Venkys - Welcome or Not?

[47er]

3 minutes ago, lraC said:

Even if one of the just turned up, to an away game in London, when he makes one of his trips to the capital. At least it would show the fans that there is the slightest bit of interest still from these ever so humble people.

So given that they haven't come can we assume there isn't the slightest bit of interest?

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, 47er said:

So given that they haven't come can we assume there isn't the slightest bit of interest?

You tell me.

[47er]

7 minutes ago, lraC said:

You tell me.

Ok I will! I don't think they are interested.

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, 47er said:

Ok I will! I don't think they are interested.

Me neither.

[Sweaty Gussets]

Blackburn Rovers buck the Championship trend with transfer net spend | Lancashire Telegraph

At least the manager was supported...comparatively. 

[chaddyrovers]

32 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Blackburn Rovers buck the Championship trend with transfer net spend | Lancashire Telegraph

At least the manager was supported...comparatively. 

Gregg Broughton said we have healthy budget for a club with no Premier League parachute payments, and it wasn't relied on Ben Brereton-Diaz being sold. So that has been delivered 

[roversfan99]

Allowing more assets to run their contracts down isn't a sustainable way for a Championship club with our resources to develop and grow.

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Allowing more assets to run their contracts down isn't a sustainable way for a Championship club with our resources to develop and grow.

The signs are there with the Buckley extended deal last week, that we are protecting our assets a bit better.

Hopefully Greg was brought in to address that as well as bringing in new players too.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Allowing more assets to run their contracts down isn't a sustainable way for a Championship club with our resources to develop and grow.

Most of us assets are under contract for 3 years now as the below link shows.

https://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1143605499?-11198:839

2023: Joe Hilton, Jordan Eastham, Daniel Ayala, Sam Barnes, Ash Phillips, Jared Harlock, Ben Brereton, Dan Butterworth, Jack Vale

2024: Aynsley Pears, Joe Rankin-Costello, Bradley Dack

2025: Thomas Kaminski, James Brown, Dominic Hyam, Scott Wharton, Hayden Carter, Harry Pickering, Tayo Edun, Adam Wharton, Jake Garrett, Tyrhys Dolan, Sam Gallagher, Harry Leonard

2026: Callum Brittain, Lewis Travis, Dilan Markanday, Ryan Hedges, Sam Szmodics

2027: John Buckley

I would like to new contracts Joe Hilton, Sam Barnes, Ash Phillips and Jack Vale in the coming weeks and months. 

On BBD situation, I and others have said that no club came close to our asking price and we rightly didn't accept low offers from Fulham(6mil with 4 mil in add on's), Nice and Sevilla(8.4 million offer), so why would we sell when you consider these 4 factors, which are he is key player for this team, bringing in a suitable replacement, he has just scored 22 goals last season and he is Chilean international where he has scored important goals at that level. 

Also, why are people still mentioning the Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan situation why it's been explained fully on here

[rigger]

8 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Most of us assets are under contract for 3 years now as the below link shows.

https://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1143605499?-11198:839

2023: Joe Hilton, Jordan Eastham, Daniel Ayala, Sam Barnes, Ash Phillips, Jared Harlock, Ben Brereton, Dan Butterworth, Jack Vale

2024: Aynsley Pears, Joe Rankin-Costello, Bradley Dack

2025: Thomas Kaminski, James Brown, Dominic Hyam, Scott Wharton, Hayden Carter, Harry Pickering, Tayo Edun, Adam Wharton, Jake Garrett, Tyrhys Dolan, Sam Gallagher, Harry Leonard

2026: Callum Brittain, Lewis Travis, Dilan Markanday, Ryan Hedges, Sam Szmodics

2027: John Buckley

I would like to new contracts Joe Hilton, Sam Barnes, Ash Phillips and Jack Vale in the coming weeks and months. 

On BBD situation, I and others have said that no club came close to our asking price and we rightly didn't accept low offers from Fulham(6mil with 4 mil in add on's), Nice and Sevilla(8.4 million offer), so why would we sell when you consider these 4 factors, which are he is key player for this team, bringing in a suitable replacement, he has just scored 22 goals last season and he is Chilean international where he has scored important goals at that level. 

Also, why are people still mentioning the Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan situation why it's been explained fully on here

No Jake Batty ?

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, rigger said:

No Jake Batty ?

Jake Butty's contract situation is mentioned in the article 

[roversfan99]

47 minutes ago, lraC said:

The signs are there with the Buckley extended deal last week, that we are protecting our assets a bit better.

Hopefully Greg was brought in to address that as well as bringing in new players too.

That is the only sign really thus far, outweighed by a more valuable asset being kept at a huge opportunity cost.

That being said, until whichever staff members are given full autonomy and are not overruled by the owners stubbornness, then any potential structure will be inpossible to efficiently flourish.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

That is the only sign really thus far, outweighed by a more valuable asset being kept at a huge opportunity cost.

That being said, until whichever staff members are given full autonomy and are not overruled by the owners stubbornness, then any potential structure will be inpossible to efficiently flourish.

didn't we give new contracts to Lewis Travis, Thomas Kaminski and Sam Gallagher last season. 

Owners should always be involved and the end of the day the final decision lays with them and that how most clubs are run whether its Rovers, Leicester or Arsenal or Fleetwood or Accy Stanley. 

What owners' stubbornness have shown that they won't be bullied by other clubs offering lower offers for our key players whether it was Phil Jones, Jordan Rovers, Rudy Gestede, Adam Armstrong or BBD. 

Are you saying we should have accepted Fulham bid on the last day of 6 mil plus 4 mil in add on for BBD? 

[roversfan99]

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

didn't we give new contracts to Lewis Travis, Thomas Kaminski and Sam Gallagher last season. 

Owners should always be involved and the end of the day the final decision lays with them and that how most clubs are run whether its Rovers, Leicester or Arsenal or Fleetwood or Accy Stanley. 

What owners' stubbornness have shown that they won't be bullied by other clubs offering lower offers for our key players whether it was Phil Jones, Jordan Rovers, Rudy Gestede, Adam Armstrong or BBD. 

Are you saying we should have accepted Fulham bid on the last day of 6 mil plus 4 mil in add on for BBD? 

We did yeah, my point was countering the mention that maybe things will change specifically under Broughton's watch. Until Venkys stop interfering, at times against the wishes of those they have employed to make such decisions, then it will always remain as it is. Even under previous staff members, some people renewed and some didn't.

If you swallow the nonsensical logic that it is better to allow such a valuable asset to leave for free than "be bullied" into selling an asset even if it makes financial sense, then there is little hope.

I quite clearly have said previously that we couldn't accept on the last day. This whole rigid "he won't be sold unless someone bids exactly x" was totally inappropriate, we should have gone into the summer knowing he had to be sold and encouraged it somewhat, not putting people off with a vastly inflated fee. Even if the highest fee ended up being £10m, we can't flippantly turn that down for an extra year. Take it, spend £7m on a replacement on a multi year deal.

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

We did yeah, my point was countering the mention that maybe things will change specifically under Broughton's watch. Until Venkys stop interfering, at times against the wishes of those they have employed to make such decisions, then it will always remain as it is. Even under previous staff members, some people renewed and some didn't.

If you swallow the nonsensical logic that it is better to allow such a valuable asset to leave for free than "be bullied" into selling an asset even if it makes financial sense, then there is little hope.

I quite clearly have said previously that we couldn't accept on the last day. This whole rigid "he won't be sold unless someone bids exactly x" was totally inappropriate, we should have gone into the summer knowing he had to be sold and encouraged it somewhat, not putting people off with a vastly inflated fee. Even if the highest fee ended up being £10m, we can't flippantly turn that down for an extra year. Take it, spend £7m on a replacement on a multi year deal.

when have the owners ever stop any contract offers from being made to players? 

GB has done very good work on getting Buckley tied down to a 5-year contract and I expect more signing new contracts here. 

We were right to stick to our asking price for BBD and clubs knew what that was weeks and months ago. We shouldn't be bullied into accept lower offers when that player is worth much more. We were right to turned down the 10 mil has it was way short of what our price was and the 4 factors I have mentioned several times. BBD might still sign a new contract here and I'm sure Rovers have engage in talks with him and his agent already over a possible new contract. I still he will sign a pre contract with a club in Spain in January in my opinion but there is still a chance he might stay here. BBD might still leave in January on a perm deal. None of us know what is happening with the BBD and his future. 

Why was our asking price vastly inflated fee for BBD? 

[Wheelton Blue]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

when have the owners ever stop any contract offers from being made to players? 

GB has done very good work on getting Buckley tied down to a 5-year contract and I expect more signing new contracts here. 

We were right to stick to our asking price for BBD and clubs knew what that was weeks and months ago. We shouldn't be bullied into accept lower offers when that player is worth much more. We were right to turned down the 10 mil has it was way short of what our price was and the 4 factors I have mentioned several times. BBD might still sign a new contract here and I'm sure Rovers have engage in talks with him and his agent already over a possible new contract. I still he will sign a pre contract with a club in Spain in January in my opinion but there is still a chance he might stay here. BBD might still leave in January on a perm deal. None of us know what is happening with the BBD and his future. 

Why was our asking price vastly inflated fee for BBD? 

Like anything in life, Brereton is only worth what someone is prepared to pay at that point in time. Economics 101.

If the biggest offer we got was 10m, then that's what he's worth. Come January, he'll likely be worth even less.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

Like anything in life, Brereton is only worth what someone is prepared to pay at that point in time. Economics 101.

If the biggest offer we got was 10m, then that's what he's worth. Come January, he'll likely be worth even less.

I think he is worth more than 10 million that Fulham which was reported as 6m up front with 4m in add-on's Which I'm pleased we rejected it. I have posted 4 factors why I think he is worth more  

[Wheelton Blue]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think he is worth more than 10 million that Fulham which was reported as 6m up front with 4m in add-on's Which I'm pleased we rejected it. I have posted 4 factors why I think he is worth more  

You may think he's worth more, but the reality - based on actual offers made - is that he isn't.

[Adam C]

4 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

You may think he's worth more, but the reality - based on actual offers made - is that he isn't.

His value to us is far more than £10m given that we had only a few days to replace him, we wouldn’t see any of that money reinvested in the squad, he’s far and away our best player and one of the stars of the championship, and our owners are billionaires that are willing to underwrite the club’s debts to the tune of £100m+ 

No way should we let a content and dedicated player go for a risible amount just because that’s the only offer on the table. I’m glad the Venkys stuck to their guns on this one.

 

[roversfan99]

These dreamt up valuations are totally meaningless because of his contractual situation.

Let's use the valuation of £10m, again I would argue that if our stance wasn't so rigid, either meet a massive, massive price tag otherwise he isn't going, then it might eventually lead to a bid higher than that, but lets go with it.

We have a decision then, is £10m (say £7m on a replacement on a 4 or 5 year deal and the rest pocketed) more or less valuable than us compared to one solitary season of Brereton? It 100% is more valuable, imagine if we signed a striker for £10m on a season long loan, it is no different to that.

We keep hearing about the journey and this being a transitional season, I don't fully agree but if so, the decision made is even more at odds with that.

The fact that the money potentially wouldn't be invested is another stick to beat the owners with, and another reason why we cannot thrive with them owning us. Talk of a Brentford model is laughable under them. It should be a process, sell with targets ready to push the button on knowing Brereton was to be sold. Thoughts of public image, not appearing to be bullied, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Wheelton Blue]

3 hours ago, The Hypnotic said:

His value to us is far more than £10m given that we had only a few days to replace him, we wouldn’t see any of that money reinvested in the squad, he’s far and away our best player and one of the stars of the championship, and our owners are billionaires that are willing to underwrite the club’s debts to the tune of £100m+ 

No way should we let a content and dedicated player go for a risible amount just because that’s the only offer on the table. I’m glad the Venkys stuck to their guns on this one.

 

I agree - we shouldn't have let him go for the money offered and for the reasons you give.

That doesn't alter the fact that he's only worth 10m to other clubs, and that number will lessen as his contract expires.

[R0verb0y]

On 04/09/2022 at 14:50, blue_and_white said:

I'm getting it from reality. Maybe the 2001 and 2011 census results for Blackburn are easy to miss living in Yorkshire, but the town has changed massively since the 80s. We'll see what the results of the 2021 census in terms of ethnicity/religion when they're published in November, but I expect another huge shift.

Better put the usual disclaimer that this is in no way a political opinion on anything, its just the facts. Many white people have moved out of Blackburn and into the Ribble Valley, the Preston/Leyland/Chorley area, or other surrounding areas. There's a direct correlation between the distance someone lives from the ground, and their willingness to go to games. Mill Hill, Higher Croft, Darwen etc are a huge source of Rovers support because its as easy as walking out your front door and 10 minutes later walking through the turnstile. Its the same reason clubs with town/city centre grounds tend to do better for gates.

Rovers are losing local fans, have been for decades now. A football message board can live on far-flung supporters, but a football club can't. It needs the locals, so I'm all for Eid prayers on the pitch etc, but its not turning into significant numbers of fans yet and I'm not sure how the club is going to make that happen.

A really good post, imo, @blue_and_white. It bears out my experiences following the Rovers, particularly over the last 50 years.

Because I'd been working in Rochdale for since 1975, I moved to live there in 1981 and have lived in various parts of Rochdale Met. Borough until early this year. Until 2007, when I took early retirement on health grounds, getting over to Ewood wasn't much of a problem.

However, when I took early retirement, I also stopped driving and started coming over to Ewood by public transport. Which because of their timetables, mean that I had to leave home on the 11.15 am bus to be sure of getting to Ewood in - plenty of - time for the kick-off. Getting the next bus an hour later would often find me on a bus between Darwen Circus and Ewood when the game started. So there were Saturdays when I'd miss a home game because I hadn't got my act in gear soon enough. Attending evening kick-offs at Ewood also became virtually impossible because the last bus to Bolton went past the ground during half time!

I moved back to live in Blackburn earlier this year; and while I can't honestly claim that I did so simply to make attending home games easier, those who know me will know it was quite a significant influence in my choice!

Since returning to the fold, I've noticed that there are more people of South Asian heritage in the Riverside as spectators than I remember from the days, probably 6 seasons ago, when I last had a season ticket. That shows that at least one of the club’s initiatives, which always seem to gain kudos from the non-sporting media, is beginning to pay off.

Like many such initiatives, it's one which will take some time to pay off, if it ever does. What it's easy for old beggars like me to forget is how long ago were those glory days at the time the Premier League was founded. Our memories of winning the Premier League are now nearly 30 years ago; it will be beyond 2050 before many of the young Blackburners of South Asian heritage who are, perhaps, in their first season of watching the Rovers have memories of similar vintage.

But that doesn't mean, imo, that the decision-makers should ease up on their efforts to demonstrate that the club is open to all Blackburners, irrespective of the colour of their skin. It would be instructive, I believe, to learn from clubs like Leicester City as to what steps they, in what I'm fairly sure is the most ethnically diverse city in the country, have taken to attract fans of various heritages to their stadium.

Another initiative I'd like to see - and this one would require some sort of co-operation with the football authorities - is whether Blackburn Rovers Ladies could play their home games at Ewood on Saturdays when the first (men's) team's playing away. Not just Rovers, obviously; most of the top level women's teams seem to play their games at grounds of League Two or National League clubs.

Given that three of the recently successful Lionesses took early steps in their careers - again attracting favourable comment from the regional media - with Blackburn Rovers, couldn't the club investigate whether the people running women's football nationally whether the fixtures in the women's Leagues could be scheduled for Saturdays when the men's teams are playing away.

It might be unimportant for the Chelseas of this 21st Century world; but for smaller clubs like Rovers, it might stop the drain of fans which @blue_and_white foresees.

 

[chaddyrovers]

6 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

You may think he's worth more, but the reality - based on actual offers made - is that he isn't.

I think I have fully explained the reasons Why he is worth to us

[rigger]

2 hours ago, R0verb0y said:

A really good post, imo, @blue_and_white. It bears out my experiences following the Rovers, particularly over the last 50 years.

Because I'd been working in Rochdale for since 1975, I moved to live there in 1981 and have lived in various parts of Rochdale Met. Borough until early this year. Until 2007, when I took early retirement on health grounds, getting over to Ewood wasn't much of a problem.

However, when I took early retirement, I also stopped driving and started coming over to Ewood by public transport. Which because of their timetables, mean that I had to leave home on the 11.15 am bus to be sure of getting to Ewood in - plenty of - time for the kick-off. Getting the next bus an hour later would often find me on a bus between Darwen Circus and Ewood when the game started. So there were Saturdays when I'd miss a home game because I hadn't got my act in gear soon enough. Attending evening kick-offs at Ewood also became virtually impossible because the last bus to Bolton went past the ground during half time!

I moved back to live in Blackburn earlier this year; and while I can't honestly claim that I did so simply to make attending home games easier, those who know me will know it was quite a significant influence in my choice!

Since returning to the fold, I've noticed that there are more people of South Asian heritage in the Riverside as spectators than I remember from the days, probably 6 seasons ago, when I last had a season ticket. That shows that at least one of the club’s initiatives, which always seem to gain kudos from the non-sporting media, is beginning to pay off.

Like many such initiatives, it's one which will take some time to pay off, if it ever does. What it's easy for old beggars like me to forget is how long ago were those glory days at the time the Premier League was founded. Our memories of winning the Premier League are now nearly 30 years ago; it will be beyond 2050 before many of the young Blackburners of South Asian heritage who are, perhaps, in their first season of watching the Rovers have memories of similar vintage.

But that doesn't mean, imo, that the decision-makers should ease up on their efforts to demonstrate that the club is open to all Blackburners, irrespective of the colour of their skin. It would be instructive, I believe, to learn from clubs like Leicester City as to what steps they, in what I'm fairly sure is the most ethnically diverse city in the country, have taken to attract fans of various heritages to their stadium.

Another initiative I'd like to see - and this one would require some sort of co-operation with the football authorities - is whether Blackburn Rovers Ladies could play their home games at Ewood on Saturdays when the first (men's) team's playing away. Not just Rovers, obviously; most of the top level women's teams seem to play their games at grounds of League Two or National League clubs.

Given that three of the recently successful Lionesses took early steps in their careers - again attracting favourable comment from the regional media - with Blackburn Rovers, couldn't the club investigate whether the people running women's football nationally whether the fixtures in the women's Leagues could be scheduled for Saturdays when the men's teams are playing away.

It might be unimportant for the Chelseas of this 21st Century world; but for smaller clubs like Rovers, it might stop the drain of fans which @blue_and_white foresees.

 

I would say the reason the womens team do not play their games at Ewood, is the same reason the academy don't play many games there. The pitch wouldn't stand it. I can't comment on the make up of the fans in the Riverside, just that there isn't many in there. I still think that the idea is to close the Riverside, as the people running the show seem to be slowly eroding the advantages of going on the Riverside. 

[rigger]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think I have fully explained the reasons Why he is worth to us

No, what you have explained, is what you think he is worth.