Devon Rover

This might have been covered already but, genuine question, what is the "danger" to players in playing out the last 10 minutes of a match 16,000 people have paid to attend, on a pitch where the ball won't bounce or roll?

My 16-year-old plays football matches each Sunday on pitches that undulate and contain random holes. Occasionally the pitch, which has no designed drainage, becomes waterlogged during a game. Is that any more or less dangerous? Because they play to the end unless there is lightning. 

I'm a bit confused by the references to danger.

1 minute ago, benhben said:

Ive watched Gueye live enough times now to know hes truly awful. Its clear he'll never be any good at championship level. 

The only way I see him being effective is if the team was set up for him to minimise him having the ball at his feet. Direct style of play and Two wingers putting crosses in towards his head. Thats not gonna happen though. 

I'd rather sell for a fee and get cover in on loan. 

Agreed on ability and style of team that he'd need.

In terms of selling or loaning him - I don't really care, to be honest. Either way, we aren't going to use the sale money and/or wage saving to invest in the team. The money we have received from other sales in the transfer window (and previously) primarily subsidises and mitigates Venkys' losses and inability (unwillingness) to invest. In my mind, the more money we bring in through player sales, the longer Venkys can drag out the destruction of Blackburn Rovers. 

If we have to get rid of Gueye for financial reasons then, on balance and outside of the window, I'd favour loaning him out and hoping he finds a semblance of form that enables him to contribute something more to our team on his return. Because we aren't likely to replace him with anything much better.

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think tomorrow is going to be (yet another) occasion where there isn’t time for the case to be heard. 

It is listed as case number 111 and the 24th which is a ‘supplemental matter’.

Supplemental matters are taken up when the court returns after lunch at 14:30 and the court finishes at 16:30 (Delhi time).

I think the word we’re all looking for is farcical.

That's definitely one word. I was thinking of the words "the lazy part-time bastards".

2 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Never underestimate the amount of personal turmoil that this would load onto an individual. It's a load of grief to have your motives questioned & your morals/ethics dragged over the coals. 

It sounds great in principle...whistle blow, expose the club...but in practice it's incredibly time-consuming, expensive & emotionally draining. 

Totally agree. It is easy for any of us to comment on what departed staff should do but, having been in a similar position before, it can impact on your self-confidence, health, and anxiety levels about future career opportunities (if you have years ahead still to work). In my situation, I became nervous, withdrawn, and just desperately keen to find a way to move on. Blowing a whistle, or engaging a lawyer, were the last things I, or my family needed me to do. For others, it might be exactly what is needed to move on, but I think it's important not to judge what someone should or shouldn't do - even if it seems like the logical/ required thing. The greater good doesn't always come into it when it is family, health and mortgage payments on the line.

This is all desperately sad stuff, though, for all except those very senior at our club, Whilst they are here, it isn't my club.

3 hours ago, J*B said:

My officially unofficial "good enough or not good enough" ratings below, based on what I've seen over the last 12 months:

Good Enough

Toth

Alebiosu

Hyam

Mclouglin

Pickering

Tronny

Cantwell

Ohashi

Unknown

Michalski

Miller

Carter

Wharton

Tavares

Baradji

Henriksson

Tyjon

Miro

Not Good Enough

Montgomery

De Neve

Forshaw

Hedges

Kargbo

Gueye

I might have missed it but, "good enough" for what? Avoiding relegation, pootling around middle table, or pushing for playoffs/promotion? The lists of players considered good enough, or not, would, I assume, change based on the aspirations.

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

What would a 1 or 2 out of 10 require the players to do?

On field Balaji BJ.

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

1st half, we stopped them playing and creating chances. If you watch them against Ipswich, they had chances after chances. We never let that happened. Until the penalty incident, Birmingham created nothing of noted. Gray, Anderson, Stansfield and Kyogo did nothing all game. Our defending for the penalty incident is very poor and no way should he get in there. 

Of course that was good performance, well drilled, organised and playing to plan. Birmingham created nothing all game until Laird got the penalty. Even then we were pushing for the winner, Birmingham wasn't until that poor corner and how we defended it. 

On Cantwell, I thought that was good performance from him. Elliott Jackson and Rovers had his the player of the match and Elliott Jackson gave him a 8. Same as I did on here. Hyam, McLoughlin and Alebiosu were also very good.  

I couldn't give a flying monkeys what a neutral, stats don't tell you how the game went and what happened during the game. 

I think anyone who didn't think that was good performance and players playing to plan is bonkers and their seat must not be facing the pitch

But the players you list there, except Cantwell, are defenders. I don't think anyone would suggest it wasn't a good defensive performance (apart from the very, very poor errors in the last 10 mins or so). But in terms of attacking play, chance creation, and goals, we look a very poor team and it was another unimpressive performance, in that regard. That has to be a concern for everyone, as should three goals on target in two games. It isn't just a stat for which no monkeys should be flown. It is a basic, important, and meaningful indicator of where the team's definicies lie. Unfortunately it won't resonate with our owners so I guess it doesn't matter, but any supporter unconcerned about this major flaw in the team must be facing the pitch but not really seeing.

8 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

Your analysis boiled down:

1st half, we didn't have a single shot on target so you've said we were compact and solid.

2nd half, you have said that Todd Cantwell's fortunate (but extremely well taken goal) was justification to make him captain of the football club. What? He didn't play Birmingham off the park. He was very average like everyone else, but a loose ball fell to him at a set piece, right place, right time. Great goal.

After that you say we were still really solid at defending despite the horrific defending which led to their penalty and the horrific defending that led to their winner. You're still trying to argue that the penalty was soft or whatever or that he was looking for it, he was tripped from behind. It was a clear penalty, clumsy from Miller but he had to try something as De Neve had let him straight in.

I cannot believe you think that was a good performance. Two shots on target, barely any possession, created nothing and defended poorly when Birmingham actually strung something together. If you got a neutral to read the stats, they would struggle to believe we played well. I've read the stats and watched the match with my own eyes, we did not play well. Anyone who thinks we did I think is bonkers.

Yes, i think that is three shots on target in 200+ minutes of Championship football. It is nowhere near good enough, yet no surprise based on the transfer dealings of the club. There is little to defend here.

19 minutes ago, M_B said:

That isn't how I saw it today,I couldn't see Birmingham scoring from open play whatsoever. It was Rovers over committing to the win which cost them. 

I'm talking about a recurrent habit of falling away and conceding defeat from the jaws of victory or useful points. It doesn't really matter what the pattern of play was, the result was the same.

4 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Bad teams concede at the death regularly. Good team score at the death regularly. How long ago is it since we came from a goal down to win in the last ten minutes ? It must be years ago. 

I was thinking this, too. Going into the last 5 mins I felt sure City would have at least one big chance to get something from the game. And when it went to 1-1 with 10 extra minutes to play, I felt no confidence whatsoever that Rovers would strike back. There have been so many of our games that play out like this late in the match - and (virtually) never in our favour. That speaks not to refereeing, or 'luck', but to character, mindset, fitness, confidence, or all the above. The club has become overrun by losers and people who aren't good enough for whatever role they have, at all levels. We are a mess and I defy anyone to say administration and a fresh start would not be preferable to this horrific experience.

It just gets worse and worse. 

Leaving aside very poor refereeing decisions, this is the kind of throwing away we have seen from Rovers over and over in recent seasons. I'm sick of the whole club. 

I can't stand to watch. It's like being made to repeatedly watch cctv footage of your grandpa passing his trousers, tripping himself up, then getting mugged.

One shot on target in 100 minutes. Kargbo only got a limited time, in which he caused panic, Miller should be straight in and get Hedges out. 

Reasons to feel optimistic: few and far between beyond getting the above into the line up, immediately. 

How absolutely awful. A huge tragedy for his family. Monumentally less important, but he was also a superb footballer.

Whoever you are, whatever you achieve, it's all so fragile, isn't it? Very sad.

24 minutes ago, Ossydave said:

With Scott Carson leaving City, maybe they'll want to fill the void with Pears.....

I've no idea if any of our reserve keepers are remotely good but I can't see Pears wanting a full season playing second fiddle, can't blame him either at 27 he's in his prime. 

Loosest ever application of the word "prime", there!

17 minutes ago, philipl said:

Even more depressing than Rovers.

Great bit of hyperbole, there!

6 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

The actual statement announcing that WaTR will be working with the coalition. 
It is worth pointing out that the Football Supporters Association (FSA) has already reached out to WaTR to offer support and we also have access to the EFL given the club’s official Supporter Engagement Strategy is purported to be on the back of its relationship with the Trust via the Memorandum of Understanding.

 

I've mocked previous WATR statements but this one is pretty much spot on. 

A club going into a transfer window with identified key targets and seemingly ready to make signings happen. What is this madness?

1 hour ago, Browjd said:

Champ, PL clubs approach Alalshikh for investment

Championship clubs and at least one Premier League club have approached Saudi Arabian billionaire Turki Alalshikh seeking investment.

The chairman of Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority has a wide range of business interests but has never invested in English football. 

That could be about to change with a growing number of Championship clubs attempting to attract Saudi investors to help them win promotion to the Premier League. 

Alalshikh has become one of the most influential powerbrokers in sport after staging some of boxing's biggest bouts.

Until last week Alalshikh was also the owner of Spanish club Almeria.

He bought the club in a £20m deal in the summer of 2019.

Ownership of the club was transferred to Saudi investment group SMC last Friday.

I would be delighted to upgrade from chickens to turki. 

It won't happen.

26 minutes ago, Hasta said:

https://www.roverstrust.com/news/statement-blackburn-rovers-women

"We had been in dialogue with club executives about the future of our Women’s team as per our memorandum of understanding, but were only given 10 minutes notice prior to the announcement."

We call upon the Board and Owners of Blackburn Rovers to think again and have serious discussions with ourselves as to how the Club (Men’s and Women’s teams) have a viable and competitive future.’

Honestly lads, I'm a WATR member but they clearly don't want to have the relationship with you that you want them to have.

You can call on them to have serious discussions time after time but they won't. They see minimal discussion with you as a box-ticking and appeasement exercise, to be shown as an example of engagement.

This quote from the Rovers website reflect the whole approach of this regime to the club over the last few years. There surely comes a day when you have to draw a line. Join the coalition. 

I agree. The WATR statements do come across as "meek" and somewhat like a jilted lover telling their friends about how their cruel and bullying ex doesn't talk to them anymore, whilst pleading with the same ex for better communication and respect in their 'relationship', rather than just calling out the ex for the insufferable shit they are. It feels a bit sad to read and definitely doesn't seem to carry any impact, whatsoever. But I might be missing it so I'm genuinely happy to hear what people think the statements are achieving.

It makes very little sense, at all. It feels to me like it can only be decisions taken out of spite, now. Certainly not the actions of anyone who cares at all about success, reputation, community etc

So, what was the outcome of the hearing??

13 minutes ago, Hannoverover said:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6366991/2025/05/20/blackburn-rovers-women-team-relegated/

Getting worldwide attention

Good. The headline on a couple of sites about this being about the owners refusing to fund is refreshing and encouraging. These are billionaires, with nothing stopping them from covering relatively small costs. If they can't or won't do that, they have no chance at all of keeping this business going eventually. I'm glad they are being shamed in this way and suspect it is our best chance of being rid of them. Obviously awful for all those caught in the crossfire though and make no mistake - this is all on the Raos.