Championship 24/25

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The clubs accepted the shit show but they didn't create it.  It was the clubs who wanted more money. It was Sky Sports that wanted EFL fixtures on Thursday and Friday nights and don't care with their picks which fans are inconvenienced. So they are both to blame. What don't you get?

Games in the EFL have always played on Friday night. Going back to when we get promotion under Souness from this league to championship. 

EFL clubs wanted more revenue from TV rights and required more games available for coverage. Simple business. 

I am inconvenience myself by games during the week given I work nights but I accepted years ago, that's how football is going and football is a 7 day a week sport nowadays not just a Saturday 3pm kick off sport. 

Just imagine if instead of 7 games on Saturday dinner time they spend it around the weekend with games at 8pm on Saturday night or 7pm on Sunday, just imagine the outrage at that. 

 

 

[Mattyblue]

Might have led to ‘outrage’, but it would still make far more sense for the clubs, the EFL and Sky themselves than having four L1/L2 games kicking off at 12.30 hidden away on the red button, where’s the ‘exposure’ there?

[Hasta]

20 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Games in the EFL have always played on Friday night. Going back to when we get promotion under Souness from this league to championship. 

EFL clubs wanted more revenue from TV rights and required more games available for coverage. Simple business. 

I am inconvenience myself by games during the week given I work nights but I accepted years ago, that's how football is going and football is a 7 day a week sport nowadays not just a Saturday 3pm kick off sport. 

Just imagine if instead of 7 games on Saturday dinner time they spend it around the weekend with games at 8pm on Saturday night or 7pm on Sunday, just imagine the outrage at that. 

 

 

Yeah, yeah ,deflective self-centred waffle.

But it was Sky that wanted more games and the only way the clubs would get more money was accepting their proposal. Therefore both Sky TV and the clubs are to blame for inconveniencing fans this much. 

Edited March 8 by Hasta

[roversfan99]

I dont even get why Sky want to show some of the games they are moving. Most TV viewers including places like pubs will go for Forest v City. Coventry v Stoke on Sky Sports main channel might have a reasonable viewing but aside from that, who aside from those teams fans are watching the other games? Which lunatics would actively choose Reading V Crawley or Walsall v Grimsby?

[roversfan99]

Also, the fact that European games being played midweek (which will obviously be the way to fit the games into the calendar) are the ones that chaddy is slagging off backs up the theory that because he has Sky he wont say a bad word about anything relating to how they move games, but anything on TNT sports deserves stick.

[Hasta]

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont even get why Sky want to show some of the games they are moving. Most TV viewers including places like pubs will go for Forest v City. Coventry v Stoke on Sky Sports main channel might have a reasonable viewing but aside from that, who aside from those teams fans are watching the other games? Which lunatics would actively choose Reading V Crawley or Walsall v Grimsby?

Reading, Crawley, Walsall and Grimsby fans who are no longer going to bother going to the match as it's been moved. 🤷‍♂️

[Mattyblue]

I’ve no issue with every club across the divisions getting their games shown, obviously part of the deal, and rightly so.

It’s the seven games on a Saturday, all at 12.30, yet just one on a Sunday that makes absolutely no sense.

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, Hasta said:

Yeah, yeah ,deflective self-centred waffle.

But it was Sky that wanted more games and the only way the clubs would get more money was accepting their proposal. Therefore both Sky TV and the clubs are to blame for inconveniencing fans this much. 

The clubs wanted more revenue from the TV rights, only way it was ever achievable was more games on TV, Fairly logical business. Dazn sports want to put every game on TV. I'm sure they were other interested from TV. 

 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont even get why Sky want to show some of the games they are moving. Most TV viewers including places like pubs will go for Forest v City. Coventry v Stoke on Sky Sports main channel might have a reasonable viewing but aside from that, who aside from those teams fans are watching the other games? Which lunatics would actively choose Reading V Crawley or Walsall v Grimsby?

Most pubs will have different sports and will both football games. 

People who supports that team and maybe fans who team play them next. Or someone like myself who will watch like Blackpool or Stanley cos they are mates team or my local club. 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Also, the fact that European games being played midweek (which will obviously be the way to fit the games into the calendar) are the ones that chaddy is slagging off backs up the theory that because he has Sky he wont say a bad word about anything relating to how they move games, but anything on TNT sports deserves stick.

No I just dont like Format and structure of the European competitions hence why I don't watch them anymore. 

No I don't have TNT sports cos cost wise it not worth for the coverage of Sports they actually have. Yes I have Sky Sports cos for the football but also for cricket, F1 and Darts. I take it you paid for both Sky Sports and TNT Sports? 

[jim mk2]

Coventry 1-0 up. 

[Cherry Blue]

2 0 now. Not good for us.

[norwichblue]

Watford level on points as-is too. Can’t afford to lose today.

[roversfan99]

Just now, norwichblue said:

Watford level on points as-is too. Can’t afford to lose today.

Cant afford to do anything but win.

[roverandout]

People scoffed when lampard got the Coventry job. I think Gerrard would have done equally well here

[roversfan99]

They understandably scoffed because his managerial record to date is crap but hes done very well so far at Coventry.

I dont get how its relevant in terms of Gerrard though. People like to categorize them together because of the comparisons as players. Totally different people and managers.

[Hasta]

56 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The clubs wanted more revenue from the TV rights, only way it was ever achievable was more games on TV, Fairly logical business. Dazn sports want to put every game on TV. I'm sure they were other interested from TV. 

Reread the post you quoted please. Just saves me typing it out again in reply.

[roverandout]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

They understandably scoffed because his managerial record to date is crap but hes done very well so far at Coventry.

I dont get how its relevant in terms of Gerrard though. People like to categorize them together because of the comparisons as players. Totally different people and managers.

Just saying players would run through brick walls for guys like Gerrard and lampard.  Remember when Dalglish was appointed rovers manager, he lifted the whole club

[roversfan99]

Why would they purely based on a playing career? And it isnt enough to sustain a successful managerial career.

Big name former players have often got jobs presumably partly based on that assumption and its gone wrong. Surely players would have run through brick walls for Rooney?

Gerrard comes across as a person totally different to how he played.

[Tugayisgod]

9 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

They understandably scoffed because his managerial record to date is crap but hes done very well so far at Coventry.

I dont get how its relevant in terms of Gerrard though. People like to categorize them together because of the comparisons as players. Totally different people and managers.

And Robins, who did such a good job at Coventry struggling big time at Stoke. Just shows it sometimes the club just suits you, sometimes it doesn't.

[Mattyblue]

Obviously players wouldn’t run through brick walls for a manager just because they were a top player, for every Kenny or Cruyff there’s a Rooney or Bobby Charlton.

You either have it or you don’t regardless of who you were.

[martonrover]

4 minutes ago, Tugayisgod said:

And Robins, who did such a good job at Coventry struggling big time at Stoke. Just shows it sometimes the club just suits you, sometimes it doesn't.

The common denominator appears to be that previously successful managers struggle when they rock up at Stoke City.

[Cherry Blue]

Coventry should have had a penalty and Stoke keeper should be off.

How the hell can a crap ref not see that!!!!!!!

[StHelensRover]

In danger of sounding hysterical again here but the way other results are already going this weekend, we must win today and Wednesday or we've had it IMO. I get all the clichés "long way to go" "anything can happen" but any other team around us would be licking their lips at playing these and Stoke and I'm just fearing the worst.

 

Just arrived in Derby, weather glorious and it's busy already. Once more into the breach and all that 🤞🤞 

Edited March 8 by StHelensRover

[simongarnerisgod]

6 minutes ago, martonrover said:

The common denominator appears to be that previously successful managers struggle when they rock up at Stoke City.

they have possibly a worse back office than ours,though their chairman coates is seriously loaded and will spend money

[norwichblue]

44 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Cant afford to do anything but win.

That’s what I meant actually.

[roverandout]

Breaking news.  Sam Gallagher scores