2 minutes ago, lraC said:

I will actually why would I not?

OK I'll believe you, it just sounded like you wouldn't. And that a lot of others were even more entrenched in their opposition to him than you!

57 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Eustace will always have a problem winning over a section of the fan base due to who is perceived to have appointed him. Comparison has been made to Jim iley however the players didn't want to play for him so not a true comparison . He is more John Pickering to me.

I made comparisons to the start Eustace has made here to Iley's record. I wasn't comparing them directly, Whilst Eustace hasn't impressed at all thus far I think it's far too early to write him off completely and at this stage I think the players are still playing for him as such.

33 minutes ago, lraC said:

I really can't accept that.

If he had won 3 or 4 of his first 10 instead of the current none, I am pretty sure that he would have already won the fan base over. The facts are there in black and white and not only that, the brand of football has been very poor so far too.

If he wins today and again on Saturday, he will win a section over too and even keeping us up will probably do the trick.

 

But let's face it, even if he does his job and keeps us up you still won't be having him will you?

10 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

What if said billionaires had systematically dismantled a fantastic club over 14 years? Do you turn them away then?

Yes, as I've clearly said.

2 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

We’ll drop into the bottom three for the first time on the final day…mark my words…

That's my worry as well.

The mentality at the Club is such that we always seem to do just enough to fail whether it be throwing away a play off place from a seemingly unassailable position two seasons running or winning games when it's too late to avoid the drop.

I expect the same scenario  followed no doubt by much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how unlucky we've been like when we won the last two under Mowbray when it was too late and went down on 52 points. 

The fact we'd gone I think seven without a win before that didn't seem to count. 

50 minutes ago, Andy said:

With the recent news of Waggott going rogue and involving himself in both player acquisitions (at least Fleck, giving him £20pw) and directly appointing what appears to be a disastrous managerial appointment in Eustace.

And he's been consistent that the owners have always agreed to send money / assist with the club whenever asked.

You have to wonder if he has been the single point of failure over the last several years.
Did he make the decisions to let contracts run down, or to not sell players like BBD and Rothwell?
We're told 'the board' made the decision; he is paid to be the most senior member of that board.

And that's before we go into horrific season ticket strategies, or embarrassing PR releases.

The more I think about it - and the more you read into interviews by JDT and GB, the more I come to the conclusion that Waggott is THE issue at the club.

Mowbray admitted in a jumpers for goalposts type interview that was reproduced on here that it was his decision not to renew certain contracts during Covid as it wasnt his money he was spending and so as not to upset the rest of the group.

Other than that don't disagree with anything you say.

20 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Actually Eustace reminds me of the fella who took over from Iley, John Pickering: decent bloke, fractured squad, no pot to piss in, but not good enough to impose himself on the squad and get enough points to stay up. Unfortunately we won’t be getting Howard Kendall in over the summer.

I really liked John Pickering. I remember the fans going on the Ewood pitch to chant his mame after we got relegated as well!

55 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The main source of income at this level is often player trading. The owners have rejected £12m of potential fees for players that left for frees, such behaviour is hindering us. Add to that, yes none of the 22m Wharton money was reinvested, but even before the court issues, the Armstrong sale wasnt reinvested either. In the last 3 seasons, only 5m of a banked 40m+ (including Kaminski too) and a further potential 12m that Venkys stopped us getting has actually gone back into the team, some before and some after the court case. Its little wonder why the current squad is so poor. Mowbray and then Tomasson have helped us to sign and/or develop assets that have done step 1 of what we need to do, have players we can make considerable profit on. Its the owners that have interfered to stop that profit coming to fruition or when we do make sales, none/a very tiny fraction of the proceeds dont go back into the team.

Thats why I dont get how @J*B and @RevidgeBlue you think that Waggott going could be more beneficial than Venkys going. He is out of his depth and his incompetence is limiting our attendances and our income, but those limitations are on a far smaller scale than the figures ive mentioned that are directly attributable to the owners. Doesnt mean he doesnt need to go aswell, of course he does.

And why do people keep peddling a myth that even before the court issues, that Venkys invested as much as they possibly could within FFP? Not true.

You keep talking with the benefit of hindsight. I don't suppose you'd have been complaining too much about not selling Rothwell and Brereton if we'd been promoted during either of the last two seasons.

Something which seems a million miles away now.

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

 

Quality stuff from someone who knows the history of the Club inside out.

That should wipe the insincere cheesy grin off his smug face for a while.

We could do with a similarly well researched list of questions for Waggott and get them all into the public domain somehow. Need to ramp up the pressure on these chancers.

And yes the pressure needs to be turned up on the owners as well before anyone starts. If there are any legitimate ways of embarrassing them back at home then that would have more impact than chucking a handful of tennis balls on the pitch at Ewood I'd have thought.

(Although if the latter is to be done again it needs organising properly and about a thousand people throwing them so it doesn't look to the outside world like the work of a couple of cranks)

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

So again, blame going to the wrong place.

We've been over this time and time again and we will never agree on it but no, if Waggott and Mowbray had done their jobs and tied them all down when they should have done the issue would never have arisen in the first place.

We could have kept them temporarily for a promotion push AND sold them for sizeable fees after if we'd so wished.

16 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

                        Pears

Carter   Hyam   Wharton   Pickering

                Ayari          Tronstad

   Hedges      Szmodics     JRC

                         Dolan

If Gallagher is fit by some miracle, I’d play him over Ayari with JRC and Dolan reshuffling.

I'd rather play Mcfadzean up front than Gallagher. At least he might ruffle a few feathers.

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

Hopefully that's the last time we see Chrisene anywhere other than LB. He as shocking and it wasn't even like he was offering much protection to Pickering who was constantly getting ran at.

Maybe it's me being old fashioned but I was irritated by the supporters in the JW Stand who were sat near the players fist bumping Chrisene as he made his way back to his seat after being substituted.

If he'd scored a goal or we were 3 up maybe. But at 1-0 down? Are they that desperate to catch the attention of someone who isn't even our player? I'd have been looking steadfastly the other way.

Bah Humbug!

8 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

I believe that deals were already in place for two players but it required Rothwell being sold.  Unfortunately, the owners opted to keep Rothwell which meant the other two deals couldn't be done.

Odd considering Waggott was going around telling people privately the owners had granted him and Mowbray a very considerable one off war chest. Of course we'll never know if there was any truth to that but part of the alleged potential windfall was the promotion bonuses which were actually subsequently widely publicised in the LT.

16 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

I just read from you that if they could get through the court case so back to funding it as previously and appoint execs more to your liking etc then my interpretation of your post was that you’d be willing for them to stay. 

If that is incorrect and regardless of legalities and appointments you’ve unequivocally had enough and they have to go whatever, then great, totally with you.

IF all the hypothetical conditions I listed were met and they kept out of it I could tolerate them staying but imo they won't ever be, therefore they need to go.

I don't have any affinity towards them as owners whatsoever but imo you don't turn away billionaires lightly. It's a bit like like the question Caroline Aherne famously asked Debbie  Mcgee

"So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels then? ".

6 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Agree with the overall point that results matter more, but those aren't coming either. At this point it looks like we will stay up more because of others inability rather than any talent of the manager or squad. Really worried that we've hired an utter dud. 

Understandable.

Just checked Jim Iley's record. 14th of April 1978 to the end of September 1978.

P 12

W 1 D 4 L 7.

Come on Mr. Eustace. You REALLY don't want to be inviting those sort of comparisons!

9 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

So against all evidence of a sorry 14 years, as I suspected you still hold out hope for these owners. 

Face it Rev, you’ll never really get to ‘Enough’.

 

You're doing it again. I've specifically said I do not hold out any hope under these owners. And detailed the reasons why.

And people wonder why I get irritated.

6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

And for the same reason we were never, ever, ever, going to see the money reinvested, which is why the McGuire and O'Brien stunts were little more than con jobs orchestrated by liars. Serious money was never changing hands.

I can't believe more wasn't made of the fact that after initially negotiating a reasonable sounding permanent fee of £2.5 m for Mcguire GB then agreed to an option to purchase of around £7m Euros  as part of the proposed loan deal. Which obviously would never be exercised. (Was it not £5m for Hirst as well?)

Proving that far from being an innocent victim in all this Broughton is fully compliant and up to his neck in the whole charade.

12 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Because I find it infuriating that you still go around the houses month after month. Maybe add just the odd post calling out the owners (unprompted) instead of always going after the hired hands (they’ve hired) and you won’t get ‘stalked’.

These people have destroyed our football club but I still get the impression that if they employed, say, a CEO more to your liking you’d be more than happy to give them chance #4567.

A real blind spot and I’ve never worked out why you’ve always had it.
 

You probably won't like this answer but like J*B I think IF the Court Proceedings were not pertaining and IF they were once again able and willing to fund the Club up to the maximum permitted by FFP and IF they kept their beaks out and IF they appointed a competent CEO /Manager/ Coach and DOF then that would lead to a greater chance of successt than being completely skint.

That is never going to happen. Various people were led to believe that this sort of situation might finally come about a couple of seasons or so ago but instead things have gone completely in the opposite direction and even further South than before if that were possible. Too much water has flowed under the bridge and I don't think we'd ever get to that optimum hypothetical situation under these owners therefore they need to go.

It's always been either the wrong people squandering money or no money when the right people comes along under this ownership. If we end up with a succession of people who are the wrong person with no money we really are screwed.

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

Cause constant disruption at every single game and put them under the spotlight constantly.

What's your solution? That's right blame everyone but the owners.

You are the one who is a loaf short of a basket.

Don't understand your problem with coarse language. If you don't like it just fucking ignore it.

Civil unrest is not only justified but absolutely necessary in this situation.

And for the record I am as tranquil as a mill pond.

Maybe you are the one who should calm the fuck down.

I agree the time for protests has probably come. The current situation on and particularly off the pitch can not endure.

Unfortunately however whether the fan base as a whole will share your appetite looks somewhat doubtful. Maybe the match going crowd are starting to turn though?

Don't worry,  I don't have any problem with coarse language whatsoever but tend to find it has more impact used a little more sparingly.

Enjoy your Easter.

55 minutes ago, J*B said:

So interesting reading this thread and arguments over who’s most at fault. Here’s my thoughts:

I think this club can be successful whilst Venkys own us. I’d rather they didn’t own us, I’d celebrate them selling us, but realistically if they just shut up, sent us money and kept their noses out we could still find success.

I think Gregg Broughton is doing a pretty decent job considering the parameters he has to work within, which have essentially been almost-impossible. 

For me, the biggest problem at Rovers is Steve Waggott. He’s out of touch, ambitionless and happy to accept mediocrity. But the biggest problem is he’s a short term thinker. The shambles that Venkys have created is going to take a medium/long term plan to turn around and every single decision I’ve seen Waggott make is kicking the can down the road. Waggott’s age and “I’ll retire if the owners ask me” attitude mean by default he isn’t the man for the job because he hasn’t got the longevity to oversee it.

Ewood is falling down, we need a CEO that demands investment from the owners outside of FFP.

The match day experience is dreadful, we need a CEO that understands the modern day fan. 

The ticket pricing is robbery, we need a CEO that understands the local area. 

The team is desperately underfunded, we need a CEO that can generate more income for FFP and once that is generated, demand an increase of money from the owners.

The training ground is not ours, we need a CEO that can use our money to buy it back as cheap as possible - use the Wharton money if you have to. 

The standards around the club are ‘think small’, we need a CEO that can bring back Jack Walkers mantra of “Think Big”.

Have to agree to disagree on Broughton but otherwise spot on. Great post.

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

The 'I'd have expected better from you' does you no favours.

The owners employed these people and the common theme is incompetence which I think you agree on. So then surely any chancer would look at this job and fancy it. No pressure from the owners to lead a successful club but happy to tread water and even regress. Do you agree that under proper owners these people wouldn't have got anywhere near this club? If you do then you can say they are the real problem. If not then you are in denial.

And that isn't even mentioning the absolute carnage created by Anderson on their watch.

I've said countless times ultimate responsibility lies with the owners because they continue to employ these chancers but one or two posters (not your good self) continually ignore that and try to make out I don't place any blame on the owners hence my irritation at you seemingly going down the same route.

The question is do they send the money over and just leave the imbeciles at the Club to it to wreck the place and feather their own nests because they can't be arsed enogh to keep a close enough eye on what's going on. Or are the people at Ewood acting strictly to instruction?

I'm of the former view (just) but wouldn't blame anyone for thinking the latter. Either way it's ultimately the owners fault. Obviously.

1 minute ago, Gav said:

He'd probably never heard of them, but I'm sure he did some homework before accepting the job, but in football, as in any industry, you take things at face value. He was promised of funds and full control, those promises were quickly renegaded upon and the rest of history.

I respect the guy for walking, just as I did with Lambert, you tell lies to the manager and you get what you deserve.

He must have had some idea of what a shambles we were on and off the pitch but maybe Nixon was right for once  when he said "Managers like working".

They also imo generally have large egos and a healthy amount of faith in their own ability to turn situations round. 

Would be interesting to know at this stage if Eustace privately thinks he's made a mistake. I suppose from his point of view the worst that can happen is he gets sacked, most of the shit sticks to Venky's, he gets paid off and away he goes again on the managerial merry-go-round.

1 minute ago, aletheia said:

 But Eustace has everything else. 

Apart from Adam Wharton which I think shouldn't be underestimated.

2 minutes ago, lraC said:

 but the manager decided to announce it was not a must win game, before the Millwall draw. That’s the crux for me, it’s try not to lose instead of go for the jugular especially in those two games.

That was probably ill advised but technically he was correct and again I think he was trying to take some pressure off the players.

8 minutes ago, M_B said:

Eh??? 

You wrongly accused him of not wanting to sell them 

When?