[Archived] Deadline day 2017 (no unrelated chat)

[JBiz]

On 03/09/2017 at 12:05, Stuart said:

Interesting you think that, particularly people making their [anti-Venkys] feeling known during the match, because a lot of those who agree with most of your posts, would disagree very strongly indeed.

In fact, part of the reason for NAPM is the reaction of fellow fans to exactly that, I.e. blaming that for the team's failings in the pitch.

The reality is that things have gone very quiet indeed at Ewood. Except when we score a couple or concede a couple.

Again, there is no "group" of those who agree with my posts, there are only individuals who might agree on some things but disagree on others. For example - I don't really think negative chants or booing is a good idea in the ground, but I don't think anti venkys chants have the same impact as "we're so ****" or what booing does to performance. The protest actions in the ground I disagree with is anything that impacts the game, chickens etc - but I can fully understand why that happened. I can have my own view on that, and I can deal with others disagreeing.

I don't see how the "NAPM" decision can relate to being blamed for failings on the pitch? Yes, I know some fans who protested got stick from others, but how does that play into a decision not to "fund corruption"?

Ewood is quiet for obvious reasons. Despite two top ten finishes in the championship in the owners tenure, we've generally been treat to defeats and distress, the only way to bring confidence and noise back is winning.

3 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Yep. I find this embarrassing too. However, it's incredibly frustrating when you are discussing some of the happenings at the club only to be met with a wall of 'silence' if you will. How many times has there been a discussion on how the club operates just for somebody to retort 'anyway, back to...' and thus completely dismiss a valid point. 1. Ultimately whatever happens at this club will eventually result back to the owners and their advisers. It's an unfortunate turn of events that talk of our owners has become this toxic "us vs you" subject within our fan base.

2. A few examples of this come about both in this topic and the transfers thread. Most will agree that this window has been a success in terms of outgoings but in terms of incomings it hasn't been good. It's been acceptable but not good. Now, on the one hand you'll have the anti-Venkys posters chastising them and blaming them entirely for this. On the other you'll have the "anti anti-Venkys" who will say it has been nothing short of a success and big up every player we have brought in. Stuck in the middle are the posters that can see through both sides, stating that it hasn't been an unequivocal success relative to others' but, relative to our windows under Venkys, it has been. These portion of fans are ignored and unable to have a discussion without either having "NAPM" shoved down our throats or sarcastic, rather boring comments, about how we've once again brought Venkys into the discussion. As if we should conveniently forget we are owned by some of the worst owners in England and spend 100+ pages doing our best not to mention them which, as stated, is pretty much impossible because every decision comes back to their ownership.

We have no board member with the football knowledge like John Williams had to oversee player recruitment - Venkys fault.

We have no direct communication with owners to enable quick, efficient transfer dealings - Venkys fault.

We have had disastrous transfer windows in which we've recruited poorly, sold our best players and recruited awful coaching staff - board of directors fault, hired by Venkys.

Do you see where I am going? If we can't be allowed to mention their names without being attacked from both sides how can we have meaningful debate? Whenever I see a decent discussion brewing it's ruined by a handful of posters.

 

1. Everything that happens at the club stems from the owners, fantastic example would be the transfer window (since this is the deadline thread) - The owners can only decide figures, you've still go the scouting, the training and the negotiating below them - all important facets of a well run club that run in "isolation" to the owners (once budgets and staff are decided). The examples you gave are all perfectly legitimate concerns - the vacuous structure at the club has been an issues since DAY ONE! - its been discussed, it doesn't need to seep into everything. This transfer window didn't need to be about venkys, because they haven't done any of those things you are moaning about - selling best players, hiring poor coaches et al.

2. As for the second paragraph and the rest of the post, your view that this has been "acceptable window but not good" is completely down to your own opinion. My opinion differs, I actually think this has been a very productive window on both recruitment and keeping players we needed. I don't pass that off as "fact" (as your post does) its merely a view I have surmised from the evidence, examples and discussion had. Whilst I can understand other views (like JHR's) who thinks we should be spending more (apologies JHR, if I have you mixed up and misquoted) but I disagree with it in the scenario we are. Top spenders, wage payers and probably one of (if not) the biggest and best* squads in the division. Whilst that may not have take much cost compared to the quality drop between the two divisions (championship and league 1), we've still had a window that ticks the boxes imo - and I am sure others might agree or disagree. Looking at that period as a whole, and then instantly assuming the worst in January is still beyond my understanding!

You also use this paragraph to create sweeping groups (much like I moaned about other day) - there is nobody who believes;"it has been nothing short of a success and big up every player we have brought in", especially since we haven't EVEN SEEN SOME OF THE PLAY YET!! On top of that, you only mention those who are "opposite" to this as people who "blame" venkys for everything, as if this group (makes me cringe to stereotype people as such) are the only ones truly aware of what has or is going on. This is the kind of thing that creates a toxic discussion - you've just essentially painted a huge part of our fanbase people who "DON'T" blame venkys... hence KHOD's initial point being important, the hail hail, venky lover and apologists stuff is just repugnant.

I hold my hand up and admit, I cannot stand hearing about the owners in every aspect of the club, but thats not because of denial or not knowing who to blame, or having sympathy for the owners - its because I've had enough of letting them drag me down to be quite honest. It also gives a big fat excuse to everyone who is currently responsible for the club. Many of our under performing, over paid players down the years have obviously utilised this for a lack of effort or care.

An example that hopefully makes better sense of this; How many people are jumped on for suggesting we are "reliant" on the owners, or they are "funding" us or we are "in debt to them"? You can't make that point without getting peoples backs up, but its about as close to FACT as you can really get. Of course, that whole aspect relies on the mistakes they've made - for instance, if it wasn't for the sheer lunatic decision making in their early days, they would probably be able to run the club on TV money alone. It doesn't change the scenario we are in though, our turnover is subsidised by the ownership.

Its such a childish way to take it, being "allowed" to mention their names - nobody has suggested that. The point that I think you are missing is, we are ALL aware of what has happened at our once proud, well maintained and over achieving club - the difference is not everyone wants to spend their time cathartically ranting about everything that could potentially go wrong. Yea, maybe a few people come here to utilise the website in such a way, but what really "ruins discussion" is throwing fans into groups who are "anti venkys" or "anti anti venkys".

There is one group on this message board - Rovers fans. That is it. (oh and a few dingles, a baggie, and a Fulham fan)

 

[bazza]

Flipping heck Biz, have you ever thought of writing a sequel to War and Peace?

[JBiz]

Just now, bazza said:

Flipping heck Biz, have you ever thought of writing a sequel to War and Peace?

Ha, sorry. You have no idea how much I cut out. I suppose a Reddit TLDR should've been included

 

[Dreams of 1995]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

 

1. Everything that happens at the club stems from the owners, fantastic example would be the transfer window (since this is the deadline thread) - The owners can only decide figures, you've still go the scouting, the training and the negotiating below them - all important facets of a well run club that run in "isolation" to the owners (once budgets and staff are decided). The examples you gave are all perfectly legitimate concerns - the vacuous structure at the club has been an issues since DAY ONE! - its been discussed, it doesn't need to seep into everything. This transfer window didn't need to be about venkys, because they haven't done any of those things you are moaning about - selling best players, hiring poor coaches et al.

2. As for the second paragraph and the rest of the post, your view that this has been "acceptable window but not good" is completely down to your own opinion. My opinion differs, I actually think this has been a very productive window on both recruitment and keeping players we needed. I don't pass that off as "fact" (as your post does) its merely a view I have surmised from the evidence, examples and discussion had. Whilst I can understand other views (like JHR's) who thinks we should be spending more (apologies JHR, if I have you mixed up and misquoted) but I disagree with it in the scenario we are. Top spenders, wage payers and probably one of (if not) the biggest and best* squads in the division. Whilst that may not have take much cost compared to the quality drop between the two divisions (championship and league 1), we've still had a window that ticks the boxes imo - and I am sure others might agree or disagree. Looking at that period as a whole, and then instantly assuming the worst in January is still beyond my understanding!

You also use this paragraph to create sweeping groups (much like I moaned about other day) - there is nobody who believes;"it has been nothing short of a success and big up every player we have brought in", especially since we haven't EVEN SEEN SOME OF THE PLAY YET!! On top of that, you only mention those who are "opposite" to this as people who "blame" venkys for everything, as if this group (makes me cringe to stereotype people as such) are the only ones truly aware of what has or is going on. This is the kind of thing that creates a toxic discussion - you've just essentially painted a huge part of our fanbase people who "DON'T" blame venkys... hence KHOD's initial point being important, the hail hail, venky lover and apologists stuff is just repugnant.

I hold my hand up and admit, I cannot stand hearing about the owners in every aspect of the club, but thats not because of denial or not knowing who to blame, or having sympathy for the owners - its because I've had enough of letting them drag me down to be quite honest. It also gives a big fat excuse to everyone who is currently responsible for the club. Many of our under performing, over paid players down the years have obviously utilised this for a lack of effort or care.

An example that hopefully makes better sense of this; How many people are jumped on for suggesting we are "reliant" on the owners, or they are "funding" us or we are "in debt to them"? You can't make that point without getting peoples backs up, but its about as close to FACT as you can really get. Of course, that whole aspect relies on the mistakes they've made - for instance, if it wasn't for the sheer lunatic decision making in their early days, they would probably be able to run the club on TV money alone. It doesn't change the scenario we are in though, our turnover is subsidised by the ownership.

Its such a childish way to take it, being "allowed" to mention their names - nobody has suggested that. The point that I think you are missing is, we are ALL aware of what has happened at our once proud, well maintained and over achieving club - the difference is not everyone wants to spend their time cathartically ranting about everything that could potentially go wrong. Yea, maybe a few people come here to utilise the website in such a way, but what really "ruins discussion" is throwing fans into groups who are "anti venkys" or "anti anti venkys".

There is one group on this message board - Rovers fans. That is it. (oh and a few dingles, a baggie, and a Fulham fan)

 

The part in bold is wrong. Of course they have done those things. The Venkys have to sanction every transfer, in or out - or so we are told, so if they didn't do it then who did? Mike Cheston? And on what remit did he do those things? Likewise, the coaching staff has been cut and replaced with cheaper staff since they have come in. With each manager comes a different set of coaches - each new manager requires Venkys approval. How are they not responsible? In fact, how can you, in the same post, say our finances are dependant on them and say that transfer dealings aren't. They are intrinsically linked. They provide the funds so when we are reduced to signing dross like Ben Gladwin it eventually goes back to the Venkys to as why we are made to sign players like that  now.

The first point may have had merits if we had a board that ran in isolation of the owners. As it is we have a single board member. So, if we aren't to put the blame on his doorstep, who then do we put it on? We can't criticise our chairman.......because we don't have one. We can't blame Mike Cheston because he takes orders from Suhail. We can't blame Suhail because he is not officially an employee. Ultimately, the man we have at our helm is Balaji Rao. He makes the decisions, he decides who is sold, he decides who we buy and who we don't buy, he decides who gets hired & fired. So when a topic about transfers, or managers, is brought up eventually so will Balaji and with that so will the "Venkys" group. I'd hazard a guess that if you went on any other football fan forums when they discuss such topics their owners, or board of directors, gets brought up. Perhaps not as much but that's probably because they are, like you say, a well run club.

As for your second point let me put it to you this way:

- We have had more players leaving than joining.

- Within our replacements we have included: Whittingham, Gladwin and Antonsson. All 3 players are seeming to be incredibly poor signings, especially Gladwin.

- With our replacements we are still left with one of the smallest squad in League 1. Which kind of makes a mockery of your "biggest and best" remark. (https://www.transfermarkt.com/league-one/startseite/wettbewerb/GB3)

That, to me, isn't a success and wouldn't be considered a good window by any other clubs' standards. It is only considered a success by our own standards because they have been set so low by years of mismanagement. It's not been a failure but it's not been a success - it's been just enough to keep ambitions alive. What they have done is the minimum that has been expected of them.

As much as you want to create this myths that groups within our fan base don't exist - they do. It's so apparent on these boards. You are blind if you don't think it's true. What joins us together is we all support Rovers but what divides us is how we deal with the way the club is run. It was only last year we had the toxic response to the protests whereby a portion of the fan base labelled them as 'thugs' and said they feared 'to take their children' and the boycotters/protesters reacted as any man would at them accusations. That there proves the fan base is divided between those that vehemently despise Venkys to the point they can't justify supporting the club financially or with their presence and those that simply don't want to hear about it and just want to watch the team. I never claimed that those against Venkys are the only ones to understand what's going on at all - if you read my post with a reasoned head you'd see I was criticising both sides equally. One for turning everything into a rant on Venkys and one for ignoring perfectly reasonable rants on Venkys because they don't 'want to hear it anymore', whether it's because they don't care and only care for the football or because it's 'dragged them down' enough already. Stuck in the middle are the posters that want to talk about Blackburn Rovers, whether it's the positives or the negatives.

What really ruins discussion is by pretending the problems don't exist.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

The part in bold is wrong. Of course they have done those things. The Venkys have to sanction every transfer, in or out - or so we are told, so if they didn't do it then who did? Mike Cheston? And on what remit did he do those things? Likewise, the coaching staff has been cut and replaced with cheaper staff since they have come in. With each manager comes a different set of coaches - each new manager requires Venkys approval. How are they not responsible? In fact, how can you, in the same post, say our finances are dependant on them and say that transfer dealings aren't. They are intrinsically linked. They provide the funds so when we are reduced to signing dross like Ben Gladwin it eventually goes back to the Venkys to as why we are made to sign players like that  now.

The first point may have had merits if we had a board that ran in isolation of the owners. As it is we have a single board member. So, if we aren't to put the blame on his doorstep, who then do we put it on? We can't criticise our chairman.......because we don't have one. We can't blame Mike Cheston because he takes orders from Suhail. We can't blame Suhail because he is not officially an employee. Ultimately, the man we have at our helm is Balaji Rao. He makes the decisions, he decides who is sold, he decides who we buy and who we don't buy, he decides who gets hired & fired. So when a topic about transfers, or managers, is brought up eventually so will Balaji and with that so will the "Venkys" group. I'd hazard a guess that if you went on any other football fan forums when they discuss such topics their owners, or board of directors, gets brought up. Perhaps not as much but that's probably because they are, like you say, a well run club.

As for your second point let me put it to you this way:

- We have had more players leaving than joining.

- Within our replacements we have included: Whittingham, Gladwin and Antonsson. All 3 players are seeming to be incredibly poor signings, especially Gladwin.

- With our replacements we are still left with the smallest squad in League 1. Which kind of makes a mockery of your "biggest and best" remark. (https://www.transfermarkt.com/league-one/startseite/wettbewerb/GB3)

That, to me, isn't a success and wouldn't be considered a good window by any other clubs' standards. It is only considered a success by our own standards because they have been set so low by years of mismanagement. It's not been a failure but it's not been a success - it's been just enough to keep ambitions alive. What they have done is the minimum that has been expected of them.

As much as you want to create this myths that groups within our fan base don't exist - they do. It's so apparent on these boards. You are blind if you don't think it's true. What joins us together is we all support Rovers but what divides us is how we deal with the way the club is run. It was only last year we had the toxic response to the protests whereby a portion of the fan base labelled them as 'thugs' and said they feared 'to take their children' and the boycotters/protesters reacted as any man would at them accusations. That there proves the fan base is divided between those that vehemently despise Venkys to the point they can't justify supporting the club financially or with their presence and those that simply don't want to hear about it and just want to watch the team. I never claimed that those against Venkys are the only ones to understand what's going on at all - if you read my post with a reasoned head you'd see I was criticising both sides equally. One for turning everything into a rant on Venkys and one for ignoring perfectly reasonable rants on Venkys because they don't 'want to hear it anymore', whether it's because they don't care and only care for the football or because it's 'dragged them down' enough already. Stuck in the middle are the posters that want to talk about Blackburn, whether it's the positives or the negatives.

What really ruins discussion is by pretending the problems don't exist.

 

Keeping it as brief as possible, here is a few issues I have that would probably point out the difference in opinions;

1. The bold parts are opinions formed on the face of a month, and whilst I know some football fans who think they know the score on players, I am not one of those to jump to conclusion. I couldn't write off any of those players at this point, I will leave the analogies and countless examples of other players we and other teams have had who may not have started at the top of their game, to someone else. These parts also completely ignore the u23 setup we currently have comparable to other teams at this level, regardless of what transfer market . com says. Not to mention facilities, actual wage budget, top earners etc etc.

2. The italic parts are generally just examples of things that I, and many of us are completely aware of. When I am surmising that the transfer window has been overall; a surprise in my eyes comparatively to what I was expecting - I already know we have a vacuous structure when I have that view, aka I already know the show is run the way it is. Thats not saying "lets move on" is it? I know you didn't coin that, but the point remains.

As for the "we can't blame.." stuff - who said that? Blame who you want, I know who I blame for the demise overall but is that relevant to loaning a centre half  from MK dons? Finally; You mention the previous post about criticising both sides, but again - the "toxic response to protests" ... from who? Surely if you had an open mind, or an unbiased view, (aka a reasoned head?) it wouldn't be written as such? Followed up by soundly 1 side of the story - aka those accused of being "thugs" (by who exactly?). Followed by justification for their reaction to the comments? What was their reaction?

Problems will continue to exist within our fanbase when the club is in the position it is. Bickering, infighting and difference opinion will rise to the surface more when times are hard. One thing that might help us on BRFCS though, (and the wider world for that matter) is stopping the use of labels. I'm not blind to that.

 

[AggyBlue]

Can't wait for Saturday. Where's the match thread?

[Stuart]

Some good debate there though. Disagreeing but in a civilised way!

To be fair, international breaks always lead back to the internalised issues.

[TBTF]

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 21:02, USABlue said:

Not sure how I counter argue your opinion.  Seems to me like a lot of similar was said abiut this season after our relegation.  Lot of doom and gloom and all the best players leaving.  They haven't.  I have no idea how next season shapes up if we don't go up and I just don't see how anyone else can either.  Nothing personal mate I just don't get the view, I hope you don't live your non Rovers life with that mind set.

Up to you and maybe you don't get the permanent vibe around the Town from where you are geographically. But the net spend gets less each year, costs are getting cut and by definition the value of the assets/playing squad is getting worse. As it stands we are still paying way more than any other league one club for our playing squad and with income flat lining it cant really carry on much beyond the short term ie this season. If it does , my opinion and that of many local fans is that if we don't get up this year then we will lose our best players , in fact will probably have to. The silver lining  might be that the Venkys chuck the towel in at that point rather than keep funding a dead duck that they have no interest in. hence the win/win.

It isn't doom mongering -its reality fella. But I think most would take another season or two in League one if it meant these morons leaving. If you see it differently I have no problem with that. Its what this MB is about. 

[islander200]

Mulgrew injured 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, islander200 said:

Mulgrew injured 

could you be less specific?

[islander200]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

could you be less specific?

Not watching just seen online he picked up an injury for Scotland.Turned his ankle and went off,Hanley replaces him

[blueboy3333]

Just now, islander200 said:

Not watching just seen online he picked up an injury for Scotland

Lenihan and Mulgrew ferked. The disaster Tony 'I need 48 midfielders' Mowbray failed to plan for.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Lenihan and Mulgrew ferked. The disaster Tony 'I need 48 midfielders' Mowbray failed to plan for.

 

Still got Ward, Downing and Wharton + Dez is hopefully a better CB. It's not an excuse but it's a bit of a blow! 

[islander200]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Lenihan and Mulgrew ferked. The disaster Tony 'I need 48 midfielders' Mowbray failed to plan for.

 

Maybe that Harper boy will follow in the footsteps of his footballing twin Yaya Toure and play centre half

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Biz said:

Still got Ward, Downing and Wharton + Dez is hopefully a better CB. It's not an excuse but it's a bit of a blow! 

That's the problem

I hope one of them is good at free-kicks

[JBiz]

Charlie's a cut above but there's still enough to more than compete! Is the one we really need to wrap in cotton wool though.

[the original david brent]

The failure to sign a good centre half will now come back to haunt. The club must have known that Lenihan was badly injured - he has been out for 3 weeks and yet his broken foot was only announced at the weekend. Or we now have a 2nd rate medical team who failed to diagnose it?

As much as I think Mulgrew is brilliant he has been injury prone for the last 6 years and TM should have been acutely aware of this. Indeed I speculate his poor track injury record is why no big team came in for him. His injury tonight looks bad.

So in knowledge of the above TM should have priortised a first choice centre half. Instead we are left with Elliott Ward, an unused sub from MK, and a rookie in Scott Wharton. 

This could have a real adverse impact on our promotion bid.

[G Somerset Rover]

A blind man on a galloping horse could have predicted this. The MK lad better be a good'un.

[Stuart]

Foot injury does not sound good.

 

[Hasta]

17 minutes ago, Biz said:

 + Dez is hopefully a better CB. 

Desperado

[AAK]

Suspected broken foot for Mulgrew.

[arbitro]

11 minutes ago, david brent said:

The failure to sign a good centre half will now come back to haunt. The club must have known that Lenihan was badly injured - he has been out for 3 weeks and yet his broken foot was only announced at the weekend. Or we now have a 2nd rate medical team who failed to diagnose it?

As much as I think Mulgrew is brilliant he has been injury prone for the last 6 years and TM should have been acutely aware of this. Indeed I speculate his poor track injury record is why no big team came in for him. His injury tonight looks bad.

So in knowledge of the above TM should have priortised a first choice centre half. Instead we are left with Elliott Ward, an unused sub from MK, and a rookie in Scott Wharton. 

This could have a real adverse impact on our promotion bid.

Totally agree. We are exceptionally weak and vulnerable in the centre back department. Mowbrays inability to address this properly could really come back and bite us on the arse.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, AAK said:

Suspected broken foot for Mulgrew.

source?

[Cherry Blue]

I've seen it again. Another team mate (Brown) accidently falls onto back of Charlie's leg, towards ankle area. Trainer come on and he is rubbing top of his foot.

Really unlucky.

[arbitro]

9 minutes ago, AAK said:

Suspected broken foot for Mulgrew.

That was quick. It took our lot a month to diagnose a similar injury to Lenihan