Tony Mowbray Discussion

[Southside Rover]

20 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Can you not read what Waggott said today?

He appeared to be claiming that the cost of building the new facility would be the same as or would more likely exceed the sale proceeds which the owners would have to make up.

How does that "generate funds?"

The generating funds bit was covered by the plans to make Ewood more of a regular income stream with its development. Can you read?

[JHRover]

How about a starter from the club to evidence their intentions before cracking on with this Brockhall project?

If the owners and club management are so keen to improve the club, facilities and modernise things then lets see some FFP exempt investment into these facilities that doesn't rely upon selling off acres of prime land for housing.

A new or refurbished Riverside should convince people. Or how about a deep clean of Ewood to get rid of the filth that has built up over the last decade. Or how about we see if this major pitch project actually happens without needing to sell off players or assets to fund it. 

I'm sure if I saw some more sustained and wider efforts to improve the club I might believe a corner had been turned. But when it goes from one extreme to the other it rightly gives rise to suspicion. A club that can't even be bothered to clean it's own stadium yet will spend millions building a new training complex that isn't even needed is suspect.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Southside Rover said:

The generating funds bit was covered by the plans to make Ewood more of a regular income stream with its development. Can you read?

What?

Apologies if I missed that (I'll re-read what he said) but how is that assisted by a loss making scheme down at Brockhall?

At least I know you're trolling now and not a genuine poster.

[Southside Rover]

26 minutes ago, 47er said:

Ha! Well how do you imagine these "business people" will react as the losses keep piling up then?

I think I know----flog off what's saleable-----like Brockhall!

Your turn now.

Possibly more posts on this one topic from you in your posting history. I smell a rat!

Sell off and put back in to build something else to replace. I'm not sure that would offset the losses. Creating gems that either take us back to the Premier League or who are sold on would be my stance

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Southside Rover said:

Sell off and put back in to build something else to replace. I'm not sure that would offset the losses. Creating gems that either take us back to the Premier League or who are sold on would be my stance

For that, you'd need top class training facilities of Category 1 standard with room for both the Academy and Senior Set up.

Oh wait, we already have them!................

[Southside Rover]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What?

Apologies if I missed that (I'll re-read what he said) but how is that assisted by a loss making scheme down at Brockhall?

At least I know you're trolling now and not a genuine poster.

I'm not sure what you mean. You asked me about the generating funds part not about the cost of renovating Brockhall.

Someone with a different opinion doesn't have to be a troll. I work about 17hrs a day generally, I've got better things to do that wind up disgruntled Blackburn fans who I sit beside, cheer beside, moan beside when not in a pandemic...

[Butty]

3 minutes ago, Southside Rover said:

I'm not sure what you mean. You asked me about the generating funds part not about the cost of renovating Brockhall.

Someone with a different opinion doesn't have to be a troll. I work about 17hrs a day generally, I've got better things to do that wind up disgruntled Blackburn fans who I sit beside, cheer beside, moan beside when not in a pandemic...

Red flag alert. You sure you’re a ROVERS fan? 

[Southside Rover]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

For that, you'd need top class training facilities of Category 1 standard with room for both the Academy and Senior Set up.

Oh wait, we already have them!................

Top class frozen pitches yes. It's hard to access the top cat 1 facilities so not many people outside of the daily football world know the level these other clubs are at but cat 1 is a standard, a bench mark. The scale above cat 1 is massive as to where it can then go on to. Something that's only had minor investment from 20 years ago is bound to have been left behind to a degree. As per a previous post,  the footba world has evolved massively since then with the aid of sports science etc.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Southside Rover said:

Top class frozen pitches yes. It's hard to access the top cat 1 facilities so not many people outside of the daily football world know the level these other clubs are at but cat 1 is a standard, a bench mark. The scale above cat 1 is massive as to where it can then go on to. Something that's only had minor investment from 20 years ago is bound to have been left behind to a degree. As per a previous post,  the footba world has evolved massively since then with the aid of sports science etc.

You must be hard of understanding.

Top class indoor pitches that Mowbray CHOSE not to use during a brief spell of bad weather.

[Southside Rover]

2 minutes ago, Butty said:

Red flag alert. You sure you’re a ROVERS fan? 

Yeah I'm sure Butty. Thanks for checking but if you read back you'll see I was accused of trolling so my response is to say I've got better things to do than wind up Blackburn fans.

In fact I think it would be quite sad to sit and learn about another club and sit in a forum just to aggrevate people. Mowbray alone does enough to aggrevate these days, he don't need me.

In summary I've learnt this week, as a new poster I am to go with the flow, agree with the people with the most likes in order to be accepted, hate everything there is to hate, claim to be able to do it better having an ounce of real information to go on and then I can be considered a true Rovers fan.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Southside Rover said:

Of course it is about trust and clearly their is none from the majority. I'm in the minority I know that.

Losing cat 1 status would be a disaster but the club acknowledged that and I don't see that is the intention. I see a proposal that intends on retaining that status whilst generating funds and setting the club for the next 20 years by investing into the infrastructure. 

Time will tell, maybe I'll have to come back cap in hand, maybe I'll get some apologies when and if it happens and we know whether that trust was well placed or not.

If you're going to be a WUM you might as well remember what you've posted.

"I see a proposal that intends on retaining that status (Cat 1) whilst generating funds"

Your words not mine. Nothing whatsoever to do with Ewood Park.

[Southside Rover]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You must be hard of understanding.

Top class indoor pitches that Mowbray CHOSE not to use during a brief spell of bad weather.

The indoor pitches that play differently to outdoor pitches? 

Again was covered in the session today to replicate the Ewood pitch but perhaps we couldn't find a negative to that.

[Southside Rover]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

If you're going to be a WUM you might as well remember what you've posted.

"I see a proposal that intends on retaining that status (Cat 1) whilst generating funds"

Your words not mine. Nothing whatsoever to do with Ewood Park.

Yeah a proposal. There were several aspects of the proposal discussed which part 1 is to change Brockhall to a smaller condensed space with a pitch that matches the Ewood pitch, part 2 to sell the land left behind for houses and part 3 was about how to get Ewood generating funds.

That was the gist 

[Butty]

13 minutes ago, Southside Rover said:

Yeah I'm sure Butty. Thanks for checking but if you read back you'll see I was accused of trolling so my response is to say I've got better things to do than wind up Blackburn fans.

In fact I think it would be quite sad to sit and learn about another club and sit in a forum just to aggrevate people. Mowbray alone does enough to aggrevate these days, he don't need me.

In summary I've learnt this week, as a new poster I am to go with the flow, agree with the people with the most likes in order to be accepted, hate everything there is to hate, claim to be able to do it better having an ounce of real information to go on and then I can be considered a true Rovers fan.

I was only pulling your leg, all I’ll say is you’ve chose the wrong time to make an account on here 😂 Let’s hope Tony and Waggott are both gone soon and supporters can get back singing on the same hymn sheet before we are all back in the ground. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Butty

[Southside Rover]

Just now, Butty said:

I was only pulling your leg, all I’ll say is you’ve chose the wrong time to make an account here 😂 Let’s hope Tony and Waggott are both gone soon and supporters can get back singing on the same hymn sheet before we are all back in the ground. 

Well I needed a place to vent after the last month hence I signed up. The wife is tired of hearing it but I will always give an opinion especially if its different to the general consensus as that's what forums are about. Sometimes you read things and it changes your mind as you appreciate a different view point. Sometimes it just helps see it from a different angle but it's clear this situation is too far down the road and only time and action will will change perception

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Southside Rover said:

Yeah a proposal. There were several aspects of the proposal discussed which part 1 is to change Brockhall to a smaller condensed space with a pitch that matches the Ewood pitch, part 2 to sell the land left behind for houses and part 3 was about how to get Ewood generating funds.

That was the gist 

I'll have a look again.

Nothing wrong with (3) in principle but it's totally unrelated to (1) and (2).

We only get the sale price of the land to the developers, you do understand that dont you.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that we'll end up with anything other than a similar standard of facility than we have now only much less of them.

And Waggott even seems to suggest the project will run at a loss.

That's why you're getting stick, for defending a seemingly indefensible position.

Nothing to do with being a new poster.

[roverandout]

Talking to southside 

 

 

[Southside Rover]

7 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'll have a look again.

Nothing wrong with (3) in principle but it's totally unrelated to (1) and (2).

We only get the sale price of the land to the developers, you do understand that dont you.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that we'll end up with anything other than a similar standard of facility than we have now only much less of them.

And Waggott even seems to suggest the project will run at a loss.

That's why you're getting stick, for defending a seemingly indefensible position.

Nothing to do with being a new poster.

Well I don't think it's unrelated as it's talked about in the same interview. Yes it's not next door and yes it doesn't create instant funds to pay for it, I get that.

Yes I understand the sale price I wouldn't expect anything else, that's generally what happens when developers by land. Not often they give a share of the profits from each roof so to speak but it's a proposal to see if there is permission, to consider the objections and with a proposed end goal in sight. I get the reaction and don't expect everyone to agree, but until any proposal is shared and assuming it is in all its detail I think its hard to say we will have a like for like but smaller facility. Didnt even seem sure how many floors it would be so it sounds very early on. 

As for indefensible, my argument is in defence of some of the accusations and comments made as in some cases I think some of it is harsh. I don't think we can call it indefensible until that detail about the whole proposal is on the table.

If people see it as indefensible then it's their opinion but that shouldn't mean anyone with a different view gets stick. Challenge my opinion fine, it's a forum but questioning if I'm Waggott in disguise, a true Rovers fan, hard of understanding etc. goes beyond that 

[Southside Rover]

8 minutes ago, roverandout said:

Talking to southside 

 

 

What because I don't have the same opinion? Poor you, I'm so sorry I'm not a lamb to you. If it all works out for the better I'm sure you'll retrieve this post. Go with the majority it's safer and makes us feel secure baaaaaa

[Banzai]

I am of the opinion that if we lose to Coventry then Mowbray should be sacked immediately.

I cannot be the only one that has looked at our six March fixtures and seen that only 2 of them look even remotely winnable based on what crap we have served up during these past months.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

14 minutes ago, Southside Rover said:

Well I don't think it's unrelated as it's talked about in the same interview. Yes it's not next door and yes it doesn't create instant funds to pay for it, I get that.

Yes I understand the sale price I wouldn't expect anything else, that's generally what happens when developers by land. Not often they give a share of the profits from each roof so to speak but it's a proposal to see if there is permission, to consider the objections and with a proposed end goal in sight. I get the reaction and don't expect everyone to agree, but until any proposal is shared and assuming it is in all its detail I think its hard to say we will have a like for like but smaller facility. Didnt even seem sure how many floors it would be so it sounds very early on. 

As for indefensible, my argument is in defence of some of the accusations and comments made as in some cases I think some of it is harsh. I don't think we can call it indefensible until that detail about the whole proposal is on the table.

If people see it as indefensible then it's their opinion but that shouldn't mean anyone with a different view gets stick. Challenge my opinion fine, it's a forum but questioning if I'm Waggott in disguise, a true Rovers fan, hard of understanding etc. goes beyond that 

It's been admitted we would lose pitches if we go ahead.

As for it only  being a proposal, it's more than that they, they seem to have gone into a great deal of care and planning to ascertain that 170 new dwellings could be squeezed on one of the sites and get to the stage where they could submit a planning application. 

On the sly.

[Ulrich]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What?

Apologies if I missed that (I'll re-read what he said) but how is that assisted by a loss making scheme down at Brockhall?

At least I know you're trolling now and not a genuine poster.

I love the way it's presented, as developing Ewood and another site all occurs after the money making part.  Let us do this and we 'promise' to do this.....

Mmmmm

[matt83]

5 hours ago, Banzai said:

I am of the opinion that if we lose to Coventry then Mowbray should be sacked immediately.

I cannot be the only one that has looked at our six March fixtures and seen that only 2 of them look even remotely winnable based on what crap we have served up during these past months.

 

I was of the same opinion in 2019 before the Stoke game saying surely if we lose today making it 9 defeats from 11 he’ll be sacked. 2 years later we’re saying the same things. The only constant is he carries on with impunity. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by matt83

[Boroblue]

6 hours ago, Butty said:

Red flag alert. You sure you’re a ROVERS fan? 

Oh yeah Blackburn fans!!!!!!!

[RoverInverness]

6 hours ago, Southside Rover said:

I'm not sure what you mean. You asked me about the generating funds part not about the cost of renovating Brockhall.

Someone with a different opinion doesn't have to be a troll. I work about 17hrs a day generally, I've got better things to do that wind up disgruntled Blackburn fans who I sit beside, cheer beside, moan beside when not in a pandemic...

Hi Southside, 

I generally appreciate people having different opinions. It is one of the things makes the message board a good read. I come on here most days - and have done for years - to get my fix of Rovers news. I accept you’re not a WUM for having opinions that stray quite some distance from the board consensus.

However, you have wound me up. You don’t work 17 hours a day. Don’t be silly, it makes everything else you say lack credibility. Unless you’re stitching trainers in an Indonesian sweat shop or have been illegally trafficked down to the south of England to work in a cannabis farm you ain’t usually working 17 hours a day. If you were you certainly wouldn’t have time to come on here and debate.

I don’t work 17 hours a day, but I am busy and I won’t have time to respond.