Lancashire TelegraphDouglas: Bring in playmaker to help Rhodes (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Douglas: Bring in playmaker to help Rhodes

Lancashire Telegraph: Douglas: Bring in playmaker to help Rhodes Douglas: Bring in playmaker to help Rhodes

BRYAN Douglas has urged Blackburn Rovers to bring in a playmaker to offer more support to Jordan Rhodes next season – as speculation over the striker’s future reignited once more.

Rhodes has been Rovers’ top scorer for the past two seasons and Norwich City have become the latest club to be linked with a potential move for the 24-year-old.

Rovers see Rhodes as an integral part of their plans for the 2014/15 campaign and would not welcome any approach for their star man.

Boss Gary Bowyer brought in Rudy Gestede to partner Rhodes up front in the second half of the 2013/14 season but club legend Douglas believes the striker still needs more help from central midfield if Rovers are to become the attacking force required for promotion.

“I’d like to see more support for him,” Douglas said.

“Jordan did well for Huddersfield and he’s done remarkably well for us.

“He is a predator but he’s not a Shearer, he can’t hold the ball up in the middle of the field by himself.

“He got a bit of support later on in the season (with Gestede), but having done that I think they need a playmaker.

“I like Tom Cairney, he can beat one or two people, but we need somebody who is going to cause some problems in the opposition’s third. We don’t have anyone at the moment to get near the penalty area.

“David Dunn sets a great example, I know David and although he’s from Great Harwood he’s Blackburn through and through.

“But he’s not getting any younger and I said to him that when he plays he’s flying about doing other people’s jobs at times.”

Norwich could be in the market for a big money striker this summer after reports that Gary Hooper wants to leave the club following their relegation from the Premier League. Ricky van Wolfswinkel could also be sold.

That would give the Canaries cash to spend on a replacement, with speculation that they could test the water with an approach for Rhodes.

But it would still take a huge bid to make Rovers soften even slightly on their long-held stance that Rhodes is not for sale.

Rovers finished eighth in the Championship table during 2013/14 and Douglas believes they can take inspiration from their fierce East Lancashire rivals Burnley, who gained promotion.

But he says they must also tighten up defensively to push for the Premier League.

“We’ve got to do what Burnley have done, we’ve got to get up there and stay up there and treat every game as a cup tie,” Douglas said.

“Make no mistake they’re a good side and thoroughly deserved to go up.

“I was disappointed that Rovers gave away too many goals from corners and free kicks, bad defensive mistakes.

“We did improve, I didn’t see the Wigan match because I was on holiday and I believe it was a great match, but we still conceded three goals at home.

“I want them to address sloppy goals being given away.

“We were a bit better towards the end of the season but I still think we need more.”

Comments (91)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:22am Wed 4 Jun 14

BlackburnBadger says...

We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him!
We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him! BlackburnBadger
  • Score: 67

9:38am Wed 4 Jun 14

dangerous dave says...

now there's a team talk about playing consistent football - Dougie wish you
were in the dressing room cranking up the performances and winding up some of the sloppy players that we've got!!!
OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS
now there's a team talk about playing consistent football - Dougie wish you were in the dressing room cranking up the performances and winding up some of the sloppy players that we've got!!! OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS dangerous dave
  • Score: -39

9:39am Wed 4 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Couldn't agree more but this kind of player would cost a lot and they don't just grow on trees, like the above can some not coach RR he is a play maker but he needs to get his head up when on the ball IMO.
Couldn't agree more but this kind of player would cost a lot and they don't just grow on trees, like the above can some not coach RR he is a play maker but he needs to get his head up when on the ball IMO. Old age pensioner
  • Score: 12

9:40am Wed 4 Jun 14

Frisson says...

Agreed with above post. Rochina is the answer. People will come on here and moan he gives the ball away but so does every other player. If he is given license to stay forward then it doesnt matter if the ball is lost trying to thread a ball through for Rhodes and he will also chip in with some goals himself
Agreed with above post. Rochina is the answer. People will come on here and moan he gives the ball away but so does every other player. If he is given license to stay forward then it doesnt matter if the ball is lost trying to thread a ball through for Rhodes and he will also chip in with some goals himself Frisson
  • Score: 28

9:43am Wed 4 Jun 14

Welsh Rover says...

BlackburnBadger wrote:
We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him!
You beat me to the punch. Rochina is greedy but he is also the most skilful player in our squad. With more playing time he'd build a better understanding with Rhodes and Gestede. However, who do you drop? To put Cairney on the right would reduce his effectiveness to the team, Conway has to start on the left and we need someone like Evans in the middle who gets back to help the defence, something Rochina doesn't do. You could play Rochina on the right, instead of King, but it's harder to unlock defences from out wide.
[quote][p][bold]BlackburnBadger[/bold] wrote: We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him![/p][/quote]You beat me to the punch. Rochina is greedy but he is also the most skilful player in our squad. With more playing time he'd build a better understanding with Rhodes and Gestede. However, who do you drop? To put Cairney on the right would reduce his effectiveness to the team, Conway has to start on the left and we need someone like Evans in the middle who gets back to help the defence, something Rochina doesn't do. You could play Rochina on the right, instead of King, but it's harder to unlock defences from out wide. Welsh Rover
  • Score: 20

9:44am Wed 4 Jun 14

dallydally says...

Rochina - no thanks. He has shown he isn't the right type of player for the Championship. If Cairney isn't a playmaker what is he?
Rochina - no thanks. He has shown he isn't the right type of player for the Championship. If Cairney isn't a playmaker what is he? dallydally
  • Score: 3

9:49am Wed 4 Jun 14

MatthewCA says...

I agree Douglas comments. We need to fine tune the defence and two playmakers additional to Conway and Cainey into the team. Ruben is a good choice but he is difficult to adjust to the rovers system and shape.........he is always dreaming in La..Liga.

Get few quality players from the topfight bench on loan as a backup to fit the bill.
I agree Douglas comments. We need to fine tune the defence and two playmakers additional to Conway and Cainey into the team. Ruben is a good choice but he is difficult to adjust to the rovers system and shape.........he is always dreaming in La..Liga. Get few quality players from the topfight bench on loan as a backup to fit the bill. MatthewCA
  • Score: 4

10:12am Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/
SimonThomasSky/statu
ses/4735317624220794
88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division" Super_Clarets
  • Score: -32

10:13am Wed 4 Jun 14

roverstid says...

Rochina without doubt. His first game last season showed he brings so much to the game but gets sloppy on his end product, but that can be easily coached if you know what role you expect of him and he's happy to play there.
Rochina without doubt. His first game last season showed he brings so much to the game but gets sloppy on his end product, but that can be easily coached if you know what role you expect of him and he's happy to play there. roverstid
  • Score: 8

10:29am Wed 4 Jun 14

digitusjonfred says...

Bring on Ruben !!
Bring on Ruben !! digitusjonfred
  • Score: 9

10:30am Wed 4 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/

SimonThomasSky/statu

ses/4735317624220794

88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"[/p][/quote]NH Old age pensioner
  • Score: 2

10:30am Wed 4 Jun 14

digitusjonfred says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/

SimonThomasSky/statu

ses/4735317624220794

88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
Fingers ticking the old cue again !! go play !!
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"[/p][/quote]Fingers ticking the old cue again !! go play !! digitusjonfred
  • Score: 5

10:39am Wed 4 Jun 14

paladin101 says...

BlackburnBadger wrote:
We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him!
Agree! Rochina should have matured a bit as a player by now, and he's obviously got the skills needed to be that playmaker in midfield.
[quote][p][bold]BlackburnBadger[/bold] wrote: We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him![/p][/quote]Agree! Rochina should have matured a bit as a player by now, and he's obviously got the skills needed to be that playmaker in midfield. paladin101
  • Score: 4

10:51am Wed 4 Jun 14

A Rover 45 years and over says...

Cairney is a play maker especially when played in the middle and thought Rhodes got plenty of support with Cairney, Cowans and Gestede at the back end of the season but felt he didn't take enough advantage of it. We couldn't have scored more goals in the last few games it was the sloppy defending that was the problem. Not sure about Ruben for the Championship though. He should have been played more last season to see if was going to cut it. then.
Cairney is a play maker especially when played in the middle and thought Rhodes got plenty of support with Cairney, Cowans and Gestede at the back end of the season but felt he didn't take enough advantage of it. We couldn't have scored more goals in the last few games it was the sloppy defending that was the problem. Not sure about Ruben for the Championship though. He should have been played more last season to see if was going to cut it. then. A Rover 45 years and over
  • Score: 4

11:26am Wed 4 Jun 14

GAZHAY says...

Cairney can easily be the playmaker with Evans dropping back but we have seen that Cairney will do this also. Now that Marshall is back and also Conway on the other wing I don't see how we could fit anybody else in.
Agreed Rochina is a playmaker and do think he can do a job for us but don't think there is room for him in the starting 11.
Cairney can easily be the playmaker with Evans dropping back but we have seen that Cairney will do this also. Now that Marshall is back and also Conway on the other wing I don't see how we could fit anybody else in. Agreed Rochina is a playmaker and do think he can do a job for us but don't think there is room for him in the starting 11. GAZHAY
  • Score: 3

11:27am Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

http://www.clarets-m
ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p
remier_league_table_
201415_834062/index.
shtml
http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Super_Clarets
  • Score: -15

11:30am Wed 4 Jun 14

john byrom says...

Just back from bookies odds on dingles for relegation. 1/200. Wow some odds.
Just back from bookies odds on dingles for relegation. 1/200. Wow some odds. john byrom
  • Score: 8

11:32am Wed 4 Jun 14

john byrom says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m

ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p

remier_league_table_

201415_834062/index.

shtml
K/HEAD. Get a job scrounger.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml[/p][/quote]K/HEAD. Get a job scrounger. john byrom
  • Score: 3

11:39am Wed 4 Jun 14

eddyo says...

Is their anybody else who thinks the LT's sports section is complete sh1t?
*
None stories, badly written, not checked for mistakes and written by kids looking for a proper job. It looks like you pay peanuts and you get 'monkees' - or dingle Sh1te like this.
Is their anybody else who thinks the LT's sports section is complete sh1t? * None stories, badly written, not checked for mistakes and written by kids looking for a proper job. It looks like you pay peanuts and you get 'monkees' - or dingle Sh1te like this. eddyo
  • Score: 7

11:41am Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

http://www.clarets-m

ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p

remier_league_table_

201415_834062/index.

shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers? Super_Clarets
  • Score: -17

11:49am Wed 4 Jun 14

Frisson says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m


ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p


remier_league_table_


201415_834062/index.


shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell Frisson
  • Score: 9

11:50am Wed 4 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m


ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p


remier_league_table_


201415_834062/index.


shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]NH Old age pensioner
  • Score: -1

11:56am Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m



ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p



remier_league_table_



201415_834062/index.



shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
Still in the Premier League.

Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers?

What a bellend.
[quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell[/p][/quote]Still in the Premier League. Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers? What a bellend. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -13

11:58am Wed 4 Jun 14

Warnie says...

Great idea Bryan. Bring in a playmaker add to that a new keeper plus a new right back. No worries. Although there is a slight concern with regard to your cunning plan. Its called FFP.
Great idea Bryan. Bring in a playmaker add to that a new keeper plus a new right back. No worries. Although there is a slight concern with regard to your cunning plan. Its called FFP. Warnie
  • Score: -1

1:12pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Frisson says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m




ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p




remier_league_table_




201415_834062/index.




shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
Still in the Premier League.

Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers?

What a bellend.
course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell[/p][/quote]Still in the Premier League. Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers? What a bellend.[/p][/quote]course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers Frisson
  • Score: 9

1:31pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m





ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p





remier_league_table_





201415_834062/index.





shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
Still in the Premier League.

Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers?

What a bellend.
course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers
Now now, no need to bring your mother into it.

You know that we've got a very good chance of making the step up permanently, and that's what scares you the most.

Have you found out who's going to pay off your £60million debt yet?
[quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell[/p][/quote]Still in the Premier League. Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers? What a bellend.[/p][/quote]course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers[/p][/quote]Now now, no need to bring your mother into it. You know that we've got a very good chance of making the step up permanently, and that's what scares you the most. Have you found out who's going to pay off your £60million debt yet? Super_Clarets
  • Score: -18

1:53pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Oh dear....

"Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"
Oh dear.... "Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter" Super_Clarets
  • Score: -17

1:56pm Wed 4 Jun 14

noddy57 says...

I am confident Rhodes will still be here at the start of the season, he can sense something good is taking place at Ewood Park and he is paid well so why would he want to leave and join a team on the slide ?. As Bryan pointed out we may need to give more support to Rhodes and at the same time tighten up our defence-if we can do that then the sky,s the limit for this squad.
I am confident Rhodes will still be here at the start of the season, he can sense something good is taking place at Ewood Park and he is paid well so why would he want to leave and join a team on the slide ?. As Bryan pointed out we may need to give more support to Rhodes and at the same time tighten up our defence-if we can do that then the sky,s the limit for this squad. noddy57
  • Score: 7

2:06pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m






ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p






remier_league_table_






201415_834062/index.






shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
Still in the Premier League.

Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers?

What a bellend.
course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers
Now now, no need to bring your mother into it.

You know that we've got a very good chance of making the step up permanently, and that's what scares you the most.

Have you found out who's going to pay off your £60million debt yet?
NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell[/p][/quote]Still in the Premier League. Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers? What a bellend.[/p][/quote]course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers[/p][/quote]Now now, no need to bring your mother into it. You know that we've got a very good chance of making the step up permanently, and that's what scares you the most. Have you found out who's going to pay off your £60million debt yet?[/p][/quote]NH Old age pensioner
  • Score: 5

2:07pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Oh dear....

"Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"
NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Oh dear.... "Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"[/p][/quote]NH Old age pensioner
  • Score: 6

2:36pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Ronaldpetercooper says...

Good comments from Douggie as we definitely need the defence sorting out. I recall Marshall having a super game at right back and wonder if he could just be the man for the job. He also bombed up the flank and worth giving him a go as it will be difficult fitting him in elsewhere.
Personally I don't think Rochina is the answer and do not think he will want to return to Ewood and in any case may be worth a few bob to someone in Spain.
Could be a good season in the Championship next season with some good teams competing for promotion. It definitely will be harder than last season.
Good comments from Douggie as we definitely need the defence sorting out. I recall Marshall having a super game at right back and wonder if he could just be the man for the job. He also bombed up the flank and worth giving him a go as it will be difficult fitting him in elsewhere. Personally I don't think Rochina is the answer and do not think he will want to return to Ewood and in any case may be worth a few bob to someone in Spain. Could be a good season in the Championship next season with some good teams competing for promotion. It definitely will be harder than last season. Ronaldpetercooper
  • Score: 7

2:45pm Wed 4 Jun 14

theswayzeexpress says...

Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us. theswayzeexpress
  • Score: 7

3:06pm Wed 4 Jun 14

roverstid says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Oh dear....

"Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"
Hearing that Dychey babe refused to answer questions on the interest shown by epl clubs.

Consider that against Rovers, who immediately addressed and denied such speculation about Bowyer to Leeds and it really is a worrying time for fans at Turd More.

Ings and Dyche both from down south attracting interest from ESTABLISHED premier league clubs, whilst neither have had any confirmation of renegotiated contracts to keep them in the northern outbacks of the BB postcode.

Worrying times indeed. Tick tock tick tock. Time is running out prepare for the shock.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Oh dear.... "Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"[/p][/quote]Hearing that Dychey babe refused to answer questions on the interest shown by epl clubs. Consider that against Rovers, who immediately addressed and denied such speculation about Bowyer to Leeds and it really is a worrying time for fans at Turd More. Ings and Dyche both from down south attracting interest from ESTABLISHED premier league clubs, whilst neither have had any confirmation of renegotiated contracts to keep them in the northern outbacks of the BB postcode. Worrying times indeed. Tick tock tick tock. Time is running out prepare for the shock. roverstid
  • Score: 19

3:21pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/

SimonThomasSky/statu

ses/4735317624220794

88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
Has Ingsy signed yet?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"[/p][/quote]Has Ingsy signed yet? baldie
  • Score: 6

3:27pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m


ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p


remier_league_table_


201415_834062/index.


shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
First match of the day,when it shows the Premiership trophy on the opening credits,there are 5 teams written on it.
You can see them there if you're missing us.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]First match of the day,when it shows the Premiership trophy on the opening credits,there are 5 teams written on it. You can see them there if you're missing us. baldie
  • Score: 7

3:32pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Welsh Rover says...

theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable. A common assumption some fans make is that we'd have been relegated last season, and finished much further down the table this season, if it wasn't for Rhodes' goals. It is such a ridiculous statement to make. To come to that conclusion you either have to believe that a non-scoring Rhodes would still get picked every week, assume that whoever played instead of Rhodes wouldn't have scored, or you're just doing some mathematical equation (after the fact) which makes no sense whatsoever.

The truth is we can't possibly know one way or another, yet some people still claim it to be a 'fact'. However, had we not signed Rhodes we may have signed someone else who went on to score 40+ goals in his first season. Who knows? Well, nobody, but that's my point. We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers.

Dewch Ar Chi Gleision!
[quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable. A common assumption some fans make is that we'd have been relegated last season, and finished much further down the table this season, if it wasn't for Rhodes' goals. It is such a ridiculous statement to make. To come to that conclusion you either have to believe that a non-scoring Rhodes would still get picked every week, assume that whoever played instead of Rhodes wouldn't have scored, or you're just doing some mathematical equation (after the fact) which makes no sense whatsoever. The truth is we can't possibly know one way or another, yet some people still claim it to be a 'fact'. However, had we not signed Rhodes we may have signed someone else who went on to score 40+ goals in his first season. Who knows? Well, nobody, but that's my point. We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers. Dewch Ar Chi Gleision! Welsh Rover
  • Score: 6

3:46pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m




ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p




remier_league_table_




201415_834062/index.




shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
Still in the Premier League.

Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers?

What a bellend.
Above you lot where wr've been for most of the last 36, yes THIRY SIX, years
You can have your few months in the limelight but believe me it's going to be so funny.
Don"t reply
Goodby loser.......
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell[/p][/quote]Still in the Premier League. Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers? What a bellend.[/p][/quote]Above you lot where wr've been for most of the last 36, yes THIRY SIX, years You can have your few months in the limelight but believe me it's going to be so funny. Don"t reply Goodby loser....... Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 5

3:48pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Welsh Rover wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable. A common assumption some fans make is that we'd have been relegated last season, and finished much further down the table this season, if it wasn't for Rhodes' goals. It is such a ridiculous statement to make. To come to that conclusion you either have to believe that a non-scoring Rhodes would still get picked every week, assume that whoever played instead of Rhodes wouldn't have scored, or you're just doing some mathematical equation (after the fact) which makes no sense whatsoever.

The truth is we can't possibly know one way or another, yet some people still claim it to be a 'fact'. However, had we not signed Rhodes we may have signed someone else who went on to score 40+ goals in his first season. Who knows? Well, nobody, but that's my point. We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers.

Dewch Ar Chi Gleision!
Would love him to stay,but If he goes,it has to be to the Prem,and for a silly fee.Shouldn't be hard to get a big fee for him,apparrently,ther
e's 14 clubs chasing him.
Should he go,then someone needs to give Leon Worst a kick up the @rse and get him earning some of his ridiculous wage packet.
[quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable. A common assumption some fans make is that we'd have been relegated last season, and finished much further down the table this season, if it wasn't for Rhodes' goals. It is such a ridiculous statement to make. To come to that conclusion you either have to believe that a non-scoring Rhodes would still get picked every week, assume that whoever played instead of Rhodes wouldn't have scored, or you're just doing some mathematical equation (after the fact) which makes no sense whatsoever. The truth is we can't possibly know one way or another, yet some people still claim it to be a 'fact'. However, had we not signed Rhodes we may have signed someone else who went on to score 40+ goals in his first season. Who knows? Well, nobody, but that's my point. We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers. Dewch Ar Chi Gleision![/p][/quote]Would love him to stay,but If he goes,it has to be to the Prem,and for a silly fee.Shouldn't be hard to get a big fee for him,apparrently,ther e's 14 clubs chasing him. Should he go,then someone needs to give Leon Worst a kick up the @rse and get him earning some of his ridiculous wage packet. baldie
  • Score: 1

3:58pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Boris The Spider says...

I actually think that Gestede was more important to Rovers than Rhodes was at the end of the season anyway!
I actually think that Gestede was more important to Rovers than Rhodes was at the end of the season anyway! Boris The Spider
  • Score: 9

4:01pm Wed 4 Jun 14

jim 2012 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/

SimonThomasSky/statu

ses/4735317624220794

88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
Norwich City have joined the race to sign Bournemouth striker Lewis Grabban,
do try to keep up
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"[/p][/quote]Norwich City have joined the race to sign Bournemouth striker Lewis Grabban, do try to keep up jim 2012
  • Score: 10

4:04pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

roverstid wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Oh dear....

"Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"
Hearing that Dychey babe refused to answer questions on the interest shown by epl clubs.

Consider that against Rovers, who immediately addressed and denied such speculation about Bowyer to Leeds and it really is a worrying time for fans at Turd More.

Ings and Dyche both from down south attracting interest from ESTABLISHED premier league clubs, whilst neither have had any confirmation of renegotiated contracts to keep them in the northern outbacks of the BB postcode.

Worrying times indeed. Tick tock tick tock. Time is running out prepare for the shock.
Dyche won't' deny'it because there's probably something in it. Why else can he not come out like Bowyer did and state that he's staying? Simple isn't it.
Worrying times at the Turd......
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Oh dear.... "Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"[/p][/quote]Hearing that Dychey babe refused to answer questions on the interest shown by epl clubs. Consider that against Rovers, who immediately addressed and denied such speculation about Bowyer to Leeds and it really is a worrying time for fans at Turd More. Ings and Dyche both from down south attracting interest from ESTABLISHED premier league clubs, whilst neither have had any confirmation of renegotiated contracts to keep them in the northern outbacks of the BB postcode. Worrying times indeed. Tick tock tick tock. Time is running out prepare for the shock.[/p][/quote]Dyche won't' deny'it because there's probably something in it. Why else can he not come out like Bowyer did and state that he's staying? Simple isn't it. Worrying times at the Turd...... Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 8

4:06pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m



ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p



remier_league_table_



201415_834062/index.



shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
First match of the day,when it shows the Premiership trophy on the opening credits,there are 5 teams written on it.
You can see them there if you're missing us.
The year is 2014.

We're in the Premier League.

Where are you?
[quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]First match of the day,when it shows the Premiership trophy on the opening credits,there are 5 teams written on it. You can see them there if you're missing us.[/p][/quote]The year is 2014. We're in the Premier League. Where are you? Super_Clarets
  • Score: -6

4:13pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

It's going to be sooooo funny..........
It's going to be sooooo funny.......... Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 6

4:15pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

LOL! Looks like quite a few no-dads have already accepted the inevitable...

It's squeaky bum time and no mistake!


theswayzeexpress says:
"Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us."

Welsh Rover says:
"Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable"

Welsh Rover says:
"We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers."

baldie says...
"Would love him to stay,but If he goes,it has to be to the Prem,and for a silly fee."

Boris The Spider says...
"I actually think that Gestede was more important to Rovers than Rhodes was at the end of the season anyway!"


The writing is on the wall... You couldn't make it up!
LOL! Looks like quite a few no-dads have already accepted the inevitable... It's squeaky bum time and no mistake! theswayzeexpress says: "Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us." Welsh Rover says: "Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable" Welsh Rover says: "We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers." baldie says... "Would love him to stay,but If he goes,it has to be to the Prem,and for a silly fee." Boris The Spider says... "I actually think that Gestede was more important to Rovers than Rhodes was at the end of the season anyway!" The writing is on the wall... You couldn't make it up! Super_Clarets
  • Score: -9

4:29pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Harwoodstblue wrote:
It's going to be sooooo funny..........
It already is sooooo funny!

We beat you.
We went up.
We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot.

I've not stopped laughing since!

And it's going to get sooooo much better too.

Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues.

Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?
[quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: It's going to be sooooo funny..........[/p][/quote]It already is sooooo funny! We beat you. We went up. We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot. I've not stopped laughing since! And it's going to get sooooo much better too. Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues. Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky? Super_Clarets
  • Score: -5

4:38pm Wed 4 Jun 14

roverstid says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
It's going to be sooooo funny..........
It already is sooooo funny!

We beat you.
We went up.
We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot.

I've not stopped laughing since!

And it's going to get sooooo much better too.

Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues.

Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?
Actually very much so.

Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle.

Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible.

Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London.

Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: It's going to be sooooo funny..........[/p][/quote]It already is sooooo funny! We beat you. We went up. We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot. I've not stopped laughing since! And it's going to get sooooo much better too. Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues. Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?[/p][/quote]Actually very much so. Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle. Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible. Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London. Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying? roverstid
  • Score: 3

4:40pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.
co.uk/sport/football
/news/huddersfield-t
own-keeping-eye-rumo
urs-7212749
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749 Super_Clarets
  • Score: -4

4:41pm Wed 4 Jun 14

roverstid says...

jim 2012 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/


SimonThomasSky/statu


ses/4735317624220794


88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
Norwich City have joined the race to sign Bournemouth striker Lewis Grabban,
do try to keep up
Grabban is 3m - Norwich are facing financial issues of their own. Even ncfc fans are betting Grabban is more likely target though they'd all love it to be Rhodes.
[quote][p][bold]jim 2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"[/p][/quote]Norwich City have joined the race to sign Bournemouth striker Lewis Grabban, do try to keep up[/p][/quote]Grabban is 3m - Norwich are facing financial issues of their own. Even ncfc fans are betting Grabban is more likely target though they'd all love it to be Rhodes. roverstid
  • Score: 1

4:45pm Wed 4 Jun 14

roverstid says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.

co.uk/sport/football

/news/huddersfield-t

own-keeping-eye-rumo

urs-7212749
Hahaha!

Old news now Sloppy Clitoris. Do keep up!
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Hahaha! Old news now Sloppy Clitoris. Do keep up! roverstid
  • Score: 3

4:55pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich.

https://twitter.com/

SimonThomasSky/statu

ses/4735317624220794

88


"The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot.

However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player.

Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad.

The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"
Thick as a plank :-).................
.yawwwwnnnn
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Bring someone in to support a player who's on his way out? Makes no sense whatsoever. A bid for Rhodes is expected soon from Norwich. https://twitter.com/ SimonThomasSky/statu ses/4735317624220794 88 "The 2013/14 season saw the 24-year old once again pass the 20 goal mark, recording 25 league goals as Blackburn finished just two points off the final play-off spot. However, a failure to gain promotion is seen as a failure for high-spending Blackburn Rovers, and the financial fair play restrictions mean it's likely that an offer will be accepted on the player. Signing proven Championship talent shows a desire for instant success, and with the rumoured departures of Ricky van Wolfswinkel and Gary Hooper, Adams is taking no time to establish his vision upon his inherited squad. The Canaries will certainly be one of the favourites for promotion next season, and the signing of Rhodes would only strengthen the view of Adams' men as being one of the strongest teams in the division"[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)................. .yawwwwnnnn bluenwhite
  • Score: 3

4:56pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m

ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p

remier_league_table_

201415_834062/index.

shtml
Thick as a plank :-)..............bor
rrriiinnnng
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)..............bor rrriiinnnng bluenwhite
  • Score: 3

4:57pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m


ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p


remier_league_table_


201415_834062/index.


shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Thick as a plank :-).................
...obsesssssssed
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)................. ...obsesssssssed bluenwhite
  • Score: 3

4:57pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

roverstid wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
It's going to be sooooo funny..........
It already is sooooo funny!

We beat you.
We went up.
We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot.

I've not stopped laughing since!

And it's going to get sooooo much better too.

Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues.

Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?
Actually very much so.

Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle.

Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible.

Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London.

Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?
Sadly you're wrong again on all counts.

Sean Dyche is managing a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported.

Danny Ings is under contract at a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported.

Should either leave in the future then we have the pull of being a Premier League club, debt free, with money in the bank and so can attract high quality replacements. Unlike yourselves.

Rhodes leaves and you will struggle, that is a fact. Rhodes goals have kept you in the Championship for two seasons running. Without him you would now be a League One club heading for administration. You are filling your pants at the thought of losing him, and rightly so. It would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. Venky's can no longer spend money on transfer fee's and big contracts, so effectively Varney will be Rhodes replacement, and if that's not a scary thought I don't know what is!

"Blackburn Rovers is a 99.99 per cent subsidiary of Venky’s London Limited. Blackburn Rovers accounts for the vast majority of the group’s trading and the report says the owners will require “significant funding” as part of their cash flow forecast, especially with Financial Fair Play due to come into effect."

Basically, the parent company Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd continues to finance Rovers where necessary in order for Venky’s London to continue to trade. Should this funding be withdrawn then Blackburn Rovers is no more.

If that was the case with my club I would be VERY worried indeed, but thankfully it isn't and Burnley FC can look forward to a future in the Premier League.
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: It's going to be sooooo funny..........[/p][/quote]It already is sooooo funny! We beat you. We went up. We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot. I've not stopped laughing since! And it's going to get sooooo much better too. Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues. Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?[/p][/quote]Actually very much so. Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle. Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible. Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London. Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?[/p][/quote]Sadly you're wrong again on all counts. Sean Dyche is managing a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported. Danny Ings is under contract at a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported. Should either leave in the future then we have the pull of being a Premier League club, debt free, with money in the bank and so can attract high quality replacements. Unlike yourselves. Rhodes leaves and you will struggle, that is a fact. Rhodes goals have kept you in the Championship for two seasons running. Without him you would now be a League One club heading for administration. You are filling your pants at the thought of losing him, and rightly so. It would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. Venky's can no longer spend money on transfer fee's and big contracts, so effectively Varney will be Rhodes replacement, and if that's not a scary thought I don't know what is! "Blackburn Rovers is a 99.99 per cent subsidiary of Venky’s London Limited. Blackburn Rovers accounts for the vast majority of the group’s trading and the report says the owners will require “significant funding” as part of their cash flow forecast, especially with Financial Fair Play due to come into effect." Basically, the parent company Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd continues to finance Rovers where necessary in order for Venky’s London to continue to trade. Should this funding be withdrawn then Blackburn Rovers is no more. If that was the case with my club I would be VERY worried indeed, but thankfully it isn't and Burnley FC can look forward to a future in the Premier League. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -14

4:58pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Frisson wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m






ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p






remier_league_table_






201415_834062/index.






shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell
Still in the Premier League.

Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers?

What a bellend.
course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers
Now now, no need to bring your mother into it.

You know that we've got a very good chance of making the step up permanently, and that's what scares you the most.

Have you found out who's going to pay off your £60million debt yet?
Thicck as a plank :-)..........do you actually understand fball??
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]Skip forward a season then Where are Burnley? bell[/p][/quote]Still in the Premier League. Skip backwards two seasons, where were Blackburn Rovers? What a bellend.[/p][/quote]course you will. You will be back down quicker than a hookers knickers[/p][/quote]Now now, no need to bring your mother into it. You know that we've got a very good chance of making the step up permanently, and that's what scares you the most. Have you found out who's going to pay off your £60million debt yet?[/p][/quote]Thicck as a plank :-)..........do you actually understand fball?? bluenwhite
  • Score: 4

5:00pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Oh dear....

"Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"
Thick as a plank :-).........yawwwnnn Rovers fan really?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Oh dear.... "Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-).........yawwwnnn Rovers fan really? bluenwhite
  • Score: 3

5:01pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
roverstid wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
It's going to be sooooo funny..........
It already is sooooo funny!

We beat you.
We went up.
We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot.

I've not stopped laughing since!

And it's going to get sooooo much better too.

Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues.

Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?
Actually very much so.

Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle.

Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible.

Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London.

Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?
Sadly you're wrong again on all counts.

Sean Dyche is managing a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported.

Danny Ings is under contract at a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported.

Should either leave in the future then we have the pull of being a Premier League club, debt free, with money in the bank and so can attract high quality replacements. Unlike yourselves.

Rhodes leaves and you will struggle, that is a fact. Rhodes goals have kept you in the Championship for two seasons running. Without him you would now be a League One club heading for administration. You are filling your pants at the thought of losing him, and rightly so. It would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. Venky's can no longer spend money on transfer fee's and big contracts, so effectively Varney will be Rhodes replacement, and if that's not a scary thought I don't know what is!

"Blackburn Rovers is a 99.99 per cent subsidiary of Venky’s London Limited. Blackburn Rovers accounts for the vast majority of the group’s trading and the report says the owners will require “significant funding” as part of their cash flow forecast, especially with Financial Fair Play due to come into effect."

Basically, the parent company Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd continues to finance Rovers where necessary in order for Venky’s London to continue to trade. Should this funding be withdrawn then Blackburn Rovers is no more.

If that was the case with my club I would be VERY worried indeed, but thankfully it isn't and Burnley FC can look forward to a future in the Premier League.
Thick as a plank :-)...............do you actually believe all your half truths and ru mours?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: It's going to be sooooo funny..........[/p][/quote]It already is sooooo funny! We beat you. We went up. We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot. I've not stopped laughing since! And it's going to get sooooo much better too. Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues. Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?[/p][/quote]Actually very much so. Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle. Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible. Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London. Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?[/p][/quote]Sadly you're wrong again on all counts. Sean Dyche is managing a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported. Danny Ings is under contract at a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported. Should either leave in the future then we have the pull of being a Premier League club, debt free, with money in the bank and so can attract high quality replacements. Unlike yourselves. Rhodes leaves and you will struggle, that is a fact. Rhodes goals have kept you in the Championship for two seasons running. Without him you would now be a League One club heading for administration. You are filling your pants at the thought of losing him, and rightly so. It would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. Venky's can no longer spend money on transfer fee's and big contracts, so effectively Varney will be Rhodes replacement, and if that's not a scary thought I don't know what is! "Blackburn Rovers is a 99.99 per cent subsidiary of Venky’s London Limited. Blackburn Rovers accounts for the vast majority of the group’s trading and the report says the owners will require “significant funding” as part of their cash flow forecast, especially with Financial Fair Play due to come into effect." Basically, the parent company Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd continues to finance Rovers where necessary in order for Venky’s London to continue to trade. Should this funding be withdrawn then Blackburn Rovers is no more. If that was the case with my club I would be VERY worried indeed, but thankfully it isn't and Burnley FC can look forward to a future in the Premier League.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)...............do you actually believe all your half truths and ru mours? bluenwhite
  • Score: 4

5:05pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Welsh Rover says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL! Looks like quite a few no-dads have already accepted the inevitable...

It's squeaky bum time and no mistake!


theswayzeexpress says:
"Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us."

Welsh Rover says:
"Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable"

Welsh Rover says:
"We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers."

baldie says...
"Would love him to stay,but If he goes,it has to be to the Prem,and for a silly fee."

Boris The Spider says...
"I actually think that Gestede was more important to Rovers than Rhodes was at the end of the season anyway!"


The writing is on the wall... You couldn't make it up!
''...already accepted the inevitable...''

Except none of those quotes are us accepting the inevitable. They're saying that, contrary to what you'd have us all believe, we don't think that the possible loss of Rhodes would be that detrimental to the team. There's a difference, Crazy Ralph.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL! Looks like quite a few no-dads have already accepted the inevitable... It's squeaky bum time and no mistake! theswayzeexpress says: "Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us." Welsh Rover says: "Like every Rovers fan I really hope we keep Rhodes, but I've never felt that he was irreplaceable" Welsh Rover says: "We've been very lucky to have a player like Rhodes wear the famous blue and white halves, but any future departure does not immediately spell the end of Blackburn Rovers." baldie says... "Would love him to stay,but If he goes,it has to be to the Prem,and for a silly fee." Boris The Spider says... "I actually think that Gestede was more important to Rovers than Rhodes was at the end of the season anyway!" The writing is on the wall... You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]''...already accepted the inevitable...'' Except none of those quotes are us accepting the inevitable. They're saying that, contrary to what you'd have us all believe, we don't think that the possible loss of Rhodes would be that detrimental to the team. There's a difference, Crazy Ralph. Welsh Rover
  • Score: 6

5:10pm Wed 4 Jun 14

theswayzeexpress says...

So then, back to commenting on the actual article after some of the mindless sideshow above, I think bowyer needs to focus on 3 areas this summer...right back, number 10, and centre back. Futures of rochina, Rhodes and Michael keane integral to our dealings. Rochina- not too fussed either way if he stays or goes for a fee, it's a win win for us, Rhodes- likewise, we get money for him or get another 30 goals off him next year. I have faith in bowyer in the transfer market. He is a man who knows footballers, he knows people and can clearly recognise potential. FFP may hit us in jan but I sense it won't damage us as much as some of the fear infers (see above) suggest. Roll on 2014-2015.
So then, back to commenting on the actual article after some of the mindless sideshow above, I think bowyer needs to focus on 3 areas this summer...right back, number 10, and centre back. Futures of rochina, Rhodes and Michael keane integral to our dealings. Rochina- not too fussed either way if he stays or goes for a fee, it's a win win for us, Rhodes- likewise, we get money for him or get another 30 goals off him next year. I have faith in bowyer in the transfer market. He is a man who knows footballers, he knows people and can clearly recognise potential. FFP may hit us in jan but I sense it won't damage us as much as some of the fear infers (see above) suggest. Roll on 2014-2015. theswayzeexpress
  • Score: 3

5:14pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
http://www.clarets-m




ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p




remier_league_table_




201415_834062/index.




shtml


Where are Blackburn Rovers?
First match of the day,when it shows the Premiership trophy on the opening credits,there are 5 teams written on it.
You can see them there if you're missing us.
The year is 2014.

We're in the Premier League.

Where are you?
It's always there though isn't it,niggling away.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: http://www.clarets-m ad.co.uk/feat/ed14/p remier_league_table_ 201415_834062/index. shtml Where are Blackburn Rovers?[/p][/quote]First match of the day,when it shows the Premiership trophy on the opening credits,there are 5 teams written on it. You can see them there if you're missing us.[/p][/quote]The year is 2014. We're in the Premier League. Where are you?[/p][/quote]It's always there though isn't it,niggling away. baldie
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
roverstid wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Harwoodstblue wrote:
It's going to be sooooo funny..........
It already is sooooo funny!

We beat you.
We went up.
We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot.

I've not stopped laughing since!

And it's going to get sooooo much better too.

Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues.

Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?
Actually very much so.

Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle.

Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible.

Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London.

Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?
Sadly you're wrong again on all counts.

Sean Dyche is managing a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported.

Danny Ings is under contract at a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported.

Should either leave in the future then we have the pull of being a Premier League club, debt free, with money in the bank and so can attract high quality replacements. Unlike yourselves.

Rhodes leaves and you will struggle, that is a fact. Rhodes goals have kept you in the Championship for two seasons running. Without him you would now be a League One club heading for administration. You are filling your pants at the thought of losing him, and rightly so. It would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. Venky's can no longer spend money on transfer fee's and big contracts, so effectively Varney will be Rhodes replacement, and if that's not a scary thought I don't know what is!

"Blackburn Rovers is a 99.99 per cent subsidiary of Venky’s London Limited. Blackburn Rovers accounts for the vast majority of the group’s trading and the report says the owners will require “significant funding” as part of their cash flow forecast, especially with Financial Fair Play due to come into effect."

Basically, the parent company Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd continues to finance Rovers where necessary in order for Venky’s London to continue to trade. Should this funding be withdrawn then Blackburn Rovers is no more.

If that was the case with my club I would be VERY worried indeed, but thankfully it isn't and Burnley FC can look forward to a future in the Premier League.
Ings loves it because he knows he's holding you to ransom.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: It's going to be sooooo funny..........[/p][/quote]It already is sooooo funny! We beat you. We went up. We stopped you from sneaking a play-off spot. I've not stopped laughing since! And it's going to get sooooo much better too. Watching you clowns desperately trying to fend off FFP while your players are being sold left right and centre to reduce those horrific losses as you slide ever closer to the Championship trapdoor, administration, and a future in the lower leagues. Venky's profits are dropping at an alarming rate, down 42% in the last quarter! No doubt something will have to give. So you have to ask yourself a question... do you feel lucky?[/p][/quote]Actually very much so. Look at it this way. Dyche leaves, Ings invariably follows - Turd More up the turd creek without a paddle. Rhodes leaves - Chances of promotion lessened unless another prolific striker found - not impossible. Venkys leave... leave what? Their debts in India are written against Venkys inc not Rovers or even Venkys London. Guess which of these scenarios are more likely and - more worrying?[/p][/quote]Sadly you're wrong again on all counts. Sean Dyche is managing a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported. Danny Ings is under contract at a Premier League club, he loves it here and has no intention of leaving. As recently reported. Should either leave in the future then we have the pull of being a Premier League club, debt free, with money in the bank and so can attract high quality replacements. Unlike yourselves. Rhodes leaves and you will struggle, that is a fact. Rhodes goals have kept you in the Championship for two seasons running. Without him you would now be a League One club heading for administration. You are filling your pants at the thought of losing him, and rightly so. It would be a complete, unmitigated disaster. Venky's can no longer spend money on transfer fee's and big contracts, so effectively Varney will be Rhodes replacement, and if that's not a scary thought I don't know what is! "Blackburn Rovers is a 99.99 per cent subsidiary of Venky’s London Limited. Blackburn Rovers accounts for the vast majority of the group’s trading and the report says the owners will require “significant funding” as part of their cash flow forecast, especially with Financial Fair Play due to come into effect." Basically, the parent company Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd continues to finance Rovers where necessary in order for Venky’s London to continue to trade. Should this funding be withdrawn then Blackburn Rovers is no more. If that was the case with my club I would be VERY worried indeed, but thankfully it isn't and Burnley FC can look forward to a future in the Premier League.[/p][/quote]Ings loves it because he knows he's holding you to ransom. baldie
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.

co.uk/sport/football

/news/huddersfield-t

own-keeping-eye-rumo

urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through. baldie
  • Score: 1

5:23pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.


co.uk/sport/football


/news/huddersfield-t


own-keeping-eye-rumo


urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
[quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -10

5:30pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

https://twitter.com/
FL72Transfers/status
/473764054331568128/
photo/1
https://twitter.com/ FL72Transfers/status /473764054331568128/ photo/1 Super_Clarets
  • Score: -13

5:31pm Wed 4 Jun 14

more bans than ray - brfc lxxv says...

roverstid wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Oh dear....

"Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"
Hearing that Dychey babe refused to answer questions on the interest shown by epl clubs.

Consider that against Rovers, who immediately addressed and denied such speculation about Bowyer to Leeds and it really is a worrying time for fans at Turd More.

Ings and Dyche both from down south attracting interest from ESTABLISHED premier league clubs, whilst neither have had any confirmation of renegotiated contracts to keep them in the northern outbacks of the BB postcode.

Worrying times indeed. Tick tock tick tock. Time is running out prepare for the shock.
Considering how many times the scrubbers with money have been bullied by bigger clubs and sh*t on by players & managers alike, who just use them as an advertising sl4g, it shouldn't be a shock for anyone. Trouble is, they're so wrapped up in getting one over on Rovers for the first time in decades they are even more delusional than ever.
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Oh dear.... "Venky's net profit declines 41.72% in the March 2014 quarter"[/p][/quote]Hearing that Dychey babe refused to answer questions on the interest shown by epl clubs. Consider that against Rovers, who immediately addressed and denied such speculation about Bowyer to Leeds and it really is a worrying time for fans at Turd More. Ings and Dyche both from down south attracting interest from ESTABLISHED premier league clubs, whilst neither have had any confirmation of renegotiated contracts to keep them in the northern outbacks of the BB postcode. Worrying times indeed. Tick tock tick tock. Time is running out prepare for the shock.[/p][/quote]Considering how many times the scrubbers with money have been bullied by bigger clubs and sh*t on by players & managers alike, who just use them as an advertising sl4g, it shouldn't be a shock for anyone. Trouble is, they're so wrapped up in getting one over on Rovers for the first time in decades they are even more delusional than ever. more bans than ray - brfc lxxv
  • Score: 19

5:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.



co.uk/sport/football



/news/huddersfield-t



own-keeping-eye-rumo



urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Led to believe by who?What a crock that is.
So,Rovers have to reduce their losses to avoid an embargo.
If they sell Rhodes,they will have to buy someone else anyway.
Doesn't really add up does it?
That's why,in my opinion,any money lost to Huddersfield would have to be incorporated in any sale,otherwise there would be no point selling him.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Led to believe by who?What a crock that is. So,Rovers have to reduce their losses to avoid an embargo. If they sell Rhodes,they will have to buy someone else anyway. Doesn't really add up does it? That's why,in my opinion,any money lost to Huddersfield would have to be incorporated in any sale,otherwise there would be no point selling him. baldie
  • Score: 2

5:43pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.



co.uk/sport/football



/news/huddersfield-t



own-keeping-eye-rumo



urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear bluenwhite
  • Score: 3

5:50pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.




co.uk/sport/football




/news/huddersfield-t




own-keeping-eye-rumo




urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Led to believe by who?What a crock that is.
So,Rovers have to reduce their losses to avoid an embargo.
If they sell Rhodes,they will have to buy someone else anyway.
Doesn't really add up does it?
That's why,in my opinion,any money lost to Huddersfield would have to be incorporated in any sale,otherwise there would be no point selling him.
The transfer deal is £8million being paid by instalments with 20% of anything, if you sell him for more than £8million, paid to Huddersfield Town.

If you sell him before all the instalments are made then you have to pay all of the outstanding balance remaining on the 8 million, i.e. you sell now for 8 million, approximately 4 million goes straight to Huddersfield Town as the outstanding balance so you'll only end up with £4 million and no Jordan Rhodes.

Venky's have already brought in a replacement for Rhodes in Varney and so will take the £4million received to offset the £8million loss from the reduction in parachute payments, which actually means you'll probably be selling more than just Rhodes prior to the start of the season.

It's a sad state of affairs for Blackburn Rovers when you think about it.
[quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Led to believe by who?What a crock that is. So,Rovers have to reduce their losses to avoid an embargo. If they sell Rhodes,they will have to buy someone else anyway. Doesn't really add up does it? That's why,in my opinion,any money lost to Huddersfield would have to be incorporated in any sale,otherwise there would be no point selling him.[/p][/quote]The transfer deal is £8million being paid by instalments with 20% of anything, if you sell him for more than £8million, paid to Huddersfield Town. If you sell him before all the instalments are made then you have to pay all of the outstanding balance remaining on the 8 million, i.e. you sell now for 8 million, approximately 4 million goes straight to Huddersfield Town as the outstanding balance so you'll only end up with £4 million and no Jordan Rhodes. Venky's have already brought in a replacement for Rhodes in Varney and so will take the £4million received to offset the £8million loss from the reduction in parachute payments, which actually means you'll probably be selling more than just Rhodes prior to the start of the season. It's a sad state of affairs for Blackburn Rovers when you think about it. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -9

5:57pm Wed 4 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.





co.uk/sport/football





/news/huddersfield-t





own-keeping-eye-rumo





urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Led to believe by who?What a crock that is.
So,Rovers have to reduce their losses to avoid an embargo.
If they sell Rhodes,they will have to buy someone else anyway.
Doesn't really add up does it?
That's why,in my opinion,any money lost to Huddersfield would have to be incorporated in any sale,otherwise there would be no point selling him.
The transfer deal is £8million being paid by instalments with 20% of anything, if you sell him for more than £8million, paid to Huddersfield Town.

If you sell him before all the instalments are made then you have to pay all of the outstanding balance remaining on the 8 million, i.e. you sell now for 8 million, approximately 4 million goes straight to Huddersfield Town as the outstanding balance so you'll only end up with £4 million and no Jordan Rhodes.

Venky's have already brought in a replacement for Rhodes in Varney and so will take the £4million received to offset the £8million loss from the reduction in parachute payments, which actually means you'll probably be selling more than just Rhodes prior to the start of the season.

It's a sad state of affairs for Blackburn Rovers when you think about it.
So,you were led to believe that Rovers owed some of the original fee,and now,10 minutes later,you know the exact figure,which just happens to be half.
As you say,you couldn't make it up.
What Rovers CANNOT afford to do,is let this develop into an Ings scenario,where the player holds all the aces.Now,that is a shambles.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Led to believe by who?What a crock that is. So,Rovers have to reduce their losses to avoid an embargo. If they sell Rhodes,they will have to buy someone else anyway. Doesn't really add up does it? That's why,in my opinion,any money lost to Huddersfield would have to be incorporated in any sale,otherwise there would be no point selling him.[/p][/quote]The transfer deal is £8million being paid by instalments with 20% of anything, if you sell him for more than £8million, paid to Huddersfield Town. If you sell him before all the instalments are made then you have to pay all of the outstanding balance remaining on the 8 million, i.e. you sell now for 8 million, approximately 4 million goes straight to Huddersfield Town as the outstanding balance so you'll only end up with £4 million and no Jordan Rhodes. Venky's have already brought in a replacement for Rhodes in Varney and so will take the £4million received to offset the £8million loss from the reduction in parachute payments, which actually means you'll probably be selling more than just Rhodes prior to the start of the season. It's a sad state of affairs for Blackburn Rovers when you think about it.[/p][/quote]So,you were led to believe that Rovers owed some of the original fee,and now,10 minutes later,you know the exact figure,which just happens to be half. As you say,you couldn't make it up. What Rovers CANNOT afford to do,is let this develop into an Ings scenario,where the player holds all the aces.Now,that is a shambles. baldie
  • Score: 4

5:58pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.




co.uk/sport/football




/news/huddersfield-t




own-keeping-eye-rumo




urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear
Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed.

Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town.

Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich.

The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.
[quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed. Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town. Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich. The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -6

6:19pm Wed 4 Jun 14

realisticrover says...

BlackburnBadger wrote:
We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him!
I agree, but to be fair Rochina might create space for Rhodes by drawing players to the ball, he's not so great at 'assists' and tends to beat a man then get a shot in (or beat him again :))
[quote][p][bold]BlackburnBadger[/bold] wrote: We've got one, Ruben Rochina. Play him![/p][/quote]I agree, but to be fair Rochina might create space for Rhodes by drawing players to the ball, he's not so great at 'assists' and tends to beat a man then get a shot in (or beat him again :)) realisticrover
  • Score: 2

6:23pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.





co.uk/sport/football





/news/huddersfield-t





own-keeping-eye-rumo





urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear
Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed.

Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town.

Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich.

The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.
NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed. Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town. Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich. The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.[/p][/quote]NH Old age pensioner
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 4 Jun 14

keanoutofrovers says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.





co.uk/sport/football





/news/huddersfield-t





own-keeping-eye-rumo





urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear
Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed.

Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town.

Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich.

The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.
Why do you spend all day copying and pasting articles about a team you don't support whilst pretending to support another team you don't support?

It's all very confusing ........ (and a little sad )
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed. Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town. Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich. The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.[/p][/quote]Why do you spend all day copying and pasting articles about a team you don't support whilst pretending to support another team you don't support? It's all very confusing ........ (and a little sad ) keanoutofrovers
  • Score: 9

6:47pm Wed 4 Jun 14

theswayzeexpress says...

Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.
Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not. theswayzeexpress
  • Score: 9

6:51pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.





co.uk/sport/football





/news/huddersfield-t





own-keeping-eye-rumo





urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear
Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed.

Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town.

Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich.

The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.
Yaaawwwnnn Thick as a plank :-)..............the
y are not "facts" They are rumours and guesses. Your so thick you don't even know what a fact is!!
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed. Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town. Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich. The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.[/p][/quote]Yaaawwwnnn Thick as a plank :-)..............the y are not "facts" They are rumours and guesses. Your so thick you don't even know what a fact is!! bluenwhite
  • Score: 5

6:52pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
"Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich.

A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers.

Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich.

Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009.

Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return.

And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid."


It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it.

http://www.examiner.






co.uk/sport/football






/news/huddersfield-t






own-keeping-eye-rumo






urs-7212749
Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay.
You really do need to think things through.
Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet.

What a shambles.
Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear
Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed.

Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town.

Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich.

The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.
Yaaawwwnnn Thick as a plank :-)..............the

y are not "facts" They are rumours and guesses. Your so thick you don't even know what a fact is!!
The only fact is we owe Huddersfield some sell on fee. But nobody except the clubs knows how much, you prefer to make it up or listen to made up paper talk.
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Huddersfield Town are keeping an eye on rumours linking Jordan Rhodes with Norwich. A sell-on clause in the £8m deal which took the Scotland international to Blackburn in August 2012 means Town would pocket a fifth of any profit made by Rovers. Their former striker is being linked with the club’s new Championship rivals Norwich. Rhodes notched 87 goals in three seasons at Town after moving from Ipswich in a £400,000 deal in 2009. Norwich, who will benefit from parachute payments after relegation from the Premier League, are desperate to make a quick return. And they see Rhodes, 24, as the ideal man to spearhead their bid." It just keeps getting worse for you lot doesn't it. http://www.examiner. co.uk/sport/football /news/huddersfield-t own-keeping-eye-rumo urs-7212749[/p][/quote]Good news this,it will actually push the price up and make it more likely that he will stay. You really do need to think things through.[/p][/quote]Er, no. Because you have to sell to reduce your losses so regardless of what you get for him Huddersfield will be taking a big chunk of it. And the more you get, the more you have to give away. I'm also led to believe that you've not actually completed payment of the original transfer fee to Huddersfield yet. What a shambles.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)............led to believe my arse.....you just make things up to suit what you want to hear[/p][/quote]Unfortunately for you I don't. These are all facts that were reported by the media at the time the transfer was agreed. Blackburn Rovers still owe money to Huddersfield Town as the transfer fee for Rhodes was agreed in staged payments. Blackburn Rovers also have to pay 20% of any profit made (i.e. if sold for more than £8million) to Huddersfield Town. Is it any wonder Huddersfield are keeping tabs on a potential move? They will be coining it in if he goes to Norwich. The sad fact is that whatever you think you might be getting for Rhodes, you'll actually only be getting roughly HALF that price. Shocking isn't it.[/p][/quote]Yaaawwwnnn Thick as a plank :-)..............the y are not "facts" They are rumours and guesses. Your so thick you don't even know what a fact is!![/p][/quote]The only fact is we owe Huddersfield some sell on fee. But nobody except the clubs knows how much, you prefer to make it up or listen to made up paper talk. Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 5

7:09pm Wed 4 Jun 14

BRFC 4 EVER! says...

I agree, Cairney is a playmaker for us, sorted. However when Cairney was injured we were without chances. We need a back up!
I agree, Cairney is a playmaker for us, sorted. However when Cairney was injured we were without chances. We need a back up! BRFC 4 EVER!
  • Score: 4

7:48pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

theswayzeexpress wrote:
Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.
SC=No girlfriend cus he's on here 16 hrs a day.
No job for the same reason.
No kids....ditto.
No friends.......
No life.....

No money......
WHAT A LOSER. No wonder he's an angry, bitter t****r
ps.......he doesn't support the dingles either cus he doesn't go.
why does he exist? What is he for apart from being an irritating little flea.
[quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.[/p][/quote]SC=No girlfriend cus he's on here 16 hrs a day. No job for the same reason. No kids....ditto. No friends....... No life..... No money...... WHAT A LOSER. No wonder he's an angry, bitter t****r ps.......he doesn't support the dingles either cus he doesn't go. why does he exist? What is he for apart from being an irritating little flea. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 4

7:48pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

theswayzeexpress wrote:
Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.
SC=No girlfriend cus he's on here 16 hrs a day.
No job for the same reason.
No kids....ditto.
No friends.......
No life.....

No money......
WHAT A LOSER. No wonder he's an angry, bitter t****r
ps.......he doesn't support the dingles either cus he doesn't go.
why does he exist? What is he for apart from being an irritating little flea.
[quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.[/p][/quote]SC=No girlfriend cus he's on here 16 hrs a day. No job for the same reason. No kids....ditto. No friends....... No life..... No money...... WHAT A LOSER. No wonder he's an angry, bitter t****r ps.......he doesn't support the dingles either cus he doesn't go. why does he exist? What is he for apart from being an irritating little flea. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 1

10:40pm Wed 4 Jun 14

owd nick says...

Some sensible comments.

Rochina? Think I will sit firmly on the fence for once with this one, supremely talented but totally immature, with him its all about risk and reward, until he grows up as a player is he worth the risk?

Play-makers of the Dunny type are few and far between but I do agree that we need a back up for Cairney but finding the right player won't be easy, still there are quite a few half decent players being released by their clubs now, and it is a buyers market.

I am pretty certain GB knows the types he is looking for so we will all have to wait and see.
Some sensible comments. Rochina? Think I will sit firmly on the fence for once with this one, supremely talented but totally immature, with him its all about risk and reward, until he grows up as a player is he worth the risk? Play-makers of the Dunny type are few and far between but I do agree that we need a back up for Cairney but finding the right player won't be easy, still there are quite a few half decent players being released by their clubs now, and it is a buyers market. I am pretty certain GB knows the types he is looking for so we will all have to wait and see. owd nick
  • Score: 2

10:42pm Wed 4 Jun 14

MattNewcastle says...

theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
[quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long. MattNewcastle
  • Score: -2

11:57pm Wed 4 Jun 14

owd nick says...

MattNewcastle wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker.

Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20.

Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals.

For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker.

The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type.

Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad.

And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.
[quote][p][bold]MattNewcastle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.[/p][/quote]The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker. Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20. Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals. For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker. The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type. Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad. And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to. owd nick
  • Score: 1

11:59pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Rovercast says...

theswayzeexpress wrote:
Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.
It's not so much the character from Burnley that causes a problem trying to read the sensible comments on the forum, it's the idiotic responses from some of our own supporters.
[quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Yawn. Wish I'd never brought the Rhodes thing up now. Think I'll go onto a burnley article and make countless parasitic, fatuous comments which take up my entire day. Oh wait, I have a job and a girlfriend. Best not.[/p][/quote]It's not so much the character from Burnley that causes a problem trying to read the sensible comments on the forum, it's the idiotic responses from some of our own supporters. Rovercast
  • Score: 2

12:10am Thu 5 Jun 14

Maxrus says...

MattNewcastle wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
Over 50 goals in two seasons!! And for the best part of one and a half seasons playing up front on his own with p*ss poor service! I repeat, over 50 goals in two seasons, Jesus, there ain't no pleasing some folk.
[quote][p][bold]MattNewcastle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.[/p][/quote]Over 50 goals in two seasons!! And for the best part of one and a half seasons playing up front on his own with p*ss poor service! I repeat, over 50 goals in two seasons, Jesus, there ain't no pleasing some folk. Maxrus
  • Score: 3

1:19am Thu 5 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

owd nick wrote:
MattNewcastle wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker.

Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20.

Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals.

For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker.

The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type.

Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad.

And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.
You really are thick as mince.

Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage.

The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town.

So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m.

So like I said, roughly half.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MattNewcastle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.[/p][/quote]The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker. Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20. Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals. For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker. The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type. Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad. And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.[/p][/quote]You really are thick as mince. Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage. The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town. So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m. So like I said, roughly half. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -2

3:36am Thu 5 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
MattNewcastle wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker.

Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20.

Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals.

For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker.

The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type.

Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad.

And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.
You really are thick as mince.

Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage.

The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town.

So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m.

So like I said, roughly half.
How do you have the cheek to call anyone thick???
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MattNewcastle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.[/p][/quote]The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker. Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20. Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals. For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker. The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type. Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad. And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.[/p][/quote]You really are thick as mince. Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage. The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town. So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m. So like I said, roughly half.[/p][/quote]How do you have the cheek to call anyone thick??? Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 1

8:48am Thu 5 Jun 14

Rovers 1495 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
MattNewcastle wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker.

Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20.

Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals.

For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker.

The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type.

Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad.

And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.
You really are thick as mince.

Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage.

The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town.

So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m.

So like I said, roughly half.
Why would you take the time and trouble to find out this information ? You are such a loser.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MattNewcastle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.[/p][/quote]The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker. Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20. Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals. For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker. The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type. Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad. And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.[/p][/quote]You really are thick as mince. Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage. The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town. So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m. So like I said, roughly half.[/p][/quote]Why would you take the time and trouble to find out this information ? You are such a loser. Rovers 1495
  • Score: 1

9:18am Thu 5 Jun 14

Rovers.1875 says...

Rovers 1495 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
MattNewcastle wrote:
theswayzeexpress wrote:
Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.
Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals.

why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring.

He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics

Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them.

Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up.

RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders.

I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed.

He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development.

He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes.

Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been.

just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract!

Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.
The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker.

Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20.

Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals.

For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker.

The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type.

Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad.

And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.
You really are thick as mince.

Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage.

The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town.

So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m.

So like I said, roughly half.
Why would you take the time and trouble to find out this information ? You are such a loser.
Here's some maths for you Super_Bellend, as I know you love working out all of our finances and making stupid predictions that have never yet come true from any comment you have made under any of your aliases:

Rovers spending 1994: £25,000,000.00
Same value today: £43,402,500.00

Dingles windfall 2014: £120,000,000.00
Same value in 1994: £69,120,442.37

Guess that means you win the premiership this year eh??
[quote][p][bold]Rovers 1495[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MattNewcastle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theswayzeexpress[/bold] wrote: Agree rochina would be an answer to the number 10 role problem, but it would have to be at the expense of one of our strikers to accommodate the midfield that's done so well for us this season. All this talk of bids coming in for Rhodes is no longer scaring me, gestede has done a fine job and with a real number 10 in the side we could be more fluid. Don't get me wrong I would prefer Rhodes to stay but just putting it out there that if we did sell there are other options that may suit us.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if the team dynamics do change then perhaps a lot more players would chip in with goals. why is the talk always of Rhodes being the only option to our goalscoring. He has huge limitations for the overall team dynamics Would be intetesting seeing RR playing off RG. Would bet the pair of them would score goals between them. Some of our best creative goals in the past have had RR either scoring them or playing a part in setting them up. RR also hss the great ability of running at and beating defenders. I would hazzard a guess that there are many defenders that do not like playing against RR. He has never been given a sustained run of games and when he hss he has been chopped and changed. He was also a very young player who required the right kind of development. He could cause a great deal of damage if played in the 10 shirt, yes instead of Rhodes. Rhodes underperformed in so many games last year yet seemed to be constantly picked above others and never substituted when he quite clearly should have been. just wonder if yhere is a clause in his contract! Expect lots of thumbs down however I dont care for he has been built up by so many for far to long.[/p][/quote]The problem with Rhodes before Gestede arrived then kicked into gear was that he was being asked to to a job that he wasn't particularly suited to, i.e; play up front as the lone striker. Rhodes is a Lineker style striker, tricky and quick over 5 yards, no more, give him the ball in the box and facing goal and he will score 7 times out of 10, but expect him to hold the ball up 30 yds out, turn a defender and beat him for pace and you will be lucky to get 1 goal in 20. Horses for courses as the old saying goes, yet despite being asked to carry out a role he was totally unsuited for for the best part of the season he still managed 25 goals. For the best part of two seasons under five managers he has been our only goal scorer of note so it's no surprise he goes off the boil now and then; ffs it happened to Shearer as it does with every striker. The introduction of Gestede and the fact we now play with two wingers will be a bonus for Rhodes, if we can keep him I am pretty certain he will revert to type. Of course the speculation will continue, with good players it always does, but if at the end of the day he decides his time at Ewood is up then good luck to the lad. And for all the **** talked by the village idiot if we were to sell him for, say £10 million, Huddersfield would get just £200,000 as their 20% cut of any profit made which they are entitled to.[/p][/quote]You really are thick as mince. Firstly, 20% of £2million profit is actually £400,000. And that's just the sell on percentage. The original transfer fee was £8million. This was agreed in staged payments and so roughly £4million is still owed to Huddersfield Town. So if you sell Rhodes for £10million (highly unlikely given that FFP has you over a barrel) then you will actually only get £10m - £4m (still owed) - £400k (sell-on fee) = £5.6m. So like I said, roughly half.[/p][/quote]Why would you take the time and trouble to find out this information ? You are such a loser.[/p][/quote]Here's some maths for you Super_Bellend, as I know you love working out all of our finances and making stupid predictions that have never yet come true from any comment you have made under any of your aliases: Rovers spending 1994: £25,000,000.00 Same value today: £43,402,500.00 Dingles windfall 2014: £120,000,000.00 Same value in 1994: £69,120,442.37 Guess that means you win the premiership this year eh?? Rovers.1875
  • Score: 10

10:10am Thu 5 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Blackburn Rovers spending back in the days of Jack Walker was £100million+.

He spent over £30million on the football ground and training facilities alone. He bankrolled extravagant signings year on year, and he paid obscene wages over many, many seasons. The fact that you don't know this shows how uneducated you are in general football terms.

In this day and age, in terms of the demand pull inflation of the world of football business, which incidentally is completely different to the core inflation comparison on which you base your figures (taken I suspect from your googling of inflation figures from 1995), would put that spending somewhere in the region of £500million, given the equivalent cost of a player such as Alan Shearer for example. Do you really see a 30 goal a season England international striker being bought for £5.5million in the Premier League today? Your "calculations" are simply nonsense.

I suggest you go away, calm down and then look into getting yourself an education, because you've just made yourself look like a moron.
Blackburn Rovers spending back in the days of Jack Walker was £100million+. He spent over £30million on the football ground and training facilities alone. He bankrolled extravagant signings year on year, and he paid obscene wages over many, many seasons. The fact that you don't know this shows how uneducated you are in general football terms. In this day and age, in terms of the demand pull inflation of the world of football business, which incidentally is completely different to the core inflation comparison on which you base your figures (taken I suspect from your googling of inflation figures from 1995), would put that spending somewhere in the region of £500million, given the equivalent cost of a player such as Alan Shearer for example. Do you really see a 30 goal a season England international striker being bought for £5.5million in the Premier League today? Your "calculations" are simply nonsense. I suggest you go away, calm down and then look into getting yourself an education, because you've just made yourself look like a moron. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -18

5:07pm Thu 5 Jun 14

owd nick says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Blackburn Rovers spending back in the days of Jack Walker was £100million+.

He spent over £30million on the football ground and training facilities alone. He bankrolled extravagant signings year on year, and he paid obscene wages over many, many seasons. The fact that you don't know this shows how uneducated you are in general football terms.

In this day and age, in terms of the demand pull inflation of the world of football business, which incidentally is completely different to the core inflation comparison on which you base your figures (taken I suspect from your googling of inflation figures from 1995), would put that spending somewhere in the region of £500million, given the equivalent cost of a player such as Alan Shearer for example. Do you really see a 30 goal a season England international striker being bought for £5.5million in the Premier League today? Your "calculations" are simply nonsense.

I suggest you go away, calm down and then look into getting yourself an education, because you've just made yourself look like a moron.
And aren't you SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO jealous! LOL LOL LOL.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Blackburn Rovers spending back in the days of Jack Walker was £100million+. He spent over £30million on the football ground and training facilities alone. He bankrolled extravagant signings year on year, and he paid obscene wages over many, many seasons. The fact that you don't know this shows how uneducated you are in general football terms. In this day and age, in terms of the demand pull inflation of the world of football business, which incidentally is completely different to the core inflation comparison on which you base your figures (taken I suspect from your googling of inflation figures from 1995), would put that spending somewhere in the region of £500million, given the equivalent cost of a player such as Alan Shearer for example. Do you really see a 30 goal a season England international striker being bought for £5.5million in the Premier League today? Your "calculations" are simply nonsense. I suggest you go away, calm down and then look into getting yourself an education, because you've just made yourself look like a moron.[/p][/quote]And aren't you SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO jealous! LOL LOL LOL. owd nick
  • Score: 0

6:45am Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry From Accrington says...

Someone like Rueben Rochina perhaps.
By the way, my mistake over my season ticket price. Only up £24
Someone like Rueben Rochina perhaps. By the way, my mistake over my season ticket price. Only up £24 Angry From Accrington
  • Score: 0

10:11am Sun 8 Jun 14

Burnley59/60 says...

john byrom wrote:
Just back from bookies odds on dingles for relegation. 1/200. Wow some odds.
Sorry it wont happen The Clarets are staying up and lets hope the Blues join them and get rid of these DISPICABLE Indian thieves Venks
[quote][p][bold]john byrom[/bold] wrote: Just back from bookies odds on dingles for relegation. 1/200. Wow some odds.[/p][/quote]Sorry it wont happen The Clarets are staying up and lets hope the Blues join them and get rid of these DISPICABLE Indian thieves Venks Burnley59/60
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree