[Archived] Are Blackburn The Least Ambitious Club In The Top Flight

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Most rovers fans are disappointed with the transfer window there is no getting away from that. We cannot put this down to lack of ambition though.

The transfer budget was only ever an estimate and I suspect the net transfer profit is going to keep the club afloat. John Williams has stated before that we need 25,000 people at Ewood every home game but this has not happend for several seasons. This means the shortfall has to be found from somewhere.

The club has invested heavily in the Academy but take Duff and Dunn out of the equation can you really say that Rovers have had a return on this investment? Compare Rovers with City, Everton or even Boro.

Rovers ambition is to maintain as high a position in the league as possible without destroying it in the process. We enjoyed the days with the big boys but now I feel we are returning to the days of selling to survive and try and pick up the bargains as we did with Mark Hughes. We are not alone in this so this is becoming increasing difficult but on the otherside teams who have borrowed heavily may struggle with the credit crunch and may have to sell cheaply to get players off the wage bill.

In conclusion, I feel that football is returning to the early eighties where several clubs nearly went bust including Rovers. Ignore City that will probably end in tears. Out of the big clubs there is probably only Arsenal you could hold up as a role model.

[simdohquo]

Out of the big clubs there is probably only Arsenal you could hold up as a role model.

My point exactly... did they spend big? Nope! Do they lack Ambition? Nope!

[DingleBaiter]

The club has invested heavily in the Academy but take Duff and Dunn out of the equation can you really say that Rovers have had a return on this investment? Compare Rovers with City, Everton or even Boro.

Rovers ambition is to maintain as high a position in the league as possible without destroying it in the process. We enjoyed the days with the big boys but now I feel we are returning to the days of selling to survive and try and pick up the bargains as we did with Mark Hughes. We are not alone in this so this is becoming increasing difficult but on the otherside teams who have borrowed heavily may struggle with the credit crunch and may have to sell cheaply to get players off the wage bill.

In conclusion, I feel that football is returning to the early eighties where several clubs nearly went bust including Rovers. Ignore City that will probably end in tears. Out of the big clubs there is probably only Arsenal you could hold up as a role model.

So, to justify this point, you must know how much the Academy costs compared to what it's brought in? It's too simplistic to say without Duff & Dunn there is not ROI.

For instance, I would suggest (in all credibility) you could sack Reid tomoz and replace him with Judgey and suffer no loss on the football side. Reid's cost to BRFC in employment, inc fee, wages etc. would have been about 5 million I reckon.

Given the club's commitment to expanding the Academy to turn out a squad player at least every season, this makes sound commercial sense whilst we don't spend something like 5-10 million on player acquisition like some of the bigger sides do. Therefore I suggest the Academy DOES make a good ROI and is the way forward, especially in light of City & Chelsea's business model. Compare the investment and running costs for them two clubs compared to ourselves, clearly one is more successful business-wise.

Arsenal is a spurious comparison too. They HAD to leverage the club in order to build a new ground, it's brought in so much money corporate-wise & there is some serious money behind the scenes there. They've a strict wage structure okay, but they're committed to bringing in a certain amount through the gate just to keep heads above water. Wenger doesn't exactly spend big, but he sells well (on the whole) whilst also wasting money at times on the Brits. All this and yet they've still not won anything for 3 seasons. It could be said Arsenal's day to day focus and running is similar to Rovers, in that they have certain restraints that stop them competing with the big boys but they will always be there or thereabouts.

Personally, I can't see a club in the Prem that's better run than ourselves-and the more frenzied & surreal scenarios like City become, the more I'm happy we're the equivalent of yokels in Hollywood.

[Al]

You can utter all the placations you want to make yourselves feel better, (Punching above weight, saving money for January) but the fact remains that, with money availible and all the time in the world to do it, whoever holds the purse strings were too parsemonious to bring in the one thing we had to have, a decent right winger. This is a risk to the future of the club because the whole balance of the team is compromised.

What is the point of having the best header of the ball in the league if you have no one to provide the crosses. We will now play our best right back on the wing where we know he is inadequate and leave a gap at full back where we have no proper replacement.

There were wingers availible but we just would not spend the money. We were not just buying a winger but a full back and a centre half as well. It was worth paying a little over the odds to achieve that.

The only conclusion I can reach is that the owners have no ambition but are just doing what they are obliged to do under Jacks will.

My opinion is that we need new owners who care as soon as possible, if indeed it is not already too late.

I love Rovers passionately and have supported them for 60 years. I am really disappointed in this close season.

[Duff's Minder]

Reading all this makes me think that maybe I'm not that ambitious. I found the old VHS from the 3rd round 1-1 draw with Liverpool when we were in the 2nd division and Liverpool were still the best team in the land. I must have watched that video a 1,000 times as a 15 yr old Blackburn fan and I'm not sure any game has brought me more pleasure.

People on here seem to think that getting relegated would be the death of the club. It wouldn't precisely because the people who run and fund rovers haven't mortgaged the club's future on a bunch of mercenaries.

We've had a great run, the Premiership is becoming a plaything of financial speculators, dictators and royalty from coutries where women are still imprisoned for having sex outside of marriage.

If five years from now Manchester City are the biggest club in the world, no Englishman can dream of playing for a top 5 team and the people who run football clubs are more concerned with brand awareness in Asia than looking after the fans who come to games then I would be more than happy supporting a properly run chamionship or league 1 team. We can't afford to compete financially with either Abramovich's wallet or Sunderland's overdraft and I don't want us to.

[Laurence]

Some one at work said it, but its probably true, teams less successful, West Brom, Fulham, Sunderland, all spent a lot more on players then we do.

We needed a right sided midfield, yet our biggest signing is a 3.5 defensive midfielder.

Our best player left to go to a club that finished below us and have 1 point out of a possible 9.

There is an arguement which says that for a club of our size/resources/fan base simply to aim to establish itself in the Prem is enormously ambitious in itself.

[Athlete]

OK if you want to push me I do not believe that the players we signed are good enough, with the possible exception (as I have said before) of Robinson and Carlos. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. It is not my job to motivate them. That is the job of the people who bought them. I have paid my money as a season ticket holder and am disappointed as to how my money has been spent. Don't tell me what I should think. That is my privelige.

If you are happy that we have failed miserably to sign what we really needed, a decent RM, then that is your opinion but do not dare rubbish my opinion because I have paid my money to have it. I would be interested to know if you have forked out for a season ticket.

like the above I am a long standing season ticket holder and we are entitled to our opions cos at the end of the day we are the bread and butter of the club !

[OJRovers]

My point exactly... did they spend big? Nope! Do they lack Ambition? Nope!

Have they got players for every position on the pitch (including RM)? Yes!

Have we? Nope!

Plus if you talk to some Arsenal fans they probably would say they should spend bigger to compete with Chel/MU

[dingles staying down 4ever]

So, to justify this point, you must know how much the Academy costs compared to what it's brought in? It's too simplistic to say without Duff & Dunn there is not ROI.

For instance, I would suggest (in all credibility) you could sack Reid tomoz and replace him with Judgey and suffer no loss on the football side. Reid's cost to BRFC in employment, inc fee, wages etc. would have been about 5 million I reckon.

Given the club's commitment to expanding the Academy to turn out a squad player at least every season, this makes sound commercial sense whilst we don't spend something like 5-10 million on player acquisition like some of the bigger sides do. Therefore I suggest the Academy DOES make a good ROI and is the way forward, especially in light of City & Chelsea's business model. Compare the investment and running costs for them two clubs compared to ourselves, clearly one is more successful business-wise.

Arsenal is a spurious comparison too. They HAD to leverage the club in order to build a new ground, it's brought in so much money corporate-wise & there is some serious money behind the scenes there. They've a strict wage structure okay, but they're committed to bringing in a certain amount through the gate just to keep heads above water. Wenger doesn't exactly spend big, but he sells well (on the whole) whilst also wasting money at times on the Brits. All this and yet they've still not won anything for 3 seasons. It could be said Arsenal's day to day focus and running is similar to Rovers, in that they have certain restraints that stop them competing with the big boys but they will always be there or thereabouts.

Personally, I can't see a club in the Prem that's better run than ourselves-and the more frenzied & surreal scenarios like City become, the more I'm happy we're the equivalent of yokels in Hollywood.

As business we are very well run and to clubs of our size we are the role model. I know Arsenal have developed their commercial arm to get serious money but out of the big clubs that is the closest role model I could come up with as close to us.Do they lack ambition? Some of their supporters think it does, so maybe then we too lack ambition. Many supporters seem to want us to go and sell the club to the nearest short term investor who thinks that it will make them richer on back of somebody else's money or some Billionaires play thing. Well life is tough for the small guy and it maybe that we have had our one rich benefactor.

My point about the academy was that it needs investment too with wages of coaches and scouts etc and as such is a drain on the club's finances. It is a necessary drain because I feel that in years to come it maybe our main source of players. When major finances were invested it was hoped that we could attract the country's and possibly Europe's top junior talent to the club but I feel on the whole this has not happened. We seemed to be upstaged by the likes of Man. utd and Chelsea but also the likes of Middlesborough and Man. City. Our scouting network seems to be based entirely in Dublin. Why is this?

[Martin]

I would think there is much truth in the fact that the club will not place it's long-term future in the balance by paying over the odds for players. Something I'm proud of.

However, appointing Ince in my view is an ambitious choice. We could have gone for any number of managers that are proven at this level. Especially at keeping smaller clubs in midtable and around Europe.

Ince may get Rovers relegated, but he may just win us a cup. Who knows.

All I know is Ince was an ambitious choice (not my choice, not even close) and there is certainly a big risk attached.

[gumboots]

OK if you want to push me I do not believe that the players we signed are good enough, with the possible exception (as I have said before) of Robinson and Carlos. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. It is not my job to motivate them. That is the job of the people who bought them. I have paid my money as a season ticket holder and am disappointed as to how my money has been spent. Don't tell me what I should think. That is my privelige.

If you are happy that we have failed miserably to sign what we really needed, a decent RM, then that is your opinion but do not dare rubbish my opinion because I have paid my money to have it. I would be interested to know if you have forked out for a season ticket.

I'm not telling you what you should think. I'm just telling you that I personally don't agree with you. I didn't say it is your job to motivate them. they get paid well to be self-motivated and the management team are there to make them work as a team and motivate them to do things as well together as they can. It is, however, part of the package of being a supporter of the club that you support the team. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether they are doing their job well or whatever, but you can't be that critical of players you have rarely, if ever, seen play for us. And yes, I am a season ticket holder and intend to carry on being so whether in the Prem or elsewhere.

[Al]

I'm not telling you what you should think. I'm just telling you that I personally don't agree with you. I didn't say it is your job to motivate them. they get paid well to be self-motivated and the management team are there to make them work as a team and motivate them to do things as well together as they can. It is, however, part of the package of being a supporter of the club that you support the team. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether they are doing their job well or whatever, but you can't be that critical of players you have rarely, if ever, seen play for us. And yes, I am a season ticket holder and intend to carry on being so whether in the Prem or elsewhere.

You still don't get the point do you? Please read my original post to which you reacted. It was nothing to do with the players we signed. It was about the abject failure to sign the one MUST, a decent right winger. You are the one who ranted on about supporting the new players and I have no choice than to do so. Wether or not I would have chosen them is not an issue.

[gumboots]

You still don't get the point do you? Please read my original post to which you reacted. It was nothing to do with the players we signed. It was about the abject failure to sign the one MUST, a decent right winger. You are the one who ranted on about supporting the new players and I have no choice than to do so. Wether or not I would have chosen them is not an issue.

And you don't see that there were probably reasons you know nothing of why a right winger was not signed and that not signing one is not abject failure but just another event. Not signing a right winger does not mean that the transfer window was a failure. It means that we did not buy a player for a particualr position. You seem to be, and perhaps you aren't but it's what it sounds like, suggesting that without that one player who you saw as a real priority and the management team thought was important, Rovers have failed. I'd have liked to see a replacement for Bentley too but not at any cost. I think it needed to be someone who wanted to come to Ewood, was, including wages, within the manager's idea of what was reasonable, and can actually do the job they would have been paid to do. I did not want my season ticket money, little though it is, used to buy someone who did not fit those criteria just for the sake of buying someone who might excite some of the fans. I've sat through enough drab rubbish at Ewood and following rovers away to want some excitement but not if it means we mortgage our immediate future to it. I don't think we'll necessarily fail if we don't have an out and out replacement for Bentley. You apparently seem to think, if not exactly that, something along those lines.

[Al]

And you don't see that there were probably reasons you know nothing of why a right winger was not signed and that not signing one is not abject failure but just another event. Not signing a right winger does not mean that the transfer window was a failure. It means that we did not buy a player for a particualr position. You seem to be, and perhaps you aren't but it's what it sounds like, suggesting that without that one player who you saw as a real priority and the management team thought was important, Rovers have failed. I'd have liked to see a replacement for Bentley too but not at any cost. I think it needed to be someone who wanted to come to Ewood, was, including wages, within the manager's idea of what was reasonable, and can actually do the job they would have been paid to do. I did not want my season ticket money, little though it is, used to buy someone who did not fit those criteria just for the sake of buying someone who might excite some of the fans. I've sat through enough drab rubbish at Ewood and following rovers away to want some excitement but not if it means we mortgage our immediate future to it. I don't think we'll necessarily fail if we don't have an out and out replacement for Bentley. You apparently seem to think, if not exactly that, something along those lines.

Now we are talking about the same thing. You are correct that I believe that not buying the number 1 priority (a right winger) with all the time and money availible is an abject failure. The point is that I believe that not buying someone leaves us with 3 not 1 player being out of position and therefore less effective and paying a little over the odds to correct that situation is more than justified.

You are not of that opinion but that is OK. At least we can agree that we are both entitled to our opinions. It's just that they are different. I can live with that.

[DingleBaiter]

We seemed to be upstaged by the likes of Man. utd and Chelsea but also the likes of Middlesborough and Man. City. Our scouting network seems to be based entirely in Dublin. Why is this?

Why do you you say it's based in Dublin? Our strongest intake areas into the Academy are GB, Ireland & Germany (in no particular order). In the last 12 months triallists have also come in from Korea, Paris, Sweden, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia to name just a few. It's not that our scouting network doesn't reach far afield, it's the criteria we look to fill. Rovers stated preference ref the Academy is to focus more on home-grown/domestic players as they fit in better with regards to contracts, educations, passports, language etc.

BTW - how many Dublin players were inducted into the Academy this season as Scholars? Do you actually know the answer?

Boro, Everton & City have focussed their Academy induction closer to home; Arsenal, Chelsea, & Liverpool are more 'international' - Liverpool arrived at the Academy last season for a game and when the Rovers greeter got on the coach to give an orientation brief, one lad piped up for him to speak to him directly as he was the only one who understood English proper. Man Utd are the equivalent of a puppy farm when it comes to the Academy; for all their much-vaunted youth policy some parents are wary of sending their kids their as it's simply a numbers game.

Boro are actually the template the Academy is looking to replicate the most; we've actually got about 6 players in the Academy that could integrate into the first team over the next 3 seasons (at different stages of course). That said, there's always a proviso with young uns getting into the first team as there's still so many steps they can fall down over - not least when they get their contract.

[DingleBaiter]

Now we are talking about the same thing. You are correct that I believe that not buying the number 1 priority (a right winger) with all the time and money availible is an abject failure. The point is that I believe that not buying someone leaves us with 3 not 1 player being out of position and therefore less effective and paying a little over the odds to correct that situation is more than justified.

You are not of that opinion but that is OK. At least we can agree that we are both entitled to our opinions. It's just that they are different. I can live with that.

I think you're making a valid point, but a massively over-simplistic assumption in doing so.

So, as long as they signed a right winger at any cost, including him turning out to be an actual pudding, you'd be satisfied then? There's a reason for everything. Rovers were confident they had a player coming in, it flaked. Get over it. The 'abject failure' would have been in not looking in the first place.

If you want to pass your driving test, you go about in a logical way that suits your skills, your learning capacity, your means. If you fail your test, it doesn't mean the whole process you've been through so far is an 'abject failure' is it?

it's a good job you're not in charge of the education policy for the government, you'd have no kids in school unless they were certain safe bets to pass their exams, so would you keep em out of school for five years?

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Why do you you say it's based in Dublin? Our strongest intake areas into the Academy are GB, Ireland & Germany (in no particular order). In the last 12 months triallists have also come in from Korea, Paris, Sweden, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia to name just a few. It's not that our scouting network doesn't reach far afield, it's the criteria we look to fill. Rovers stated preference ref the Academy is to focus more on home-grown/domestic players as they fit in better with regards to contracts, educations, passports, language etc.

BTW - how many Dublin players were inducted into the Academy this season as Scholars? Do you actually know the answer?

Boro, Everton & City have focussed their Academy induction closer to home; Arsenal, Chelsea, & Liverpool are more 'international' - Liverpool arrived at the Academy last season for a game and when the Rovers greeter got on the coach to give an orientation brief, one lad piped up for him to speak to him directly as he was the only one who understood English proper. Man Utd are the equivalent of a puppy farm when it comes to the Academy; for all their much-vaunted youth policy some parents are wary of sending their kids their as it's simply a numbers game.

Boro are actually the template the Academy is looking to replicate the most; we've actually got about 6 players in the Academy that could integrate into the first team over the next 3 seasons (at different stages of course). That said, there's always a proviso with young uns getting into the first team as there's still so many steps they can fall down over - not least when they get their contract.

The Dublin remark was a throw away remark. It is just that when the LET discusses our young international players they seem to be appearing for Eire under 18s or under 21s. If that is not the case then I apologise. The point I was trying to make was that at the original thinking was to develop English talent as it was the time when only 3 non-english players were allowed to play in Europe at any one time. Other clubs seem to concentrate on English youth more than ourselves at a time when home grown players are going to become a premium again. It is great though that 6 players are possibly going to break through.

[DingleBaiter]

The Dublin remark was a throw away remark. It is just that when the LET discusses our young international players they seem to be appearing for Eire under 18s or under 21s. If that is not the case then I apologise. The point I was trying to make was that at the original thinking was to develop English talent as it was the time when only 3 non-english players were allowed to play in Europe at any one time. Other clubs seem to concentrate on English youth more than ourselves at a time when home grown players are going to become a premium again. It is great though that 6 players are possibly going to break through.

Biggest challenge facing the Academy is to keep ahead of trends really. The intake for this season is still majority English, and that's what the club is looking to expand on in the next few seasons - as per Boro. We had 17 Irish lads at one point not to long ago; a lot of the problem with the local area is the 'catchment' argument applies - it's easier for the 2 Merseyside & 2 Manc clubs to recruit locally due to numbers above anything, plus the lads themselves are probably fans. However, we've now got the ex-Derby Academy head in as coach (they've had a good youth system) and another coach/scout/recruiter who was assistant head at Crewe and Everton, both famed for finding youth players. It may also be worth seeing if Ince plans to replace Downes (head honcho) there as he's got good links with the Liverpool Academy/youth set-up (his lad's on the books there, and that's where he got our reserve gaffer from). I'm wondering myself if we could be audacious and get Heighway in (who left the Liv Academy due to a bust up with the Spaniard) as he had a good track record there?

You're correct in saying the focus should primarily be on home-grown players, some of the better sides you can see play against the U-18s aren't the big sides, it's the smaller ones that have focussed on the youth because they can't afford recruitment at senior level, or simply there is a lack of continuity.

[Al]

I think you're making a valid point, but a massively over-simplistic assumption in doing so.

So, as long as they signed a right winger at any cost, including him turning out to be an actual pudding, you'd be satisfied then? There's a reason for everything. Rovers were confident they had a player coming in, it flaked. Get over it. The 'abject failure' would have been in not looking in the first place.

If you want to pass your driving test, you go about in a logical way that suits your skills, your learning capacity, your means. If you fail your test, it doesn't mean the whole process you've been through so far is an 'abject failure' is it?

it's a good job you're not in charge of the education policy for the government, you'd have no kids in school unless they were certain safe bets to pass their exams, so would you keep em out of school for five years?

What are you on about? What the hell has it to do about a driving test or the education policy. The point is that we knew as far back as April that Bentley was going. We knew that he HAD to be replaced. There were plenty of candidates who could have been signed but it was left until the last day and one candidate to do something about it. When that failed we had no alternatives. Something should have been sorted a month ago. That is why it was an abject failure. I was not talking about any player. I was talking about a decent player. With at least £10mil for Bentley we had plenty of time and money to buy an adequate replacement.

That is logical and simple but certainly not over simplistic.

[DingleBaiter]

What are you on about? What the hell has it to do about a driving test or the education policy. The point is that we knew as far back as April that Bentley was going. We knew that he HAD to be replaced. There were plenty of candidates who could have been signed but it was left until the last day and one candidate to do something about it. When that failed we had no alternatives. Something should have been sorted a month ago. That is why it was an abject failure. I was not talking about any player. I was talking about a decent player. With at least £10mil for Bentley we had plenty of time and money to buy an adequate replacement.

That is logical and simple but certainly not over simplistic.

April?

So who are you actually blaming? JW? Ince? Hughes? David Icke?

Adequate based on the quality Bentley was when he left, or when we signed him? Why not offer solutions instead of criticism? Who would you have signed? Who was there around as good as Bentley then?

How can it be logical to base your whole argument on an end result when you're not privy to the factors that affected that result? You're making it simplistic in that your only criteria seems to be that we signed a player to replace Bentley (presumably a similar quality), ignoring things like cost, availability, form, ability, wages etc.

You're suggesting this as it's something that glaringly obvious that either Rovers aren't as astute as you in noticing this, or have just tossed it off. I'd suggest neither is the case.

I say you're being over-simplistic as it seems you wanted someone as good as Bentley, no matter what cost. I DO agree it's a shame we haven't got a right winger in, but I'm sensible enough to realise there must be a reason/s why we haven't, and respect that.

[BuckyRover]

Exactly.

I haven't seen one sensible proposal.

We have had years to scout for Premiership players, Ince has had a few months.

[Al]

April?

So who are you actually blaming? JW? Ince? Hughes? David Icke?

Adequate based on the quality Bentley was when he left, or when we signed him? Why not offer solutions instead of criticism? Who would you have signed? Who was there around as good as Bentley then?

How can it be logical to base your whole argument on an end result when you're not privy to the factors that affected that result? You're making it simplistic in that your only criteria seems to be that we signed a player to replace Bentley (presumably a similar quality), ignoring things like cost, availability, form, ability, wages etc.

You're suggesting this as it's something that glaringly obvious that either Rovers aren't as astute as you in noticing this, or have just tossed it off. I'd suggest neither is the case.

I say you're being over-simplistic as it seems you wanted someone as good as Bentley, no matter what cost. I DO agree it's a shame we haven't got a right winger in, but I'm sensible enough to realise there must be a reason/s why we haven't, and respect that.

Why do people who argue against me presume to tell me what I mean? Adequate means exactly what I said, adequate, maybe not as good as Bentley but adequate. There were several players availible some of which (SWP for example and who knows how many abroad) who actually transferred to other clubs.

There was plenty of time and money that should have been availible to get a decent RW in way before deadline day but the management, whoever they were between April (We knew then that Bentley would go) and Sept 1st failed to get any of them.

I was not alone in seeing that it was glaringly obvious, all the supporters and the management were aware of this but the management wanted grab most of the Bentley money and get a replacement on the cheap. It didn't work and they failed miserably and thereby weakened the team when all around them were strengthening.

OK now twist my words again to your own liking and tell me I am wrong again, or maybe someone else would like to have a pop at me.

You all know that I am right.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Why do people who argue against me presume to tell me what I mean? Adequate means exactly what I said, adequate, maybe not as good as Bentley but adequate. There were several players availible some of which (SWP for example and who knows how many abroad) who actually transferred to other clubs.

There was plenty of time and money that should have been availible to get a decent RW in way before deadline day but the management, whoever they were between April (We knew then that Bentley would go) and Sept 1st failed to get any of them.

I was not alone in seeing that it was glaringly obvious, all the supporters and the management were aware of this but the management wanted grab most of the Bentley money and get a replacement on the cheap. It didn't work and they failed miserably and thereby weakened the team when all around them were strengthening.

OK now twist my words again to your own liking and tell me I am wrong again, or maybe someone else would like to have a pop at me.

You all know that I am right.

SWP would not have moved to Ewood. I feel that the only reason he moved back to City was that it was his old club. He can't cross a ball and to me is better palying down the middle. the problems in signing a palyer of equal ability to Bents are:-

i. Small club with realtive small support

ii. Club not in Europe - this gave Bents the excuse to escape!

iii.Decent players [not good ones] demanding huge wages [Pennant £50k/week] and their clubs demanding even dafter money

iv. Not in London - helpful in signing foreigners apparently

v. Out of Bentley transfer fee, Ince was only get a percentage to spend. Club need a share to pay the bills as i've said before and Arsenal took their share

[philipl]

As far as I am aware from past and recent conversations:

1) The Trustees care passionately about the Rovers and about the club's continuing status in the Premier League.

2) It is not apparent to the supporters who understandably think in terms of the last game and the next game, but the Trustees think in terms of the clubs' medium and long term future and take decisions accordingly.

3) The Rovers cannot compete in the world of clubs with hundreds of millions but whilst there are only four, maybe five now, Rovers can still compete effectively with clubs with tens of millions- the other fifteen.

4) The for sale is effectively to see whether there is somebody who can lift Rovers back into the very top bracket- but even if Jack had been alive, don't think Rovers would have been joining in the last day scrum over Berbatov and Robinho. The potential buyers who have been around most certainly could not raise Rovers that one level and were real risks of dropping us down.

5) I doubt the Trustees resumed their funding of the club after a one year break with the intention of making a stonking great profit on this summer's transfer trading.

6) I believe the reality of this summer's transfer activity has had far more to do with the new management team's lack of experience and current knowledge of footballers at the top end of the Premier League than lack of ambition on the part of the club. I have heard it said more than once that the ultimate irony was the Chairman was more ambitious in his transfer wishes than the manager was this summer.

[Al]

SWP would not have moved to Ewood. I feel that the only reason he moved back to City was that it was his old club. He can't cross a ball and to me is better palying down the middle. the problems in signing a palyer of equal ability to Bents are:-

i. Small club with realtive small support

ii. Club not in Europe - this gave Bents the excuse to escape!

iii.Decent players [not good ones] demanding huge wages [Pennant £50k/week] and their clubs demanding even dafter money

iv. Not in London - helpful in signing foreigners apparently

v. Out of Bentley transfer fee, Ince was only get a percentage to spend. Club need a share to pay the bills as i've said before and Arsenal took their share

1. You are still on about equal ability. I said adequate.

2. We did not need to sell Bentley therefore the whole fee, less Arsenal, should have been availible for his replacement. If only a percentage was made availible that is the trustees being greedy again.

3. It is well known that we had money availible before Bents was sold.

4. We were in the top 7 last season. Teams below us have attracted players. We attracted the England goalkeeper. To say no players would be willing to sign for us is pure bullshit.

5. There was plenty of time and money availible but we tried to do it on the cheap. As per usual. That demonstrates our lack of ambition.

I just hope now that we can find at least a partial solution from within. Maybe Judge or Treacy or maybe even MGP. If so we will have been very lucky.

January could be too little, too late.