10 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I don't think it was Mike, never mentioned by Waggott.

Plus, maybe more tellingly, it was exactly the same modus operandi at Coventry. Reasonably detailed plans for a housing development and promises of a new training ground but absolutely no detail thereof.

In fact at Coventry they didn't even have a site to build a new training ground on which was the reason why Sport England blocked it. I think I'm correct in saying they then tried to wangle it through for a second time by acquiring an OPTION to purchase some land as opposed to the land itself but were blocked for a second time by Sport England.

Utterly frightening.

Is this what football really is? A front for other interests?

It does make you wonder what motivates ex players in particular. We hear often about players struggling financially when they finish playing, and how precarious a job football management is. I expect they have to make money how and when they can. It might even be possible to feel sorry for them - but not at the expense of our beloved club.

With there being some similarities in the phasing (due to also overstaying their abilities) I reminded myself of the circumstances of Bowyer leaving.

He was removed in November 2015 after a run of W5D6L5, sat in 15th, 4 points outside the bottom three.

That’s a run that would delight Mowbray and his fans and would be spun as stability - with all kind of tropes and euphemistic language to support it.

So we can expect Mowbray to get the full window and one-third of next season at least. If he stays in the top half the gig will rumble on. It doesn’t appear that Waggott will be retiring any time soon, as was the rumour, so the trio of self-preservation (got to hand it to them really, they do seem to have absolute loyalty to each other) will also ensure nothing happens to change the manager position.

With all of his so-called, and self-proclaimed instilling of loyalty, insistence on having the ‘right characters’ (for dressing room and sub bench harmony and subservience rather than getting results), and doing things ‘the right way’, it would be easy to be seduced (as the media are) that we have an absolute diamond in charge.

The trouble is, football is, and always will be, a results business. Nobody likes to play well and lose. What people like even less is to play badly, mind numbingly at times, and still lose. But here we are.

That said, after defeat to Burnley at the end of October 2015, Bowyer finally took on the fans with this pearler:

"There was a lot of emotion attached to Saturday's defeat," he added. "It's nearly Halloween and you see people coming out for the ground you haven't seen for 18 months.

"They'll probably go back in and hide under the stone for another couple of games, but that's just part and parcel of football."

So maybe if Mowbray just avoids that faux pas he will keep the fans on side and continue to avoid the axe regardless of results, form, league position and matchday income.

44 minutes ago, roverandout said:

What are u referring to with the point about the players seeing through him?

His inability to organise a team to win games of football.

With Rotherham and Wycombe both relegated, Mowbray is now the longest serving manager in the Championship.

Sixth in the EFL 72 overall.

And that’s with relegation on his record, whether he likes it or not, and the two worst runs of form in decades which would have seen him sacked at any other club at this level, let alone one that needed promotion.

Such a shame we ended up with owners so rich, so negligent and so arrogant that they allow themselves to be exploited time and time again.

At this point, comparisons with Kean are fair. Both are unable to deliver on the field, both have divided the fanbase, and both are more than happy to bare-face the fans while talking Venkys coin while watching the team struggle. If rumours are to be believed the players have also seen through him.

We have a huge rebuild ahead, just as we did after Kean has finished overhauling the squad.

“I won’t walk away” - Steve Kean, Sept 2012

“I don’t want to be a burden on the club, if I’m the problem then that's no problem, the owners have to tell me. Other than that, I love the game, I've been here before, I'll keep going.” - Tony Mowbray, Feb 2021

Would a Kean have got away with resetting the clock after nearly four seasons:

“I’ve talked about the journey, this club needs rebuilding and four years in, I think we had to restructure and I think we’re 31 games in to being a team that can try and get out of this division by playing a brand of football that allows you to dominate games, a bit like Watford could, like Brentford can do, Swansea can do it, they dominate the ball and look like they can win football matches.”

The difference is that the number of Rovers fans prepared to make excuses and put up with the bullshit now make up a larger proportion of the fanbase.

8 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Actually offside is the easiest for VAR.

It is the offside law that needs attention.

The IT is fine but the interpretations arrived at are sometimes questionable but not with offsides.

VAR needs scraping. It is not consistently referred to.

5 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

as much as id`e like leicester to win ,thats the worst decision in 140 years of professional football,the game has been decided by a **** in a suit somewhere in a london office,the game is being destroyed i completely agree

I think you’re spot on.

VAR is corrupt and an external actor decides which decisions to refer and which not to. Needs to be three referrals by each manager, not somebody who is not accountable.

Can’t say I’m too upset but VAR is destroying football.

Bet they didn’t dare go to VAR then.

11 hours ago, K-Hod said:

I don’t like this reality reversing narrative where we were somehow wrong to release Bell. Let’s be Frank, he was absolutely garbage for at least 80% of the times he pulled the shirt on. Good riddance.

Agreed. I’m more concerned our Plan A was to offer him a new deal.

14 hours ago, bringdunnback said:

Bennett staying, on a (hopefully) much reduced wage, would be fine for me.

Needs to be dropping to at most 5k a week however.

If we are stuck with Mowbray then the wage for Bennett would be better spent on a new pitch.

I was a huge Bennett fan under Lambert and he has been a loyal servant but his playing days are at an end. We did the same with Mulgrew and Graham. Kept them past their sell by date and then their best before date and then when they have been on the side for a while and just watching them go off.

“We’ve no money”, they cry.

Because we don’t sell players while they still have value!

2 minutes ago, Mike E said:

How anyone can not support some of these purely because of errant commas utterly baffles me. Doing something, however small, in the first place takes more intestinal fortitude than dismissing something relatively concrete over some bloody grammar (and I say that as a former teacher married to a teacher).

Personally I think the letter is poorly written. Not because of grammar or formatting but because there is no clear message in it.

It neither calls for change nor backs the manager.

It talks about being confused (is that an attempt at rapport?) by a convoluted decision making process but does not add clarity or simplicity.

It squeezes in Brockhall between the pandemic and the super league, trivialising it as an issue.

It says the Trust are concerned and confused by the things happening at Rovers but then says they will maintain their support of wider football matters, with the 50+1 model - something no owner would vote for and would have to be imposed by the government. Are these two things linked?

It says it is not protesting but wants the club to engage fans at a local level. Why would this letter do that?

In trying so hard to find a tone that is respectful and culturally submissive, the message has become cryptic and unclear, and English is my first language.

The removal of CEO and manager is necessary for any progress (under their tenure) and they need to accommodate this and then address it. If they don’t so then they do not value this club. If that’s the case then why are they still here - this is the elephant in the room IMHO.

Ultimately, open letters are not aimed at the recipient but are really aimed at getting other people onside. Has this letter done that? I’m not sure it has.

What is the alternative? I’m not sure of that either, particularly when the owners don’t even acknowledge that we exist, but my gut feeling is that it needs Pasha to abandon his current allegiances in the UK and to recognise that it is the fans who have the long-term interests of this club at heart. If Venkys don’t care about Rovers then we are a dead club walking.

16 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

Off on a bit of a random sidenote here... I know nothing about the lad who reports for Lancs Live - Jaquob Crooke - but have found his views and succinct reports enjoyable to read. 

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/blackburn-rovers-season-review-campaign-20568207

He seems to have an exceptionally accurate handle on the whole situation.  Written with a bit of flair as well.  Streets ahead of anything that appears in the LT these days. 

Not sure if I’d call it succinct - how far did you scroll down? It’s Lancs Live - pretty sure it’s the online version of the Citizen (I.e. more adverts than actual news).

He seems to be teetering on the edge of berating Mowbray but stops short of doing so. Goes into quite a bit of game analysis but then seems to think Mowbray should be given the Summer to mould the team to fit his style.

It’s as critical a piece as I can remember reading so I don’t want to be too disparaging. I just fear when the wind changes direction temporarily, and we win two or three games, all will be forgiven, only for us to go on another dreadful run as he tinkers with the starting XI game after game.

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

"Moving forward all I ask is they compete and give their very best"

Wow. Exciting. Roll up roll up get your season tickets with a price rise for the next stage of Mowbray's reverse journey.

Seems he's been burned by the bravado of aiming for the play-offs now he's realised that it isn't ever going to happen under him and people will hold that expectation against him. So instead lets just do away with any position, achievement, points tally and simply measure performance on the team 'competing' and 'giving their very best'. Of course these two elements cannot be measured nor judged and therefore can't be used to determine Mowbray's performance in future.

Crafty old fool but most of us can see right through it.

So from now on as long as we put 11 players out that try their best and we don't get hammered every week we're doing fine.

It isn't fine and this is elite professional sport not the Dog and Duck league. This isn't amateur football or someone taking their teenage son out for a game. It's a multimillion pound operation, haemorrhaging cash with millionaires paid huge money. So no, working hard, trying their best and competing are not things Mowbray gets credit for. They are the bare minumum requirements of any professional sports club.

I'm so sick of this now.

Such integrity.

And so lucky to have owners who buy into his ‘vision’.

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Mowbray's got a year left, I'm sure we will!

Let’s hope that’s all he’s got.

6 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Blackburn Rovers contract state of play ahead of proposed summer rebuild - LancsLive

Activated 1 year extensions of RN, JRC, and JR according to this, but not yet Chapman. 

“After assessing their left-back scenario and seeking cover for Harry Pickering next season, Rovers performed a U-Turn on Amari'i Bell and offered fresh terms but it's acknowledged that the 27-year-old would rather seek opportunities elsewhere than stay on at Ewood.”

Ouch. Can we sink any lower?

On 11/03/2021 at 15:04, Meesh said:

Google AdSense also pays per thousand ad impressions (views), I believe.

An ad-based revenue stream keeps the use of the website free of charge to everybody that uses it, and the ad revenues pay for the running costs of the website. Ads can be a pain for users, as seen here. There is actually a danger about relying on the ad model from a technical point of view, but I'd rather not divulge, and it would probably never occur.

The benefactor model, e.g. donations, can be unreliable. You might get a nice one-off donation, and maybe some sporadic minor donations, but it's not a regular stream to rely upon. It might work for some, but I don't think it is sustainable. I'm aware of one particular donor in times gone by that was given special dispensation on here, which I think is out of order. There was always a fear of losing that stream of income, which I suspect was more heavily relied upon back then, so I think there can be practical side-effects of relying on donations; namely, the influence they have over the website, and the elevation that they expect.

An alternative revenue model is freemium. There are zero adverts for all users. The basic (free) tier gives basic use of the website/service. A premium (paid) tier gives full use of the website and all its features. When I say "basic", that would mean losing much of the stuff taken for granted right now in order to encourage users to help fund the site through a premium subscription. As an example, £1 per month could give you access to the podcasts, allow you to post as much as you like, allow you to start new threads, access the non-football forums (although that's probably a punishment), and so on.

There are probably a lot more to the running costs than people realise. The forum software is top of the range. It isn't cheap to renew the licence, and free alternatives are quite nasty in comparison. The servers used require a bit of oomph. We're not talking about a £5 hosting package with GoDaddy, for example. There are also accountants to pay for. And who knows what other administrative costs.

Anyway, that's just how it is. Benefactors come and go. Technical ways of generating revenue change, particularly as Google tightens its grip on everybody's reliance upon them. I think there is something to freemium if ads are becoming a real issue on the web. Freemium still allows everybody to use the website for free in some capacity, and a small premium charge should give the website the income it needs. I don't know. Just my thoughts.

Belated thanks for the reply. That wasn’t my question though. I know the attraction for the site, even though it takes away from the user experience, it was more that I cannot fathom clicking on any of these ads and giving someone any payment details. So much malware, spam and viruses out there.

It would be interesting to know how many BRFCS users have bought anything by using the ads.

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

Wow, that’s amazing! I have been working with Jan and Pam for about 3 months now and am in the midst of helping them set up the new Patrons scheme for Nightsafe.

I will make the donation this week following our meeting. Great choice! 

Serendipitous indeed!

That’s a great thing you are doing. Cheers.

Interested to know about your patrons scheme…

40 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I think this idea that our whole gameplan is to simply get Armstrong opportunities to shoot from wherever he is is our main point of difference. You are even doctoring stats to suit, I could take 5 games out in which he didnt score to make his goals per game record even better. I am unsure if its done partly to use it as a further stick to question Mowbrays approach which I do understand but that isnt even necessary, could you perhaps argue that his tiresome and boring possession obsessed tactics do not suit a striker with such pace that Armstrong has, allowing teams to close spaces in behind?

I think that this idea that he just is allowed to shoot on sight is flawed and has stemmed from that game at Bristol City where I would be the first to admit that he allowed frustration to get the better of him. But that was one game. I do agree that he isnt clinical for example like Rhodes was, but as I mentioned, his pace especially (but also his anticipation and intelligence) gets him into goalscoring positions more often than Rhodes and indeed the majority of players, a large proportion of his missed opportunities are not pot shots from stupid positions but in fact very presentable chances including one on ones that as I mention have stemmed from his pace and movement regularly getting him into them positions. The likes of Gallagher and Brereton dont have those same instincts, indeed strikers that do tend to be the ones that get the goals and are worth the money.

The reason that Armstrong starts as our central striker is because he is undoubtedly better than any of the alternatives (and most in the league) in that position.

To suggest that a 28 goal striker has in any way held us back is just bizarre though to me. It also alleviates the supporting cast of any responsibility. I think its warped logic to look at those goal tallies and the discrepancy between Armstrong on the rest, obviously allowing for the fact that a striker will naturally have the most goals, and then criticise Armstrong rather than the rest of our attacking players and their comparatively feebly goal tallies. Assuming that our 3 primary attacking players aside from Armstrong are Gallagher, Brereton and Rothwell, I would suggest that Brereton has played in a role that very much suits him, that Rothwell has played centrally all season as he has craved, and indeed only Gallagher may have grievances as to the position he has played, but never would he be selected above Armstrong by anyone of sane mind because he isnt as good and wont score anywhere near as many goals! 

Armstrongs goal tally this season is very impressive and should be appreciated, and our failings this season have not been thanks to him. I suspect that we will never agree on the topic though.

You are right, we won’t agree but it’s an interesting topic though.

Armstrong gets more minutes, takes more shots and has more goals than anyone else. The latter being a consequence of the former.

Gallagher playing as CF and being given the same freedom would bring similar results IMHO.

5 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

Good morning @Stuart

I owe you £20 to be donated to a charity of your choice. This From a bet we had about Rovers getting in the top 6...I was only 20 points out!! 🤣🤣

I tried to DM but wouldn’t allow me...Let me know...thanks, Paul

Very good of you, I had honestly forgotten.

Nightsafe is a local charity helping homeless and vulnerable people in the town. They would be grateful of your donation I’m sure. 👍🏻

10 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Even when he lost form, he was our biggest goal threat. A striker with considerable dips in form does not score 28 goals. The idea that the teams sole purpose is to get Armstrong goals is flawed and the idea that he gets preferential treatment is nonsense in my opinion, would you have at any point dropped him this season and for whom? And do you think that other teams could have strikers on 28 goals (or more based on Armstrongs lack of clinical nature) if they had tactics to what you perceive to be the same benefit to the central striker that we do? Do you think he has had an excellent season or do you just think its the norm for any striker within our tactical framework? 

I think it’s what I’ve already said. He has been given time and patience and a consistent, appropriate role in the side that others haven’t. He misses a heck of a lot of chances and certainly isn’t a sharp shooter like Rhodes was.

I guess your last sentence is part of my own question. Other players have been in and out of the side, rotated even when fit, and have not been allowed to find consistency - if anything they have been played out of position and sacrificed for the sake of Armstrong (and keeping the rest of the squad happy). We stayed up (not the original season target) but if we get £30m for him (we won’t) and it was to be reinvested (it wouldn’t) then it may have been a master stroke.

In terms of life after Arma, if Mowbray gives his replacement the same preferential treatment and sticks by him, having him shoot on sight, and helping to make him more consistent at the expense of others then it may well work and we may again see another high scoring striker. I’m not sure it is the best thing for the team though. 

Some interesting stats (obviously I’m going to be selective to suit my point):

Armstrong

Shooting accuracy: 45%

Goal conversion ratio: 14.8%

Rovers scorers

29 = Armstrong

8 = Gallagher

7 = Elliott, Brereton

3 = Rothwell, Dolan, Dack, Johnson

1 = JRC, Buckley, Holtby, Davenport, Williams

Rovers second highest goalscorer has 21 goals less than Arma!

Armstrong has scored more goals than our next five highest scorers combined and 43% of our total player goals for the club in 2020/21.

Shots per Game

Armstrong 4.7

Gallagher 1.2

Elliott 1.0

Brereton 1.8

Given how low Armstrong’s conversion rate is and how many shots he has per game compared to others, it could be argued that he has actually held Rovers back this season, hogging the chances while other players have been marginalised. Quantity over quality.

We have had a very odd season though, with high goals scored (65 - the fifth highest in the division) and average goals conceded (54 - only three team finished higher than us while conceding more). This is largely because we had a handful of games where we battered teams, scoring 4 and 5 goals. In fact, in our five highest scoring games we scored 23 and conceded 4. In those five games Armstrong scored 12 times including 3 penalties. Hugely inflating his stats against poor teams - so he is clearly better at punching when an opponent is on the ropes. Take out those five games (yes, I know, if my aunty had balls…) but that’s 16 goals in 41 games (still good but nobody is coming in with stupid offers).

I say that it is 50/50 with Armstrong having a good season but in a large part due to the commitment and preference shown to him by Mowbray. Will Mowbray be as fortunate again or will he have to change his approach back to his West Brom promotion season. Back then he recognised the need to share the goals around: perennial scorer Kevin Phillips was the stand out with 24 but two other strikers scored 16 each and two midfielders got 10 each amongst others. Or maybe Arma shoots at times when he should pass…? (Which has been mocked previously).

Sauces:

https://analytics.soccerment.com/en/player/155511/adam-armstrong-1997-02-10/stats

https://www.whoscored.com/Teams/158/Show/England-Blackburn

Of course, stats should be taken with a huge pinch of salt - for example, on one site, Barry Douglas was our second best player this season - but it makes for interesting debate.

19 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I would agree that unless he wants to sign a new deal which he would be mad to then we need to cash in but I think we need to sign not only a striler but a couple more attacking players because without him and Elliott, there are not many goals in our team.

The reason for that is how this manager sets up the team.

Nobody else has been allowed to stay King the team as an ever present when they have lost form. Sometimes players have been dropped even when in form. Armstrong has always been given special treatment.

(I’m speculating that’s because he sees having a consistent main striker as important and not because of where he was born).

A few years ago we had a manager called Gary Bowyer. He had a few decent players and a goal machine in Jordan Rhodes. In his last full season he had peaked, finishing 9th, and the side was regressing after Venkys turned off the taps. Rhodes’ goals kept us up but things didn’t look good and a rebuild was required.

We now have Mowbray having gone through the same phase and has totally relied on feeding Armstrong to paper over the massive cracks that have been showing; cracks in some cases created by him trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

When Rhodes left in January 2016 the squad wasn’t invested in and it struggled to adapt to the vacuum that his departure left. We got lucky with a loaned PL experienced striker and the introduction of a more professional regime under a PL standard management team, we survived, finishing 15th.

This Summer we will sell Armstrong. We simply have to. Players come and go and when their stock is at a certain point you must cash in. You are only an injury away from no cash and no player, and then every chance that the player you had is gone even if he stays (see Dack 2020/21).

If Mowbray stays then we will likely need another player to step into that role of striker. They will be given 10 chances per game, every game, and will need to take 2 of them. If Gallagher became that focal point and was given 90 minutes every single week - regardless of form - would he get 20+ goals? Maybe, maybe not.

But is that even the most effective approach? Teams trying to get promoted tend to have two players scoring goals: one 25+ and one 15+. (Although Watford are an exception due to having a very miserly defence - something Mowbray cannot or will not fix).

IMHO Rovers under Mowbray (and Bowyer) is (was) a one-man team.

If we don’t replace the striker or the manager then we are in real trouble. Especially given the huge gaps in the current squad and Mowbray’s tendency to bring in squad players ‘to help the lads’.

1 hour ago, DE. said:

Damn, rumbled! 

I agree with you there, I actually think now that Wycombe have adapted a bit to the Championship they are better than Derby. Unfortunately their poor start doomed them. 

Thanks for the love, I'll try to overlook your affection for Rotherham but can't promise anything 🧐

To be honest I think my affection was aimed more towards Paul Warne. Not often you see a manager choke up and fight back the tears in a post-match interview.

Being so close and having it snatched away must have really hurt.

Meanwhile our manager is not interested in where we finish.