RevidgeBlue

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.

Spot on. No-one at the Club had the courage to put their name to the press release which should tell you all you need to know about whether it is beneficial to the football side of things.

What's it to you? Why do you appear to be so invested in the scheme going ahead?

Can anyone please explain what difference it makes that the buildings themselves are 25-30 years old or brand new? Or that the current sites are not housed within the same building? They're only a stones throw away from one another? I suspect absolutely none. It's just a desperate attempt to make a terrible idea sound like a good one.

I don't suppose Jack would have minded in the slightest if the training facilities were being genuinely improved but come on, that's not what's happening here is it? It seems a fairly obvious asset stripping exercise to make a quick buck. We just don't know for certain where the net proceeds would be going yet. If the scheme was entirely at the owners behest then I suppose that is their prerogative. However I think as supporters we would still be entitled to feel aggrieved that Jack's legacy which you are so dismissive of was being disrepected. He thought that it was necessary to have separate facilities for a Club of the stature he wished to build and ideally that should be respected.

Good spot. Shows Waggott in his true colours.

Quite unbelievable comments about Jack Walker. As others have said, I'm not certain how these plans reveal anything particularly state of the art or anything that couldn't be easily incorporated into the existing sites. We'd simply be getting an infinitely smaller facility. It's virtually impossible to see any benefit to it in footballing terms.

It's unbelievable isn't it. I know many people are keen to castigate the owners at every opportunity but I really wonder if this sickening scheme is actually their idea, or they've been fed the line about "a state of the art" training facility by the Coventry 3 only to find out when it is too late that the reality is anything but. With losses running at £20m p.a. it's unlikely that this short sighted idea would cover more than a couple of years debts at best. And that's if the Club is receiving the monies in full. It needs to be revealed how much the site would potentially be sold for, would it be placed on the open market or sold to a Company in which current Club employees have an interest, would the proceeds go to the Club in full and if so for what purpose would they be used, to pay down debt or to be reinvested in the playing side of things. Even if everything was relatively above board and the owners were the driving force behind the idea they were receiving the full proceeds and Waggott/Mowbray/Venus weren't making a penny out of it it's impossible to see how a much smaller facility on one site could be anything other than a significant downgrade on the existing ones. If you're genuinely serious about upgrading the training facilities, leave the existing sites intact and make the necessary improvements to make them state of the art as necessary. If there's no desire to do that it can only be concluded that this is a scam, we just don't know for sure yet who's behind it but bearing in mind what happened at Coventry it seems fairly clear who will be the architects of this scheme.

Good statement. The Covenant is the key to fighting this appalling proposal. Wasn't aware the Walker Trust was no longer technically still in existence.From a legal point of view I'd have thought the former members of the Trust would have to give their consent to waiving the covenant. Hope they haven't been paid to agree to do so. Wonder if the likes of John Williams and Tom Finn could be relied upon to lobby against the proposal and stress it is the absolute last thing Jack would have wanted? Or would they still be bound by agreements they signed when they left the Club?

What we see on the pitch IS down to TM though.

He's either got a very short memory or is starting to completely unravel. When questioned about Nyambe's omission on Wednesday night he definitely said there was no particular reason for it he had a big squad and sometimes players didn't make the cut. Not even a hint about RN needing a rest. If he's going to lie through his teeth he might as well get his story straight. It's also exceptionally bad form to insinuate its the fans fault RN is injured. If there's any doubt over his fitness then any proper coach would ensure he doesn't play until he is right and all he has to do is explain that.

Yes. Let's try and get rid of "The Coventry Three" whilst there's still something left to salvage.

Lovely fella? - at least Kean, Coyle etc weren't complicit in the sale of the training ground.

My better half just showed me an article from the Daily Mail online whereby that brain dead bimbo of a fiancee of his was whinging about their wedding being on hold due to Covid and how they were thinking about postponing it because they were missing "the build up". Also said that if she every broke up with Dack she couldn't go out with anyone else in the public eye. That can't help. How can you concentrate on your work with that circus going on? As one comment below the article said " sausages for lips and the personality of a turnip".

Has someone hacked your account Chaddy?

There's been a lot worse than that. Raya, Nyambe, Brereton, Davenport, Chapman. At least from Gallagher's point of view he does seem to start fairly regularly in an attempt to justify the expenditure.

Go Chaddy.

Saw the goal on Soccer Saturday. Refused to waste a tenner on it today. The thing that struck me was the appalling body language from our players after the ball flew in. One of complete and utter resignation.

Flog it off and replace with the smallest facility they can get away with.

I wouldn't say he's guaranteed to keep us up at all but he doesn't need to for very long does he? Just long enough for this Brockhall scam to go through.

Positives: Nyambe back in. Apart from that in the light of today's news, who cares? Waggott/Mowbray/Venus out!

What a fantastic post. Nothing more you can add to that.

Wasn't it only in the summer that the Club were crowing about having installed new state of the art technology and facilities at the existing sites?

I've been down there and from memory the opposite is the case, the site where the senior facility is located is far bigger with all the outdoor pitches. Of the two buildings, the Academy one was I think built later and regarded as the more modern facility but in a much more compact area.

Spot on. Brockhall is also a vast estate with a sizeable chunk having been previously unused. I'd have felt easier if a small chunk had been sold off for housing and the existing sites were to remain untouched. Then, if you want to upgrade or modernise them feel free. This just feels like trying to squeeze every drop of profit they can out of the land and trying to shoehorn the Club's training centre into as small a building as possible.