DE.

What's scary to me is that there are a lot of clubs, ourselves included, who could be in the exact same situation as Bolton should the owners suddenly decide they are done funding the club. The rotten underbelly of the game is being brutally exposed by what is happening at Bolton, and what would it do to the stability of the league structure if over the next few years there are multiple situations like this occurring? Are we reaching the point where the bubble bursts? The PL is largely immune from these issues at present, but how attractive is the PL with no viable structure below it? The footballing authorities have been sweeping this creeping problem under the carpet for over a decade now, but it feels like it's bursting at the seams now and could completely fall apart if there isn't a pretty huge change in the game's regulations.

Not sure why it's fair or right for the PFA to be loaning Bolton money anyway. Surely if the players feel their contracts are breached through non-payment they should have to go to the courts like would happen with any other business? A supposedly neutral body giving one club aid whilst others continue with their legal obligations seems strange to me.

"It should be recognised that the resolution is not in our hands" - what a cowardly thing to add to that statement. "Nothing to do with us, guv". Pathetic. What if the academy players refuse to play as well? Unlikely but the EFL can't force them to play either.

Here we go again, Bolton players threatening to refuse to play on Saturday if they aren't paid by today https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48067603 Embarrassment of a club.

Dominic Matteo as our dynamic left winger. Good times.

My concern with Rodwell would be his attitude if given a long-term deal. Yet he's also unlikely to accept a short-term deal, so... it's a tough one. Mowbray obviously still isn't sure as he's been very cautious with his comments regarding Rodders so far. The chances of getting a player of similar quality is quite low, I'd think, so maybe worth the risk if the wages are right. I'm really torn on this one.

My concern with Mulgrew is that his wages may prevent anybody coming in for him. Especially considering his seriously questionable performances this season. Smallwood we may be able to move on for a small fee. I can't imagine his wages are that high, so maybe a newly promoted L1 club or one of Ipswich/Bolton/Rotherham will take him on for next season's League 1 campaign. That's where I assume any serious interest will come from anyway.

Is Smallwood done here? Not played in the last four matches, and not even in the match day 18 for two of those games. We've won all four of them.

If Sheffield United beat Ipswich at home then it's effectively over. It would take an unfathomable goal swing for Leeds to get into the top two at that point. They've almost certainly thrown away automatic promotion over the last four days.

Leeds and Sheff Utd both have Ipswich in their last two games, so assuming that's a win for both, and Sheff Utd GD is much superior to Leeds...

It actually wasn't a dig specifically at Mowbray, more of the conventional belief that managers need multiple windows before they can be judged. Good ones have an immediate impact, irrespective of budgets or squads. Obviously the impact is relative to the squad available, but still, Mowbray raised our points average as soon as he came in so he improved us from Coyle's tenure despite having no transfer window at all.

Looks like Rotherham are going down. Sheffield United heaping the pressure on Leeds

Goodbye Bolton

I'm a bit confused. Is Travis playing well or not?

The curse of Browny is broken.

Not really what he was saying tbf. We had the biggest budget in L1 last season, but that doesn't diminish Mowbray's achievements, right?

Wow, Mowbray really doesn't rate Bolton, does he? Seriously though, it's nice to see a genuinely experimental line up. Regardless of the result it'll be an interesting afternoon.

Smith took a risk going to Villa, but fair play to him, he's done a great job there. Shows that you don't need a thousand transfer windows to implement your style and philosophy. Now granted Villa had a great team for this division that should never have been so far down the table, but Steve Bruce is no mug and he'd been struggling. Perhaps proof, also, that managers sometimes just naturally come to the end of their shelf lives and need to move on for the good of both parties.

If they're willing to pay me Shebby's salary I could probably deal with the travel to India to then be ignored. Maybe I'd even write a letter of concern and be sacked six months later when it's leaked to the press. Good fun. As JHRover mentioned, I get the feeling Waggott is just here to run day-to-day operations at Ewood, much like all previous employees who were in a similar position. I doubt he is being utilised in the correct manner, as for reasons only known to Venky's that remit seems to fall to the first team manager, who is theoretically lower in the totem pole but seems to be in charge of vision and budget. It's truly bizarre and totally dysfunctional. Wasn't Paul Hunt something like Deputy CEO... but also Deputy to a CEO that didn't actually exist and was not even in the process of being potentially hired?

Whenever I see a suggestion that we are a "well run club" I shake my head in bewilderment. A well run company does not leave long term vision in the hands of a traditionally short-term employee, who also happens to be a number of levels below various other executives. That is a nonsense structure. The owners should be the ones setting out the high level vision. It could be as simple as "we want to be challenging for the playoffs in three years, whilst staying within FFP limits". They then direct the board - whether that be the CEO, CFO, DOF, SOB, whatever - to present them with a strategy that can achieve this goal. Maybe it's just one plan, maybe multiple, who knows. Irrespective of that the owners and the board eventually agree on a way forward. This ideally includes budgets at least a year in advance. The board then relay to the first team manager what the expectations of the owners are and the parameters they have to work with. They let the manager know the transfer/wage budget he has to work with for the upcoming season, and advises of any potential overspend should the club be overachieving or conversely in danger of being relegated. The board have the authority to release any funds already agreed with the owners as part of the initial budget. All of the high level stuff is done. The first team manager never has to talk to the owners about it, he knows exactly what he has to work with and what is expected of him. No need for cap in hand visits to sell a dream, no need for question marks over who we can or can't sign, no delays to transfers awaiting approval from India. None of that. It's all agreed in advance of the season. If the manager does end up being sacked, resigns or is poached, the high level vision and budgets remain in place and the board can search for a suitable replacement that can continue with the vision that has been set out. The first team manager leaving has no impact beyond the performance of the first team. It really isn't that difficult, and the only reason I can see for not implementing something like this at Rovers is that the owners really don't care that much. It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. It's basic business practice and I imagine the vast majority of professional clubs operate in this way at a fundamental level.

Yep. The fact Mowbray is still having to go to India, like every other manager that came before him, shows that our owners still haven't learned anywhere near enough. On the surface we have had a structure put in place at board level, but at core we're still operating the same way during the most important parts of the season - manager goes begging cap in hand to India, having to act as a salesman as well as the first team manager. It's ridiculous.

We brought in the likes of Rhodes, Duffy, King, Cairney and Conway (when he was good) during GB's reign so I don't necessarily think bringing in decent young players is a new development. Since Kean departed the main issue has always been Venky's going cheap on the management position. It was also an issue when Kean was here, but the main problem then was the fact they let a third-party agent literally take control of the club.

Entirely possible the wage bill is slightly lower, you'd normally expect that when a club has dropped to a lower division and come back, but "dramatically reduced"? I'm just not sure about that.

Have to take a few issues with this Imy... 1. Mowbray's transfer record is very chequered at present, so I don't think we can start praising the scouting network until it starts producing for us. We've spent most of this season lining up with players that were already here when Mowbray arrived. Raya, Bennett, Nyambe, Lenihan, Mulgrew, Williams, Evans, Travis and Graham have all played fairly often. Dack, Chapman, Smallwood and Armstrong were brought in very early on before Mowbray would have had a chance to seriously implement a scouting network. The fruits of any major change to our scouting network so far have been Brereton, Rothwell, Rodwell, Reed and Amari Bell so... hmm. The summer needs to show improvement. 2. We were three points off safety with 15 games to go when Mowbray came in, so whilst we were struggling I wouldn't call it free fall. Free fall is Ipswich this season, or Rotherham the season we went down. As for us being playoff contenders, we're way off. Way off. We need a lot of upgrades and for Mowbray to gain some serious courage. If we'd been utilising the likes of Rothwell, Reed and Travis properly two months ago who knows where we would be now? Instead we waited until our season was dead in the water before taking a chance, and I'm afraid that it doesn't mean much now. Mowbray needs to be braver when there's still something to play for, or we will have to accept mid-table at best for his entire run here. 3. I'm surprised by this if it's true. We still have all of our big earners from when Mowbray joined, and I assume they haven't taken a pay cut with their new contracts? Some players have gone but I can't think of anybody who would have been on huge wages, and most of them were replaced, one assumes on comparable if slightly lower wages. 4. Agree on this point. I feel like the club is roughly back to the same state it was in when GB was here, with a lower wage budget but a higher transfer budget... so again no real difference. The board situation is a little stronger, I think, which is good. That said I'm still unsure where the true authority lies and whether Waggott, for example, is able to agree budgets or if he has to go through Venky's/Pasha first. It worries me that Mowbray is still having to fly out to India. That shouldn't be necessary with a proper board structure in place.

Honestly that was one of the things that annoyed me about last season. "Well, at least Rovers will still be playing during the international breaks". Nope.