[Archived] Deadline day 2017 (no unrelated chat)

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

 

It's not horses mouth is it? Show me the interview or article that has these quotes? Besides he was loaned out last season to get experience. I'm not defending Coyle for a second, and I like Wharton - but I don't just buy "what my mate who knows him said".

 

I'd say Scott Wharton saying it is the horses mouth. His dad has also been quoted as saying this when at a Blackburn youth game before. Why would he have a reason to lie?

Besides, I'd say all the stories of them two saying it and the sudden exclusion of him from the squad despite a couple of very good games for us, is evidence enough to suggest it is true. We had no defenders and a perfectly capable player sat there only to get 'loaned out for experience'. He's failedto make another appearance since. Even until now he hasn't appeared on the bench.

[Parsonblue]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

By who and where? You do realise "Tomphils top ITK tips" isn't a real thing? 

It is a fact Biz.  You may opt to believe it or not, that's a different matter, but it's the reason he went out on loan as he wasn't going to get time on the pitch here at that point in time.

[LDRover]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

 

It's not horses mouth is it? Show me the interview or article that has these quotes? Besides he was loaned out last season to get experience. I'm not defending Coyle for a second, and I like Wharton - but I don't just buy "what my mate who knows him said".

 

So, for you to believe it, Scott Wharton has to come out and say it in the media? That'd work well for him wouldn't it?

You know sometimes reading between the lines and giving credibility to the odd rumour, especially at a club run the way ours has for the last 7 years, does join the dots for you.

[Manchester Blue]

26 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'd say Scott Wharton saying it is the horses mouth. His dad has also been quoted as saying this when at a Blackburn youth game before. Why would he have a reason to lie?

Besides, I'd say all the stories of them two saying it and the sudden exclusion of him from the squad despite a couple of very good games for us, is evidence enough to suggest it is true. We had no defenders and a perfectly capable player sat there only to get 'loaned out for experience'. He's failedto make another appearance since. Even until now he hasn't appeared on the bench.

It's obviously logical and fits in with some other players that have left the club.  However I struggle to see the sense in it given the club have given contracts to other players, paid out fee's and salary for a whole host of players this window as well.  Therefore if he was really as good as suggested why wouldn't the club want to tie him to a contract and play him?  I presume the clause wouldn't put him on silly money and he clearly will have to be replaced?  I do sometimes think people have a tendency to let the theory fit the facts at times.

I should add I'm fully aware little of what our owners do makes sense, but there has been a fair bit of money spent this summer so on this occasion I'm bemused.

[JBiz]

24 minutes ago, LDRover said:

So, for you to believe it, Scott Wharton has to come out and say it in the media? That'd work well for him wouldn't it?

You know sometimes reading between the lines and giving credibility to the odd rumour, especially at a club run the way ours has for the last 7 years, does join the dots for you.

Yea, but rather than just utilising the notion that 3 managers in a row "don't fancy a player" in their team for some reason, we'd rather go off some (more than likely cock and bull) story that he's in a "venky scenario" of getting a ridiculous contract if he plays again...

Can preach till the cows come home about this being from his mouth, but I don't buy the rumours in full without substance.

[JBiz]

27 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

It is a fact Biz.  You may opt to believe it or not, that's a different matter, but it's the reason he went out on loan as he wasn't going to get time on the pitch here at that point in time.

Not getting game on the pitch = has a contract clause that punishes the club? That equation seems suspect to me PB. Is it not more likely that he's just not quite ready or up to it? And thus would likely lie to his close friends o hide this fact? 

[JBiz]

36 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

 Why would he have a reason to lie?

Because I've met plenty of "professionals" in absolute denial about their own qualities tbh, and I've never or never will buy into pub rumour games. 

[Dreams of 1995]

11 minutes ago, Biz said:

Because I've met plenty of "professionals" in absolute denial about their own qualities tbh, and I've never or never will buy into pub rumour games. 

I'd say it's more than a pub rumour when literally anyone with any links to the club says it is true. Hardly a "my mates cousin built a wall for the brother Scott Wharton's cousins girlfriend" is it? Him and his dad have all said one more game = a pay rise and that the club are wary of giving him it. More than likely it may include an extension in the contract too. I doubt he's in denial about his own qualities. He's played 11 snr games, he hardly expects to be a starter and by the accounts of those close to the club he's a humble young lad too.

If anything I'd say you are the one in denial. You strike me as the kind of guy that would argue black is blue if certain people said otherwise.

Psst, it was Coyle who gave him his debut. He hasn't gone through "3 managers in a row" - under Lambert he was a youth player and we had centre halves that were established. He was never going to get a whiff. When they went and injuries hit us the club went out of their way to play anyone before him before eventually getting rid of him. He went through 1 manager in Coyle and after coming back to Rovers in the summer he's been injured, supposedly. Time will tell if Mowbray gives him a game this season or he's shipped off back out for "experience" whilst we take on 17 year old lads and some journeyman from MK Dons on loan.

[islander200]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The difference between Mulgrew and Bennett is that the injuries notwithstanding the former has performed admirably in a Blackburn Rovers shirt and the latter hasn't.

The point I was making was you where suggesting that because Feeney and Steele got moves to the Championship but Bennett didn't, that it reflected on how much of a poor player Bennett is.That's why I brought Mulgrew into the conversation as he also didn't get a move to the Championship. 

[JBiz]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'd say it's more than a pub rumour when literally anyone with any links to the club says it is true. Hardly a "my mates cousin built a wall for the brother Scott Wharton's cousins girlfriend" is it? Him and his dad have all said one more game = a pay rise and that the club are wary of giving him it. More than likely it may include an extension in the contract too. I doubt he's in denial about his own qualities. He's played 11 snr games, he hardly expects to be a starter and by the accounts of those close to the club he's a humble young lad too.

If anything I'd say you are the one in denial. You strike me as the kind of guy that would argue black is blue if certain people said otherwise.

Psst, it was Coyle who gave him his debut. He hasn't gone through "3 managers in a row" - under Lambert he was a youth player and we had centre halves that were established. He was never going to get a whiff. When they went and injuries hit us the club went out of their way to play anyone before him before eventually getting rid of him. He went through 1 manager in Coyle and after coming back to Rovers in the summer he's been injured, supposedly. Time will tell if Mowbray gives him a game this season or he's shipped off back out for "experience" whilst we take on 17 year old lads and some journeyman from MK Dons on loan.

If we are going down the personal route, you strike me as the kind of fan who would criticise the current manager for sticking with Wharton if he didn't cut it, but also call signing actual league experience instead of utilising him "some journeymen".

On reflection of that, you'll understand why I might question or be critical of content you one or two others might create. Notice I don't "argue black if it was blue" (or as anyone else calls it; discussing your own opinion without the need to feel like it should be an echo) with the more "non-reactive" posters or those who enjoy a bit of substance in their chatter. I'm not naming names, because that would be embarrassing but it tends to be about 90% of the MB these days.

[Mike E]

2 hours ago, rovers11 said:

Delighted with the transfer window dealings overall. We didn't lose anyone of significance and we've added some real quality - we are stronger than last season. 

Deadline day was underwhelming. I think Harper will be top class and I think the guy from Liverpool has potential, but I can't see any positives in the defender from MK Dons. Never heard of him but if he can't get into a poor MK Dons team then I can't see him doing much here. He'll be 5th choice though. 

Samba couldn't get into Hertha Berlin's reserve team (aged 23) when we signed him!

[islander200]

Mowbray said in the let only two weeks ago that Wharton had been struggling with an ankle injury and said when he is fit will take a look at him and see if he is ready to play with the senior group this season.So Mowbray is lying to the fans aswell now?

[Mercer]

5 hours ago, Eddie said:

Shocker. You're telling me that a player going to league 1 is nowhere near Liverpool's first team squad? 

I was thinking we might get Coutinho...

Yet we are able to sign Harper from WBA who was clearly in and around their 1st team squad and made his PL debut this season.

Your argument is just facetious.

[RV Blue]

Scott Wharton is injured and has been since mid pre-season. His injury proneness could quite easily ruin his career, which would be a massive shame as he's very talented.

[Dreams of 1995]

30 minutes ago, Biz said:

If we are going down the personal route, you strike me as the kind of fan who would criticise the current manager for sticking with Wharton if he didn't cut it, but also call signing actual league experience instead of utilising him "some journeymen".

On reflection of that, you'll understand why I might question or be critical of content you one or two others might create. Notice I don't "argue black if it was blue" (or as anyone else calls it; discussing your own opinion without the need to feel like it should be an echo) with the more "non-reactive" posters or those who enjoy a bit of substance in their chatter. I'm not naming names, because that would be embarrassing but it tends to be about 90% of the MB these days.

Hard to find any substance to that. You have based that on what exactly?

Before you ask me what I based my perception of you on, I've based it on the fact you're still denying something that has been confirmed by dozens of people with inside knowledge of Rovers as 'pub chatter' for whatever reason. Part of that reason must be that you refuse to accept something certain posters say is true, evidenced by your original jibe at tomphil. Weird.

If Wharton was given a chance, failed to perform and wasn't dropped I would criticise him. However, he was given a chance, DID perform and was then dropped for a sub-standard defence which ultimately got us relegated. All because of a clause in his contract. In response to my criticism of the Downing signing he is, by the accounts of fans who have seen him play, a below-average player and is quite clearly a last minute panic signing. We did need cover there so for that reason you can't exactly criticise TM too much.

I didn't choose to create the content. It came from Scott Wharton himself.

25 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Mowbray said in the let only two weeks ago that Wharton had been struggling with an ankle injury and said when he is fit will take a look at him and see if he is ready to play with the senior group this season.So Mowbray is lying to the fans aswell now?

Maybe. Hopefully TM does play him. However, the original argument is that he was shipped out on loan under Coyle because someone at the club didn't want his contractual obligation of a pay rise to be met should he play another game. That is a fact. I sincerely hope Mowbray has permission to play him now.

[Mercer]

Signing Harper is a real coup but would be unfair to expect too much of a 17 year old kid thrown into the hurly burly of Div 1.

Sadly, I think Hart and Downing will fall into the Caddis, Whittingham, Antonnson, and Gladwin category.

Smallwood, Chapman and Samuel look good acquisitions.

Jury out on Dack.

At this stage, looks like four good pieces of business, six waste of spaces and jury still out on one.

The big regret is the Motherwell lad who seems to have real potential.  Arguing over 'chicken s h I t' seems to have cost us a real prospect.

Mowbray has had a free hand and kept our key men.  There can be no excuses.  We have to progress up the league quickly.  If after 10 matches, it's not happening, he has to go.

[JBiz]

10 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Hard to find any substance to that. You have based that on what entirely?

Before you ask me, I've based it on the fact you're still denying something that has been confirmed by dozens of people with inside knowledge of Rovers as 'pub chatter' for whatever reason. Part of that reason must be that you refuse to accept something certain posters say is true, evidenced by your original jibe at tomphil. Weird.

If Wharton was given a chance, failed to perform and wasn't dropped I would criticise him. However, he was given a chance, DID perform and was then dropped for a sub-standard defence which ultimately got us relegated. All because of a clause in his contract. In response to my criticism of the Downing signing he is, by the accounts of fans who have seen him play, a below-average player and is quite clearly a last minute panic signing. We did need cover there so for that reason you can't exactly criticise TM too much.

I didn't choose to create the content. It came from Scott Wharton himself.

Maybe. Hopefully TM does play him. However, the original argument is that he was shipped out on loan under Coyle because someone at the club didn't want his contractual obligation of a pay rise to be met should he play another game. That is a fact. I sincerely hope Mowbray has permission to play him now.

Whether it came from Wharton, his friends, his family or his agent (aka one side)- the story could have several points of view.

Merely accepting the "it's his contract" through no official or even remotely journalistic element, which might or might not be even his words, is not something I've ever done.

The reason for that? Not because I "refuse to accept" what "in the know" fans say, but because I make my own assertions based on experience and multiple sources, with an open mind. Not willing to cling to the next all encompassing scandal that explains why Venkys are flat earthing global warming deniers. 

Blindly accepting "oh he's dropped, one game from a raise" is just the kind of sheepish, banal crap that I personally wouldn't stoop to get involved in moaning about. 

As I stated previously, when I've seen some actual "Salgado" like proof, evidence or discussion that suggests "Wharton is dropped and moved on as his contract obligation states...", I will apologise to you for having the audacity to question perceived message board "facts".

 

[Parsonblue]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

Not getting game on the pitch = has a contract clause that punishes the club? That equation seems suspect to me PB. Is it not more likely that he's just not quite ready or up to it? And thus would likely lie to his close friends o hide this fact? 

I believe it was all connected to a contract issue last season.  This season he seems to be dogged by bad luck with regard to injuries.

[frosty]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

 Not willing to cling to the next all encompassing scandal that explains why Venkys are flat earthing global warming deniers. 

 

Nobody ever mentioned Venky's or it being a scandal, I was just saying that it probably isn't a good idea to count him as one of our centre backs, given it's pretty unlikely he'll actually play. 

 

3 hours ago, RoverCanada said:

So Wharton hasn't been injured? Mowbray's been saying as such for awhile.

 

It was more of a general comment re. his contract clause, I'm sure he genuinely is injured now.

[JAL]

55 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

Scott Wharton is injured and has been since mid pre-season. His injury proneness could quite easily ruin his career, which would be a massive shame as he's very talented.

Scott's younger brother of several years has the potential to be even better than him at football.

[Dreams of 1995]

24 minutes ago, Biz said:

Whether it came from Wharton, his friends, his family or his agent (aka one side)- the story could have several points of view.

Merely accepting the "it's his contract" through no official or even remotely journalistic element, which might or might not be even his words, is not something I've ever done.

The reason for that? Not because I "refuse to accept" what "in the know" fans say, but because I make my own assertions based on experience and multiple sources, with an open mind. Not willing to cling to the next all encompassing scandal that explains why Venkys are flat earthing global warming deniers. 

Blindly accepting "oh he's dropped, one game from a raise" is just the kind of sheepish, banal crap that I personally wouldn't stoop to get involved in moaning about. 

As I stated previously, when I've seen some actual "Salgado" like proof, evidence or discussion that suggests "Wharton is dropped and moved on as his contract obligation states...", I will apologise to you for having the audacity to question perceived message board "facts".

 

You are right that it could have several points of view. They may not have played him because they didn't deem him worthy of the pay rise offer, they may not have played him because they couldn't afford his pay rise or they may not have played him because Balaji himself rang up and ordered it. However, the simple fact, with all reasoning left unknown, is that Scott Wharton didn't make another appearance last season because of contractual obligations that someone at the club, for whatever reason, didn't want to be met.

I fear that this is what elements of our support has come to in that it they either blindly accept any theory coming out of the club because of their hatred of Venkys or, in your case, because of your feelings towards them 'theorists', blindly reject any information from the club as "banal crap" regardless of its merits. Whilst a lot of stories are dubious to say the least this really isn't a remarkable story - plenty of players in the past have been denied further appearances by clubs due to silly pay rise obligations.

I'm glad you are above all that. So, by your earlier quote asking for articles, you'd only believe something published in the media. I'd call that sheepish behaviour. How many things in the past 7 years have come out in the media, quoted by Rovers' employees, that we all know was utter lies? Coyle was the outstanding candidate weren't he 

Proof, evidence or discussion. I'd say we are having a discussion about it now in which everybody, except yourself, is telling you that it is true. Certainly, it is common knowledge amongst Rovers' fan base that Wharton, for whatever reason, wasn't played last year because of that contract obligation. I'm guessing you'd require his contract leaked and scanned onto here to believe it.

Out of interest, do you believe that Sasha is a paid member of staff at the club? https://www.rovers.co.uk/club/whos-who/ this says not but Cheston says yes. Which do you believe? The documented who's who at Blackburn or the say so of the director of the club? 

 

 

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 hours ago, frosty said:

I don't think we'll be seeing Wharton for a while. It was revealed earlier this year that his next league appearance triggers a pay rise - and I'm pretty certain he hasn't played since. 

And when he does play, what will you say then? Because he will play at some stage this season. 

It's funny these stories people have, oh Wharton gets a payrise if he plays, so that's why he hasn't. So how much will he get? Millions? Hardly. I am very sure the reason he hasn't played is nothing to do with him getting  payrise when he plays. It is a ludicrous suggestion after the money spent on players this window. 

So to my original point, is 6 centre halves not enough? 

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 hours ago, lraC said:

I rate Mulgrew so fair enough, Gallagher was a loan and although he did well, we went down and he obviously is no longer here. Offset either of those with the money spent on Stokes and how he was signed, despite what was hanging over him. Why was that ever allowed to happen and who made that decision?

Coyle made it, some transfers work out, some don't. That's life and that is football. No conspiracy. 

Better managers either get more right or motivate those they get in. Usually a combination of both. Coyle failed there. However he did get some transfers right. Our best player and captain being the main one. 

[frosty]

30 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

And when he does play, what will you say then? Because he will play at some stage this season. 

 

Congratulations to him on the pay rise 

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 minutes ago, frosty said:

Congratulations to him on the pay rise 

Ha ha