You telling me you know Mowbrays thoughts but you wouldn’t think he’d buy AA to play him out wide? You don’t half talk some absolute nonsense.

You ask for promotion, and further investment in the club from the owners to deliver you expectations, but you won’t even back them by watching them. Give me a thousand @blueboy3333 ‘s over this kind of trash posting.

Being happier that we have a semblance of a plan is tantamount to being John Claret? I’m afraid to say, we both know that JC is the biggest WUM on the LT boards, I’m guessing he is a massive inspiration for you? A role model maybe... I was going to start debating the idea that these two signings are definitely for first team squad, but then I remembered that it’s pointless and I’d be giving you the attention you crave. The target for you might be playoffs, but anyone who isn’t a complete WUM knows that realistically, staying up is the main plan! Anything on top is bonus.

It’s a spoof account, don’t worry. Once he has 0 credibility again he will change his name to some other nonsense pop at someone. Probably something like “Waggout”

Hence why we’ve still got a grade 1 academy- that’s a minimum of 2.3m a year investment per season, would that and the contracts of all u23s and scholars be roughly our entire ST turnover? Either way, I can understand why you and others see FFP as convenient but I also feel it’s convenient for me (and other fans) who are concerned about the agents/spending involved in our clubs.

I’ve had some great (imo, he might hate them! ) discussions with JHR on investing/FFP - I think that there is obviously scope for finding ways around FFP through sponsoring but I just differ in view on the risk-factor and potential outcome of it. I’m convinced we’ve got weak owners who could be swayed again, I’m not convinced of their actual wealth or ability to invest as much as someone similar to the Wolves/Leicester/ scenarios (no parachutes) either. Running the club (like the second paragraph) is more likely to bring the success of promotion in the long term for me IMHO! Stacking up wages/more debt in fees and a pressure to return quickly before FFP can bite or losses curved... I just think that would be less likely to be successful (because of aforementioned ownership problems) and more likely to be another load of nails in the coffin.

You seem to be forgetting the wage and facility cost will rack up debts, without any investment. Hence why maximising turnover can only be good if it’s not too harsh on customers. As for FFP, a examples have skirted the rules but when a few have also been in embargo, and one or two are facing huge fines. See it as an excuse if you must, but I personally would rather they continued to give an annual playing budget and allowed the club to function at arms lengths with a reasonable budget for keeping our grade 1 academy and other important aspects of JW’s legacy going.

I disagree. 100m is two season in the top flight profit (if you’re Burnley and don’t spend it). Push up the wage bill to 200% turnover (aka 2012/13) and DON’T get promoted.. see 14/15 and 15/16 for examples of what happens in that scenario. I’d personally rather we built up slowly to a position of value and strength, without the sudden need to drop wages to meet FFP or keep facilities.

Invest what? More “share capital”? All that means is more debt. More debt = less likely to ever get rid.

I don’t think there’s much difference. If they set a budget, the more we make the more we spend. Selling the whole Darwen end to away supporters and bringing prices up marginally could actually add one or two decent signings, 3 games of 5000+ away fans @ 30 quid is 450/500k with food/drink on top - these decisions would impact the team - whereas the owners practically as a maximum; keep the lights on at a cost to them. If that’s all they are guaranteeing, then the nearer our turnover is to cost = the better the investment on pitch. The jump to premier league money obviously means that these things are completely negligible but for me it’s sensible club management at this time. I still can’t fathom this “I want Venkys to invest” alongside this “I want Venkys out”... two very clear and distinct things that do not tally together.

I didn’t take issue with the post, I just disagree with the mindset that selections, squad option and rotation is simple. It’s complex and it relies on changing dynamics, I saw Bennett play once or twice in CM and felt TM was losing his mind, two weeks later I’m thinking it’s his best position.. Another good example from our team; Williams. Is he a left back or a Centreback? There’s no argument he’s got pro’s and con’s for both positions but I’d suggest we’d find it difficult to know what he’s better at- since systems with an attacking winger in front of the full back might suit him more, and playing LCB of a three might be even more suitable, whereas LB in a narrow formation leaves him exposed, and he may not be good enough as LCB in a two... Its all opinions - even the best in the world play multiple positions, start in different places - and I’d expect younger players to be even more “mouldable” Besides, proven and experienced specialists normally cost much more than something to develop and mould!

What like Bennett? Its quite obvious from reading about Rothwell, he’s been used in deep central midfield but he’s more suited to attacking. Play the players in positions they’re effective in. If he works as an inside left or wide forward, happy days. If he doesn’t, back to training. Thinking football is as simple as “defender or attacker, left or right, round peg, square peg” - it’s just too basic for me.

Yes, and ospinas on Henderson was also top class.

Some pressure on Dier there, well done lads. Nobody can criticise Southgate now. Yes, disagree with his appointment and have views on his approach but he’s managed what a load of millionaire experienced Italians couldn’t, created an actual “team”!

Do you not prefer a system where we (the staff/management) know a budget (reasonable) that’s reviewed against income/debt and set annually? Last thing we need imo, is the owners saying “here is 10m to get promoted this season” if it means a repeat of having to cut costs and shift wages/players again in 12 months if it doesn’t work out. Perhaps a bigger budget/more to spend is better if it’s a gradual development - in this system, there is fair argument to say any sales will require reinvestment, rather than having to say - “we need the wage bill to be cut back to avoid sanction or stop spiralling debts” Technically, by cutting cloth accordingly and maxing out other turnovers, we can actually build value and quality in the squad without the immediate need to be promoted to sustain it. Spending multimillions on players, with big wages would potentially add cost elsewhere, because you can’t convince Dack to sign a new 10k a week contract if you’ve just given an x prem a decent deal, or someone like Marcus Maddison 20k, on the basis 4 or 5 clubs have may have driven the price up. Im not naive or unambitious, I understand more seasons in the champ will see us have to replace players moving on, I understand that quality costs more but I really do like the idea of using our scouting and buying potential to help develop along with our own.

How did we buy him then? What’s the difference between the money we’ve taken through the coffers for ST’s and the money we’ve spent on the signing? I do apologise if I’m missing something, but I’ve read this whole thread twice and I still can’t get my head around what people are complaining about, other than logical and small increases in cost of certain things. I’d expect many things to cheapen overnight (tickets, travel, club membership etc) if we had a premier league income stream. There is a stark irony for me, of wanting rid of the owners but lamenting keeping our club solvent! You can’t have both, if you want the owners to invest more money into the club, for signings - you’re effectively saying you want them to stay. Quicker the club can pay for its expensive facilities and academy itself, whilst still staying competitive.. quicker we can get rid of the Rao’s.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/july/new-deal-for-darragh/ the twitter account taking the piss out of Nixon made my morning;

What, like Davenport?

Looking at this, it adds more weight to Rothwell serving higher up the pitch - possible wide forward (or inside left as suggested in the Oxford blog) and backup for Dack - Payne’s role last season. Makes sense too, because it seems we went for Payne after the attempts to sign Rothwell in January failed. If we can add Armstrong and Chapman, I’d say we may be in a good position come August.

I take it you’re as obnoxious in real life based on that first sentence... I’ll say it again so it makes sense this time; Id like to think the manager picks his list based on ABILITY before any enquiries to agents/clubs! It’s really not that difficult to grasp.

I agree to some extent but the hopeful side of me thinks they’d draw a list up based on ability, not availability. The depth in the scouting then counts, if the first or second choice for a position isn’t likely due to price/interest. Id like to think we’d left the days of relying on a “list” from an agent.

How can you know a players availability before you’ve even enquired?

Great social media imo

And I was making the point that the link literally dropped on my twitter feed this morning.

Nope. As we’ve discussed, the social media at a Ewood this year has been much better- this is today’s example of our “1 goal a day from last season”- ending when next season starts.