RevidgeBlue

Thanks for clarifying that. Excellent post that I fully agree with

It will be now. How long do you think he'll be here after this goes through? (If it does)

Sounds very low to me, this is Brockhall we're on about, I'd imagine the very cheapest units would be well in excess of £300k and the bigger ones way more expensive than that.

Obviously we're not self sufficient, and we have no absolute right to expect Venky's to keep ploughing £20m p.a. into us indefinitely, but as they're way richer than the Walkers, is it not reasonable to hope they wouldn't flog of the fixed assets of the Club for short term gain? Especially when there's a covenant specifically prohibiting a future owner from doing this sort of thing. And that's before getting into the realms of ascertaining whether or not it is actually their baby and that all net profits from this would be flowing back to the Club.

I haven't had time to go through all the links to the Coventry stuff in detail yet, was a training facility ever built there or did they end up with nothing?

Haven't checked. Write to him direct at the LT and e-mail I presume?

It was weird yesterday that someone posted a reply to a tweet from Sharpe whereby he was basically agreeing to a comment along the lines of "It's the Club's land to do with as they wish and no-one goes after the farmer who sells his land for development" A few things arose out of that. 1) He was obviously taking the line from the Club about any new facility being "state of the art" at face value. 2) Is he so blissfully ignorant as to all things Rovers related that he is unaware of the covenant protecting the use of the land at Brockhall? 3) Is he unaware of Waggott's/Venus's/Mowbray's involvement at Coventry? Everyone need to contact him and tell him to get his finger out of his backside and investigate it properly. I know he just takes everything Mowbray says at face value and never questions it normally but this is even more important if anything.

Great Post, didn't realise you were a fellow QEGS (very) old boy!. Sounds like you're about 3 years older than me and I left in 1982 so we probably would have been there at the same time. My best friend also went to QEGS and now lives in London and has been a financial controller for a big Company. His Dad was Indian and many years ago when we were pissed as farts we came up with the bright idea of having a holiday in India and pitching up on the V's doorstep to offer advice. Needless to say once the hangovers kicked in the hare brained scheme was never mentioned again but yours is a sound idea. If you want any support or help just ask.

Off topic but noticed that as well. Might be my imagination but didn't Mowbray do another article only a few weeks ago when he claimed he was trying to convince everyone he wasn't a Premier League player (yet) Complete change of tack. Maybe another one like Nyambe who's indicated he won't sign a new deal and TM is putting him in the shop window knowing we'll have to flog him. £40 or £50m for Brockhall and £20m after sell on fees for AA. Venky's would still have been badly burned from owning us but it would be something back for them.

Don't disagree, if it isn't down to them it's up to them to step in and put a swift end to this nonsense and preferably hand the Coventry three their P45's. If they're not happy with results this would be the ideal opportunity. If it is down to them or it's been run by them and they're fully in support, we'd better hope the Covenant holds firm and/or the local residents are violently opposed to another 170 homes on their doorstep.

Great Post, fully agree. I think if we see the back of the Coventry 3 with Championship status and our current assets still intact it will be a victory of sorts. People talk about the Jack Walker Legacy as though it's nothing to be particularly precious over, what about the Steve Waggott legacy? As far as I can see all he has achieved in doing is reducing the season ticket base by nearly 75% from c10k to c 2.5k by raising prices in a season where no-one could attend and now he wants to flog off our only substantial fixed asset. What the hell will be left if this man is let to operate unchecked until he retires?

First Post you've ever made I more or less agree with. The only qualification I would make is that we don't know for certain yet if the owners are the actual instigators of this idea or have been told the full story behind the same.

Thanks. Apologies it went straight over my head!

Usually agree with all your posts. Is this sarcasm? We've seen no benefit whatsoever from the policy of loaning players in thus far and Elliott's enthusiasm for playing here seemed to tail off around Christmas when presumably he might have been eligible for another move or a return to Annfield. He's been rubbish since.

Great Post. I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how having a lot more people using a much smaller facility is an improvement on the same people having their own separate facilities! There was of course no mention whatsoever in the Club Statement about the proposed future status of the Academy and it may well be that there is some mileage in the theory that the owners have come to the conclusion that financially it's a lot cheaper to loan other Clubs' players and let them pay most of the wages and therefore our Academy can be downgraded. I think we've seen over the last few seasons in footballing terms that relying too heavily on loans gets you absolutely nowhere. Of course if this is the plan and the current manager Mowbray is comfortable with it, unfortunately it will make him even more bombproof. Regardless of whether it is the polar opposite of what the fans would prefer or that it runs directly contrary to the spirit of the Jack Walker "Legacy".

With respect, you are talking absolute rubbish on this point and imo being extremely disrespectful to Jack Walker. I hope my post doesn't send you scurrying off to the moderators to complain as I would prefer not to suffer a ban and I'm not surprised you riled many people with your comments yesterday. No-one expects the facilities left by Jack to remain untouched for 100 years or more in his honour or memory. No-one expects the Jack Walker "Legacy" to mean that future owners should be hamstrung or restricted in their running of the Club. The Jack Walker "Legacy" is a notional standard to aspire to which if met would be for the protection of the Club not it's detriment. When Brockhall was built, the limited value of Ewood Park as a site meant the main danger was always a subsequent owner flogging the the training complex. That's precisely why the covenant protecting the use of the land was introduced. No-one but no-one would be complaining if this was a genuine upgrading of the training facilities. But it's not, it's a substantial downsizing of the complex in an attempt to generate a short term cash injection which will be to the long term detriment of the footballing facilities at the Club. And once this asset is gone it's gone those facilities can never be replaced. That is why people are up in arms about the Jack Walker "Legacy" about which you are so dismissive not being respected. This scheme is for the short term gain of either the current owners (which admittedly would be their prerogative were it not for the legal covenant) or the Club employees who appear to have been involved in some sort of similar scheme at Coventry, or both. It certainly isn't imo in the long term interests of the football club. Ultimately that's the litmus test for deciding whether something respects the Jack Walker legacy or not. It's not about making silly statements like you can't touch buildings for hundreds of ideas as it might dishonour Jack. The idea though is that if you do touch them you make them better! If you replace it with something not as good then that obviously is an insult to his memory and what he did for the Club.

Spot on. No-one at the Club had the courage to put their name to the press release which should tell you all you need to know about whether it is beneficial to the football side of things.

What's it to you? Why do you appear to be so invested in the scheme going ahead?

Can anyone please explain what difference it makes that the buildings themselves are 25-30 years old or brand new? Or that the current sites are not housed within the same building? They're only a stones throw away from one another? I suspect absolutely none. It's just a desperate attempt to make a terrible idea sound like a good one.

I don't suppose Jack would have minded in the slightest if the training facilities were being genuinely improved but come on, that's not what's happening here is it? It seems a fairly obvious asset stripping exercise to make a quick buck. We just don't know for certain where the net proceeds would be going yet. If the scheme was entirely at the owners behest then I suppose that is their prerogative. However I think as supporters we would still be entitled to feel aggrieved that Jack's legacy which you are so dismissive of was being disrepected. He thought that it was necessary to have separate facilities for a Club of the stature he wished to build and ideally that should be respected.

Good spot. Shows Waggott in his true colours.

Quite unbelievable comments about Jack Walker. As others have said, I'm not certain how these plans reveal anything particularly state of the art or anything that couldn't be easily incorporated into the existing sites. We'd simply be getting an infinitely smaller facility. It's virtually impossible to see any benefit to it in footballing terms.

It's unbelievable isn't it. I know many people are keen to castigate the owners at every opportunity but I really wonder if this sickening scheme is actually their idea, or they've been fed the line about "a state of the art" training facility by the Coventry 3 only to find out when it is too late that the reality is anything but. With losses running at £20m p.a. it's unlikely that this short sighted idea would cover more than a couple of years debts at best. And that's if the Club is receiving the monies in full. It needs to be revealed how much the site would potentially be sold for, would it be placed on the open market or sold to a Company in which current Club employees have an interest, would the proceeds go to the Club in full and if so for what purpose would they be used, to pay down debt or to be reinvested in the playing side of things. Even if everything was relatively above board and the owners were the driving force behind the idea they were receiving the full proceeds and Waggott/Mowbray/Venus weren't making a penny out of it it's impossible to see how a much smaller facility on one site could be anything other than a significant downgrade on the existing ones. If you're genuinely serious about upgrading the training facilities, leave the existing sites intact and make the necessary improvements to make them state of the art as necessary. If there's no desire to do that it can only be concluded that this is a scam, we just don't know for sure yet who's behind it but bearing in mind what happened at Coventry it seems fairly clear who will be the architects of this scheme.

Good statement. The Covenant is the key to fighting this appalling proposal. Wasn't aware the Walker Trust was no longer technically still in existence.From a legal point of view I'd have thought the former members of the Trust would have to give their consent to waiving the covenant. Hope they haven't been paid to agree to do so. Wonder if the likes of John Williams and Tom Finn could be relied upon to lobby against the proposal and stress it is the absolute last thing Jack would have wanted? Or would they still be bound by agreements they signed when they left the Club?

What we see on the pitch IS down to TM though.