RevidgeBlue

Indeed not. Well seemingly a fully fit Dack anyhow. We struck lucky with him (credit to TM for signing him and the owners for funding it) but we wouldn't have been anywhere near promotion without him.

Mowbray seems to rate players who "hold their position" like Evans and Smallwood to the extent that proper players like Harrison Reed have to sit on the sidelines and learn how they play according to our esteemed leader. I'm sure I remember Travis being a lot more dynamic and proactive when he first burst into the side as well. He's been Mowbrayed. It'll be tragic if he ends up being Lowe/Evans/Trybull Mk 4.

Bravo sir!

Oops sorry, bloody predictive text!

Well said.

Hope Venky's don't come on here tonight to gauge fan reaction. They'll come away thinking everyone is happy enough because they're talking about barnacles!

A practical consideration that no-one seems to have mentioned anywhere is that unless we could time the sale and rebuild the new facility within a very short window indeed during the summer we'd be left with nowhere to train wouldn't we?. Back to the pre Jack days of dodging the dog turds at Pleasington playing fields

Mowbray was the one who recommended him for the role thereby making himself virtually bombproof. The owners are the ones who shouldn't have been taken in (yet again) by this clear conflict of interest.

Very dangerous bloke to have around given his involvement at Coventry.

Don't waste further money on a training facility that would involve losing pitches jeapordises Cat 1 status, and which quite simply isn't needed?

Don't talk nonsense Chaddy. Waggott can give the owners whatever advice he likes. Whether or not they take that advice is of course an entirely different matter. But if he couldn't give them any advice at all for fear of losing his job, what's the point of paying him £300k p.a.?

Naturally.

You're our man! How does £750 k p.a. sound?

You'd only get the job if the kettle and toaster you bought were smaller than the ones you originally had and weren't needed anyway as the originals were working just fine!

Sam, Paul Hunt. They can act decisively when they really want to.

This is the nub of it all, despite everything I don't think we'll go down as the bottom three are still a long way behind. I certainly wouldn't bet against us finishing 4th bottom though. How embarrassing would it be if we only stayed up because of Wednesday's 6 point deduction?

Housing Development.

He's not as bad as Dalglish though as you rightly pointed out.

Didn't watch it today, unless it's free on the red button I'm not wasting £10 until Mowbray goes. Saw the goals on Soccer Saturday. Cracking finish by Brereton and great set up play by Nyambe. The latter will be sadly missed when we lose him for next to nothing due to the negligence of Mowbray and Waggott.

Eh? Useful rule of thumb, Evans plays we lose. He'd done nothing to warrant being brought back in last Wednesday and you'd have been forgiven for forgetting he was on the pitch. Think I saw him touch the ball around the 53rd minute.

It's been admitted we would lose pitches if we go ahead. As for it only being a proposal, it's more than that they, they seem to have gone into a great deal of care and planning to ascertain that 170 new dwellings could be squeezed on one of the sites and get to the stage where they could submit a planning application. On the sly.

Coventry - ghastly chocolate brown strips - Howard Kendal beating them 1-0 at Ewood in FA Cup 4th round 1980 when we were League 1 and they were Premier League equivalents. Happy Days. As for tomorrow who cares? Securing Brockhall and seeing the back of the Coventry 3 is way more important. I actually think we might do the usual and sneak a win which will secure Mowbray's employment for a while longer.

I'll have a look again. Nothing wrong with (3) in principle but it's totally unrelated to (1) and (2). We only get the sale price of the land to the developers, you do understand that dont you. I haven't seen anything to suggest that we'll end up with anything other than a similar standard of facility than we have now only much less of them. And Waggott even seems to suggest the project will run at a loss. That's why you're getting stick, for defending a seemingly indefensible position. Nothing to do with being a new poster.

If you're going to be a WUM you might as well remember what you've posted. "I see a proposal that intends on retaining that status (Cat 1) whilst generating funds" Your words not mine. Nothing whatsoever to do with Ewood Park.

You must be hard of understanding. Top class indoor pitches that Mowbray CHOSE not to use during a brief spell of bad weather.