Supporters Consultation Meeting - Thursday 21st June

[mhead]

A 'stretch' target for STs would probably be 12,000 ,,,,,,,,,so 81% of that is approx. 9,700 ?

[Tom]

Just now, Biz said:

Maybe he just wants to move on? I mean, why is everything some sort of conspiracy or problem?

I think it’s quite possible, Mowbray mentioned he didn’t feel the hours put in were worth the reward and satisfaction of being an assistant under 23 manager 

[Oldgregg86]

6 hours ago, tomphil said:

It was bought as a marketing tool, vanity project and money pit to be run by their shadow business partners it really is that simple.

After that it became partly by default an accounting tool, this is where the money pit bit comes into it still, crunching numbers and profits from elsewhere i'm sure a large part of football ownership is for this reason, with an outside chance of being a global marketing tool again in the future and maybe even paying for itself.

I think the vanity quickly went out the window but as to the partners that's still anyone's guess if or what their involvement might still be but they were in it up to the eyeballs from the off there is zero doubt about that.

That's why they bought into it and that's why they hang around, to sell it would be like Brexit because there'd be that much to unfold and an awful lot write off whilst it still does actually serve a handy purpose.

All imo of course but it's not to difficult to see it when you stand back and look at everything.

 

Completely agree

[JBiz]

29 minutes ago, Tom said:

I think it’s quite possible, Mowbray mentioned he didn’t feel the hours put in were worth the reward and satisfaction of being an assistant under 23 manager 

If he has ambition then it’s a logical step if DJ ain’t going anywhere.

[chaddyrovers]

Here the BBC lancashire coverage

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06837kv#play

[JAL]

On 22/06/2018 at 09:20, Madon said:

Mowbray said he has other business interests outside of football.  I know he's heavily involved with Gary Flitcrofts company,  Flitcraft, so I'd imagine that may be a factor as to why he's chose to leave. 

So Mowbray isn't fully committed ?

[JAL]

On 22/06/2018 at 17:33, Tom said:

I think it’s quite possible, Mowbray mentioned he didn’t feel the hours put in were worth the reward and satisfaction of being an assistant under 23 manager 

Ok but why isn't there somebody else on the same money in his place for the coming season ?

[Mike E]

Just now, JAL said:

So Mowbray isn't fully committed ?

Mowbray was talking about Dunn.

[arbitro]

Just now, Mike E said:

Mowbray was talking about Dunn.

I suspect he knew that Mike.

[Mike E]

He gets me biting, dunno why I bother.

[chaddyrovers]

34 minutes ago, JAL said:

So Mowbray isn't fully committed ?

He was talking about Dunn as you well know Jal. Stop stirring the pot

[Vinjay]

Maybe it was the most subtle way of highlighting Dunn without outright mentioning him. You're not allowed to criticise Dunn even when it's pretty evident that he felt the role was somehow beneath him. Mowbray's pretty much said so. Even if you think Dunn deserved the role don't see how anyone could argue it was somehow "beneath him".

Edited June 23, 2018 by Vinjay17

[Mike E]

At what point has anyone who wasn't you suggested it was beneath him?

Most seem to be saying he's either doing something else away from football, or trying his hand at management further down the leagues.

[Tom]

9 hours ago, Mike E said:

At what point has anyone who wasn't you suggested it was beneath him?

Most seem to be saying he's either doing something else away from football, or trying his hand at management further down the leagues.

I did think there was a slight hint at that, remember Dunn had a stint as a manager a few years back then was in our first team coaching squad and then assistant to the under 23s manager, he’s potentially gone the wrong way here.

 

Thought for a while This may happen as his Twitter seemed to focus a fair bit on the building company.

Good luck to him either way.

[Mike E]

Fair enough. As you say good luck to him

[Vinjay]

The wrong way because he got fired and his spell as first team coach was a stopgap until Venus arrived.

So it's "fair enough" to suggest Dunn felt that way as long as it's not me saying it? He won't need luck anyway will he if he's as clever as he thinks he is?

Edited June 24, 2018 by Vinjay17

[Mike E]

Just now, Vinjay17 said:

The wrong way because he got fired and his spell as first team coach was a stopgap until Venus arrived.

So it's "fair enough" to suggest Dunn felt that way as long as it's not me saying it? He won't need luck anyway will he if he's as clever as he thinks he is?

Nothing to do with who says it mate. Tom just gave a bit more explanation as to why and it made a bit more sense to me.

Tbh my 'Fair enough.' was much more in disagreement than agreement

Personally, whether he thinks it's beneath him or not doesn't really matter. Fact is he's been part of a good thing for Rovers yet again. If he wants to test himself in other ways, fine by me.

[JAL]

20 hours ago, Mike E said:

He gets me biting, dunno why I bother.

Don't bother but cheers anyway I, misread his comment.

[JHRover]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16311147.Maintenance_work_at_Ewood_Park_is_on_Rovers__agenda/#comments-anchor

Lots of talk here but very little actual detail or confirmation of what is going to be done and when.

The club seem very quick to remind people of the need and costs of maintaining the stadium and training ground.

As far as I'm concerned the only part of Ewood 'showing signs of age' is the Riverside stand, which will need significant improvement in the not too distant future just to bring it up to Championship standard. The supporting pillars, lack of a concourse, lack of office/internal space to generate funds from and lack of rain cover for the first 10 rows need to be addressed. The remainder of the ground isn't 'showing signs of age' as it remains modern by any standard but is showing signs of a lack of investment, poor maintenance and neglect following a period during which very little has been done on the stadium.

Its nothing that a good clean and some tlc wouldn't sort out but when you've got a regime wanting to get by on the bare minimum you end up with things looking tatty and dirty.

I think the Telegraph have completely misinterpreted Waggott's comments in this article. From my recollection of Waggott's comments he wasn't suggesting that Ewood was unsafe or that the safety certificate on the stadium was an issue. He did say his priority was safety and ensuring people came to the game and went home safely, but no suggestion that the stadium itself was a potential risk.

[tomphil]

"If we could get land where we could integrate the two"

Quite sprang out....

Edited June 25, 2018 by tomphil

[Mattyblue]

48 minutes ago, JHRover said:

 

Its nothing that a good clean and some tlc wouldn't sort out but when you've got a regime wanting to get by on the bare minimum you end up with things looking tatty and dirty.

 

I used to go to the gym built into the away end at PNE, what I noticed was how there was always folk touching up the ground - jet washing, painting etc.

Just regular, low level maintenance that doesn’t cost much in the grand scheme of things, but the state of Ewood shows you they haven’t even bothered with that for years.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Mattyblue

[tomphil]

No doubt it's partly been an easy target for the cost cutting but also when you have no real directors or ones that don't really give a toss outside of gathering their wage and doing things which may keep them in favour with the overloads, like minute cost cuttings, it's no wonder the place needs a good scrub on the outside.

Not sure it would've ranked very highly on the PNE mans to do list when he was here either.

Thankfully this fella Waggot clearly wants to take the bull by the horns and has the relevant experience to do so.

[Vinjay]

6 hours ago, JHRover said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16311147.Maintenance_work_at_Ewood_Park_is_on_Rovers__agenda/#comments-anchor

Lots of talk here but very little actual detail or confirmation of what is going to be done and when.

The club seem very quick to remind people of the need and costs of maintaining the stadium and training ground.

As far as I'm concerned the only part of Ewood 'showing signs of age' is the Riverside stand, which will need significant improvement in the not too distant future just to bring it up to Championship standard. The supporting pillars, lack of a concourse, lack of office/internal space to generate funds from and lack of rain cover for the first 10 rows need to be addressed. The remainder of the ground isn't 'showing signs of age' as it remains modern by any standard but is showing signs of a lack of investment, poor maintenance and neglect following a period during which very little has been done on the stadium.

Its nothing that a good clean and some tlc wouldn't sort out but when you've got a regime wanting to get by on the bare minimum you end up with things looking tatty and dirty.

I think the Telegraph have completely misinterpreted Waggott's comments in this article. From my recollection of Waggott's comments he wasn't suggesting that Ewood was unsafe or that the safety certificate on the stadium was an issue. He did say his priority was safety and ensuring people came to the game and went home safely, but no suggestion that the stadium itself was a potential risk.

I think someone said maintenance/repairs have been "cost cutting" areas for years even prior to Venkys buying the club. 

I wonder if they want to wait and see what happens with the "safe standing" movement before making any changes? That would make some logical sense before "modernising" the stand and installing padded seats or something. As for lack of rain cover is it really worth doing some of roof extension just so some people won't get a little wet? It would be cheaper to hand out those plastic covers or perhaps just advise people to wear a rainjacket if the weather's expected to be a little wet. I thought people say it's Southern people who are soft yet they bring up issues like this. I don't particularly like it when there's heavy wind AND rain blowing right in my face but a bigger roof wouldn't really do much to help with the former. I think the Riverside is fine in the centre certainly from a view standpoint. 

As I said in terms of modernising how much can you do really with the stand as it is? Padded seats, etc that's not the case around the vast majority of the stadium anyway. I still don't think a roof extension would be worth it. Some people of course advocate demolishing the whole stand if not quite demanding a "modern" replacement on the scale Jack planned (and the WFIT outright ignored as Williams actually admitted) and how much that cost? I think they would close the stand (as with the DE) before undergoing any substantial costs. Of course we really need to know what Waggott's vision of a modernised Riverside actually is. I'm not saying he's lying just he hasn't seemed to explain any specific ideas for it. There's easily enough rental office space in the other stands (and I don't even know if that's at full capacity) and the main club administrative areas. 

I don't really see how a 30 year old stand is outdated. Look how long the old Nuttall Street Stand and Riverside lasted. The Riverside in particular obviously was in a real state by the end (hence it's replacement) and safety issues based on what happened at Valley Parade too. Still it's not like they were falling down for most of the structures history.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Vinjay17

[tomphil]

Good points on the safe standing it would make sense if they have that in the back of their minds.

Personally I think this is a seed sown for future closure but as for a rebuild they could always outsource funding from a hotel group who might benefit from it or something along those lines like long term sponsorship. Also I don't think rebuilding with a structure like that at PNE would be huge cost wise although you don't want money that could be spent on the playing side being used for that or the sale of players so outside funding and commercial sense would have to be the way to go.

Rebuilding the old Riverside was desperately needed on several fronts but this isn't warranted unless it becomes unusable which having housed near full capacity a few times in recent years i'd think should be a long way off.

The seed is sown ?

Edited June 25, 2018 by tomphil

[Vinjay]

Should add that my belief is the "safe standing" movement will succeed. I'm not sure what the proposed timescale is because I haven't followed the issue closely enough (it's not as if the general argument isn't widely known by now unless you live on Mars) so unsure whether it's 12 months, 24 months, etc but I see no reason why it should take longer than that. I'm pretty sure it's making major progress particularly with comparisons to the Bundesliga's safety record being just fine with the appropriate railings, etc. While I don't particularly care about standing myself (though maybe I would on occasion) can't see any reason whatsoever to object to it. I think 94% have been quoted in one poll as supporting it and I don't know why the other 6% have a problem it's not as if pro standing fans are proposing 100% capacity has to be non seated. Might be more likely though that any such section at Ewood will first and foremost be the BBE lower. Not sure what they would do with the DE (if/when it's opened again same as the BBE probably) though it would make sense to have the away section standing. Some seats remaining of course because some older people, etc probably won't want to stand for 90 mins.  The JW lower (and certainly upper) will likely be entirely seated particularly with the "family section" being in the JW lower at the moment. 

The Riverside I'm genuinely unsure of what they might do so with seats/standing so that's partly why I (and as noted the club) believe it would make logical sense to wait.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Vinjay17