v Millwall (h) - Saturday 19th February

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

The 2 examples that you gave where players that would have massively improved us, but ones who were so dear that they became instantly irrelevant to the conversation anyway aside from attempting to make out that it was impossible for us to compete.

There would have been scope for a signing, yes it wasnt a straightforward task and yes it may well have had to be a loan. 

Keiffer Moore would have "massively" improved us? Debatable. Very debatable. Dike had a few good months at this level-nothing guaranteed there. I don't understand the last part of the first paragraph? Who is attempting to make out its impossible to compete? You literally said in the previous sentence they would have cost too much. So as far as competing financially, its a fact that its not possible with some of the others in and around the top 6, luckily on the field its a different story. 

We have 6 players who can play in the 2 forward roles, 7 if you include Vale. We can debate their effectiveness , but the numbers are there. A loan from a premier league club is difficult to envisage as being a solution to a Brereton injury. 

[Mattyblue]

2 goals in 2022 is another number…

[rigger]

39 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Wait, so your argument is that the ref making a decision makes it the right decision? I suspect virtually all football fans would disagree with you, as we have seen refs make decisions before...

No, what I am saying is the only person who's decision matters is the refs, as he is the one who has been tasked to make the decision. What needs clarifying, are his reasons for calling off the game and what factors lead to these reasons.  

[bluebruce]

13 minutes ago, rigger said:

No, what I am saying is the only person who's decision matters is the refs, as he is the one who has been tasked to make the decision. What needs clarifying, are his reasons for calling off the game and what factors lead to these reasons.  

There's a world of difference between the right decision, which is what you said on the post I quoted, and it being the only decision that matters, which is what you're saying now and I fully agree with. Fair enough if you only meant the latter.

I think a statement from the ref on why he cancelled it is imperative, just as a basic courtesy to all the fans who have been inconvenienced. It will just be something generic of course and won't change anything, but it's just simple manners. It probably isn't going to happen at this stage.

[Wheelton Blue]

34 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

There's a world of difference between the right decision, which is what you said on the post I quoted, and it being the only decision that matters, which is what you're saying now and I fully agree with. Fair enough if you only meant the latter.

I think a statement from the ref on why he cancelled it is imperative, just as a basic courtesy to all the fans who have been inconvenienced. It will just be something generic of course and won't change anything, but it's just simple manners. It probably isn't going to happen at this stage.

I personally don't think the ref owes us squat. He was just doing his job.

We are customers of the club; it is they who owe us an explanation beyond just 'we wanted to play the game'.

[1864roverite]

The only answer we as fans will ever get is the game was cancelled for concern for players safety due to the pitch surface not allowing the ball to roll/bounce naturally.

[tomphil]

3 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

I beg to differ his report will be due to adverse weather conditions player safety was the primary decision and deemed the pitch unplayable it will not reflect on the club as they wanted the game to go ahead 

With the scrutiny he will have been under especially from the Millwall end i think he'll be covering his arse. Seeing as virtually everybody connected to either team who was there seems of the opinion it was playable by 3pm.

He's bound to mention his opinion on the general preparations i'm sure.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Wheelton Blue said:

I personally don't think the ref owes us squat. He was just doing his job.

We are customers of the club; it is they who owe us an explanation beyond just 'we wanted to play the game'.

Sure, he was just doing his job. If I just do my job and lots of people were affected and think I'm doing it wrong, I'd be obliged to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing. Some overpaid ref, who by the law of averages in this league very likely doesn't do the main parts of his job very well, shouldn't be any different.

The club aren't the ones who cancelled it. It's actually them that doesn't owe us squat, at least until we hear from the man who made the decision. If something he says calls into question the professionalism of the club, THEN the club owe us.

And before anyone starts, I am far, far from an apologist for the club.

[only2garners]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Find it disappointing that as a key member of the Fans Forum you're treating the matter so flippantly John.

 

 

 

 

 

So if I'm on the Fans Forum Simon I can't make a little joke?

[Wheelton Blue]

4 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Sure, he was just doing his job. If I just do my job and lots of people were affected and think I'm doing it wrong, I'd be obliged to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing. Some overpaid ref, who by the law of averages in this league very likely doesn't do the main parts of his job very well, shouldn't be any different.

The club aren't the ones who cancelled it. It's actually them that doesn't owe us squat, at least until we hear from the man who made the decision. If something he says calls into question the professionalism of the club, THEN the club owe us.

And before anyone starts, I am far, far from an apologist for the club.

I don't really care whose fault it was. 

My 'contract' was with the club. I am their customer, not the ref's. The product I paid for didn't materialise, therefore the club should explain to me - as their customer - why that was so.

All IMO, of course.

 

[1864roverite]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

With the scrutiny he will have been under especially from the Millwall end i think he'll be covering his arse. Seeing as virtually everybody connected to either team who was there seems of the opinion it was playable by 3pm.

He's bound to mention his opinion on the general preparations i'm sure.

Basing it solely on my previous experiences, the less said the better! Means he cannot be questioned about what hasn’t been mentioned! 

[tomphil]

12 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Basing it solely on my previous experiences, the less said the better! Means he cannot be questioned about what hasn’t been mentioned! 

I wouldn't drink the tea next time he's reffing at Millwall if i was him.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Keiffer Moore would have "massively" improved us? Debatable. Very debatable. Dike had a few good months at this level-nothing guaranteed there. I don't understand the last part of the first paragraph? Who is attempting to make out its impossible to compete? You literally said in the previous sentence they would have cost too much. So as far as competing financially, its a fact that its not possible with some of the others in and around the top 6, luckily on the field its a different story. 

We have 6 players who can play in the 2 forward roles, 7 if you include Vale. We can debate their effectiveness , but the numbers are there. A loan from a premier league club is difficult to envisage as being a solution to a Brereton injury. 

My point is that I don't understand why you even at any point mentioned Dike and Moore, I can only presume that you have used them solely based on them being the 2 big transfers of the window for forwards at this level, but they are irrelevant, far too dear. Moore has had a stop start season following the Euro's and having had covid earlier in the season but he scored 20 goals last season, he is a marked upgrade on our current striking cast who I have gone into detail about below, but to be honest its irrelevant as he was well beyond our financial means anyway, and doesn't fit our system.

I have never said at any point that we could have come up with a solution to a Brereton injury, in fact I have said that any team would miss its main goalscorer and that it wouldn't be possible to equally replace him. I felt that prior to knowledge of Brereton's injury, that we needed a player capable of playing as one of our (wide) forwards who has more of a goal threat than the majority of our players that we have at the moment, accepting that it wasn't an easy ask. Dolan has lots of qualities, but has 3 goals in both seasons, his goals are infrequent. Khadra has 3 in his first season of senior football, again there is no track record of anything other than occasional goals. Hedges having played as a winger again is far from prolific. You say we have potentially 7 forwards, Vale is not as serious option for a team chasing Premier League promotion having played 20 minutes of football (in a dead rubber) at this level and Markanday has a season ending injury that we knew about a week before the window closed. So that leaves Gallagher as our main goal threat who himself is far from prolific. It's not about how many you have in general, it is whether you have enough of the qualities we need.

Any signing is a gamble and I concede that especially with a limited budget that signing a player (to clarify, I wasn't expecting a 20+ goal striker/direct equivalent of Brereton) was difficult but it wouldn't have to be a 5m plus player either and those examples are irrelevant.

[oldjamfan1]

33 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

I don't really care whose fault it was. 

My 'contract' was with the club. I am their customer, not the ref's. The product I paid for didn't materialise, therefore the club should explain to me - as their customer - why that was so.

All IMO, of course.

 

The club did explain - the ref was of the view that the pitch was a risk to the safety of the players and therefore called the game off. They have made a few noises to the effect that they didn’t agree with that decision via the CEO but beyond that there’s not much for the club to say, without running the risk of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’.

The poster who shared the Pompey media link from their game at Crewe, which was called off in eerily similar circumstances, opened my eyes up to what very probably went on at Ewood and it sits squarely with the referee, as I thought it did at the time when he unexpectedly postponed the game. 
 

All you posters (not necessarily aimed at you Wheelton) giving the club a kicking over the game getting called off on Saturday would be well served saving your ire for the situations where we can legitimately lambast them over known facts.

[rigger]

Personally I would like to know if the ref called it off due to the pitch being waterlogged, and if this was the case, was that due to bad drainage. If bad drainage is the fault and it was previously known about, then it is down to the club. A danger to the players is not a reason, it is an outcome.

[Wheelton Blue]

1 minute ago, oldjamfan1 said:

All you posters (not necessarily aimed at you Wheelton) giving the club a kicking over the game getting called off on Saturday would be well served saving your ire for the situations where we can legitimately lambast them over known facts.

I agree.

To be clear, I'm not lambasting anyone & have no opinion as to who was at fault. As I said, I don't really care whose fault it was.

The point I was trying to make was simply that, as a customer of the club  if there was any explanation to be had I'd expect that to come from the club, which as you say has been given to a degree.

It's all a moot point anyway. The club won't criticse the ref, likewise the ref won't openly lay blame on the club. As supporters, we're just expected to lump it.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

I don't really care whose fault it was. 

My 'contract' was with the club. I am their customer, not the ref's. The product I paid for didn't materialise, therefore the club should explain to me - as their customer - why that was so.

All IMO, of course.

 

And they did. They explained that the referee cancelled the match.

[bazza]

Reading these 29 pages I'm losing the will to live.

[oldjamfan1]

1 hour ago, bazza said:

Reading these 29 pages I'm losing the will to live.

To be fair the game was called off so there isn’t much football to discuss on the thread. What were you expecting?

[1864roverite]

2 hours ago, rigger said:

Personally I would like to know if the ref called it off due to the pitch being waterlogged, and if this was the case, was that due to bad drainage. If bad drainage is the fault and it was previously known about, then it is down to the club. A danger to the players is not a reason, it is an outcome.

Blame the local council and god for allowing the river levels to reach the drainage points😂

[rigger]

40 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Blame the local council and god for allowing the river levels to reach the drainage points😂

No, but if the problem with drainage is a known problem that hasn't been addressed, the only people to blame are the club.

[Oldgregg86]

Anyone have a clue when the rescheduled game takes place and if it will be on the red button now it’s a midweek fixture (presumably)

[darrenrover]

8 hours ago, rigger said:

No, what I am saying is the only person who's decision matters is the refs, as he is the one who has been tasked to make the decision. What needs clarifying, are his reasons for calling off the game and what factors lead to these reasons.  

The ref bounced a ball once and he didn't like the bounce of the ball. The snow that had been cleared off the pitch was too close to where the linesmen run up and down the touchline. That was it at 2.15pm!......ludicrous decision. The snow aside the touchline could have been cleared further in 10 minutes and the remaining snow on the pitch within 20.

I spoke to one of our players at about 4pm, before he went home shaking his head and his comment was "the pitch would have taken a long stud, no lying water, what more can I say?"

[oldjamfan1]

4 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

The ref bounced a ball once and he didn't like the bounce of the ball. The snow that had been cleared off the pitch was too close to where the linesmen run up and down the touchline. That was it at 2.15pm!......ludicrous decision. The snow aside the touchline could have been cleared further in 10 minutes and the remaining snow on the pitch within 20.

I spoke to one of our players at about 4pm, before he went home shaking his head and his comment was "the pitch would have taken a long stud, no lying water, what more can I say?"

It’s becoming very obvious that the ref didn’t fancy it, for reasons only he knows Nick.

[AllRoverAsia]

30 pages for a non game! 

Impressive going, well done to all who made this possible.

It is rumoured to have been 4 to 10 but could have been 7.

Roll on Wednesday!