Weather
Blackburn Rovers to look overseas for striker (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackburn Rovers to look overseas for striker
10:03am Wednesday 1st July 2009
BLACKBURN Rovers may be forced to look abroad in their search for a striker to replace Roque Santa Cruz.
Rovers, who start pre-season training today, had been keen to bring in a proven Premier League striker but inflated prices in England’s top flight are likely to tempt Sam Allardyce to look overseas.
Rovers are known to be keen on a season-long loan deal for young Chelsea forward Franco di Santo and have been linked with various domestic players including Kevin Davies, although they have now insisted that they did not enquire about the frontman.
Allardyce last week revealed that Rovers chairman John Williams had spoken to Bolton about the former Blackburn forward, but it has now become clear that the conversation was initiated by Phil Gartside.
Bolton chairman Gartside is understood to have phoned Williams to clarify reports about Allardyce’s interest, while stressing that Davies was not for sale.
Williams said: “We have been looking around for a proven Premier League striker but it is proving a difficult task.
“We may need to look abroad and go down that route.
“Di Santo is a player we are interested in but we have not enquired about Kevin Davies.
“Phil Gartside phoned me to clarify the rumours, not the other way round.”
Allardyce is determined to bring in ‘one or two’ strikers, with di Santo likely to be the second of the signings.
The Rovers boss is thought to be working to a budget of around £13m but has already brought in Elrio van Heerden, Gael Givet and Lars Jacobsen - with Steven N’Zonzi becoming the club’s fourth summer signing yesterday.
The focus, though, is very much on a forward and Allardyce, who famously pulled off the signing of Nicolas Anelka while in charge of Bolton, is willing to sacrifice further numbers to bring in the goalscorer he needs.
He said: “I did it three years ago on Nicolas Anelka when I felt 50 per cent the problem I had at the time at Bolton was that we always created lots of opportunities, as many as anybody else, but the ratio of conversion was almost bottom half of the Premiership.
“If we secured someone who would put the goals in the back of the net, we would be much better as a team and sacrifice bringing in any other players other than that.
“We brought in Abdoulaye Meite and Nicolas and that was it.
"It was a big gamble because the squad wasn’t very big but Nicolas’ goals took us up to the next level.
“And, even though that was my last year, it took us to the next level and would have taken us beyond it if we’d gone again in January, but we didn’t at that particular time.”
More News stories
- Jansen warns Blackburn Rovers: Don't fail like we did
- Allardyce: I don't know the rules of football any more
- Blackburn Rovers blog: We face Hull of a task at Ewood
- Coaching for young Blackburn Rovers fans
- FULL-TIME: Fleetwood Town 0 Blackburn Rovers 1
- HALF TIME: Fleetwood 0 Blackburn Rovers 0
- Blackburn Rovers to hold minute's silence for tragic fan
- TEAM NEWS: Basturk and Linganzi make Rovers debut
- Big Sam: Blackburn Rovers were not clever enough
- Fans mourn Darwen dad who died at Blackburn Rovers game
Your Say YourTelegraph
tugay5, chesterfield says...
10:12am Wed 1 Jul 09
A Darener, Darwen says...
10:19am Wed 1 Jul 09
Ainslie, Lathom says...
10:43am Wed 1 Jul 09
However, I think we might be living in dreamland a bit, as we won't be able to pay his wages and Ruud will probably think he can play champions league for another season or two.
tugay5, chesterfield says...
10:43am Wed 1 Jul 09
bed and breakfast man !, dewsbury says...
10:56am Wed 1 Jul 09
A Darener wrote:The season ticket thing has become a bore,I agree,No matter what some people will never be happy.
Can we PLEASE! put this D/E season ticket price structure to bed. I am getting a bit bored with it all, talk about flogging a dead horse. Give it a rest and concentrate on all the new & potential signings. Let's get Van the Man, that should spark some controversy, would he be a good signing? Discuss.
Striker's ? Not sure who ,I am sure Sam is doing his best,But prices are silly for players(Proved it with sh1ty giving us daft money for RSC),Its the wages that make the job harder, But the bright side is we do have money to spend,So something will go ahead some where.
Sooner rather than later will be good who ever they are ,So he can get some training in with the team,Work together.
Flylife, Manchester says...
11:37am Wed 1 Jul 09
jinkyjase, Preston says...
11:45am Wed 1 Jul 09
bed and breakfast man ! wrote:It isn't mentioned in the article or the comments below it so why bring it up? Mischievous scamps ya!
A Darener wrote:The season ticket thing has become a bore,I agree,No matter what some people will never be happy.
Can we PLEASE! put this D/E season ticket price structure to bed. I am getting a bit bored with it all, talk about flogging a dead horse. Give it a rest and concentrate on all the new & potential signings. Let's get Van the Man, that should spark some controversy, would he be a good signing? Discuss.
Striker's ? Not sure who ,I am sure Sam is doing his best,But prices are silly for players(Proved it with sh1ty giving us daft money for RSC),Its the wages that make the job harder, But the bright side is we do have money to spend,So something will go ahead some where.
Sooner rather than later will be good who ever they are ,So he can get some training in with the team,Work together.
marghen, taunton says...
11:48am Wed 1 Jul 09
What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an
emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes!
Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us.
Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!
Marcus28, Manchester says...
11:49am Wed 1 Jul 09
eddie the eagle, chorley says...
11:58am Wed 1 Jul 09
Marcus28, Manchester says...
12:26pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:You can have a personal agreement with two clubs which only happens if think could be a problem eg Robbie Savage move to us from birmtingham. But as stated before its not something legelly binding and you cant force a club to play him or not. Anyway before Sam can buy a striker he had to sell him. And before you get to excited its only beginning july clubs dont really start buying until now. Sam knows what he is doing, thats why he saved from us relegation it wasnt luck it is something strange to you maybe but called management. And this will be the same thing used to but us a replacement. So as Michael Winner would say calm down dear
What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an
emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes!
Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us.
Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!
marghen, taunton says...
12:54pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Marcus28 wrote:Who the hell said anything about “legelly binding” think you mean legally binding… It was a deal struck up by two clubs, an agreement was reached! I’ll try to make this simple ….We will sell you Santa Cruz for x amount but we don’t want you to play him against us, if you agree the deal will go through… We will let you have Derbyshire on loan but if we need him we can recall him….blah blah..
marghen wrote: What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes! Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us. Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!You can have a personal agreement with two clubs which only happens if think could be a problem eg Robbie Savage move to us from birmtingham. But as stated before its not something legelly binding and you cant force a club to play him or not. Anyway before Sam can buy a striker he had to sell him. And before you get to excited its only beginning july clubs dont really start buying until now. Sam knows what he is doing, thats why he saved from us relegation it wasnt luck it is something strange to you maybe but called management. And this will be the same thing used to but us a replacement. So as Michael Winner would say calm down dear
Marcus28, Manchester says...
1:07pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:Derbyshire loan was last season why you bringing that up. Erm we are now in July Derbyshire has been sold for 3m now. As for Santa Cruz does it matter if he plays against us. Whats is your worry he would to play against us sometime. Are you telling me that instead of selling Santa Cruz cause I expect City wouldnt agree to him not playing against us you have said no to the deal and then had a player who doesnt want to play for us sitting in our team. Can I just say thank god you have no say in the Rovers team. So lets not look into the past and look to the future. Its exciting times we are going to buy new players. Weird my security word is mean-type sounds a bit like you marghen
Marcus28 wrote:Who the hell said anything about “legelly binding” think you mean legally binding… It was a deal struck up by two clubs, an agreement was reached! I’ll try to make this simple ….We will sell you Santa Cruz for x amount but we don’t want you to play him against us, if you agree the deal will go through… We will let you have Derbyshire on loan but if we need him we can recall him….blah blah..
marghen wrote: What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes! Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us. Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!You can have a personal agreement with two clubs which only happens if think could be a problem eg Robbie Savage move to us from birmtingham. But as stated before its not something legelly binding and you cant force a club to play him or not. Anyway before Sam can buy a striker he had to sell him. And before you get to excited its only beginning july clubs dont really start buying until now. Sam knows what he is doing, thats why he saved from us relegation it wasnt luck it is something strange to you maybe but called management. And this will be the same thing used to but us a replacement. So as Michael Winner would say calm down dear
mshaw28, says...
1:11pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Wild Rover, Darwen says...
1:13pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Its pure speculation anyway. Trust in Sam, he will do the deal(s) we need!
Wild Rover, Darwen says...
1:16pm Wed 1 Jul 09
mshaw28 wrote:Is that an idea or an instruction?
Crouch!
How did these LET guys work out that we might have to look abroad? I thought we were going to buy all the England team! hmm maybe a bad idea anyway.....
marghen, taunton says...
1:24pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Marcus28, Manchester says...
1:29pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:And why am I a fool. Because you havent realised that Derbyshire is no longer on loan so that is a pointless comment you made. A second because you already we kept Santa Cruz than let him leave cause you want a clause to stop him playing against us for first game of the season. I think you will find your living in your own little world. End of story Roque has left he will paly against us who cares we have to play against 11 players not just on. Second Derbyshire has left. Thirdly Fat Sam is now loking for a new striker same as we have done time and time again. Which we would not have been able to have done if we didnt sell Roque. And to your point I am not looking for a argument I just think your talking cr*p
Marcus-You’re obviously a fool and just want an argument so I’ll pass you by!
jeppo, huddersfield says...
1:38pm Wed 1 Jul 09
I really do wonder who it is that is "a numpty", in your words. It is REALLY clear to see that Sam didnt see Derbyshire as the type of player he needed in the run in, so he let him go. Rovers were not "lucky" that we had Samba as a centre forward, it was part of the plan. You cannot tell me that Samba is a better striker than Benni, but Benni was on the bench and Samba up front in the key games of the run in. Yes, we were unlucky that Roque and Roberts got injured, but there would have been absolutely no benefit whatsoever of bringing Matty back, because he was way below Benni in the pecking order (whilst building up his value in Greece). Please read again, I am not slagging Derbyshire or Benni or praising Samba, I am looking at the way that Sam set up the team for the games since January - Matty would not have been in the squad, even if Samba was injured!! It was also key that Matty went out, so that we could bring Diouf in - Diouf WAS important in every game. I hope that makes sense to you?
Jarred, Bristol says...
1:40pm Wed 1 Jul 09
The thing with an agreement is both sides have to agree to it. Why on earth would you pay money to loan in a player, using up your loan slot, who could end up leaving you at a crucial point during your season? Olympiakos were chasing two trophies as I recall.
For example, if we loan Di Santo from Chelsea and he becomes a massive hit and we as a team are challenging for Europe when in February, Chelsea decide to recall him, wouldn't you be a little annoyed?
As for banning players from playing against you, that's a little daft. Should Rovers have added a clause to the Shearer transfer to stop him ever playing against us?
The answer is a massive YES, as it would have earned us several points a season, apart from the fact that there's no way the other team would agree to it. Why would another team hurt their chances of getting 6 points a season?
Not to mention that it's apparently against the Premiership rules.
Out of the 100s of transfers that take place every month I've never heard of a single one having a "can't play against your old club" clause.
Don't you think there might be a reason for that?
RAyzer, BURNLEY says...
1:57pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen, taunton says...
2:03pm Wed 1 Jul 09
There have been numerous deals involving a selling club and a buying club that an agreement was reached not to include the newly player in the teams first meeting (were not talking about every game) Defoes move springs to mind.
marghen, taunton says...
2:27pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Please don’t think that Derbyshire was below McCarthy in the pecking order -Derbyshire was on far less wages than McCarthy and was wanted by other clubs! his loan deal was affordable unlike the cost of taking McCarthy. McCarthy signed a lucrative contract when he was the bees knees, far superior to Matts. If anyone would have shown an inkling of taking McCarthy on loan Rovers would have packed his bags!
Only IMO
blueheeler1, scarborough, WA says...
2:28pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Marcus28, Manchester says...
2:38pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:Think you find Derbyshire wanted the move as well. He wanted first team football under Hughes Ince and Fat Sam he has not gained regular football only being used sparingly. If Sam wanted him to stay he would he watched him in the game against Blyth Spartans and decided that he wouldnt help the team during the relegation battle. He went on loan, and now he is sold. As said before not sure why you looking in the past. That is over I would have liked Derbyshire to stay he has left we move on we get someone in new.
Please don’t think that Derbyshire was below McCarthy in the pecking order -Derbyshire was on far less wages than McCarthy and was wanted by other clubs! his loan deal was affordable unlike the cost of taking McCarthy. McCarthy signed a lucrative contract when he was the bees knees, far superior to Matts. If anyone would have shown an inkling of taking McCarthy on loan Rovers would have packed his bags!
Only IMO
marghen, taunton says...
3:03pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Because my dear you can't look into the future- is a time period commonly understood to contain all events that have yet to occur. It is the opposite of the past, and is the time after the present.
oh, wait a mo -I can see Rovers winning the FA cup next year oh and we've just signed Van the Man..that do ya
richest club on the planet, manchester says...
3:19pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Marcus28, Manchester says...
3:19pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen, taunton says...
3:27pm Wed 1 Jul 09
richest club on the planet, manchester says...
3:29pm Wed 1 Jul 09
I for one will be the first person on this site if city get beat by Rovers on 15th August. Its only a bit of banter-Not to be taken too serious!
Marcus28, Manchester says...
3:35pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:i will put u on my xmas list with a pic of the ghost of christmas past :)
Sorry Marcus,can we do this another day! I promised Morst I'd make new friends this season-looks like I'm off your Xmas card list!
Ive got nothing against banter but in the end feel that what has happened as happened. Your Rovers to you die no matter what. Players, managers all come and go hell Rovers are used to that. So a new dawn starts now Sam has a chance to build something lets see what is achieved.
Woody Riversider, Blackburn says...
3:37pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Anyhow nay mind that I see RAzyer as introduced a new pal from sunny Scarboro spouting the same all bullsheeeeeeeeet !!
Razyer & Scarbboro I'll take a bet with now......you'll be crying like spanked arse's come xmas 09!!
Enjoy while you can cause your team is bulding for a challenge to return to the Prem 10/11 season.
Arte et labore
marghen, taunton says...
3:50pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Now that’s funny-see I knew you wasn’t all Mr Serious!
Woody..Banter mate banter!!
Marcus28, Manchester says...
3:57pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Ince parted company with the club in July last year after just one season to take charge of Blackburn Rovers in the Premier League.
But his stint at Ewood Park proved to be brief and ill-fated as he was axed after just six months at the helm.
Roberto Di Matteo was appointed as manager following Ince's exit and he took MK Dons to the League One play-offs before making the step up into the Championship with West Brom.
Ince remains a firm favourite with Dons chairman Pete Winkleman and it is understood that the two men are now holding discussions over a possible reunion.
hasslem hasslem, lower cumberworth says...
4:10pm Wed 1 Jul 09
richest club on the planet wrote:Enjoy your games at the Council House this season.
Just announced on sky sports news Ruud Van Nisleroy is out for 6 months. He has a serious hernia injury caused by uncontrollable laughter when his agent told Ruud Blackburn Rovers were interested in signing him up for next season. Oh well,never mind.
Marcus28, Manchester says...
4:16pm Wed 1 Jul 09
RAyzer wrote:Yeah your cause your a massive club arent you. That has just gone and bought a defender that couldnt even get into a one of the worst premiership teams of last season. Burnley have completed the signing of defender David Edgar from Newcastle.
looking for another player,thatl stay for a year or two..losers you cant hold any players down,even hughes left your SMALL club...come and watch real footy,no mosque at our ground,and no one will laugh when you tell them who you support.the MIGHTY BURNLEY F.C
Raf_of_the_Rovers, London says...
4:19pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:Marghen - Premier League rules forbid the stipulations of not allowing a player to compete against a particular club...unless it's a loan deal..however do agree with the comment regardless call back clause...if there was one...it may have been decided we did'nt need Gallagher back at the time...as for Derbs Olympiakos paid a fee so we could'nt call him back
What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an
emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes!
Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us.
Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!
Flylife, Manchester says...
4:57pm Wed 1 Jul 09
GUTTED WE LET THIS ONE GO....
mshaw28, says...
4:59pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Wild Rover wrote:I reckon he'd be a good target man for Rovers and have no doubt he'd score us 14 plus goals a season. Midfield and defence seems to be shaping up nicely, just need to sort out our threat up front. Lets hope Roberts has been studying the art of 'finishing', its about time he came good.
mshaw28 wrote:Is that an idea or an instruction?
Crouch!
How did these LET guys work out that we might have to look abroad? I thought we were going to buy all the England team! hmm maybe a bad idea anyway.....
marghen, taunton says...
5:01pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Raf_of_the_Rovers wrote:
marghen wrote: What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes! Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us. Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!Marghen - Premier League rules forbid the stipulations of not allowing a player to compete against a particular club...unless it's a loan deal..however do agree with the comment regardless call back clause...if there was one...it may have been decided we did'nt need Gallagher back at the time...as for Derbs Olympiakos paid a fee so we could'nt call him back
How recent have the rules changed ? I distinctly remember Defoe sitting in the stand after his signing because there was an agreement with his former club that he would not play against them.
“Olympiakos paid a fee” are you sure, do you pay a fee for a loan deal?
roversfan, Mt Brydges, Ontario. says...
5:18pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Obviously, the man is not bright enough to know that he has had ample opportunity to show his stuff - and he has failed.
IF McCarthy wants first team football - and a chance to star for South Africa in the W.C., all he has to do is play good all round football - a thing he rarely does. He is, invariably, lazy and shows little interest in the game being played around him.
It COULD be that the money from the sale of McCarthy would benefit the Club more than McCarthy himself.
Just a thought!
eddie the eagle, chorley says...
5:41pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Raf_of_the_Rovers, London says...
5:47pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:If there any agreements between clubs then they are distinctly not woven into a contract as the Premier League would'nt allow them...often if it is the case the player suddenly develops an 'injury' meaning he has to sit out the said game...think these rules have been in place for at least the last 4 or so years....as for fees for loan deals of course you have to pay LOL
Raf_of_the_Rovers wrote:
marghen wrote: What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes! Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us. Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!Marghen - Premier League rules forbid the stipulations of not allowing a player to compete against a particular club...unless it's a loan deal..however do agree with the comment regardless call back clause...if there was one...it may have been decided we did'nt need Gallagher back at the time...as for Derbs Olympiakos paid a fee so we could'nt call him back
How recent have the rules changed ? I distinctly remember Defoe sitting in the stand after his signing because there was an agreement with his former club that he would not play against them.
“Olympiakos paid a fee” are you sure, do you pay a fee for a loan deal?
When was the last time you rented something for free? (with the exception of the library)
Isn't always the case but I know for Derbs I think Olympiakos paid around £250k for his loan
jeppo, huddersfield says...
6:12pm Wed 1 Jul 09
suttydog, accrington says...
6:18pm Wed 1 Jul 09
etrib, blackburn says...
6:23pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:Marghen,
Raf_of_the_Rovers wrote:How recent have the rules changed ? I distinctly remember Defoe sitting in the stand after his signing because there was an agreement with his former club that he would not play against them. “Olympiakos paid a fee” are you sure, do you pay a fee for a loan deal?marghen wrote: What numpty is in charge of transfer dealings at Ewood! - .. Last season we let two strikers out on loan with no drawback clause in case of an emergency --with only one recognised striker fit towards the end of the season, it could have been a massive mistake which could have cost the club millions, luckily a converted centre half save our blushes! Now the same numpty allows Santa Cruz’s transfer to go ahead with no clause stopping the striker from making his city debut a Ewood -just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt us. Good to see we have competent professionals running our club!!!Marghen - Premier League rules forbid the stipulations of not allowing a player to compete against a particular club...unless it's a loan deal..however do agree with the comment regardless call back clause...if there was one...it may have been decided we did'nt need Gallagher back at the time...as for Derbs Olympiakos paid a fee so we could'nt call him back
The Defoe situation was unique. He was a deadline day signing, and because of complications, had to be signed initially on loan. The permanent transfer happened after the deadline, and after the Spurs-Pompey game. I believe loan players are prevented by FA rules from playing against their parent club.
I also understand FA/Prem league rules prevent selling clubs including no-play clauses.
Woody Riversider, Blackburn says...
6:38pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:I know Marghen :)
"i will put u on my xmas list with a pic of the ghost of christmas past :)" Now that’s funny-see I knew you wasn’t all Mr Serious! Woody..Banter mate banter!!
Have grown familiar with you now young man !
Arte et labore
marghen, taunton says...
6:54pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Woody Riversider wrote:I'll take that as a compliment-wink-
marghen wrote: "i will put u on my xmas list with a pic of the ghost of christmas past :)" Now that’s funny-see I knew you wasn’t all Mr Serious! Woody..Banter mate banter!!I know Marghen :) Have grown familiar with you now young man ! Arte et labore
marghen, taunton says...
6:58pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Thanks, were did you get the info….have you any links?
etrib, blackburn says...
7:11pm Wed 1 Jul 09
marghen wrote:Purely from memory! I remember it being discussed at the time, and I'm sure they were the reasons. He certainly had to sign on loan first. But if I'm wrong, I'm man enough to accept it.
etrib, Thanks, were did you get the info….have you any links?
Re: loans - usually the loaning club will pay a fee, but it is not unheard of for the loanee club to waive the fee, or even pay for a player to be taken on loan, so he can and the loanee club can benefit from the experience.
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
7:14pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Woody Riversider wrote:Dingles have just announced they will split the cricket field stand and sell 1,500 more season tickets. So we will only get the other half of 1,500 to 2,000.
marghen wrote:I know Marghen :)
"i will put u on my xmas list with a pic of the ghost of christmas past :)" Now that’s funny-see I knew you wasn’t all Mr Serious! Woody..Banter mate banter!!
Have grown familiar with you now young man !
Arte et labore
Now does everyone still feel so great about our pathetic announcement yesterday?
Yes The board do a good job in some areas but I repeat John and Simon Williams are Southampton fans and just completely out of touch with the history of this game. Someone from the WALKER FAMILY a word in there ears PLEASE! £199 ticket for half bottom tier Darwen End for 19 games Rovers fans and only 3,500 for Dingles.
How come Burnley plods can deal with this stand split and our plods can't?
31st....
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
7:27pm Wed 1 Jul 09
A Darener wrote:Yeah good thinking Laurence - lets not bother educating the Southampton fans in charge of our ticketing policy about what this game is about.
Can we PLEASE! put this D/E season ticket price structure to bed. I am getting a bit bored with it all, talk about flogging a dead horse. Give it a rest and concentrate on all the new & potential signings. Let's get Van the Man, that should spark some controversy, would he be a good signing? Discuss.
Now Dingles have announced they will split the cricket field stand in half to sell more home season tickets.
Yet we have sold out £199 tickets and rather than extend them to the Darwen End we come up with this jumped up idea to screw our own fans.
If I don't want to debate a subject I just pass it buy - why waste time moaning and telling people not to debate something they want to? That said no one had mentioned it at that point!
31st.........
jbwalmsley, Buenos Aires, Argentina says...
7:54pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Go for it Sam !! I wont even ask for Agents fee.
ashowopikin, says...
8:07pm Wed 1 Jul 09
apparently we have signed him according to the bbc website
never heard of him maybe this is the striker they have been looking at overseas
champs95, Liverpool says...
8:37pm Wed 1 Jul 09
ashowopikin wrote:Did you see it on 909? Its a p155 take mate.
who is Claude Levasseur apparently we have signed him according to the bbc website never heard of him maybe this is the striker they have been looking at overseas
BigJockKnew, kirkham says...
9:16pm Wed 1 Jul 09
R.I.P Dr Kelly
LanghoRover, Langho says...
9:30pm Wed 1 Jul 09
richest club on the planet wrote:Garry Lineker had the same injuries in 1993, had he took the offer form Dom Mc seriously he would have a premier league winners medal now.
Just announced on sky sports news Ruud Van Nisleroy is out for 6 months. He has a serious hernia injury caused by uncontrollable laughter when his agent told Ruud Blackburn Rovers were interested in signing him up for next season. Oh well,never mind.
LanghoRover, Langho says...
9:36pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles! wrote:You got to keep it in perspective, there pathetic little slum only holds 22K, if you do get tickets for the dingle away game, don’t forget to wipe your feet on the way out.
Woody Riversider wrote:Dingles have just announced they will split the cricket field stand and sell 1,500 more season tickets. So we will only get the other half of 1,500 to 2,000. Now does everyone still feel so great about our pathetic announcement yesterday? Yes The board do a good job in some areas but I repeat John and Simon Williams are Southampton fans and just completely out of touch with the history of this game. Someone from the WALKER FAMILY a word in there ears PLEASE! £199 ticket for half bottom tier Darwen End for 19 games Rovers fans and only 3,500 for Dingles. How come Burnley plods can deal with this stand split and our plods can't? 31st....marghen wrote: "i will put u on my xmas list with a pic of the ghost of christmas past :)" Now that’s funny-see I knew you wasn’t all Mr Serious! Woody..Banter mate banter!!I know Marghen :) Have grown familiar with you now young man ! Arte et labore
Wandering in Darwen, Darwen says...
9:41pm Wed 1 Jul 09
BigJockKnew wrote:The LET like me find it extremely difficult to find anything positive about Rovers.
What is it with the LET they put a negative spin on everything Rovers.Does Alastair Campbell run the paper? R.I.P Dr Kelly
MORST has now admitted Rovers are ripping their own fans off something i said weeks ago and he had a go at me for. YES, just as you thought your childish game had worked MORST, now be an adult and respond in an adult intelligent manner.
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
10:10pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Wandering in Darwen wrote:VOYEUR!
BigJockKnew wrote:The LET like me find it extremely difficult to find anything positive about Rovers.
What is it with the LET they put a negative spin on everything Rovers.Does Alastair Campbell run the paper? R.I.P Dr Kelly
MORST has now admitted Rovers are ripping their own fans off something i said weeks ago and he had a go at me for. YES, just as you thought your childish game had worked MORST, now be an adult and respond in an adult intelligent manner.
Wandering in Darwen, Darwen says...
10:14pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles! wrote:CHILD
Wandering in Darwen wrote:VOYEUR!BigJockKnew wrote: What is it with the LET they put a negative spin on everything Rovers.Does Alastair Campbell run the paper? R.I.P Dr KellyThe LET like me find it extremely difficult to find anything positive about Rovers. MORST has now admitted Rovers are ripping their own fans off something i said weeks ago and he had a go at me for. YES, just as you thought your childish game had worked MORST, now be an adult and respond in an adult intelligent manner.
eddie the eagle, chorley says...
10:30pm Wed 1 Jul 09
hasslem hasslem, lower cumberworth says...
11:02pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles! wrote:Morst - give it a rest.
A Darener wrote: Can we PLEASE! put this D/E season ticket price structure to bed. I am getting a bit bored with it all, talk about flogging a dead horse. Give it a rest and concentrate on all the new & potential signings. Let's get Van the Man, that should spark some controversy, would he be a good signing? Discuss.Yeah good thinking Laurence - lets not bother educating the Southampton fans in charge of our ticketing policy about what this game is about. Now Dingles have announced they will split the cricket field stand in half to sell more home season tickets. Yet we have sold out £199 tickets and rather than extend them to the Darwen End we come up with this jumped up idea to screw our own fans. If I don't want to debate a subject I just pass it buy - why waste time moaning and telling people not to debate something they want to? That said no one had mentioned it at that point! 31st.........
Extraordinarily unfair to bring up the Southampton thing again.
This was clear from the outset what was the plan. Now, you are slinging arrows in the Williams direction. Why dont you slag off the Walker family?
I will back some of the stuff you say, but you have gone for sledging now and it demeans your argument. Disappointed.
When it was announced £150 for 15 games did you really think the other 4 would be available for £10 each. Deluded.
From our previous discussions - you have been ana accountant. Well from my knowledge of accountancy there is a requirement to maximise revenue.
If you are having a go at the Darwen end - why not have a go at the prices in the Jack Walker which have not gone down at all. If you think this is taking back Ewoood, then you would get on your soapbox about this. Never seen you mention it once.
hasslem hasslem, lower cumberworth says...
11:04pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Wandering in Darwen wrote:Wise Pranker
BigJockKnew wrote: What is it with the LET they put a negative spin on everything Rovers.Does Alastair Campbell run the paper? R.I.P Dr KellyThe LET like me find it extremely difficult to find anything positive about Rovers. MORST has now admitted Rovers are ripping their own fans off something i said weeks ago and he had a go at me for. YES, just as you thought your childish game had worked MORST, now be an adult and respond in an adult intelligent manner.
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
8:53am Thu 2 Jul 09
hasslem hasslem wrote:Hasslem - I have never once criticised the Walker family on here and have defended them on many occasions.
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles! wrote:Morst - give it a rest.
A Darener wrote: Can we PLEASE! put this D/E season ticket price structure to bed. I am getting a bit bored with it all, talk about flogging a dead horse. Give it a rest and concentrate on all the new & potential signings. Let's get Van the Man, that should spark some controversy, would he be a good signing? Discuss.Yeah good thinking Laurence - lets not bother educating the Southampton fans in charge of our ticketing policy about what this game is about. Now Dingles have announced they will split the cricket field stand in half to sell more home season tickets. Yet we have sold out £199 tickets and rather than extend them to the Darwen End we come up with this jumped up idea to screw our own fans. If I don't want to debate a subject I just pass it buy - why waste time moaning and telling people not to debate something they want to? That said no one had mentioned it at that point! 31st.........
Extraordinarily unfair to bring up the Southampton thing again.
This was clear from the outset what was the plan. Now, you are slinging arrows in the Williams direction. Why dont you slag off the Walker family?
I will back some of the stuff you say, but you have gone for sledging now and it demeans your argument. Disappointed.
When it was announced £150 for 15 games did you really think the other 4 would be available for £10 each. Deluded.
From our previous discussions - you have been ana accountant. Well from my knowledge of accountancy there is a requirement to maximise revenue.
If you are having a go at the Darwen end - why not have a go at the prices in the Jack Walker which have not gone down at all. If you think this is taking back Ewoood, then you would get on your soapbox about this. Never seen you mention it once.
The comments I have made about the tickets on here have also been made direct to John Williams as we have swapped several emails in recent days so it is not underhand he knows my view -what we are doing on here is debating it as Rovers fans.
My main point is I can see the ticket thing now failing to achieve its full potential simply because we have run out of tickets at £199 - The fans were promised a "Special Price" for the other 4 games. I don't call a 250% increase special which is how it stands at present. Hopefully because of fans comments on here (not just mine) they will re-think the £25 per game for 4 games and either add it to the £150 ST at £199 with a 4 game transfer or offer a 4 game JW package for £50 which will at least make the D/End ST's only have to pay the same as B/End over all.
As regards the Southampton thing it is just a wind up. The first time I met Simon Williams he introduced himself thus - "Like my Dad I am a Southampton fan but". So I have had many occasions to tell them they don't fully understand us. Jack Walker and John Haworth would never have given Dingles 4 times the tickets they are giving us - there would have been telephone calls beforehand to ensure a fair / equal allocation for both clubs.
31st.......
bed and breakfast man !, dewsbury says...
9:07am Thu 2 Jul 09
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles! wrote:The Voyeur is back.
Wandering in Darwen wrote:VOYEUR!BigJockKnew wrote: What is it with the LET they put a negative spin on everything Rovers.Does Alastair Campbell run the paper? R.I.P Dr KellyThe LET like me find it extremely difficult to find anything positive about Rovers. MORST has now admitted Rovers are ripping their own fans off something i said weeks ago and he had a go at me for. YES, just as you thought your childish game had worked MORST, now be an adult and respond in an adult intelligent manner.
jeppo, huddersfield says...
9:44am Thu 2 Jul 09
spyderleg, blackburn says...
10:08am Thu 2 Jul 09
RAyzer wrote:The only thing "mighty" about BFC are the humps on their fans backs!
looking for another player,thatl stay for a year or two..losers you cant hold any players down,even hughes left your SMALL club...come and watch real footy,no mosque at our ground,and no one will laugh when you tell them who you support.the MIGHTY BURNLEY F.C
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
10:45am Thu 2 Jul 09
31st.....
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
10:59am Thu 2 Jul 09
jeppo wrote:In fact Jeppo I recall similar comments from you about previous ideas which have been proven to work. If you were in charge of ticket prices we would have about 7,000 STH's by now.
morst, it really disappoints me to read your posts on this subject. Rovers board do more than any other board of directors in the country by way of encouraging people to get down to Ewood Park, yet people like you still complain as if you were being ripped off. You embarass me with your rants on this subject.
We were down to under 11,000 in 2006 and only the 25% cut and then this years action will have stopped that real "Embarrassment" for the club.
Why I am not now allowed to say I think they have got the D/End bit wrong I don't know?
31st.....
hasslem hasslem, lower cumberworth says...
12:12pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles! wrote:Morst,
jeppo wrote: morst, it really disappoints me to read your posts on this subject. Rovers board do more than any other board of directors in the country by way of encouraging people to get down to Ewood Park, yet people like you still complain as if you were being ripped off. You embarass me with your rants on this subject.In fact Jeppo I recall similar comments from you about previous ideas which have been proven to work. If you were in charge of ticket prices we would have about 7,000 STH's by now. We were down to under 11,000 in 2006 and only the 25% cut and then this years action will have stopped that real "Embarrassment" for the club. Why I am not now allowed to say I think they have got the D/End bit wrong I don't know? 31st.....
The reason you are not allowed to do so - is because of the cheap unsults that you fling at the board and your fellow supporters that do not tow your line.
Still waiting for an apology on the e.mail for your extreme insults.
eddie the eagle, chorley says...
1:02pm Thu 2 Jul 09
jeppo, huddersfield says...
1:49pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Specific to this, it amazes me that you can ridicule the club for selling a 15 game ticket for £10 a game, and then for games that we can get £30 a game easily, reserve the perogative to do that. Blackburn Rovers is a business, and a very successfull one that looks after its fans better than any other club in the country (world?). It is not a charity for you, Morst. It strikes me that you want the club to do everything for you, yet you don't give much back.
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
2:48pm Thu 2 Jul 09
jeppo wrote:I have been proved 100% right on the ticket issue up to now Jeppo - please remember that and I am only again raising concerns that we are going to blow this idea and see its full potential with this Darwen End farce.
morst, that is absolute rubbish, you know as well as I do that you cannot remember what I have exactly said. My stance on this subject is (and always has been) that Rovers is a superbly run club, and will spend a lot more time and resource researching and number crunching on this than you do (remember now??). They will make the best decisions for our club.
Specific to this, it amazes me that you can ridicule the club for selling a 15 game ticket for £10 a game, and then for games that we can get £30 a game easily, reserve the perogative to do that. Blackburn Rovers is a business, and a very successfull one that looks after its fans better than any other club in the country (world?). It is not a charity for you, Morst. It strikes me that you want the club to do everything for you, yet you don't give much back.
Same reply for you as hasslem -
The Walker Family are beyond criticism in my view after what they have done for the club. It was John and Simon Williams I met for several hours who I thought were getting the ticket issue badly wrong.
I took a lot of stick on the forum as well but have been proved right on each occasion regarding trying ticket price ideas so I think I should comment if again I think we are getting it wrong.
Re the Darwen End - I was just concerned we are going to screw this up. We have been advertising for weeks at £199 (£75 kids) but these are sold out and that it is a mistake not to make more available. People have clearly been avoiding the £150 thing.
Rovers should put there own fans base first. there is £40m plus coming in from TV. Yet if we made half the Darwen End lower tier £199 then against Man Utd we would lose 2,000 away fans at a price diff of say £20 = 40K. If we had Rovers fans on all 4 sides the potential is -
We gain an extra few points worth 2 places = £1.5m.
We have much improved atmosphere.
Those extra fans will but shirts and other match day items all year.
Or alternatively if we don't sell many for D/End we could sell the ticket for £199 with 4 games being transferred to another stand. It really depends how many we sell. But we should be trying to maximise the home fan base and I just think this Darwen End ticket does not do that. It has to be £199 for 19 games even with a transfer. The ones who only come to the Big games will do so anyway. this remember was aimed at the 3 for £20 market not the 1 for £25 market.
Even the Dingles have grasped they should put their own fans first!
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
2:53pm Thu 2 Jul 09
31st.......
Woody Riversider, Blackburn says...
3:06pm Thu 2 Jul 09
The D/E lower tier should be for BRFC supporters at £199 all games.
When the big 4 come along these supporters should be moved into other area's of the ground thus freeing up the D/E for away support who will pay £30/35 per tkt.
So in essence BRFC should not lose any revenue, in fact if 3500 STkts are sold for the D/E they would be tickets that would not have been sold under the last few seasons ticketing policy?
My only reservation to this is :
Would it not infringe 'Trades Description Act' should already acquired seats be then re-sold?
One thing I have to comment on is, MORST deserves to be given credit for his crusade as regards 'Affordable Football' for BRFC(ALL) Supporters.
One thing I am certain of is that for 18 months this debate as raged & since this as been the case I have seen differance's down in the 'Corridoors Of Power' at Ewood.
This is down in some part with the pro-active debates on web-sites such as these that we comment on.
There are no doubts flaws exist in the D/E policy but in the main they are attractive & those supporters that 'HUM & AHH' about it are the one's who are not committed to a whole season but would buy for the big 4.
These are the people BRFC are targeting as to commiting to a season ticket, which in turn could convince the board next season to base the whole S/T on a relevant price as they have for this season?
These supporters need to show the board that allocating fewer away support tickets is a viable option.
BRFC cannot afford to lose the amounts of money that arises from away support on the big 4 on the basis of it's supporters whim's as to which games it will attend?
Again I stress the supporters should commit asap & then the board can act acordingly!!
Hope this makes a little sense & is only a comment it aint set in stone :)
Arte et labore
jeppo, huddersfield says...
3:40pm Thu 2 Jul 09
If it nullifys any of your momentum, I too have spent several hours with the two of them, and can even accept that they are from Southampton. I was very impressed with the amount of interest and enthusiasn they both had for Rovers and the supporters, and they were 100% on top of their game re ticket prices/encouraging the asian community/long term benefits and plans, attracting young fans etc etc. Morst, the board of Rovers are even (collectively, I admit) more astute than you are!! I can also assure you that reducing the ticket prices as they have was NOT YOUR IDEA, Morst, it was 2006 I met them, and they discussed it then... Rovers are a multi million pound business, I guess they have to consider all perspectives before acting, eh!
To finish on a serious note, thanks for not taking offence, none is intended, I just care about Rovers, and do not like unfair criticism!!
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
3:54pm Thu 2 Jul 09
I met them in 2003 and Andy Neild and Paul Plunkett could confirm I asked for all the things that have now happened back then.
It was 2006 before the 18,000 Man city 17,000 made them realise what I was saying.
For goodness sake I have praised to the hilt the £199 initiative and have been swapping emails with JW about it - I just want us to sell more and the D/end thing is confusing people and it should be for 19 games even with a transfer - that's all!
I want as many home fans in as possible as long as it is at least £199.
Now are you saying if we could sell 28,000 at that price and give only the top tier as required to away fans that you would not agree to it just because we could screw away fans for 4 games? Sorry but that is short sighted. But anyway it does not matter because we won't sell many more now unless the club reduce the £25 a game to a low package price or include it in the £199 - that's all I am saying so I don't know why these insults are coming.
I was the originator of these ideas though and they are working. I don't seek any praise as Woody will tell you I am just interested in the well being of the club.
But neither am I going to take criticism for it and listen to lies that I did not suggest it first.
31st......
jeppo, huddersfield says...
5:47pm Thu 2 Jul 09
You are the savious of Blackburn Rovers Morst - the multi million PLC is forever indebted to you!! Sorry for the sarcasm, but I cannot accept that this was "your idea". It is logic and commerce.
steroidchris, stourbridge says...
6:40pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
8:00pm Thu 2 Jul 09
jeppo wrote:Why were we not doing it then and Morst would have been happy in a full stadium?
oh...we have millions coming in from Sky, building/maintaining the fan base is the most important thing for our future, what shall we do?? Oh, I know, I'll ring Morst!!
You are the savious of Blackburn Rovers Morst - the multi million PLC is forever indebted to you!! Sorry for the sarcasm, but I cannot accept that this was "your idea". It is logic and commerce.
Then please explain when I suggested it no one else did and it was refused by Rovers?
I recall John Williams was talking about shoving people up a tube - I thought we were the London Underground club!
I had to bang my head against a brick wall and those on here from 3 or 4 years ago know it.
Your sarcasm does not become you Jeppo. Of course Rovers have a marketing team and come up with ideas and variations on a theme - but I was suggesting this action a few years back because I could see those gates coming. Like I said it would have been 7,000 ST's by now if action was not taken.
I really don't see your point here as all I am saying is the B/End / Riverside has gone well but re-think the Darwen End bit. But always put your own fans first.
31st....
marghen, taunton says...
8:33pm Thu 2 Jul 09
I really do wonder who it is that is "a numpty"…
Woody.. In your words…“What are all these bloody silly arguments about?”
Give Morst some credit. He obviously cares a great deal about reducing the cost for us ordinary Rovers supporters attending Ewood-He goes out of his way to publicise it via Radio, emails, message boards… (the latter admittedly to boring proportions!!) which I dare say most of us don’t, with his same obsessive commitment! I for one think his efforts have helped in getting BRFC to alter its pricing policy for the better- & his latest point concerning the Darwen End is justified in my eyes .. Don’t forget the attendance ticket revenue is about 10% of the overall turnover of the club-without the fans the club would be nothing -The old argument that Rovers have one of the cheapest ticketing policy doesn’t wash with me -Areas in Blackburn are some of the most deprived in Britain with a high unemployment rate. So any help/enthusiasm in reducing match cost is desperately needed by the majority of our fans. Even though I can afford to go to games, I do appreciate what Morst is trying to help achieve!
hasslem hasslem, lower cumberworth says...
11:29pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Morst - you majorly disappoint me your cynicism.
Morst, you majorly dissappoint me with calling other people on here idiots for not agreeing with you when you couldn't understanid it in the first place.
Morst you majorly disappoint me with you constant criticism of the Williams family and yet you think the sun shines out of the Walker Family backside, wwhen in they show little interest in the club apart from the Walker Trust obligation. They don't care about Rovers but are seemingly above any criticism. Seems you have a masters and servants relationship with them. Don't forget to doff your cap.
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
8:57am Fri 3 Jul 09
Reading a Jason Bourne novel last night there was a great line from the Chief of CIA which sums up the Darwen End farce perfectly -
"We keep it simple because its hard to f**k up Simple!"
31st..
jinkyjase, Preston says...
9:29am Fri 3 Jul 09
If we have to sell Darwen End Tickets for £200 to fill it then why not do it? After all, the missing four games is why I didn't move from the Riverside. The points you make about the relative cost against the four games where tickets are sold at twice the price is a strong one, the difference is not massive v league position benefits.
jeppo, huddersfield says...
9:39am Fri 3 Jul 09
Phew...now, lets all start slagging off Keith Andrews, Pedersen and McCarthy again, and get this site back to normal!
Morst the 88th min Heartbreaker of Dingles!, Accrington says...
10:01am Fri 3 Jul 09
jeppo wrote:OK just don't make it sound like I slag them off about other than ticket issues as I have not - its just their weak spot - they are always catching up with me!
right, yes, lets move on....somewhere in there you have a point Morst, I admit it. Now can you admit that slagging of the most pro-active board from 92 clubs is a bit harsh?
Phew...now, lets all start slagging off Keith Andrews, Pedersen and McCarthy again, and get this site back to normal!
p.s. Jeppo -check your sums on other page - have we rebuilt the Riverside to 10,000!
31st....
jeppo, huddersfield says...
12:11pm Fri 3 Jul 09
come on...tell me you liked my line above about 'back to normal', I was chuckling when I wrote that... if you say you liked it, we can be friends again!! ha ha
Blackburn Rovers to look overseas for striker
Local advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Miller11, Mellor says...
10:12am Wed 1 Jul 09
Come on folks, get on championship manager and tell us who we should be going for!