Fans Forum / Roverstore

[Mattyblue]

Wrangle yourself  a job at BRFC and you’ve a job for life - be it DoF, CEO or coach, and that is very unhealthy for a football club.

[roversfan99]

Substantial warchest declined, then kicked up a fuss when a week later Rothwell couldnt be sold to generate transfer funds. All nonsense to move blame away from the owners.

[Upside Down]

The problem always has been the owners and always will be.

Removing them is the only option for the survival of this club.

IMO the Trust needs to be pouring efforts into ensuring there are rules in place to allow fans a say in the running of their own clubs. They need to have veto power.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

Yep, I think these two only go if they decide to go themselves.

Feet under carpet 

SW isn’t a young man, surely he’ll want to go soon.

[JHRover]

As with politics and showbusiness/media those in powerful positions/making loads of money don't give it up unless they have to.

In most professions you'd be desperate to enjoy retirement or too worn down by decades of hard work to keep going yet these professions you get folk keep going into their 70s and 80s. Usually either because they love it too much or because it is too good a number to let go.

[Upside Down]

5 minutes ago, JHRover said:

As with politics and showbusiness/media those in powerful positions/making loads of money don't give it up unless they have to.

In most professions you'd be desperate to enjoy retirement or too worn down by decades of hard work to keep going yet these professions you get folk keep going into their 70s and 80s. Usually either because they love it too much or because it is too good a number to let go.

Looks like the dementia set in years ago with swag

[K-Hod]

10 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Substantial warchest declined, then kicked up a fuss when a week later Rothwell couldnt be sold to generate transfer funds. All nonsense to move blame away from the owners.

Was thinking that myself, it literally makes no sense to turn down transfer funds as a football manager. He must be the only one in history to do so!

[Rogerb]

Question for the next fans forum. The legal costs for the Indian court cases. Are Rovers paying these ?

[SuperBrfc]

21 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

The boat probably sailed with Mowbray and his weird reluctance to make a real push for the Premier League whist it was still a genuine possibility. I know a lot of posters won't have it but I'm still firmly of the view based on what I've been told that Mowbray and Waggott had a substantial watchest made available to them Jan 22 but declined to use it.

We'll probably never know the truth, Rev, but what I think is clear is that there are two narratives that have been put out regarding previous budgets. One of those narratives is a lie. Why? Well...

1) Coyle (yeah, I know) has openly said on 'Under The Cosh' that he had signings lined up in January 2017, but that the owners wouldn't give him the funds to complete the deals. At the same time, it was being said that Coyle had money to spend but that he was choosing not to spend it (sounds familiar).

According to Coyle, the owners were happy for him to take the flak for a lack of signings. When he tried to correct the (in his view) false narrative about him choosing not to spend, he got the sack.

2) We have heard similar in relation to Mowbray. Two or three posters with contacts saying he had Dembele, Wallace and a couple of others lined up, but no funds were given for him to sign them. One poster even alleging that this came from the horse's mouth.

Notice how, at the same time as these targets supposedly being lined up, the whispers and narrative started going around that Mowbray had money to spend but that he was choosing not to spend it? Same as the Coyle situation.

Not helped by Mowbray admitting he chose not to loan a Premier League striker, of course. However, there's a difference between making that type of signing and receiving funds for four signings who could significantly strengthen the squad in January.

The way I see it, we have, on one side, two managers saying they didn't receive funds for signings in those particular windows. (This shifts the blame on to the owners, making the owners look bad)

Then, on the other side, we have itk's/contacts saying the managers chose not to spend (This shifts the blame on to the managers, making the managers look bad and the owners look good)

One of those sides is lying.

There are signs of this still happening today. JDT openly questioned the ambition of the club, the words of Swag, he was batting for the fans saying we shouldn't be kept in the dark. He shone a light on the shit ownership. What did we then start to see? So called itk's and people with contacts trying to pin everything on JDT instead. It's clear to me how this might be unfolding.

These itk's are getting this info from somewhere. I am of the view that duff info is given to some at times, and for a particular reason. I don't mean that you or your contact are lying, nor anybody else on here. I'm talking about where the leak originally comes from, much further up the chain.

I personally believe there is an agenda to protect the owners, to deflect blame away from them, and to make out as though these oh so generous folk are being held back by x, y and z. If only it wasn't for FFP, Parachute Payments and now the Indian Government. I have never bought it and never will.

[SuperBrfc]

22 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Wrangle yourself  a job at BRFC and you’ve a job for life - be it DoF, CEO or coach, and that is very unhealthy for a football club.

Relegation, doesn't get you the sack here.

Costing the owners £2m by acting without their authority, doesn't get you the sack here.

Cocking up transfers, doesn't get you the sack here.

Spiralling down the table, doesn't get you the sack here.

Poor results and performances, doesn't get you the sack here.

Speaking the truth though...

That's a problem.

[Upside Down]

29 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

We'll probably never know the truth, Rev, but what I think is clear is that there are two narratives that have been put out regarding previous budgets. One of those narratives is a lie. Why? Well...

1) Coyle (yeah, I know) has openly said on 'Under The Cosh' that he had signings lined up in January 2017, but that the owners wouldn't give him the funds to complete the deals. At the same time, it was being said that Coyle had money to spend but that he was choosing not to spend it (sounds familiar).

According to Coyle, the owners were happy for him to take the flak for a lack of signings. When he tried to correct the (in his view) false narrative about him choosing not to spend, he got the sack.

2) We have heard similar in relation to Mowbray. Two or three posters with contacts saying he had Dembele, Wallace and a couple of others lined up, but no funds were given for him to sign them. One poster even alleging that this came from the horse's mouth.

Notice how, at the same time as these targets supposedly being lined up, the whispers and narrative started going around that Mowbray had money to spend but that he was choosing not to spend it? Same as the Coyle situation.

Not helped by Mowbray admitting he chose not to loan a Premier League striker, of course. However, there's a difference between making that type of signing and receiving funds for four signings who could significantly strengthen the squad in January.

The way I see it, we have, on one side, two managers saying they didn't receive funds for signings in those particular windows. (This shifts the blame on to the owners, making the owners look bad)

Then, on the other side, we have itk's/contacts saying the managers chose not to spend (This shifts the blame on to the managers, making the managers look bad and the owners look good)

One of those sides is lying.

There are signs of this still happening today. JDT openly questioned the ambition of the club, the words of Swag, he was batting for the fans saying we shouldn't be kept in the dark. He shone a light on the shit ownership. What did we then start to see? So called itk's and people with contacts trying to pin everything on JDT instead. It's clear to me how this might be unfolding.

These itk's are getting this info from somewhere. I am of the view that duff info is given to some at times, and for a particular reason. I don't mean that you or your contact are lying, nor anybody else on here. I'm talking about where the leak originally comes from, much further up the chain.

I personally believe there is an agenda to protect the owners, to deflect blame away from them, and to make out as though these oh so generous folk are being held back by x, y and z. If only it wasn't for FFP, Parachute Payments and now the Indian Government. I have never bought it and never will.

I have never heard of a manager refusing to spend money at any club other than this one.

Venkys have a track record of meddling in transfers, Danny Baath being the latest.

I strongly suspect that is what happened last January with O'Brien.

People like maggot and the Egg are company men who will fall on their swords to protect the owners from any scrutiny.

Everything here is all about keeping the spotlight away from the owners. There's way more to this Indian government investigation than a few unpaid taxes and some overseas money transfers.

[ABBEY]

49 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I have never heard of a manager refusing to spend money at any club other than this one.

Venkys have a track record of meddling in transfers, Danny Baath being the latest.

I strongly suspect that is what happened last January with O'Brien.

People like maggot and the Egg are company men who will fall on their swords to protect the owners from any scrutiny.

Everything here is all about keeping the spotlight away from the owners. There's way more to this Indian government investigation than a few unpaid taxes and some overseas money transfers.

please please please jail the lot of the cluckers

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, SuperBrfc said:

We'll probably never know the truth, Rev, but what I think is clear is that there are two narratives that have been put out regarding previous budgets. One of those narratives is a lie. Why? Well...

1) Coyle (yeah, I know) has openly said on 'Under The Cosh' that he had signings lined up in January 2017, but that the owners wouldn't give him the funds to complete the deals. At the same time, it was being said that Coyle had money to spend but that he was choosing not to spend it (sounds familiar).

According to Coyle, the owners were happy for him to take the flak for a lack of signings. When he tried to correct the (in his view) false narrative about him choosing not to spend, he got the sack.

2) We have heard similar in relation to Mowbray. Two or three posters with contacts saying he had Dembele, Wallace and a couple of others lined up, but no funds were given for him to sign them. One poster even alleging that this came from the horse's mouth.

Notice how, at the same time as these targets supposedly being lined up, the whispers and narrative started going around that Mowbray had money to spend but that he was choosing not to spend it? Same as the Coyle situation.

Not helped by Mowbray admitting he chose not to loan a Premier League striker, of course. However, there's a difference between making that type of signing and receiving funds for four signings who could significantly strengthen the squad in January.

The way I see it, we have, on one side, two managers saying they didn't receive funds for signings in those particular windows. (This shifts the blame on to the owners, making the owners look bad)

Then, on the other side, we have itk's/contacts saying the managers chose not to spend (This shifts the blame on to the managers, making the managers look bad and the owners look good)

One of those sides is lying.

There are signs of this still happening today. JDT openly questioned the ambition of the club, the words of Swag, he was batting for the fans saying we shouldn't be kept in the dark. He shone a light on the shit ownership. What did we then start to see? So called itk's and people with contacts trying to pin everything on JDT instead. It's clear to me how this might be unfolding.

These itk's are getting this info from somewhere. I am of the view that duff info is given to some at times, and for a particular reason. I don't mean that you or your contact are lying, nor anybody else on here. I'm talking about where the leak originally comes from, much further up the chain.

I personally believe there is an agenda to protect the owners, to deflect blame away from them, and to make out as though these oh so generous folk are being held back by x, y and z. If only it wasn't for FFP, Parachute Payments and now the Indian Government. I have never bought it and never will.

Coyle was lining a pile of shite up though starting with that lad he had at Houston he was trying to get him here from the get go.

Had they allowed him to spend we'd have been stuck with more crap and probably stuck with him into league 1.

[SuperBrfc]

9 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Coyle was lining a pile of shite up though starting with that lad he had at Houston he was trying to get him here from the get go.

Had they allowed him to spend we'd have been stuck with more crap and probably stuck with him into league 1.

Oh, I don't disagree. He would have most likely lumbered us with shite. It's more the idea that he didn't get the money, but the spin being put out was that he chose not to spend. Spin via itk's etc, which takes the blame away from Venky's. Something which appears to have repeated itself with Mowbray.

One thing about Coyle, despite being a crap manager, he didn't have trouble finding us a striker with little money to play with. We needed strikers and he goes and gets Gallagher, Graham, Emnes and Joao. Just on that aspect alone, he puts Broughton to shame.

[tomphil]

14 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

Oh, I don't disagree. He would have most likely lumbered us with shite. It's more the idea that he didn't get the money, but the spin being put out was that he chose not to spend. Spin via itk's etc, which takes the blame away from Venky's. Something which appears to have repeated itself with Mowbray.

One thing about Coyle, despite being a crap manager, he didn't have trouble finding us a striker with little money to play with. We needed strikers and he goes and gets Gallagher, Graham, Emnes and Joao. Just on that aspect alone, he puts Broughton to shame.

I think it was Lambert who brought Graham here with a view to a perm signing and Senior brought in Joao who was his agent wifes client.

Gally on loan and Emnes were good punts though at the time and the owners had sold the defence anyway and left us with the likes of Greer and Brown.

Riddiculous when you think back.

[SuperBrfc]

2 hours ago, tomphil said:

I think it was Lambert who brought Graham here with a view to a perm signing and Senior brought in Joao who was his agent wifes client.

Gally on loan and Emnes were good punts though at the time and the owners had sold the defence anyway and left us with the likes of Greer and Brown.

Riddiculous when you think back.

Yeah, he also said that even though Hanley and Duffy were sold for good fees, he was told he would only have one of their wages available to replace the pair of them with.

Ridiculous. We had addressed the frontline, but managed to decimate the defence in the same breath. That's the Venky way.

It looks like no lessons have been learnt either as a similar thing seems to be happening again now. I.e use one of the departing wages to cover three signings. It's a recipe for relegation, when those players are lower league standard and not of the calibre for this club. As is the case with Ennis and Telalovic.

[tomphil]

10 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

Yeah, he also said that even though Hanley and Duffy were sold for good fees, he was told he would only have one of their wages available to replace the pair of them with.

Ridiculous. We had addressed the frontline, but managed to decimate the defence in the same breath. That's the Venky way.

It looks like no lessons have been learnt either as a similar thing seems to be happening again now. I.e use one of the departing wages to cover three signings. It's a recipe for relegation, when those players are lower league standard and not of the calibre for this club. As is the case with Ennis and Telalovic.

That's another thing that has happened regularly under this lot, Rhodes for example 9 mill rising to 11 but only his wage allowed for reinvestment. It is without doubt managed decline constantly dumbing things down bit by bit whilst trying to still tread water in this league.

It will go pop again before long unless there is investment it's nailed on.

[Upside Down]

57 minutes ago, tomphil said:

That's another thing that has happened regularly under this lot, Rhodes for example 9 mill rising to 11 but only his wage allowed for reinvestment. It is without doubt managed decline constantly dumbing things down bit by bit whilst trying to still tread water in this league.

It will go pop again before long unless there is investment it's nailed on.

Hopefully we'll be in administration before then.

Hopefully.

[lraC]

10 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I have never heard of a manager refusing to spend money at any club other than this one.

Venkys have a track record of meddling in transfers, Danny Baath being the latest.

I strongly suspect that is what happened last January with O'Brien.

People like maggot and the Egg are company men who will fall on their swords to protect the owners from any scrutiny.

Everything here is all about keeping the spotlight away from the owners. There's way more to this Indian government investigation than a few unpaid taxes and some overseas money transfers.

I have a feeling the shit could hit the fan this month. If three months on the investigation has moved forward, then despite the apparent precedent set, this time they could have the request to transfer yet more money into a bottom less pit declined. 

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

I have a feeling the shit could hit the fan this month. If three months on the investigation has moved forward, then despite the apparent precedent set, this time they could have the request to transfer yet more money into a bottom less pit declined. 

That could be good news for us though. Bring on administration.

[MarkBRFC]

3 hours ago, lraC said:

I have a feeling the shit could hit the fan this month. If three months on the investigation has moved forward, then despite the apparent precedent set, this time they could have the request to transfer yet more money into a bottom less pit declined. 

No chance.

We'll just keep bobbing along like this forever.

[Rogerb]

If they turn the investigation into looking at the club then no funds will be getting sent over.

[lraC]

11 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

No chance.

We'll just keep bobbing along like this forever.

I honestly would not be too sure.

[Upside Down]

11 hours ago, Rogerb said:

If they turn the investigation into looking at the club then no funds will be getting sent over.

I don't think they have jurisdiction to do that unfortunately.

They'll be up to something but as per usual, it's what can be proven in court. With all the stories about them torturing people and the like, I reckon the government are just after them for whatever they can prove.

Hopefully it will mean their demise or at the very least their inability to send funds over here and thus Rovers either gets sold or put into administration. You know it's shit when administration is a best case scenario.

[1864roverite]

Some members need to understand that any Indian investigation does not nor can it include anything to do with the football club - its is a tax related issue for Venkys in their country - I repeat what I said a few months ago IF Rovers were being investigated on the back of some related issue then the SFO would have raided Ewood and Brockhall and taken away every bit of paper linked to thenfootballmoperation - the offices of Venkys would have been stripped bare - none of this has happened nor will it happen in the future !

The Indian courts like UK and European courts work with precedents and on that basis there is little chance of the courts declining another request by the venkys UNLESS there is credible evidence of misuse of the funds that were released!

By all accounts a number of allegations have been discharged some have been watered down and their defence seems to be holding out - whatever the defence is sounding get over excited about a RAO getting bummed in an Indian gaol!