Yep they could pay for it all on a separate tab if it was so vitally important right at this moment. They won't even do that for the pitch though, this is obviously something that's been completely cooked up by the ex Coventry lot.

I hope the residents burn effigies of Waggot and Mowbray the pair of chancers.

Don't posts on the LT comments section have to be approved before they appear ?

Probably says a lot if so.

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Not sure it was. O'Keefe actually played a blinder in the FMC final,as Gennoe was out.

I am pretty sure Vince did break his leg against Ipswich, but not in the FMC...

Yeah it wasn't the FMC game i know that for sure i was on Riverside that night but BBE the night in question.

1 hour ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Almost certain it was Ipswich. What I am certain of is that Vince O’Keefe ended up in the next bed to me in hospital that night with a broken leg. 

Thought it was Ipswich but wasn't sure which keeper, did we loan Marriot after that then ?

You weren't the one clattering Vince for Ipswich were you ? 😅

14 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

I'd agree normally,  but I thought recruitment was now Venus?

Maybe that's why he's so keen to give them credit then. 

I hope the recruitment dept are in sole charge of this summer signings. 

No more ex Boro or overpriced duds please.

That's exactly what'll happen this is no different to them selling a player and assuming the fee will be used for re-investing.  It never ever happens here as once the money comes in it's swallowed up.

That would then mean the owners having to tip up for the whole lot or player sales to cover it.

Whether it's by hook or crook this will end up a fook up it's almost guaranteed.

19 hours ago, Waggy76 said:

Senior left very shortly after  relegation was confirmed at Brentford ... Probably thought Mowbray would follow him , seeing it was he , who got Mowbray  the job...

Wasn't his wife a football agent ??

Pretty amazing he just happened to chose one from the same agency that delivered the previous 3 !

I've never really bought into the face saving thing certainly not after the first few years when it might have held a bit of sway. As daft as the snowball = taps off, coyle and relegation on purpose theory.

They are embarrassing themselves more by throwing money down the drain every year.

Now maybe it could be an ego thing, look at us we own this club and don't mind pouring tens of millions into other pockets, just because we can. That might make a bit more sense in their world and adds to the play thing theory. 

But just sheer face saving costing 150 million, nah i'm not having that at all.  Arse covering and skeletons in closets now that's a different reason entirely.

The positives - 

Well it'll be easier to clean and maintain all under one roof and might save a few quid annually. 

The manager and whoever is in charge can see everything that's going on under hi nose.

Less pitches to mow and maintain and maybe some kind of tax saving due to smaller plot.

And...... er........  oh yeah somewhere down the line it might work like the Brentford model.

The Negatives - 

It's a proven working model as it is so any change will alter that, it isn't broke it doesn't need fixing.  Just maybe upgrading and that'll cost a few quid.

This project nobody knows how much it'll cost so it will likely end up costing more than it'll bring in.

Nobody connected with it has done anything like this before so it's a shot in the dark.

These pushing it have an average track record at best, very poor at worst. These owners track record is even worse. The academy is just about the only thing they've got right in ten years.

The mess the changes and work and timeline it'll take will probably cause chaos and effect the teams and residents negatively. Results and poor league position will be blamed on all this.

People in the middle of it all will be filling their pockets it's extremely naive to think otherwise.

It won't end up working like the Brentford model as it's a downscale, they've started from scratch and built up. A totally different dynamic under different ownership and agendas.

The people driving this and who'll be running it aren't capable. They can't even make the best use of what they have now. It won't deliver the top 6 or promotion on its own.

In terms of turning out players to select for the first team squad it is already out doing the Brentford model. They'd probably have aspired to us if they had the facilities and space already. Try buying a sight like that around London !

And last but by no means least it really is not a priority it's just being pushed by people trying to keep themselves relevant and make a bonus. The pitch, the stadium and the first team are the absolute asafp priorities right now.

Oh and the closing thought, it would probably mean another 5 years on the Coventry 3 !!!!

2 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Has anyone explained how a "handy loss making toy" works? 

Not saying it's not the case, I just can't believe it's anything less than being inept. I don't think it's some plan to wash money, I think they just aren't very good football club owners. 

Yeah inept and they aren't that bothered about it because it just sits handily in the portfolio. 

There's no proof of washing but there can be no other sane reason why they are happy to 'lose' all that money yearly other than it's a handy accounting tool. If they couldn't afford it and it didn't serve a purpose it just wouldn't happen it's as simple as that. No way are they dim enough to put their own conglomerate or personal wealth at risk for a British football club.

Who knows who's actually on the payroll over here anyway, nobody but them and their accountants know where every penny goes.

Well it was a few years ago that i spoke to this lad on social media as at the time he was engaging with a few people. He was only young obviously but his attitude reflected what we all suspect and see anyway.

Basically he could see no wrong in what was going on - this was in the crazy days - but acknowledged things needed to settle down. He then just said people needn't worry because his family had the wealth to see it through.

Probably another 50 million gone down the pan since then so he wasn't wrong. Sadly though the too much wealth seems part of the problem. It's created a midtable monster than has the appetite of a top club but the direction of a hamster wheel.

Round and round we go and i wouldn't hold much hope of this lad making any difference. It's still just a handy loss making toy to play with and fire surplus money through. 

11 hours ago, bazza said:

I wondered who would be the first to remind me. CongratulationsTomphil!  😃

Been wrecking my brain all night to remember who the opposition was. I distinctly remember my young self watching him in goal once, don't think i dreamt it but you never know.

I'll take a punt and say it was Ipswich at home when either Gennoe or O'keefe got stretchered off. Garner took over and we won 1-0 i think Hendry scored just after the keeper incident.

I recall the BBE roaring every time Garner touched it, a wall of noise helping him keep the ball out. He was probably the smallest on the team as well !

Imagine a time with no reserve keepers, what were they thinking back then 😂

56 minutes ago, bazza said:

Mowbray would have Garner playing in goal. Can you imagine Garner as goalkeeper?

He did ok when he stood in.

3 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

Don't you need a school for cat 1?  I thought teaching etc had to take place, accommodation etc or do we do these elsewhere?

They'll probably start having to hire classrooms, then storage units, then maybe even pitches elsewhere. All in the name of cost cutting obviously.

I wouldn't trust these lot and these owners to put my bins out when it comes to a project like this.  He's no doubt pitched plenty but what major project has Steve Waggot ever actually over seen ?  

Maybe the pro All Under One Roofers could start their own movement or something to counter the rest of us ?

You know, passionately state your own personal cases for it instead of being Waggot echo chambers.  Sod the residents of Brockhalls feelings on it obviously. The Coventry 3's words must come first after all, i mean they've been so true to every one they've uttered in the past few years, they are full of great ideas !

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'll start!

"Under one roof"

(Which will probably result in loss of Cat 1 status)

ermmmm....................

Anybody watched or remember the Pheonix NIghts episode with Jim Bowen in ?

'Everythin under one roof Brian it's the future'

3 hours ago, LDRover said:

Yes, maybe it does. 

That being the case you could potentially try to win hearts and minds on here seeing as we're such a tough crowd and not representative of the majority view. Outline all the positives and we'll go from there.

It is a bit strange we aren't over run with pro sell, upgrade, it's a flawless plan posters ?

If the feeling was so strong in favour of it all i'd expect some more on stating the case. Rather than just the odd one's who seem to always just echo what Waggot has said.

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

Does that vote perhaps suggest that contrarian view is actually what's been so far perceived on the message-board as the majority view?

🙄

Proper salesman patter that Senior email but that's what the likes of him are around for. Not their knowledge but their forked tongues and brass necks.

In reality he'll have had very little to do with the appointment of Mowbray other than being told to spin it. 

TM was the standout candidate ........ on the HSH list that Madame, Balaji had presented to them by the middleman/chauffer/goffer, oh and director.

8 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Play him at right back.

He'd be a shoe in for a left or right wide 'forward' these days, imagine the dilemma of having someone who could shoot with either foot.

The Neil thing were i was concerned started a while back just before we got our 1 in 12.  Whilst the calls grew louder for change so did the 'but who can we get' replies as a host of bigger names got scoffed at.

So it was a fair enough comment to suggest having a look at others in this league who were doing well on less resources. And had decent recent track records instead of the usual scrapheap challenge.

Looking at someone like Neil was perfectly realistic and he would have been surely interested in listening at least. 

A promotion within the last decade, keeping a smaller club with less resources and budgets batting at the right end and out doing the likes of Rovers season on season. All made him or someone like him a logic choice for what many might just see as a sideways step but a change for the right reasons.

All that though was based on a change in summer but his stock has fallen a bit now. There'll be plenty reasons for that just like there's a few contributed to the bad season here. We are still though far better equipped than them and if we do finish above them it's probably because they've made the wrong choice, says it all really.

Wouldn't be right bringing him in now though as he'll likely need a break from it all. We need to set our sights higher but more than likely we'll stay as we are and he'll turn up somewhere else next season taking points of us.

3 hours ago, Rogerb said:

Where would Simon Garner sit in comparison with the Armstrong and Rhodes debate?

Head and shoulders above both.

I dread to think how some present era managers would contrive to waste Garners talent.

15 minutes ago, RoverInverness said:

If Balaji’s son payed attention to results or (wishing for the stars here) perhaps even attended the odd game now and then - it would be infinitely better than now.

Right now we’re like the forgotten toys in Toy Story, up on the dusty shelf with Wheezy the squeaky penguin.

I hate that a football club can be ‘owned’ in this way. This is the shit side of capitalism. The ownership of historic community institutions should be far better regulated than this. We have no God given right to be successful on the pitch anymore than any other club, but I hate that the ownership of these old clubs like ours - the clubs that actually invented the world’s most popular sport - is at the complete mercy of distant and unfathomably disinterested shysters. 

He did turn up once and was treated to a 5 star performance.  Proves they are coasting it here most of the rest of the time. Send the boy home happy once in a while and everything is fine by the looks of it.

That's the beauty of a high priced toy, it's there and it works fine when you want to play with it. Then when you can't be arsed you're not really bothered where it is or if it works or not.

Completely different players so the like for like comparisons are a bit wide of the mark ( unlike JR 😁 ).

You could probably get away with both of them in a 3 pronged attack because Armstrong is more versatile and suits the wider roles. Rhodes is very much the middle of the attack man.