Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Blue blood]

Tell you what without the Cat A academy and the players it produces we would be really stuffed. Smallwood would still be here, Caddis at right back. Steel would have stayed in goal. We'd have have to have loaned another Premier League U18 centre half. TM has been bailed out by the academy lads repeatedly. Without that we would well and truly be stuffed. 

[tomphil]

8 minutes ago, perthblue02 said:

Or somebody wants more new drones to play with. From what we have seen on the pitch since their introduction the current ones seem pretty useless as a training tool .

Wonder if they got a licence to fly the drones around brockhall, noisy little buggers and disturbing to wildlife. 🙂

It seems every season for the past few years they've sold another plan to the ownership as cover for the lack of a real challenge on the pitch.

New monitors/offices and staff to watch players.

Drones, filming, more anlytics and staff to watch training.

Now, a cost cutting/money making training ground scheme.

The owners obviously love this kind of spiel and will have been convinced all this is vital and the missing link to success.  Will any of this see this manager/coaching set up see us break the top 6 ?

Will it b##### like they are as willingly gullible as ever by the looks of it and being played again.  Played for time this time before the next inevitable fire sale recoups millions and the % get their cut.

Then we start all over again.

[AllRoverAsia]

If this goes through we will be left with the First Team and, maybe, a Development Squad.

That is all the revamped and rebuilt JTC will hold and in line with what's 'between the lines' coming from the Club.

The success with Kami supports the investment in European Scouting to unearth the 'rough gems' already sufficiently developed and ready to polish without wasting years in Academy.

All in line with Mowbrays preferred approach in coming out with 'new' ideas/scams to perpetuate his Dictatorship.

They are actually making it very clear. No one can say the didn't know.

[RevidgeBlue]

18 hours ago, JoeH said:

Very fair point. I would definitely like to know though, in your personal opinion... 

At what stage are the owners of the club able to make decisions that perhaps Jack Walker wouldn’t have made without being deemed disrespectful?

In 100 years time, would it still be a disrespectful move to merge the training centres (or another comparable club decision)?

Or are Jack’s wishes for you, and for others, ultimate now and final?

(Genuine questions, hope nobody will take offence).

With respect, you are talking absolute rubbish on this point and imo being extremely disrespectful to Jack Walker. I hope my post doesn't send you scurrying off to the moderators to complain as I would prefer not to suffer a ban and I'm not surprised you riled many people with your comments yesterday.

No-one expects the facilities left by Jack to remain untouched for 100 years or more in his honour or memory.

No-one expects the Jack Walker "Legacy" to mean that future owners should be hamstrung or restricted in their running of the Club.

The Jack Walker "Legacy" is a notional standard to aspire to which if met would be for the protection of the Club not it's detriment.

When Brockhall was built, the limited value of Ewood Park as a site meant the main danger was always a subsequent owner flogging the the training complex. That's precisely why the covenant protecting the use of the land was introduced.

No-one but no-one would be complaining if this was a genuine upgrading of the training facilities. But it's not, it's a substantial downsizing of the complex in an attempt to generate a short term cash injection which will be to the long term detriment of the footballing facilities at the Club. And once this asset is gone it's gone those facilities can never be replaced.

That is why people are up in arms about the Jack Walker "Legacy" about which you are so dismissive not being respected. This scheme is for the short term gain of either the current owners (which admittedly would be their prerogative were it not for the legal covenant) or the Club employees who appear to have been involved in some sort of similar scheme at Coventry, or both.

It certainly isn't imo in the long term interests of the football club. Ultimately that's the litmus test for deciding whether something respects the Jack Walker legacy or not.

It's not about making silly statements like you can't touch buildings for hundreds of ideas as it might dishonour Jack. The idea though is that if you do touch them you make them better! If you replace it with something not as good then that obviously is an insult to his memory and what he did for the Club.

[Oldgregg86]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

With respect, you are talking absolute rubbish on this point and imo being extremely disrespectful to Jack Walker. I hope my post doesn't send you scurrying off to the moderators to complain as I would prefer not to suffer a ban and I'm not surprised you riled many people with your comments yesterday.

No-one expects the facilities left by Jack to remain untouched for 100 years or more in his honour or memory.

No-one expects the Jack Walker "Legacy" to mean that future owners should be hamstrung or restricted in their running of the Club.

The Jack Walker "Legacy" is a notional standard to aspire to which if met would be for the protection of the Club not it's detriment.

When Brockhall was built, the limited value of Ewood Park as a site meant the main danger was always a subsequent owner flogging the the training complex. That's precisely why the covenant protecting the use of the land was introduced.

No-one but no-one would be complaining if this was a genuine upgrading of the training facilities. But it's not, it's a substantial downsizing of the complex in an attempt to generate a short term cash injection which will be to the long term detriment of the footballing facilities at the Club. And once this asset is gone it's gone those facilities can never be replaced.

That is why people are up in arms about the Jack Walker "Legacy" about which you are so dismissive not being respected. This scheme is for the short term gain of either the current owners (which admittedly would be their prerogative were it not for the legal covenant) or the Club employees who appear to have been involved in some sort of similar scheme at Coventry, or both.

It certainly isn't imo in the long term interests of the football club. Ultimately that's the litmus test for deciding whether something respects the Jack Walker legacy or not.

It's not about making silly statements like you can't touch buildings for hundreds of ideas as it might dishonour Jack. The idea though is that if you do touch them you make them better! If you replace it with something not as good then that obviously is an insult to his memory and what he did for the Club.

Excellently put and perfectly worded to explain how I imagine anyone with half a brain cell feels ( not a dig at you joe, more the morons on fb)

[Miller11]

 haven’t managed to find a document that outlines all the requirements for a Cat 1 academy, but there are some definite areas for concern.

 

The table below shows the minimum amount of coaching hours expected. With the proposed downsizing I can’t see this being possible. Even if they did manage to squeeze it in, I can’t imagine we’d retain the status too long with multiple age groups on half pitches as the quality of coaching would suffer.

 

 

Based purely on pitch space, you only need to look what other teams have. We will be miles off. No doubt the club will eventually spin us the line that it’s becoming ever more difficult to maintain Category 1 status, so we just shouldn’t bother as we are little old Blackburn Rovers.

 

As I touched on yesterday complete lack of any provision of educational areas says it all. It’s one of the key components they look for, and without it we will be lucky to get beyond a category 3 status.

Couple of interesting links. Palace outlining how they got to Cat 1, and Watford abandoning their plans to

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/9877884.what-is-the-difference-between-a-category-1-and-3-academy-as-part-of-eppp-changes/

 

https://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/2020/july/crystal-palace-fc-secures-category-1-status-for-its-academy/

[Mattyblue]

As I said yesterday, the fact that the statement only talks about ‘pathways’ and doesn’t even mention probably the biggest success of the entire club in recent times - the Cat 1 Academy, rings big alarm bells for me for its future...

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

59 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Ah, ok... very odd. And he got the managers job when his pal walked.

More going on with Venus than meets the eye... by all accounts his remit goes well beyond that of an assistant manager here.

That's good news because as assistant manager he's useless.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

 

 

 

 

Chrisprior

 

@chrisprior77

·

5h

 

Replying to

@richsharpe89

Jeez, just drop this. No other company has to tell the general public of their plans. I think we should focus on why we can’t score rather than a training pitch.

 

An actual tweet. FFS!

Edited February 22, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[Bigdoggsteel]

Have the LT not reported on this yet? 

[Blue blood]

Ok so these tweets are rather puzzling. Most of all is how have we fans like this? 

So I can't see any fans wanting to support Rovers sine the Loons rocked up. With broad coverage of the big 6 available, the toxic environment at Ewood under Kean, 6-7 years of steadily worse performances and a general circus - why would anyone start supporting Rovers? 

On the flip side I cannot see how any fan from prior to the takeover could be happy with what had happened over the last 10 years. If you have seen Hughes or Souness's team, let alone the Premiership winning one, and Williams running of the show, why would you be happy with how things have gone? Why would you think these plans are acceptable? 

We've also lost half our supporter base in that time. So where on earth have these supporters of operation destroy Rovers come from? 

[Mattyblue]

6 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Have the LT not reported on this yet? 

Yes, but in the news, not the Rovers section (I know, I rarely go to that section either).

[arbitro]

One of the most irksome things about this is the almost underhanded way it has been done so far and, once again the shadowy figures lurking in the background. The naivete of some is astounding. If the downgrade goes ahead Rovers will be worse off, there's no going back. 

Just imagine the possibility of swapping our fantastic training ground for Mowbray to bring in another Brereton or Gallagher with the money.

[Hasta]

If the academy was to retain its Cat 1 status it would surely have been in Saturdays press release.

That whole release was to try and calm down any storm which was brewing. Every bit of positive spin which could be put on this would new included in that release. Not mentioning the Category 1 status of the academy is unlikely to have been an oversight.

Put simply, we are selling off the category status of the academy to raise funds.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Hasta

[Leonard Venkhater]

3 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Ok so these tweets are rather puzzling. Most of all is how have we fans like this? 

So I can't see any fans wanting to support Rovers sine the Loons rocked up. With broad coverage of the big 6 available, the toxic environment at Ewood under Kean, 6-7 years of steadily worse performances and a general circus - why would anyone start supporting Rovers? 

On the flip side I cannot see how any fan from prior to the takeover could be happy with what had happened over the last 10 years. If you have seen Hughes or Souness's team, let alone the Premiership winning one, and Williams running of the show, why would you be happy with how things have gone? Why would you think these plans are acceptable? 

We've also lost half our supporter base in that time. So where on earth have these supporters of operation destroy Rovers come from? 

Entryism!

[AllRoverAsia]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

One of the most irksome things about this is the almost underhanded way it has been done so far and, once again the shadowy figures lurking in the background. The naivete of some is astounding. If the downgrade goes ahead Rovers will be worse off, there's no going back. 

Just imagine the possibility of swapping our fantastic training ground for Mowbray to bring in another Brereton or Gallagher with the money.

No thanks, I sleep badly enough as it is.

[Mercer]

I would not hold your breath on Sharpe stirring things up:

 

𝐉𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐲𝐣𝐚𝐬𝐞 @jinkyjase 5h

Replying to @richsharpe89

It's not the responsibility of the club to determine what happens to the land, but it is their land to sell. Nobody goes after the farmer who sells his land to Redrow for them to develop 500 boxes.

Rich Sharpe @richsharpe89 4h

correct, and the club have obviously done the due diligence because otherwise no one would buy land earmarked for housing that they then couldn’t build on. That needs to be cleared up and explained though, as planning/employment documents suggest that couldn’t be the case.

 

Think he should be all over this.

[Leonard Venkhater]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

One of the most irksome things about this is the almost underhanded way it has been done so far and, once again the shadowy figures lurking in the background. The naivete of some is astounding. If the downgrade goes ahead Rovers will be worse off, there's no going back. 

Just imagine the possibility of swapping our fantastic training ground for Mowbray to bring in another Brereton or Gallagher with the money.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Leonard Venkhater

[Mattyblue]

10 minutes ago, Hasta said:

If the academy was to retain its Cat 1 status is would surely have been in Saturdays press release.

That whole release was to try and calm down any storm which was brewing. Every bit of positive spin which could be put on this would new included in that release. Not mentioning the Category 1 status of the academy is unlikely to have been an oversight.

Put simply, we are selling off the category status of the academy to raise funds.

 

‘What other non PL clubs around here are Cat 1? We need to be realistic. We should carry on using TM’s contacts to bring in more Elliotts instead. Good and sensible move by the club IMO’

Edited February 22, 2021 by Mattyblue

[RevidgeBlue]

23 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

 haven’t managed to find a document that outlines all the requirements for a Cat 1 academy, but there are some definite areas for concern.

 

The table below shows the minimum amount of coaching hours expected. With the proposed downsizing I can’t see this being possible. Even if they did manage to squeeze it in, I can’t imagine we’d retain the status too long with multiple age groups on half pitches as the quality of coaching would suffer.

 

 

Based purely on pitch space, you only need to look what other teams have. We will be miles off. No doubt the club will eventually spin us the line that it’s becoming ever more difficult to maintain Category 1 status, so we just shouldn’t bother as we are little old Blackburn Rovers.

 

As I touched on yesterday complete lack of any provision of educational areas says it all. It’s one of the key components they look for, and without it we will be lucky to get beyond a category 3 status.

Couple of interesting links. Palace outlining how they got to Cat 1, and Watford abandoning their plans to

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/9877884.what-is-the-difference-between-a-category-1-and-3-academy-as-part-of-eppp-changes/

 

https://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/2020/july/crystal-palace-fc-secures-category-1-status-for-its-academy/

Great Post.

I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how having a lot more people using a much smaller facility is an improvement on the same people having their own separate facilities!

There was of course no mention whatsoever in the Club Statement about the proposed future status of the Academy and it may well be that there is some mileage in the theory that the owners have come to the conclusion that financially it's a lot cheaper to loan other Clubs' players and let them pay most of the wages and therefore our Academy can be downgraded.

I think we've seen over the last few seasons in footballing terms that relying too heavily on loans gets you absolutely nowhere. Of course if this is the plan and the current manager Mowbray is comfortable with it, unfortunately it will make him even more bombproof.

Regardless of whether it is the polar opposite of what the fans would prefer or that it runs directly contrary to the spirit of the Jack Walker "Legacy".

[Miller11]

11 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I do take your points onboard. The reason for my questions is purely to seek understanding. I’m not trying to win an argument, I am quite honestly trying to understand the general viewpoint of this messageboard, as I find it fascinating that the members of BRFCS so wholeheartedly disagree with quite a larger majority of the rest of the supporter base online. 

It would be nice to be able to hold an opinion that opposes the majority on here without being called disrespectful, silly, a Venky shill, or accused of acting under the direction, or financial implication of somebody at the football club. 

Jack Walker was a businessman, a cut throat one at that, who wasn’t scared to make tough decisions. In this financial climate, IF he was the owner of our side in our position now (Lord knows we wouldn’t have got here in the first place with him at the helm) I really don’t think it’s outside of the realm of possibility that he would also look at cost cutting methods such as this. Whilst always willing to pump in funds and support the club, I very much get the impression that JW was a pretty clever businessman who wasn’t afraid of making difficult decisions.

I don’t think that I am disrespectful towards him or his legacy by saying I’m fairly positive about some plans for a training ground, or suggesting that we don’t know what kind of decisions he would make in these circumstances. As for legacy, if me putting less focus on the importance of legacy is offensive to you then I can only apologise.

Perhaps for those wondering why the wider fan base seems all for the idea and why this forum is ALL against: Maybe people are a little scared to voice an opinion here that doesn’t fit the mould, for fear of being shut down, accused, personally attacked and mocked for daring to “speak to the moderators” over personal insults and complete and utter libel.

To address a couple of those points Joe...

This message board is fairly unique in that it’s members have gone out of their way to set up an account and come here specifically to discuss Rovers. Some of the accounts on Twitter/Facebook who pass comments on Rovers related things won’t be as interested. Reacting in passing, etc.

There’s also an age thing. Again, this isn’t a dig, but a number of the fans on Social media mightn’t understand what we mean by Jack Walkers legacy. They’ve only known Venky’s and don’t share the cynicism that many of us have developed.

Also, voicing a “negative” opinion on Twitter  (I don’t do Facebook, but imagine it’s worse) gets you piled on pretty quickly... so maybe people who frequent this board have similar experiences to the one you have had here when they air their views on social media.

I’ll acknowledge I’m one of the most critical and sceptical of our fans towards the owners and the board, and my initial reaction to this news breaking was negative. I’ve spent the last couple of days digging, reading up, and admittedly speculating, and I’ve seen nothing to alter my initial reaction. So I don’t think my pessimism, or the pessimism of the people commenting on this thread is blind. A lot of the optimism I’m seeing though, I think it is.

To kind of summarise, I read a tweet today saying “The club literally only exists because of Venky’s”. This person needs to put down their phone, pick up a book, and read about John Lewis and Arthur Constantine (this one is absolutely a dig).

[broadsword]

I think this is as low as I've ever been about rovers. 

It's worse than Steve kean in my opinion because as terrible as he was, at least we could've come back from it. What we have now in my opinion, is someone who I thought was ethical, but turns out to be as bad as kean, just better at hiding it. 

Ten years of disaster, negligence, profiteering, incompetence, malfeasance, tormenting, frustration and regression. 

This is different, this is putting the club backwards, with no potential to put it right again at some future stage. 

Starting to wonder whether at some point I should just walk away, because being a helpless bystander in this tragic farce, watching the bad guys won over and over, isn't doing much for my mental health

[Stuart]

4 hours ago, arbitro said:

Just reading some of the excellent posts in this thread has got me wondering if the club would be happy to dispense with the Academy in the long run and focus on the seniors and under 23's. JHRovers terrific, detailed post shows it's nigh on impossible to do what they are saying in the proposal.

Where/who would the U23s play? Without Cat 1 status, we cannot continue in PL2 so it would be a reserve league format. Meanwhile any prospects would be picked off by bigger clubs for peanuts.

The fact that this has come out so surreptitiously shows just how little the club care about fans in all this - especially for something supposedly so positive.

We’ve heard from the Rovers Trust, do we have any thoughts from any Fans Forum representatives?

Still nobody is talking about Mowbray any more. 🤔

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

‘What other non PL clubs around here are Cat 1? We need to be realistic. We should carry on using TM’s contacts to bring in more Elliotts instead. Good and sensible move by the club IMO’

Usually agree with all your posts. Is this sarcasm?

We've seen no benefit whatsoever from the policy of loaning players in thus far and Elliott's enthusiasm for playing here seemed to tail off around Christmas when presumably he might have been eligible for another move or a return to Annfield.

He's been rubbish since.

[Miller11]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Usually agree with all your posts. Is this sarcasm?

We've seen no benefit whatsoever from the policy of loaning players in thus far and Elliott's enthusiasm for playing here seemed to tail off around Christmas when presumably he might have been eligible for another move or a return to Annfield.

He's been rubbish since.

It’s definite sarcasm... but it’s a scarily accurate parody of the reaction a lot of our fans will voice.