the point now where we can confidently say hes our best academy product since Duff. Whether hes going to be as good or better than Duff or Dunn is hard to say till he gets to the Premier League.

Dunn came through after Duff. There's Jones as well. Hopefully he eclipses both. Help us win promotion and a cup like Dunn did, then we can flog him for megabucks and wish him well to go and win the major honours (kind of) like we did with Jones.

Pickering being suspended is a bit of a concern, but seems we've got 3 strikers who will be useful even if none are the silver bullet option.

It's not a big leap to say we could be here with 4 wins from 4 so far this season if Szmodics and Pickering hadn't cost us early on. And regardless of the final result against Hull, it was a hell of a performance for 80 minutes with 10 men.

Hopefully the past 2 games have at least shown that the days of us rolling over every other weekend are behind us.

Don't get anyone sent off and score any penalties we are awarded, and I fancy us to win. 2-0

Starting striker with a brace (no idea who it will be... Probably Gally... So we won't get a pen because I'm not sure how we can get one, not miss it and Gally score both a 2-0 win, that just doesn't seem possible).

6 hours ago, DE. said:

Just to be clear, direct personal attacks aren't allowed even if you strongly disagree with a poster's opinion. 

I assume this was aimed at me, and fair enough.

But in my defence, certain posters posting the same nonsensical opinion day after day, which is calmly discredited each and every time, becomes extremely tiring. Especially after a defeat.

That person's comment, knowing that most disagree with them, can only be considered bait, particularly when it comes with a childish "Greg the egg" quip, and deserves be called out for exactly what it is... Utter bollocks.

On 27/07/2023 at 19:39, alex l said:

The reversed halves on the back seems popular with some on the basis it's our tradition. Granted the attached doesnt show the back of the shirts but how has it been defined as to what is traditional? From what I can see we didn't even start with halves and then most early designs had the blue and white the other way to how they generally are now.

Until 2013, we'd basically had blue on the left and reversed on the back since WW2. Nearly 70 years. That's pretty traditional if you ask me.

In the following 10 years I think we've had blue on the left and reversed halves, once? Maybe twice.

Flip the colours on anniversaries or every now and then, that's fine. But alongside the reversed halves being traditional (even if not our original shirt), they stop the kit looking all white or all blue when you watch from the side or on TV. It just looks wrong.

5 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Nobody has ever said we have a divine right!!....spoken like a Dingle,the mask is maybe slipping.

Not the best disguise... Signed up 2 weeks before a Dingle game, only replies in the Dingles thread or to negative posts about the Dingles 🤔

On 20/06/2023 at 03:15, XLM said:

Having a vaping company as our primary sponsor is not a great look (regardless of the MS Paint logo) when there are plentiful stories in the media about an increase in under age usage. Particularly of disposables, which are also terrible environmentally.

Usage is up 50% year-on-year in under 18s according to https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/use-of-e-cigarettes-among-young-people-in-great-britain.

There are some comments along the lines of "they're for adults", "it's illegal to sell to children so it's irrelevant" etc. which is true, but it's not illegal to give them to children free of charge oddly enough, and the promotion of e-cigarettes where children see them is also increasing... Like on their footballing idols for instance.

I'm not anti-vape in general, as a smoker the benefits are obvious. They may be bad, but cannot be worse than traditional cigarettes. But that doesn't mean having them front and centre of the Rovers "brand" is a good idea. Rovers could be used as an example of vaping companies advertising to children. What if in a BBC news piece they show the Rovers kit then transition to a shot of kids stood outside school vaping and poking dead squirrels or whatever kids do? It just shows it hasn't been thought through.

...

On 13/07/2023 at 13:32, Brainfreeze said:

MPs criticise Blackburn Rovers vaping sponsorship deal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-66183944

Well, that didn't take long.

Think it actually looks alright. Nice blue, nice sleeves, don't mind the mix of blues. The sponsor looks better too. The collar is a bit weird, but will probably get used to it.

That said, the halves aren't reversed on the back, so it's a no.

13 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Austria? ‘Arse end of Europe’? 

🤔
 

You never seen a map of Europe? Italy is clearly one of the legs, what's at the top of the legs? The arse. What's at the top of Italy? Austria.

Having a vaping company as our primary sponsor is not a great look (regardless of the MS Paint logo) when there are plentiful stories in the media about an increase in under age usage. Particularly of disposables, which are also terrible environmentally.

Usage is up 50% year-on-year in under 18s according to https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/use-of-e-cigarettes-among-young-people-in-great-britain.

There are some comments along the lines of "they're for adults", "it's illegal to sell to children so it's irrelevant" etc. which is true, but it's not illegal to give them to children free of charge oddly enough, and the promotion of e-cigarettes where children see them is also increasing... Like on their footballing idols for instance.

I'm not anti-vape in general, as a smoker the benefits are obvious. They may be bad, but cannot be worse than traditional cigarettes. But that doesn't mean having them front and centre of the Rovers "brand" is a good idea. Rovers could be used as an example of vaping companies advertising to children. What if in a BBC news piece they show the Rovers kit then transition to a shot of kids stood outside school vaping and poking dead squirrels or whatever kids do. It just shows it hasn't been thought through.

Add to that, the financials surely can't be that great. The company's turnover isn't huge by any stretch. So it feels like an easy, unimaginative option that is probably sub-par financially, has the potential to paint Rovers in a negative light, means kids can't wear the same shirt as the team, and the logo looks shit.

Not the biggest commercial fuck up over the past 5-10 years, but definitely another one for me.

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

well if your view fine but it ain't mine view 

It is mine view

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

and you think its any better in Spain or Germany or Holland. Its ain't. 

I don't believe the system at all but is very enjoyable watch 

Maybe it would be better for everyone if the teams that dominate those leagues join the ones that dominate ours for a breakout league in the middle east then?

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I don't want it either. 

The PL is the best football competition in the world. simple as. 

Plus by law they can't make it happen. Look at the backlash last time it was mentioned. Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal fans made their feelings well know. Guardiola and Klopp are against it

A super league would be boring always. We already have Champions league and other UEFA club competitions which I have problems with which I won't go into

Competition? If you say so. The fact that only 9 different clubs have finished in the top 4 since England got a fourth Champions League spot 22 years ago would say that word isn't the best choice.

Chelsea, Arsenal, United, City and Liverpool account for nearly 90% of all top 4 finished in getting on for a quarter of a century. The system is beyond broken in terms of "competitiveness".

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

The Euro Super league won't happening and neither should it. Fans don't want. 

I do.

What you mean is fans of United, Chelsea, Arsenal et al, the Premier League and UEFA don't want it.

The PL and UEFA merely want to protect their revenue and those fans have benefited plenty over the last 25 years from the pseudo closed shop we already have. If they're collateral damage to a more fair and competitive pyramid then those clubs can't go soon enough for me.