Blackburn Rovers' FA Cup third-round tie with Manchester City to be shown live

Lancashire Telegraph: Blackburn Rovers' FA Cup third-round tie with Manchester City to be shown live Blackburn Rovers' FA Cup third-round tie with Manchester City to be shown live

BLACKBURN Rovers’ FA Cup third-round tie at home to last season’s beaten finalists Manchester City is to be televised live on BT Sport.

The clash of the former Premier League rivals will take place at Ewood Park on Saturday, January 4 and will kick-off at 12.45pm.

The FA’s live broadcast fee in the third round is £144,000 per club.

The team which progresses to the fourth round will be awarded £67,500 in prize money.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:29pm Wed 11 Dec 13

A Darener says...

The money will come in handy...pay a couple of players for a week or two. The Venky's can bet on a few bookings.
The money will come in handy...pay a couple of players for a week or two. The Venky's can bet on a few bookings. A Darener

4:06pm Wed 11 Dec 13

owd nick says...

Ah well at least with it being on BT the crowd won't be affected.
Ah well at least with it being on BT the crowd won't be affected. owd nick

4:18pm Wed 11 Dec 13

You're not mugging me off that easily says...

£144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail.
P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.
£144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail. P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him. You're not mugging me off that easily

4:28pm Wed 11 Dec 13

owd nick says...

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote:
£144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail.
P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.
No doubt they are but I doubt there is anything they can do, it's like bankers and their bonuses, it's all in the small print of the contract.

And no matter how distasteful that is they don't have a bloody choice but to pay up.
[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote: £144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail. P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.[/p][/quote]No doubt they are but I doubt there is anything they can do, it's like bankers and their bonuses, it's all in the small print of the contract. And no matter how distasteful that is they don't have a bloody choice but to pay up. owd nick

4:32pm Wed 11 Dec 13

A Darener says...

I always thought lawyers were clever people. But I am beginning to think otherwise, especially those employed by the Venky's. After all the stupid contracts given to players and managers over the last few years you would think they would have seen the light by now and made them absolutely watertight in the clubs favour, instead they always seem to be at the detriment of the club.
I always thought lawyers were clever people. But I am beginning to think otherwise, especially those employed by the Venky's. After all the stupid contracts given to players and managers over the last few years you would think they would have seen the light by now and made them absolutely watertight in the clubs favour, instead they always seem to be at the detriment of the club. A Darener

5:00pm Wed 11 Dec 13

FCBurnley says...

Its amazing what people will sign when they are desperate !
Its amazing what people will sign when they are desperate ! FCBurnley

5:31pm Wed 11 Dec 13

A Darener says...

FCBurnley wrote:
Its amazing what people will sign when they are desperate !
All players that sign for BRFC are desperate to sign for the club. Unlike those that sign for Burnley, they are insane.
[quote][p][bold]FCBurnley[/bold] wrote: Its amazing what people will sign when they are desperate ![/p][/quote]All players that sign for BRFC are desperate to sign for the club. Unlike those that sign for Burnley, they are insane. A Darener

5:31pm Wed 11 Dec 13

LancashireFramebox says...

Off topic guys but why hasn't the Telegraph covered the AFC Darwen story beating Kendal 2-3 in the Lancashire Cup? Ridiculous.
Off topic guys but why hasn't the Telegraph covered the AFC Darwen story beating Kendal 2-3 in the Lancashire Cup? Ridiculous. LancashireFramebox

8:47pm Wed 11 Dec 13

masher50 says...

All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial.

Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged!

As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation.

I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police.

IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do.

In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".
All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial. Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged! As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation. I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police. IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do. In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking". masher50

8:58pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Stone Island: says...

It's like going back thirty years, with the club rubbing their hands at the prospect of a poxy 140k for a live TV game. How times have changed. Maybe Man City will donate their share to help a club in need.

VSO!
It's like going back thirty years, with the club rubbing their hands at the prospect of a poxy 140k for a live TV game. How times have changed. Maybe Man City will donate their share to help a club in need. VSO! Stone Island:

9:25pm Wed 11 Dec 13

eddyo says...

masher50 wrote:
All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial.

Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged!

As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation.

I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police.

IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do.

In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".
The man has tattoos on his neck! Do the math.
[quote][p][bold]masher50[/bold] wrote: All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial. Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged! As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation. I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police. IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do. In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".[/p][/quote]The man has tattoos on his neck! Do the math. eddyo

9:54pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Thirtyfour Years says...

masher50 wrote:
All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial.

Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged!

As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation.

I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police.

IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do.

In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".
Sack the part-timer!
[quote][p][bold]masher50[/bold] wrote: All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial. Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged! As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation. I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police. IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do. In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".[/p][/quote]Sack the part-timer! Thirtyfour Years

10:18pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Wild Rover says...

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote:
£144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail.
P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.
They are !
[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote: £144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail. P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.[/p][/quote]They are ! Wild Rover

10:20pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Wild Rover says...

FCBurnley wrote:
Its amazing what people will sign when they are desperate !
What , you mean like a contract that says I will play for Burnley FC...
Num N u t S
[quote][p][bold]FCBurnley[/bold] wrote: Its amazing what people will sign when they are desperate ![/p][/quote]What , you mean like a contract that says I will play for Burnley FC... Num N u t S Wild Rover

8:27am Thu 12 Dec 13

Harwoodstblue says...

owd nick wrote:
You're not mugging me off that easily wrote:
£144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail.
P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.
No doubt they are but I doubt there is anything they can do, it's like bankers and their bonuses, it's all in the small print of the contract.

And no matter how distasteful that is they don't have a bloody choice but to pay up.
Isn't there a clause in players contracts regards bringing the name of the club into disrepute. If guilty, and that isn't bringing the club into disrepute, then I don't know what is. That should be enough to dismiss him. Like I say "If guilty"
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote: £144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail. P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.[/p][/quote]No doubt they are but I doubt there is anything they can do, it's like bankers and their bonuses, it's all in the small print of the contract. And no matter how distasteful that is they don't have a bloody choice but to pay up.[/p][/quote]Isn't there a clause in players contracts regards bringing the name of the club into disrepute. If guilty, and that isn't bringing the club into disrepute, then I don't know what is. That should be enough to dismiss him. Like I say "If guilty" Harwoodstblue

8:55am Thu 12 Dec 13

Darwentrublue says...

If and only if the case is proved then i would think the club may have a case under employment law for " Gross misconduct"
If and only if the case is proved then i would think the club may have a case under employment law for " Gross misconduct" Darwentrublue

11:33am Thu 12 Dec 13

owd nick says...

masher50 wrote:
All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial.

Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged!

As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation.

I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police.

IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do.

In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".
In a past life I had to deal with over the years;

- people turning up for work drunk or having used drugs
- theft of personal and company property
- selling and buying items in works time on the internet
- viewing **** on works computers
- threats of violence and intimidation
- gambling, both online and at work
- racial and sexual issues

In every case I can remember the people involved were suspended and prevented from entering works premises until the investigation was completed and a decision made.

On two occasions court cases were part of the equation, both of the defendants remained suspended until the cases were finished.

Suspension in instances such as this is not a accusation of guilt, it is simply the right thing to do to prevent things from getting worse.

He may be guilty, he may not, but Rovers don't have a choice here, they have to suspend him, otherwise they will be seen to be condoning his alleged actions.
[quote][p][bold]masher50[/bold] wrote: All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial. Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged! As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation. I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police. IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do. In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".[/p][/quote]In a past life I had to deal with over the years; - people turning up for work drunk or having used drugs - theft of personal and company property - selling and buying items in works time on the internet - viewing **** on works computers - threats of violence and intimidation - gambling, both online and at work - racial and sexual issues In every case I can remember the people involved were suspended and prevented from entering works premises until the investigation was completed and a decision made. On two occasions court cases were part of the equation, both of the defendants remained suspended until the cases were finished. Suspension in instances such as this is not a accusation of guilt, it is simply the right thing to do to prevent things from getting worse. He may be guilty, he may not, but Rovers don't have a choice here, they have to suspend him, otherwise they will be seen to be condoning his alleged actions. owd nick

12:53pm Thu 12 Dec 13

masher50 says...

owd nick wrote:
masher50 wrote:
All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial.

Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged!

As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation.

I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police.

IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do.

In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".
In a past life I had to deal with over the years;

- people turning up for work drunk or having used drugs
- theft of personal and company property
- selling and buying items in works time on the internet
- viewing **** on works computers
- threats of violence and intimidation
- gambling, both online and at work
- racial and sexual issues

In every case I can remember the people involved were suspended and prevented from entering works premises until the investigation was completed and a decision made.

On two occasions court cases were part of the equation, both of the defendants remained suspended until the cases were finished.

Suspension in instances such as this is not a accusation of guilt, it is simply the right thing to do to prevent things from getting worse.

He may be guilty, he may not, but Rovers don't have a choice here, they have to suspend him, otherwise they will be seen to be condoning his alleged actions.
I fully agree he'll have to be suspended, but it will be on pay until the case is resolved, or his contract runs out. Whichever happens first.

As to playing him, I can't see how Rovers could risk that. There's going to be enough abuse from the terraces anyway. And, as is bound to happen anyway, if he has a bad game, or misses a sitter, gets booked etc., how much paranoia will ensue?
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]masher50[/bold] wrote: All these comments regarding sacking DJ Campbell.... obviously so many of you have decided he's guilty before any charges, or even trial. Enshrined in British Law - "Innocent until proven guilty". The man hasn't even been charged! As such, regardless of his profession, he's still protected by employment legislation. I'm sure all the workers who have posted would be upset at being sacked just because they've been interviewed by the Police. IF, and only IF, he is either found guilty, or pleads guilty, is it then right to vilify him in the way so many seem keen to do. In any other job, an employee would be allowed to carry on working. Sadly, the nature of football means it's probably not a good idea to play him until the issue is resolved. But he's so far done nothing wrong that deserves his "sacking".[/p][/quote]In a past life I had to deal with over the years; - people turning up for work drunk or having used drugs - theft of personal and company property - selling and buying items in works time on the internet - viewing **** on works computers - threats of violence and intimidation - gambling, both online and at work - racial and sexual issues In every case I can remember the people involved were suspended and prevented from entering works premises until the investigation was completed and a decision made. On two occasions court cases were part of the equation, both of the defendants remained suspended until the cases were finished. Suspension in instances such as this is not a accusation of guilt, it is simply the right thing to do to prevent things from getting worse. He may be guilty, he may not, but Rovers don't have a choice here, they have to suspend him, otherwise they will be seen to be condoning his alleged actions.[/p][/quote]I fully agree he'll have to be suspended, but it will be on pay until the case is resolved, or his contract runs out. Whichever happens first. As to playing him, I can't see how Rovers could risk that. There's going to be enough abuse from the terraces anyway. And, as is bound to happen anyway, if he has a bad game, or misses a sitter, gets booked etc., how much paranoia will ensue? masher50

12:59pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Wild Rover says...

Hey Nick, were you working in Burnley then? Sounds like a normal day there.
:-)
Hey Nick, were you working in Burnley then? Sounds like a normal day there. :-) Wild Rover

5:53pm Thu 12 Dec 13

McClaret says...

Harwoodstblue wrote:
owd nick wrote:
You're not mugging me off that easily wrote:
£144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail.
P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.
No doubt they are but I doubt there is anything they can do, it's like bankers and their bonuses, it's all in the small print of the contract.

And no matter how distasteful that is they don't have a bloody choice but to pay up.
Isn't there a clause in players contracts regards bringing the name of the club into disrepute. If guilty, and that isn't bringing the club into disrepute, then I don't know what is. That should be enough to dismiss him. Like I say "If guilty"
Think Venky's have brought enough disrepute on your club to last a lifetime.
[quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote: £144,000 will pay DJ's wages for a month whilst he's suspended and on Police bail. P1ss taking aside, that's a shocking fact. I know if it were the other way round I'd be wanting the board to be going through his contract with a fine tooth comb to find a Clause to avoid paying him.[/p][/quote]No doubt they are but I doubt there is anything they can do, it's like bankers and their bonuses, it's all in the small print of the contract. And no matter how distasteful that is they don't have a bloody choice but to pay up.[/p][/quote]Isn't there a clause in players contracts regards bringing the name of the club into disrepute. If guilty, and that isn't bringing the club into disrepute, then I don't know what is. That should be enough to dismiss him. Like I say "If guilty"[/p][/quote]Think Venky's have brought enough disrepute on your club to last a lifetime. McClaret

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