Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS, SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Brockhall training Complex-ACV Declined


Ozz

Recommended Posts

Posted

If I was a billionaire taking over and I regularly attended Ewood i'd rebuild the Riverside similar to the stand at PNE with 3 or 4k sears at the front and boxes, hotel or offices or something at the back. Move it closer to the pitch a bit, capacity would be cut down a bit but atmosphere would vastly improve, stand would be modern and multipurpose. Certainly wouldn't do it at expense of the football side of things of course.

Sadly the fools we have would rather waste money on building TV gantries they don't need and letting rest of ground go green with mould.

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

If I was a billionaire taking over and I regularly attended Ewood i'd rebuild the Riverside similar to the stand at PNE with 3 or 4k sears at the front and boxes, hotel or offices or something at the back. Move it closer to the pitch a bit, capacity would be cut down a bit but atmosphere would vastly improve, stand would be modern and multipurpose. Certainly wouldn't do it at expense of the football side of things of course.

Sadly the fools we have would rather waste money on building TV gantries they don't need and letting rest of ground go green with mould.

In the Boardroom there is a scale model of the Riverside and how they thought it could be re developed ..but never materialised

As for the ground capacity ..ive always thought it was too big . A capacity of around 24 thousand would have sufficed 

Posted

There is sufficient land that the club could use more productively. There is no reason why a hotel couldn' have been built in the past, there's one at Darwen services and another at the Fernhurst both built well after the ground redevelopment. I also think that more could be done to use the facilities outside of match days, for instance as a wedding venue.

Stuart, in answer to your point, I can't see Venkys fighting a renewal at Ewood, there' nothing in it for them, bar bad press and more fan unrest. Even with the ACV they can sell if they want, they just need to give notice and the opportunity for the Trust to bid if they do.

Posted
9 hours ago, Dunnfc said:

Highest premier league average last time there was 25k? I'd say that's an ideal ceiling. Agree on jacks thoughts Stuart and the never ending thoughts being dummed down. Hope your keeping well!

Ah but you're forgetting something. That average was achieved by several games where the attendance went well over 25000, notably Manure and Liverpool. With an upper limit of 25000, we would not get an average of 25000 ever again.

Personally I think 25000 capacity is too small for a Premier League club.

Posted
1 hour ago, meadows said:

There is a Hotel at Brockhall I think, Maybe Just outside Rovers’ complex, the Avenue, we had the reception there in 2003 after our wedding blessing ceremony. Think it’s still in operation  and available as a wedding venue 

Was a shop there in the complex too, My father-in-law & mother-in-law , Brockhall residents then, ran it but it wasn’t profitable & shut. 

I wouldn’t imagine The Avenue gets full very often so maybe no real need for another hotel so near. 

Nope. The Avenue shut a while ago. Its now an Italian called Osteria Sassi. 

Most people confused The Avenue with the Flats which where owned by Rovers. The young players staying in them used to say they where in the hotel (because it was treated like one by Rovers), when in actual fact they where in the flats. 

There is a new bar and hotel called The Venue, though. To answer the question, theres no need for a hotel. We don't have the same amount of young players anymore and rather than be put up in the flats (which used to be the case) the flats are now let out and the players stay with other players.

 

Here is some supporting imagery, in case anyone gives a damn.

 

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 11.56.45.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 11.56.04.png

Posted

I think the club probably missed a trick 10 years ago by not building a hotel within Ewood Park or on club property. Hindsight suggests there is a demand for hotels in the area as recently they have constructed new hotels at Guide, Town Centre and plans are afoot for a new one at Whitebirk to go with the ones at Darwen Services and the Fernhurst.

In the days of large away followings in the Premier League/Championship I'm sure owning a hotel business may have been a useful thing to have. Bolton seem to do very well out of theirs and for a club moaning about FFP rules non matchday income is important. Sadly in the 3rd tier with away followings of 200 and the club dropping it probably wouldn't be worthwhile at this stage given the increased competition in the area.

Posted
47 minutes ago, meadows said:

That’s bang up to date, I thought the original poster was saying a hotel for public/business/ leisure use could have been built. Of course there’s no need for a hotel for players although I believe Flitcroft used the facilities regularly. 

 

There isn't much need anymore -- but if we have aspirations as a Championship (or, whisper it, Premier League) club then having a hotel (or flats) on site is a massive selling point to academy age players. 

Its what got the Olsson's to sign and the reason Hoilett's Dad let him move over so young. City do it on a much larger scale now, providing private education and a home to anyone that joins their academy. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, J*B said:

There isn't much need anymore -- but if we have aspirations as a Championship (or, whisper it, Premier League) club then having a hotel (or flats) on site is a massive selling point to academy age players. 

Its what got the Olsson's to sign and the reason Hoilett's Dad let him move over so young. City do it on a much larger scale now, providing private education and a home to anyone that joins their academy. 

I thought it was part of the criteria of retaining category 1 academy status to provide education to young players?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I thought it was part of the criteria of retaining category 1 academy status to provide education to young players?

I *think* (don't quote me) its that you have to offer/provide them education (e.g. have lessons at the training ground plus the opportunity to go to school). Theres no specifics on quality of education. City offer a full private education until age 18 regardless of contract length (so if the child gets a 2 year contract at 13 and released at 15, they're still educated for free until 18).

Posted
1 hour ago, JHRover said:

I think the club probably missed a trick 10 years ago by not building a hotel within Ewood Park or on club property. Hindsight suggests there is a demand for hotels in the area as recently they have constructed new hotels at Guide, Town Centre and plans are afoot for a new one at Whitebirk to go with the ones at Darwen Services and the Fernhurst.

In the days of large away followings in the Premier League/Championship I'm sure owning a hotel business may have been a useful thing to have. Bolton seem to do very well out of theirs and for a club moaning about FFP rules non matchday income is important. Sadly in the 3rd tier with away followings of 200 and the club dropping it probably wouldn't be worthwhile at this stage given the increased competition in the area.

For supposedly successful business people it would be good to know how they have managed to get every single decision about Rovers so badly wrong. It’s a wonder they have any businesses left.

Posted
Just now, meadows said:

 Thought one Olsson joined us some time after his brother by which time he’d played dozens of games in the Swedish League and been capped? 

Not a fan of taking kids out of the family/education system at that early an age. For every Hoilett there must be 15 Sergio Peters whose dad I am sure was equally wowed by the facilities. 

Just reading Oliver Kay’s excellent book on Adrian Doherty, that and Lee McEvilly’s performance in the Cup replay this week not a great argument for stunting young people’s personal development and giving them too much too young. 

Part of the reason we signed Martin Olsson ahead of other Premier League teams (we had an agreement in place at age 16) was because we offered to give him free use of a home in the Ribble Valley. Without that he could have easily gone to another club - I know as a fact it played a massive role in the move to his parents. We signed Markus after him for the same reason we signed Julio Santa Cruz - although, on this occasion it worked and Markus ended up being a decent player. In fact the the Olsson twins repaid the club with over 5.5m in transfer fees. 

Its a lovely thought that clubs return to only offering professional terms at 16 - but unless the FA bring some rules in, it won't happen. You need to be picking the best players at 12/13 now and taking a gamble on them. There will be some that would have made if they had been signed at 16.

Posted
Just now, meadows said:

If you think they make football club management look difficult mate ask anybody who’s been In hotel management any length of time about what a merciless, cut-throat business that is! Maybe best out of that! 

So I've heard! 

But what if the new hotel owner immediately replaced the four posters with camp beds and the silver cutlery with plastic forks..seven years of s**t ...and counting. FOV!

Posted
10 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

So I've heard! 

But what if the new hotel owner immediately replaced the four posters with camp beds and the silver cutlery with plastic forks..seven years of s**t ...and counting. FOV!

Desai and Balaji  - Sybil and Basil , Venkatash - Manuel ? Wonder who could play the con man Lord Melbury?

Posted
40 minutes ago, meadows said:

Never a great admirer of either Olsson - two blokes who seemed to make a career out of little more than being able to run fast in a straight line 

We may have made a few bob on them but one has been a semi-regular in two poor PL sides, the other with a middling perennially disappointing Championship Side. Hardly Bill Eckersley and Graeme Le Saux. 

If they and Hoillett are an argument for anything, I’d take some convincing. 

 

Martin is a good footballer - he was instrumental in Swansea staying up. Regardless, 5.5m quid isn't to be sniffed at. A massive return for the club.  Financially, the Olsson's have done more for the club than Bill Eckersley and Greame Le Saux combined.

Posted
6 minutes ago, meadows said:

That would be an astonishing way of looking at it even if we hadn’t made almost £9m profit on Le Saux. 

I thought we bought Le Saux for 1m and sold him for 5m. Might be wrong, but I can see Dreams of 1995 is saying 5m too?

Posted
1 hour ago, meadows said:

Never a great admirer of either Olsson - two blokes who seemed to make a career out of little more than being able to run fast in a straight line 

We may have made a few bob on them but one has been a semi-regular in two poor PL sides, the other with a middling perennially disappointing Championship Side. Hardly Bill Eckersley and Graeme Le Saux. 

If they and Hoillett are an argument for anything, I’d take some convincing. 

 

There’s a signed Hoillett Rovers shirt in the reception area of my local indoor football arena here in Canada. I perhaps need to update them on his “progress” in recent years.

Posted

Don't think we even paid a million for Le Saux did we?

Thought it was a few hundred grand, remember him and Gallacher arriving on transfer deadline day in 1993.

First game after they arrived we hammered Liverpool 4-1 at Ewood, great day.

Posted
1 minute ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

There’s a signed Hoillett Rovers shirt in the reception area of my local indoor football arena here in Canada. I perhaps need to update them on his “progress” in recent years.

He's playing really well for Cardiff this year, who would have guessed Neil Warnock would get him firing! He's also financially set for life after his time at QPR. I wouldn't say he's a total failure!

Posted
9 minutes ago, meadows said:

Mike Jackman has it as £5m but perhaps there were add-ons as Le Saux won numerous trophies back in his initial years back at Chelsea. 

The Transfernarket site has the Olsdon’s Fres at £2.9m and £660,000 respectively. 

14E9CF05-CCBB-43EC-A2DE-2372653D7525.png

I'm half tempted to say transfermarket is wrong on this, although i've used it as reference previously myself. I know we got circa 4.5m for Martin Olsson and just under 1m for Marcus. 

If we sold Le Saux for 9.5m in 1997 that would have seen him be the most expensive defender in English football at that time. I'd like to think I would have known that, if it where true.

Posted
6 minutes ago, J*B said:

I'm half tempted to say transfermarket is wrong on this, although i've used it as reference previously myself. I know we got circa 4.5m for Martin Olsson and just under 1m for Marcus. 

If we sold Le Saux for 9.5m in 1997 that would have seen him be the most expensive defender in English football at that time. I'd like to think I would have known that, if it where true.

600 k for Marcus I think Jb

Posted
52 minutes ago, J*B said:

He's playing really well for Cardiff this year, who would have guessed Neil Warnock would get him firing! He's also financially set for life after his time at QPR. I wouldn't say he's a total failure!

Not exactly the stuff of signed shirts in glass cabinets on another continent. On that basis there ought to be a statue of Lucas Neill next to the Sydney Opera House.

I think when the shirt was first mounted, he was going to be a Premiership star and Canada’s Gareth Bale...

Posted
43 minutes ago, meadows said:

Can’t find a single source giving any more than £2-3m for Olsson. Where is £4.5m from? 

He told me. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.