Still haven’t seen anyone suggest forgiving and forgetting the cock ups? Anyone serious mind. I think the second part about gratitude for funding being tantamount to Stockholm syndrome is unfair De! I mean, I am grateful that they continued to fund the academy because (whilst an expectation I guess) that advantage will be important if it’s used correctly. Ofcourse it’s their responsibility - however there’s cheaper ways to do it. As for the final paragraph, I agree there are still steps to be taken on the pitch and off the pitch in terms of their impact - meetings in India, being absent from the box etc. However spending a lot on diligence and financial auditing suggests they may have learnt something, much like hiring Waggott suggests they’ve learnt we needed more than just a secretary and finance guy. Its still painful to accept they learnt these things the hard way, no dispute there.

You’ll have to point me to the praise for the owners, I’ve not seen any - I thought you were talking about the club overall and the general direction. Since it was mainly TM talking about expectation, aspiration etc - I assumed the replies to this thread centred on answers to questions by him and Steve. As for Waggott - id say it takes a long time to turn a ship round, and the major turns so far have been made. Theres legitimacy in all of @MCMC1875 ‘s comments but none of them are on the pitch - the key part of a football club. As I said also - TM/Waggott have overseen a big overhaul of the first team - that’s a major positive for the club, regardless of how you feel that reflects on the ownership. Sunderland fans are rightly unhappy, Portsmouth have been in the depths longer and in a different way granted, but both their individual situations (like us last year) require promotion. The requirement is/was a “worthwhile” achievement imo.

For me looking at last 2 years, as opposed to using 5+ to make a point; I’d call an overhaul of the squad from overblown contracts, short term loans and older frees - to a squad chock full of potential in several positions a major positive. Id call the hiring of an actual managing director at Ewood a major positive. Id call promotion from the third tier a major positive. I’d also ask Sunderland and Portsmouth fans if promotion from that tier is “worthwhile” too. Id call staying up this season as a respectable expectation matched too - with a better platform for further moves forward next season. Thus, so far - TM has set the expectations, and based on that (from him) the next potential major positives could be; a better transfer system of recruiting from abroad again, a stall set out from day one aiming for “top two, or at least playoffs” and hopefully another summer when our best players stay. Its difficult for me to ignore all that and simply reboot “stability ffs” 2.0 if I’m honest.

I doubt this is true.

Absolutely!

Do you reckon it’d be different if it wasn’t anonymous?

He’s not a standard winger, think we’d agree on that - wide forward maybe in my 433, or 442, definitely on the left cutting in. As for Dack - the standard argument for keeping rhodes (which I agreed with mind) was simply the impact in goals/points, it’s exactly the same as Brad- our most important player! 100%

My take of Dack vs Rothwell. 1. Complete different players. 2. Rothwell is so one footed, playing him at number 10 wouldnt work in my opinion. 3. Dack’s final ball, shot, decisions are (statistically and just from watching games) better, come off more, and lead to more attempts, goals ergo points. 4. There’s no legitimacy in saying Rothwell has a better passing range. If you’re talking legitimate things he has on Dack, speed and trickery is about it. Strength, consistency, final ball, finishing, movement, etc - all been shown by Dack more than Joe. 5. Dack isn’t lazy. This idea comes from peoples view of his private life, and his figure/shape imo (remember early days of Duff?) He works hard yet doesn’t have the fitness/defensive prowess of someone box to box. Could be fitter guaranteed. Rothwell isn’t lazy either, but in the few games he’s played, I’ve watched him let runners go, shrug when lose the ball, and not track properly. So to summarise. Rothwell could be a fantastic flying winger, and is a/will turn out to be brilliant signing (much like Dack) but to compare the two ignores lots, and when it’s used to further pad/justify the opinion we should sell Bradley- Im just glad those making the decisions wouldn’t think like that. Finally - question for anybody who thinks our recruitment is poor - do you think we will sign someone as good in their position as either Joe or Brad this summer?

I’d say his value has gone up since then. January is an inflated price market though, so I could see that as a potential reason. Crux for me though - his impact on games at this level over a season means his value will have only gone up since last summer, and considerably too! (As will his wages if we want to keep him)

Compared to when?

This one @Madon ? Think it would look good with a blue and white trim instead of yellow.

I think for his first season at this level he has done well, and has been managed effectively. His form tended to echo the team for me, in a rut - looked lethargic, trying to hard, to many touches. In the good runs, looks a real handful, poaches and sets up goals. Id definitely hope to keep hold of him.

Yet he’s contributed more than anyone else this season.

I get what you’re saying about price - it wouldn’t be too difficult to have a cheap ST in one area, like BB upper or something or sides of the riverside, whilst keeping central areas, lower blackburn end as “premium”. The problem then becomes if there’s 1000 in one 2500 seat block, and then 800 in another - it’s far more expensive to staff. Hence closing big areas of the ground off.

Berg probably cost us 5m alone in payout/damages!

Does it not play into this debate though? For me it does. Yes - wages/transfer funds arent dictated by our turnover, but FFP does limit losses, thus the more turnover, the more we can spend.

I’d be guessing but I reckon we’ve probably spent nearly 20m hiring and firing managers under venkys.

But ffp limits losses - so we can lose/spend more if the turnover is up.

No I think it does come into account personally. The bigger the turnover, the more spent on the pitch.

FFP has nothing to do with turnover and transfers?

What about FFP? Arent rovers, Boro and a few more other clubs trying to make all the others more transparent since there’s supposed to be a 39m limit to losses over 3 seasons and villa lost 50m in 1?

@Stuart - I’m not completely au fait with Wigan’s depth or financial clout going forward tbh but given they’ve signed Garner, Clarke, Fox and pilkington all 30+ It’s easy to see why our squad looks a better potential platform for improvement. They signed Windass for 3 times what we gave Gilligham for Dack and Rothwell combined - we’ve made considerable steps imo in 12 months.

Simply looking at the previous twelve months; we are in a higher league, and better squad position than them. As @roversfan99 says, we’ve a arguably a better platform going into next season too. If you’re only talking about league position, there’s some truth in;“Based on respective budgets, pound for pound they have had a better return on their investment for 2018/19.” The part I disagree with still - is how that translates into a “better season” when some of the initial things are considered too. Sure - they’re -5m or something on our spends, but I’m sure most would agree our team is worth the difference and more compared to theirs. Thus, overall on the comparison- my opinion is we’ve moved further forward overall in the last twelve months, if not as far as we could’ve. This is also taking Cook doing a decent job into account, with a lower budget too.

“Pound for pound” a better season ”pretty emotive to suggest we’ve had a better season than Wigan”... Im not dismissing the fact we’ve spent more, I’m suggesting that these two particular opinions are barmy as they completely ignore the actual games, results, performances, positions through season and final placing.