RevidgeBlue

It's not rocket science to understand the difference between the two. For the amount of aggravation he would have been getting he wouldn't have been on a big salary at Coventry whereas he'll be on way more here. I don't expect anyone in his position would walk away from here 1without any form of pay off but surely in normal circumstances him and his agent could have approached the Club at any point recently to request a payoff and departure "by mutual consent". Sick of alluding to it but you do wonder if he's hanging on for another reason.

So the reason we're struggling to score apparently is "the situation with the forwards". Roughly translated as: "I wasted £12m on two strikers who don't look up to it at the best of times but I've them look even worse by sticking them out on the wing all season due to my inexplicable obsession with "wide forwards".

Suit yourself. It's not hindsight, or a recent thing, he should have gone two years ago. We had two exceptional games early in the season but having stumbled on a winning formula he couldn't wait to depart from that. He's never changed. As a result we're in absolute free fall as a Club with the state of the squad also an absolute shambles - countless players out of contract in summer. All this could have been avoided by removing him and Venus two years ago. We can't say we didn't get adequate warning with the results then. Of course it's no use crying over spilt milk, all we can try and do is turn things round from here.

Right, hopefully after today we can see the need to unite against these plans and stop bickering with each other. The players certainly look as if they've thrown the towel in over the last couple of months, I wonder if these plans came to light without any consultation with them? As for the idea of a former player spearheading the campaign, it would be nice were that to happen but I think it's unlikely, at the end of the day whatever feelings of affection they had for the Club it was a job for them and it's maybe a bit unfair to put them in that position. It's down to us.

Way past that for me den. Whilst I shed no years when Kean was sacked we were 5th or 6th when he was (rightly) removed.

There must be an element of appearance money in these players contracts - there's no other explanation for it Either that or a minimum number of appearances automatically triggers a new contract.

Completely agree.

Completely disagree. If they can do it no reason why ANYONE can't. (With a decent manager)

It's more likely that if there is anything sinister to it, it'll be the buying Club who have made the stipulation or the player and his agent have indicated a marked lack of enthusiasm for playing ahead of a pending move. The trouble from our point of view is if the unthinkable happens and we go down, his value will presumably drop through the floor.

Good job for Evans he slipped through the net before the data came in then. Also what use is data when 50% of your business entails going round with the begging bowl at the end of the transfer window seeing what remaining crumbs you can hoover up on the cheap off the Premier League Loan table?

The thing that struck me more was recently when things weren't ticking over quite as nicely and Waggott went out of his way to publicly make excuses for Mowbray due to Covid. What sort of Chairman or CEO does that? A proper unbiased CEO would simply have said that results simply weren't good enough and left it at that leaving the incumbent manager in no doubt he had to pull his socks up or else. Mind you, what we didn't know at that point was that there are training grounds to be sold and housing developments to be built.

The conflict of interest is so basic isn't it?1 I flagged it up when it was first being mooted that Waggott was to be appointed but results on the pitch (in League 1) had picked up somewhat so no-one seemed unduly bothered at the time as the **** hadn't hit the fan at that point.

Can't believe Waggott is proposing this nonsensical scheme and all some fans can do is bicker with one another.

I don't believe that they believe it - I'd frankly be amazed if anything but houses were built. However they're peddling the line that it's beneficial and until recently at least it seems a lot of people believed it!

It's quite bizarre isn't it. you can imagine the sales pitch to the local companies "Sponsor the training Centre and be remembered forever as the Company that was integral in the destruction of Brockhall Village." "And forget all that stuff I said about the facilities being tired and out of date, I was having a bad day and didn't really mean it."

What do you mean by that? Surely you have to completely discredit the plans first by showing them up for what they are. and once that's been achieved, then if they still insist on pressing on, that might be the time for the pitchforks?

Thanks for posting that John........but Im afraid it's put my blood pressure through the roof! - So SW couldn't provide any evidence for his assertion that he "thought" a new facility on the one restricted site could meet Cat 1 status - Seemingly according to MC we'd have to borrow money (and pay copious amounts of interest) to duplicate training facilities we already have in a different location. That also contradicts everything SW had said in the Telegraph up to that point. - Any long standing plans to upgrade the indoor training centre are entirely dependent on a grant we have so far failed to obtain - Any hopes of a state of the art new pitch costing £2m which I'm sure SW assured us in the LT the owners were going to provide seem to be disappearing into the distance "What happens next would depend on costs for the work" - The Club and the owners still apparently have "every faith" in Mowbray despite results accepted by all as being "not good enough" But that's all ok, because one member apparently assured the Club he thought that reaction to the plans on social media was "over the top" and also thought we should move into town as apparently it's the Club's job not the Council's to provide facilities for the disadvantaged areas of the town. And another "urged caution" against making a change in manager at this point in time. I might calm down by about Wednesday. Hope the tea and biccies were good. -

Apologies, I just had a quick look on the Club website and couldn't see an obvious link to them. How can you view them?

You couldn't make it up, could you?

Mowbray was quoted at Coventry as saying that Venus was some kind of financial whizz who was good at juggling figures about so presumably that's one of the reasons why he has the job here. So all other things being equal a young player has the choice to come to either Man Ure or Liverpool or Rovers and we can offer more game time. They wheel out Ferguson and Dalglish and we've got ..................ermmm Mark Venus. Wonder where they're going to go? Hundreds (?) of thousands of pounds on new technology wasted and countless man hours down the pan.

I would say personally the trump card would be if the Coventrio have spun the owners a line about the quality of this seemingly fictitious new facility and making sure all the real information is before them directly. Of course. that much isn't entirely clear yet but will no doubt become apparent in due course.

I freely admit I'm old fashioned and am not overly fond of the use of technology. For me if you fancy a player, nothing beats the manager going to watch him at Hartlepool on a wet and windy Tuesday night like Dalglish used to do. But, as someone who knows nothing about the technology whatsoever, does it give an indication of a player's wage demands? If it churns out that the data shows the best options for us are Players A B C and D etc and we spend time pursuing them but upon enquiry those players are out of our financial reach it's next to useless isn't it?

Depends what you're after. If you want 10,000 people with pitchforks and torches causing mayhem outside Ewood Park it probably isn't going to happen. If you want some of us to completely destroy the footballing arguments in favour of this proposed scheme I think that can be done.

I don't want to get into an argument about it but my own personal opinion is that hindsight has shown that certainly isn't the case. Otherwise it would have been the easiest thing in the world just to walk away after we were relegated from the Prem. Yet here they are 10 years later still pumping in £20m p,a, just to keep us afloat. Spunking it up the wall admittedly due to a combination of their own bad decisions and the incompetence of those currently running the show on the ground but there you go.

Early Friday morning it was c 350 from 16 k reads but I haven't had an update since then. Like I say we missed the first 10-12k reads altogether for signature purposes. Doesn't sound many but the number of signatures more than doubled in the 24 hours after the option to sign was added so we just need to keep chipping away at it.