10 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

3. He mentions the Raya money but suggest the club was not reliant on it, so why mention it? That £5million now would of had big baring imo. The suggestion is now we will see it over 3 years when deal goes through.

I think you're unnecessarily harsh to him on this point. It was of course going to be mentioned, either by him directly or through a question - so it makes sense to address it.

As for the 3 year comment, most transfer fees are paid in installments, but he's more likely referring to the fact that the Championship's FFP rules are over a rolling 3 year period. So an injection of an 'unexpected' 5 million puts us in good standing regarding our FFP status for the subsequent 3 years. 

2 minutes ago, ItsRoverZ said:

Doesn't matter if we haven't got a striker or even an outfield player to finish off these chances 

Of course it does.

Ultimately I watch these matches to enjoy myself. This is a pleasure to watch - even when we're losing. 

Yes, this has been far from perfect.

Yes, we've missed a ton of chances.

But it's impossible to not enjoy the way we play. 

Just now, CambridgeRover said:

John Buckley is in Sheffield (idiot move). 
 

Might be a slight overreaction...

He wasn't at all at fault for the goal, but can this be the last time that we see Pears start, please?

Incredible the number of times he has to push things away or tip things around the post when he could either catch them or not go for them.

2 minutes ago, ItsRoverZ said:

Don't want to sound overly negative but par a few nice passes in some games I've not been impressed by A Wharton, looks so weak and ponderous. Travis today hasn't looked good either, yet we were OK to loan out Buckley ffs 

Don't worry though guys we have a headless chicken in dolan to bring on and a 19yo kid striker to change the game 

He's young, far from the finished product. 

But performances like this are what people need to remember when they talk about him being unsellable or worth tens of millions. 

Wharton looks like he's worth about 2 pounds today.

2 hours ago, windymiller7 said:

Wasn't sure where to put this, but as it's related to Chelsea's new goalkeeper I'll put it here.

This really wound me up when I've just read it:

25 Apps for Liverpool, 50 for Spurs!

288 for Rovers. Hell, he even made 114 for Villa. Do Sky even know about any clubs other than the 'Big 6'?

We also have to accept that we've been out of the Premier League for over a decade now. 15-22-year-olds will barely remember us as a Premier League side.

A bit of a tough pill to swallow, but I can understand why they reference the two 'biggest' clubs on his resume. They want him to come across as instantly credible to those unfamiliar with who he is, not illicit the response of 'why is a former Blackburn goalkeeper telling me who can break through at Chelsea'. 

22 hours ago, arbitro said:

Tell me one that is worse.

Let's go Premier League exclusively?

Numerous times where the lines have been messed up for offside decisions (West Brom 21/22 I think?) or the entire phase of play hasn't been factored in (Arsenal vs Brentford last season). Those are black-and-white instances where the technology has been incorrectly used. That's just a factual error. No debate. Clearly worse.

Rodri's handball against Chelsea a couple of seasons ago? The goal that wasn't given when the ball crossed the line in the Sheffield United vs Villa game (I think it was)? 

Those are literally off the top of my head and just focusing on the Premier League. If I took a bit longer and looked back through examples I think I'd find dozens that were clearly worse.

But recency bias always comes into things when these debates take place.

Wrong decision? Sure. Worst ever? Give me a break.  

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

The keeper whilst no where near the flight of the ball took the Wolves player out with a high and dangerous contact which he could have avoided, making it deliberate.

Penalty and red for violent conduct, imho.

It may not be the worst VAR pen decision. It's in the top 2, and I forget the other but it probably involved MU or Liverpool.

It's definitely not a red, that's crazy.

It's also not even in the top 10. We've had moments where the technology has completely failed, we've had totally incorrect interpretations of defenders playing the ball or not, and we've had some truly clear and absolutely obvious errors. 

This was probably a penalty 9/10, but to make it out as if there's absolutely zero room for debate is wrong. If you disagree with me, are you saying that every time a goalkeeper comes out to get the ball that his first contact has to be the ball? What if he doesn't get the ball but just brushes into/knocks a player over? How many penalties do you plan on awarding this season when a keeper comes out for a cross? 

This is an extreme version of that, but it's not as black as white as many are saying and it is certainly far from the worst error of the VAR era in the Premier League. 

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I think the non award of a penalty to Wolves last night was the worst VAR decision since it's inception and there is a lot to go at.

That's just patently wrong. 

It's a penalty, but it's not as stonewall as some of you are making out. There's always going to be a degree of debate over a keeper making contact with a player when he's going for the ball and when that contact had no impact on anything following on from it.

I'd want it. I'd expect it to be given. But there will be far clearer penalties that aren't awarded this season.

3 hours ago, goozburger said:

It's always good to get three points on the opening day. I enjoy some positivity, but I'm going to piss on your chips. Beating a club at home that is likely going to finish mid-table isn't exactly a reason to start a thread about us going up!

It might be the only opportunity that we have...

I still think a win at home to West Brom is a very good start.

21 minutes ago, goozburger said:

BRFCS could downgrade from IP.Board to a tinpot piece of 1990s software. It could be put on a potato for a server. But I think there has always been a subconscious effort to have a high quality forum.

That doesn't come for free.

I don't want to get into detail, but under the previous regime, I'm aware of a certain member (now long gone) who was a big patron. It was a little controversial because he was allowed a certain leniency and, wrongly, always had the moderators over a barrel. I think the plan had always been to move away from that reliance and generate more revenue from adverts.

That's what you're seeing now. It can't, and shouldn't, go back to a single source of income in my view. And I think this (more adverts) was going to happen anyway, @Eddie.

Admittedly, I haven't signed up to premium, but I'd better do it now after what I'm about to say! 😄 Perhaps one way to think of BRFCS is, if it was taken away from you, would you turn back time and pay the £3-£4 per month?

This place probably gets all our backs up from time to time (those pesky folk with wrong opinions, and how DARE that moderator hide my precious post!), but it would be hard to imagine life without BRFCS to discuss Rovers. I've seen the other places, and they're not pretty. BRFCS is one of the best forums around if you step out of the box and see what dumpster fires are out there.

Support the site in kind or by signing up to premium, if it's something you can afford. If not, then it's basically paid for with your as views. That's all.

Some very valid points within that and a good post within a number of replies from mods and admins who should know better (or give up their titles and responsibilities if they want to be snide pricks - I'll take the ban). I'm not implying that the messageboard shouldn't run ads to generate revenue.

I just don't feel that the ads need to be quite as intrusive as they are. Then again, I don't know the full cost of running the site at the moment and my estimates might be miles off.

4 hours ago, StubbsUK said:

I'm glad the effort we all put in for free so you can enjoy the site for free is worth installing an ad-blocker for. Please tell me it's a paid for version, that'll make my day.

It's a free version.

I'm tremendously appreciative of the effort that everyone puts in to keep this website civil and running. In my brief moments of contributing, I was able to witness just how big of a task that is on a consistent basis.

I saw this thread as an opportunity to give a little feedback on how I felt the popup ads - in particular the full-page popups - negatively impact the experience on the website. I didn't really want to get into a long discussion about it, but others have continued to push me on the feedback.

It's clear from the reaction that I got that I'm either wrong, in the minority, or simply pissing into the wind. Simplest solution? Shut up and solve my own problem.

I know that I'm not particularly popular with many of the posters on here, particularly more modern spammers, but some might remember that I've certainly put in effort when it comes to this website.

I don't think I deserve the type of backlash that I've received from just saying that I think this is the worst ad experience of any website that I regularly visit. That's it. Not a personal attack.

The topic is done for me. The sad thing is that I've sought out a solution that many others probably have as well. 

1 hour ago, StubbsUK said:

I think it was @J*B who already said we push back on a lot of ads that the suppliers want us to run, we make less money than we could by purposely not cramming the site with ads, the one concession we did make to the suppliers was a full page ad sometimes on page transition.

If anyone sees any ads that are obtructing content too much or are outsude their area then send us a screenshot and we'll report them to our supplier.

At least we're not as bad as Lancashire Live!

It's alright, far too much time has been taken discussing the topic and my thoughts on it.

I've put an adblocker in place for BRFCS and put mattyblue on ignore. 

23 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Just as a point of order, could you screenshot these ads for alcohol and cigarettes? They shouldn’t be appearing as far as I’m aware.

I also don’t understand why you think the site has ‘chosen’ to offer subscription for any nefarious purpose, as intimated by the context of your posts.

If you don’t like them, this is the revenue they generate, so if you can pay for it instead of the ads, you won’t see them.

 

On your first point, you've sort of missed the fact that the examples were not real.

Second, I don't think the site or anyone involved is doing anything 'nefarious', but everyone must surely be aware of the nature and frequency of the ads and I doubt anyone would describe them as being a good thing. A necessary evil, perhaps. But this website runs more ads than any other that I visit. I am not in a position to really assess how they could be made more efficient or how the cost of running the site could be reduced, but JB and others certainly know how to get in touch with me if they ever want to talk about it.

As for the last, you miss out on a third solution: an adblocker. The unfortunate thing is that this type of website experience would drive someone to install an adblocker: therefore negating the main benefit of the subscription whilst also depriving the website of any revenue.

As I said, I'm done on the topic. I gave my feedback, that was all.

If you, or any other admin would like to speak about it then I'm sure we can find a more effective means of communication. 

21 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Take it you’ve not come across our Edward before? 😁

Who'd have thought, the only thing more ever-present than the ads has made an appearance. 

46 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Why are you being so nasty about this? The nature of the ads is not a decision our team can make, aside from restricting such ads if they are reported to the relevant admin. Without them being reported, we don’t know what ads you’re seeing, as they’re based on YOUR browsing.

Insinuating the team has done this deliberately is really quite shitty of you.

Why are you taking such a strong interest in this?

The ads themselves are targeted, but their nature is not. I'm not complaining about the fact that I'm seeing ads for BMWs, cigarettes, or alcohol, I'm saying that the popup ads (which, at times, include full-page ads) negatively impact the visitor experience. 

I just gave my feedback. After 20+ years on the messageboard, I've not exactly made a habit of being critical of admins and policies.

But I think I've explained myself well enough for them to understand the context and everyone involved is undoubtedly tremendously bored by the topic. 

22 minutes ago, StubbsUK said:

This is why we offer a subscription ...

Which is great, if I only ever accessed the messageboard from a device where I'm logged in (which is maybe 20% of the time).

As I also said earlier, the aggressive nature of the ads actually makes me far less inclined to pay the subscription. The logic of 'we'll make this experience so unpleasant that you will have to pay to get rid of the ads' doesn't compel me to do so.

It's just my bit of feedback. I may well be in the minority. 

28 minutes ago, Mike E said:

And yet you think they’ve not chosen well.

I think the ad experience is awful. That's separate from the platform used to run the messageboard or their hosting choices.

Those tech stack decisions may impact cost and then allow them to implement a less aggressive ad policy, but the fact that we're dealing with full-page popups and banner/footer ads that you have to click out of every few pages is just an awful experience.

42 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Have you considered doing something helpful and reaching out to the site with a better solution?

I've contributed to the site in the past as an admin and through content and, as I acknowledged in my original post, I don't have a lot of experience when it comes to a messageboard.

If we were talking about a standard CMS, reducing hosting costs, dealing with normal website issues then I could be of some use, but I'm sure that everyone involved knows far more than I do when it comes to the platform that they currently use and other options that might be available. 

32 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Without that revenue there wouldn’t BE any user experience because there’d be no BRFCS.

I don't doubt @J*B's assessment and I know that this is a world that he's very familiar.

But, as someone who works on helping tech companies optimize their online experience (admittedly not through messageboards), I find it hard to believe that such an unappealing ad experience is the best course of action.

Every visit and new page comes with a new pop-up. I don't believe in adblockers, but this website gets me closer to changing my mind than anything else ever has. 

I don't have a problem with the ads, but I do have a problem with the number of ads and the number of popups. I think it massively impacts the experience on the website and at times makes it almost unvisitable.

Now, you might say that I could just sign up and get rid of them, but I actually feel less inclined to subscribe when the user experience is being placed after revenue.

This feels like stepping back into a website from the early 2000s and it's a real shame.