Surely more than happy would be in the top 2/top 6? As in more than happy suggests that TM is exceeding expectations, whereas I think given the team and the quality of the league, it's reasonable to expect us to be midtable.

I think this is his preferred first 11 and worryingly it's missing 2 of our best players and arguably 2 other superior options. No one can doubt Graham and Rothwell on performance have out performed Armstrong and Gally. I'd also say Nayambe and Adabyaro (sp?) are better defensive options. In fact both seem better right backs than Bennett. Linked to this and on topic how many of that first 11 really could grab the game by the scruff of the neck? Gally struggles to bully a defender much less grab the game, and there are very few leaders. A former age but in the relegation scrap Hughes added in Moko, Nelson and Savage who as well as being good players all had a hell of a lot of leadership about them. Throw in Oojer, Brad, Todd, perhaps even Reid and you had a lot of grit and determination. Now that type of quality is way out of reach these days. But that type of character? Looking at that 11 - maybe Johnson? Struggling to name others. Perhaps a few more leaders would mean games like Luton go very differently.

Bit optimistic putting Bereton as possibly contributing but raises the point very well. There is no slow build. Age or transfers away or loans finishing prevent any long term build. We could be without 6 key players next season - that's over half the team. Do or die, or rather do or start again I think.

Think we will do well against Forest - a good performance and possibly a point. The problem is games like these. TM cannot get regular home wins Vs significantly weaker opposition. Right back to league 1 we've had this - Oldham and Plymouth (with their 4,th choice keeper) Millwall and Reading last season, Charlton & Luton this time. When the expectation is clearly on and the opposition weaker TM struggles. The lack of a regularly scoring forward doesn't help either. Many of their deficiencies are hidden in being wide midfielders in the 3, but even there questions have to be asked where are the regular goal scorers? All teams to be successful need someone who can nab a goal from nothing/the one chance they get, and with Graham relegated to the bench we don't look like having anyone who can do this. Also if the "3" don't produce a solid amount of goals then who else will. Oy Dack seems likely to get double figures. A striker up front with Rothwell Dack and Holtby behind would be a scary proposition for most teams, yet we play indifferent strikers out of position instead. Gally's work rate is an asset in games when we have to fight and scrap and have defensive duties to do, but against weaker opposition someone more creative and clinical is needed. Really gutted about today as all the cracks plastered by our good run were shown to still be very much there.

My fears of pressure games Vs weaker opposition came to pass. For the last 3 seasons we've seen TM hasn't worked out how to beat weaker teams when we are clearly the stronger team. Poor do and why we're not going anywhere. Shame, just as I was getting excited and hoping we had turned a corner.

I genuinely think TM doesn't like that type of "run at them" attacking midfielder. That's fine if that's how he prefers to play. But if that is the case don't sign them! As for the team I am surprised there aren't more changes. Thought it was the type of game for a few more attacking midfielders, or a good game for Graham. That said it's the majority of the team that has been winning of late so they deserve to keep their place, no arguments from me.

Apart from the £7 mill not being spent on players who would benefit us, the impact on FFP and Rovers budget then hasn't hurt us at all!

Post edited so not too long. Again the point is missed - judging against league 1 standards for these players, as explained in the last post - many weren't that great. Antonsson being one example of that. Can't remember the whole thread but there were a fair number of failures in there too - Harper and Gladwin also spring to mind. I think though haven't checked that the success ratio was about 50:50 which isn't really all that great, and certainly not a good job. Think it would be the same the season after too. I would hope it had improved in 4 or 5 transfer windows and that is not being disputed. Again think this is a false dichotomy - as it doesn't assess how many players it's taken to get to this, how much spent, the fact he inherited a squad from Clueless which is a hell of a handicap for a club. I think this point 1) has a very low bar of comparison 2) doesn't show the full picture therefore not showing the full extent of how good TM is in the transfer market. Perhaps failure is perhaps too harsh a word, I would grant you that. However and the point I was making was it isn't good. And the last 2 seasons, up to this one, has been average to poor and not one of TMs strengths. Hopefully (early signs are promising) we will look back on this season and see the overall performance in transfers has improved but up till now it's been 50:50 at best which to me is not good enough and we could do better with - that is the point being made. The context of BB is that he hasn't performed. You aren't using the context regarding him. Also the issue is TM did chose his price tag and that is the problem - it was vastly over what it should be. Not trying to play the poster whatsoever but the flair for dramatic rests with you. Firstly there were lines of that nature - do you want every transfer to be excellent (or some such) for example which is heightened retoric. Secondly we don't need to appeal to likes from other posters to validate points - hopefully our reasoning does that for us. Thirdly it seems you wanted TM out after 2 games. Now I am assuming you didn't want him out on the basis of 2 games but those 2 games on top of last season's issues, which include a history of hit and miss transfer dealings. It is only in the summer where it looks like our transfer business has picked up. Probably done to death now. But if in the pub I said to you I think TM has been poor to mediocre at transfer dealings, and your response was look at this last windows dealings and our form, I think my response would be: "well it's a bit early to make a judgement imo, but the indications are it has picked up. Let's hope you are right at the end of the season." We'd probably not be as far off as we might sound. If it's more this season is great like the last few have been, then respectfully I'd say the last 2 years haven't been good at all. Again this season looks better and I hope it does keep that way. 7-8 games isn't enough for me to make that verdict as yet though.

Totally disagree but feel it may be best to leave it here. I don't think they are spending masses more - especially Sheff Utd, no way can a recent ex league 1 club seriously outgun us - nor is anyone saying we should get Pukki like signings, just better value for money in transfer market. Not is anyone saying all his deals have been bad - there have been some good ones in there - just questioning the overall effectiveness of this area. Bit frustrating that it has to be totally good or totally bad - that's not what saying, rather getting better value in the market and transfer dealings have been very mixed. I'm sick it has to be all or nothing. Your retoric is very much of that all or nothing genre - do I expect world beaters every time? Clearly not. I praise the good. That's just a silly accusarion. You can't write off an investment after 1 year - despite the evidence being BB is nowhere near good enough at this level on the evidence. Yet previous evidence on Holtby is enough to make him a good signing- you are only using past evidence when it suits you. You say you are only bothered about this season - which I admit seems better albeit only early days - then also say all his windows have been a success. Do they count or not? You're contradicting yourself all over the shop. Also massively disagree over not judging transfers in League 1. We judges his performances and rightly credit TM for getting us up, so why ignore one aspect of this? Also, especially in reviewing transfer threads, the quality of player for the quality of league is factored into it - hence why Smallwood and Downing (the defender) were judged successes. It feels like any criticism of TM gets you rather worked up so probably not worth continuing this debate. TM has done some good stuff and great stuff but I think, and have given reasons for, his transfers not being his strongest area.

Yes it was to do with transfers, our not great performance with them, and being able to do well on it on a budget. It wasn't aimed as an overall evaluation of TMs time here, but evaluating how we have done in the market and how we could be getting better bang for our bucks. Respectfully disagree with you on most of your points! Although that is the joy of football having different opinions. League 1 imo was the worst set of signings we've had - although the omission of a proper defender the year after runs that close. So many flopped, like Whittingham & Caddis, and we wasted the use of the loans from bigger clubs. Interestingly Samuel caused the most debate, I thought he did ok but a lot of people argued quite convincingly otherwise. Given he was one of our biggest signings money wise (for a league 1 club it was a decent amount) and his form trailing off dramatically I think it's hard to call him a good signing. Not sure we can class players as good because of their pedigree - Whittingham being a recent example of that. Indeed we could go back to a certain central midfield pairing on relegation to show pedigree isn't a guarentee of success. Think both will be good for us mind, just want to hold fire on this till they actually are. Your Leicester analogy is not a like for like comparison whatsoever. The fact that 2 teams last season alone did it shows that it wasn't a once only event. It seems there have regularly been teams who have got promoted on a limited budget, Blackpool as one spring to mind, and many more have gotten very close to doing so via the playoffs. A one off like Leicester is a very different kettle of fish, not least because there's no top 4 / big 6 domenence in the Championship. Not sure Bowyer's signings are that different. Have prices really risen that much? Both sets of transfers happened in the championship and we pay competitive wages if not too whack in both cases too. Whether they go on to bang them in in the premiership is irrelevant imo unless it's either a) with Rovers or b) earned them a transfer to the prem for banging them in at Rovers. Kevin Davis is a great example of a bad transfer - blew a huge chunk of our budget and did nothing for us. Just because he came good later didn't make him a good signing for us. On this point Armstrong, Gally and Bereton haven't exactly been banging it in in the championship so it's hard to see them doing it in the Prem. Hard to use a hypothetical argument, especially when the existing evidence points against that. And whilst the first two have shown some talent Bereton patiently looks out of his depth in the championship and struggles to contribute much positive to us. If that isn't a waste of money for a 4th/5th choice striker who offers nothing then nothing will be. Even our seemingly positive summer window (too early to tell but happily it's looking good) if we look at who we brought for under the £7 mill - you see how much of a waste Bereton is in comparison. Given that Johnson, Downing and a few loan fees come clearly under that, our seemingly positive window also shouts out Bereton is a waste of money. Signings for less in the championship - the Hibs chap who went to Villa for half of Bereton's fee for example - shouts out Bereton is a waste of money. Being 20 doesn't negate that - some players aren't good enough and won't come good enough, BB falls into that category. I'm not trying to be down on TM but I do think transfers have been a weakness. I hope this has improved and this summer may have seen us turn the corner on that but so far i struggle to see this as a plus and I'm equally convinced teams on a budget can do well in the championship.

Absolutely! Or at least - I hope so. The early signs are promising but need a bit longer to judge imo but so far so good. I always remember Ooijer having a stinker for the first few months before becoming a good addition for us, or Mokoena looking great in a 3 man midfield and limited in a 2. Benni was a 1 season wonder etc. So yes, so far so good, although imo the jury is out on Gally for £5 mill but that looks our most questionable deal, which suggests improvements made in this area that all others are looking good. I just have real issues with 2 seasons of mediocre/poor recruitment being ignored/airbrushed and people dismissing the idea that there isn't real value to be had in the market out there.

Firstly you miss out the very hit and miss league 1 season out. (Smart move btw if disingenuous). That missed out clangers such as Whittingham Samuel and Caddis. Secondly throwing in Holtby and the City lad as positives, both of whom I think will turn out good btw, but on the basis of one or two appearances each is also a little bit disingenuous. One or two games (have either played 2 games?) is not enough to judge a player on but you massage the stats. Thirdly you haven't taken transfer fees into account at all. Bereton was a huge investment in 1 player and a colossal waste of money , likewise Gally for £5 million - I'm not sure we've seen value for money there yet either. So you need to factor in costs of players as well when considering whether they were a good or bad signing. I'd suggest for their fees none of our brought strikers have really matched their price tags. (Maybe Armstrong?) For example Smallwood was a good piece of business - cost nothing and was very useful/good for promotion. Had we spend £2-3 mill on him, for a 1 season wonder, it wouldn't look such a smart move. Fees matter. Fourthly, albeit perhaps point 3.5, is that none of the strikers as yet look like replacing Graham. For our favoured 4-2-3-1 formation despite £12+ mill of investment we don't look to have a suitable quality replacement. I hope Gally will do it but am not convinced despite his impressive work rate. Worth considering how the signings have shaped the squad too - or how the lack of signings in positions hurt us. The last two seasons I have done an end of season transfer review thread (search it out if interested) where I try to offer a balanced opinion on how well our transfer business has turned out and others do likewise. The consensus from the last 2 seasons was that it was pretty average at best. A couple of good uns amongst a fair bit of dross and failure. Whilst I think (here's hoping it continues) that our dealings are much better this season, the last 2 years show TM has been very average at best in his transfer dealings. I'm really pleased we've begun to pick up on this over the past summer, but the last few seasons need a lot of positive spin to make them out to be successes. As an aside you forgot Rodwell. In fairness his time here was very forgettable. Finally the point is you can do it fairly cheaply not that no money is spent. The money chucked on strikers alone is double what Norwich spent and goes a long way to countering their extra wages. Also it's not like our wages aren't competitive for the championship. AND money does not equal success as many clubs in this division and the prem have clearly shown. However recently Sheff Utd and Norwich have spent relatively frugally and done very well out of it. The issue are we getting as much value from the market as possible and the answer probably is, in comparison, no. Doesn't mean we hate the club, or aren't pleased with our current form, but even compared to Bowyer's recruitment we aren't getting the same bang for our bucks and could be doing better. Admittedly Bowyer's use of said resources was poor but the point is to do with recruitment and we got some steals - Cairney, Gestede, Conway, Duffy for example. And the point was solely this - that we could during TMs overall tenure do better at recruitment.

When Norwich's team beating City cost £6.5 million you see there is value to be had in the transfer market whether free transfers or small fees.

More of a plummet than a spiral! That said although it is early days Hurts & Stoke both look in a right mess. Huddersfield's implosion at the weekend and Stoke's loss to lower league opposition show that they are in a hell of a bad way and the rot is pretty deep.

Scarves to babies - what could go wrong?

Hmm funny how we see the same set of results as showing different things. Both in League 1 (see above examples) and last season (Millwall and Reading home spring to mind, as does the dreadful run in the 2nd half of the season which included a few poor teams) there were times when we were heavy favourites and bottled it. Whether that was because teams parked the bus, we concerned sloppy goals or started slowly it seems to be a reoccurring trend in the past. Against the weaker teams we seem to struggle This season does seem a little different albeit again the Charlton game is further evidence we struggle in the easiest (on paper) games. but the recent results suggest we may be moving away from that though. That said on the basis of the last 2 seasons I'm still concerned when it comes to the easier games, and need a few more positive results against such teams for us, imo, to shake the oppinion this isn't an issue.

I meant more in the Championship although that wasn't clear. We seemed to do better and perform better Vs the bigger clubs in the championship then the weaker ones, especially in the first half of last season. In fact in League 1 as well a lot of people commented that we did better and seemed more at home Vs the better teams in the league than the weaker ones, where we sometimes struggled a bit. Contrast our good performances against the team's in the playoffs Vs struggles Vs Plymouth and Oldham near the bottom. So yeah, I think it's a fair comment to say TM finds games as the underdog or where we are about even a bit easier.

No idea what the team will be. I'm unsure TM does yet either but at present the rotation is working well so can't really complain! Feel this is a game where perhaps we should be focussing more on our strengths rather than the opposition and feels like our League 1 tactics/approach of Graham and Dack may be best suited for this one. This is a different kind of game for Rovers - not the blood and guts of Millwall, or the tactical challenge of Reading - but a game where the expectation and pressure is solidly on Rovers to win. In some ways I feel this challenge is perhaps one TM struggles with more and it'll be interesting to see if we can meet the challenge. Being optimistic 2-1 Rovers.

Leaning more towards a Mercer like prediction on this one. Imo one of the weaker teams in the division, we have a fully fit squad - should have more than enough to beat Reading. When I last saw them they really didn't look that special so am fairly optimistic. That said Rovers specialise in making things harder than they are, and whilst I feel we are the better team, I feel this leads to a close result. That said I feel the close result will be in our favour, so 2-1 Rovers.

Totally agree match day experience is only a part of improving attendances and the reasons we've £10 k no longer there are how fans were treated in the cluckers reign (& the reign in general) combined with overall poor football and higher costs - not to mention the trends towards big 6 TV fans. If part of a concerted effort combined with other initiatives to get the younger generation and new fans I feel that the experience improvements would help tip more people into the coming again camp - albeit not the 10k missing! It's all cumulative imo so if experience sways say 5 or 10% of newcomers into staying/trying again, then the more people we attract the more the impact of the experience will tip into returning. So 500 new people attracted, at 5% influence rate then the experience would influence 25 people to return, 2000 new people attracted, 100 people influenced and so on. Yes a smaller stadium would help but that said how much smaller would we want it? Given big games like the FA cup Vs Liverpool, last game of season of promotion season shows in the right circumstances we can get 25k +. Appreciate that means a lot of the games in a third full ground that possibility doesn't help and is a little hollow, but it is food for thought. Also what would Prem attendances be like IF we ever got there under a successful manager? Agree it would help most weeks but the level capped at is perhaps capping the potential for growth/possibilities. A hard call and one I'm not sure we can make even if we had an answer. Finally perhaps all this in part should also be about retention as much as expansion to make sure no more fans are lost.

Excellent post. Sums up many of the complexities of the situation facing Rovers.

Interesting and rather helpful to hear if sobering. That said I wonder if these efforts weren't made what the numbers attending would be like. That said from my school who I knew supported Rovers about 50% still go (not that there were very many of us!) although most of us to a reduced number due life/geography. My question would be how else are we going to get the next generation of fans?I can't think of too many people who've picked up Rovers later in their life. And with big 6 dominance, prices and mediocre football it's only going to be harder. Hmm thankfully you are not in charge of Rovers marketing! Viewing fans/customers as the problem isn't too helpful for most businesses. You say it should be people's priority to support Rovers but why? Why should that be a financial priority over going to the pub and seeing mates, saving for a child's university fund, saving for a much needed holiday etc. Also who should it be a priority for? People living in Blackburn? Once you have been to a game? When you call yourself a fan? Terrible assertion from you. You miss the point that football clubs are meant to attract fans, and as people go, if enjoyable over time, a loyalty develops and people keep returning. In order for that to happen the whole thing needs not be off-putting - after all there is no obligation for people to come - and therefore all these things matter. Using the restaurant example someone won't go somewhere because of the lighting, but intrusive lighting, rank toilets etc. and someone won't go even if the food is great. Given the product is a little mixed at best I'd say every little helps in making a positive impression. We're after supporters not conscripts! Also these pathetic excuses as you call them are mentioned by people who attend. And given the club, as all have to give something positive back in terms of experience if not result, then all of these things matter. Loyalty cuts both ways and must be cultivated. from the Kean era onwards there's not been much cultivating whatsoever from the club. In fact often fans have been dumped on by the club in this period. So this idea of give the club your money and turn up regardless of the experience or how treated fails for both casual and deeply committed fans alike. It sounds more like a press gang to me then supporting a team.

But imagine if we didn't make that effort. I think the percentage would be even lower. If kids aren't introduced to Rovers early it's less likely to be picked up in later life. Also kids in the ground is a key element but must be supported by other things to get/keep them involved. Not criticising your effort btw - sounds really great way of introducing kids to Rovers.

Restaurants do this. Also if not games how about a free shirt after X number of games (we change each season anyway) or a free pie or drink. On season tickets how about something for people whose circumstances change for a year - say they can't get a season ticket after years of having one because of I'll health or redundancy - as in the year after they can renew at the old price. Have seen a few people have to drop out like this and it could help them get the habit back.

Already answered by others - but much easier to do if fans are already thinking about it, building on feel good factor etc. No they are not. Contrast with cinema, meal out they ain't cheap. Add in all the food, programme, transport etc. And it becomes even more costly. Also for someone on minimum wage or unemployed etc. it is a heck of a lot of money. Without going political food bank useage is on the rise suggesting a ton of people are struggling to get by too. Not saying footy instead of food but maybe shows not everyone can easily afford our tickets. But it puts off last minute and spontaneous decisions to come. It's about reducing barriers, as is the above. The more barriers reduced the less people are out off and the more people come. Same as the above. Football is a social thing - as being on here shows. People are more likely to go with friends and family so if there are more people you can socialise with going you are more likely to go. One case in point in our family is my Dad has gone less since my sister emegrated as opposed to living 10 minutes away. Can't comment. Not true - if food prices contribute to a negative experience and this means people decide not to return then it does affect attendances. It can be a cumulative factor in making people less likely to go. Perhaps the manner in how it was done, regardless of whether it is better? The attitude is as important as the action and the club has been pretty high handed at times with these things. No but would put money on a podcast / fan site increasing club publicity, awareness and strengthening and growing the fanbase. Think a modern day equivalent could do wonders for Rovers. Someone answered they did. Hopefully not again. See point 7 cumulative effect on customer satisfaction and returnees. Not thought about this at all. Has anyone done a survey of fans to see where most fall. You must have X ray vision then! Agreed. I think freebies for kids is a good thing too. But it isn't about increasing attendees but rather cultivating new fans. Probably not. But again it's what kind of experience we are trying to create. Every little helps and hinders. Put it this way if it were a restaurant - admittedly different business- it'd be very easy to clock things that attract people in, but also things that put people off and reduce the ambiance. No one goes to a restaurant for the lighting for example but it can put people off returning. The club needs to be asking how we can make the experience as positive as possible and reduce barriers to people coming as well as what attracts them. Again, we really aren't that fan centric as a club since the cluckers have arrived.