Which is why you change manager. If you can't afford good new players then you change the other thing which is cheaper - the coaching staff You don't accept failure and mediocrity yet it seems that's exactly what this group of losers are trying to do.

If Armstrong is still here by the time the season kicks off I expect he will suddenly develop a random injury which prevents him being selected. Then this will shift to his head not being in the right place and only wanting to pick players who want to be here etc. All choreographed to shift blame and responsibility onto the player not the club.

Predictable. Start the summer as we mean to go on. Ask City and Liverpool for heavily subsidised favours to borrow a few of their kids. Focus on flogging Armstrong off to anyone interested. Not a bean to spend thanks to gross mismanagement yet the perpetrators are still here to continue the 'good work'. What an absolute sham of a Club this has become.

The least I would expect is an envelope enclosing prices, plans, direct debit and application form and pre-paid envelope to return it in, posted out to everyone who has a history of buying tickets in the last 10 years.

We can sign as many players as we like. It is the managers job to decide which of those go towards our 25 man limit. Some will go the other way out of the club and others will have to make do with being in the u23s. We've enough problems to deal with before telling ourselves we are only allowed x numbers of signings.

Nixon prints a Sunday 'exclusive' linking a Rovers striker with a move away. It could be 2014. How this guy makes a living I don't know. Well actually I do, clicks on The Sun website.

A strong a side as we have but not a strong side to be heading into a season with. No depth and with no Armstrong no goals.

I'm struggling to understand why our incoming business is dependent upon a resolution to the Armstrong saga. Within the last couple of weeks we've shed from the wage bill Evans, Bennett, Mulgrew, Bell, Downing and Holtby. Any guesses as to weekly savings there alone? I'll go for a minimum £65,000. A week. Then there's other savings- loans going back and Williams offloaded. Probably not too far away from £100,000 per week all put together (at a guess). Why do we need to shift Armstrong to bring in free agents or pay small fees? I suspect the answer is because we don't. They'll sell the Armstrong departure on the basis it will enable investment but we will see hardly anything coming back in.

Just seen the new Bristol Rovers kit (they're made by Macron yet Covid issues don't seem to have reached League Two Bristol or Scunthorpe). Must say I really like it.

They're just playing for time. Cost of bringing this guy in will be a fraction of the cost of just one transfer in. They'll already have their excuses ready for the end of the window: Armstrong saga made it very difficult to plan/not enough time to invest the money recieved Covid Only got John Park in mid-July - not enough time to do anything but by January we will be at full steam. Transfer embargo. Shuffling deckchairs around on the Titanic.

Can't imagine there is anyone at Southampton on a wage that we will be willing to pay, so expect that rules out any players in exchange. At best we will be looking for more heavily subsidised loans and kick the can down the road.

The only plan since day 1 has been to get himself and his associates into jobs and to stay in them for as long as possible. They each know that this is as good as it gets for them and after the Coventry City debacle Waggott was picking up 'consultancy' jobs for Southend and Gillingham and Mowbray was unsuccessfully applying for the Chesterfield job. Can't really blame them for this, despite putting the Club and supporters down with negativity on a regular basis they will know this is a brilliant job to have and nobody can really blame them for trying to stick at it as they won't get another job at this level. Unfortunately for us we have owners more interested in being told how great they are and ensuring their involvement is the bare minium, meaning they are more interested in doing nothing than rectifying things. All the talk about journeys and plans was just PR speak and to take some expectation/pressure off his shoulders for a year or two. Those watching our recruitment and over-reliance on loans could see there was no such thing.

Yes we do need to keep going over it like a broken record. And I will keep on going on about it until I give up with the Club or he clears off. I wish I didn't have to and wish I could look forward with optimism under a trustworthy group of people but after the shenanigans and failure of the last 12 months that can't happen. Just because the idiots who run this Club want to look after their mate and take the cheap and easy route in life doesn't mean supporters, particularly those who are being asked to cough up their hard earned cash every year, should accept it. Mowbray runs the Club and has his tentacles into the boardroom, owners, coaching and recruitment. That is unacceptable and it influences or controls every facet of the Club.

Agree As bad as things are here I expect that Mowbray could sort out new deals for him and his 'team' via Waggott without even needing Venky approval to do so. I think the biggest fear they have is Mowbray beggaring off with his entourage and them being left to find someone else who will dance to their tune and massage their egos whilst running the club however they want it.

I'm not sure why you have suddenly become obsessed with the '25 man squad rules'. You never seemed to be bothered about them before the last couple of weeks. Is this the latest excuse for doing little/no transfer business? As i see it the following count towards our 25 man squad limit: Kaminski, Pears, Nyambe, Johnson, Wharton, Lenihan, Ayala, Armstrong, Rothwell, Gallagher, Brereton, Davenport, Dack (not likely to be fit to play), Travis, Harry Chapman (inexplicable) and new boy Harry Pickering. That's 16 players who come in above the 21 year old age category. Others such as JRC, Buckley, Dolan, Carter, Butterworth are aged 21 or under and so are exempt from the squad limit. As I've said before - we are well short of the limit, but even if we weren't that doesn't mean that we just go with what we have and hope for the best. You offload players who aren't up to it or aren't in the plans and replace them. I'm sorry but we will have do agree to disagree on Davenport. The fact that you are referring to one game before Christmas last year as evidence of Davenport's abilities speaks volumes. In 3 years I can count on one hand the number of times he's impressed. If we had done the sensible thing and got shut of this manager and brought in someone else then I might have confidence that these players like Davenport and Chapman might come good or be given a fresh start. But we are still lumbered with the same old manager who has shown little interest in giving either a serious run in the team. So why does that suddenly change now?

Who on earth do they have designing these things?

Southend are now in the Conference not League Two. Not sure if that makes any difference to their kick off.

Of course the other very important difference with Souness and Hughes was that for the duration of their tenures they worked under able board members who would have to approve these things and would keep them in check and not allow things to get out of control. Here however.....

Davenport hasn't been fit enough or good enough to be given a run in the team in the 3 years he's been at the Club. He's made 25 appearances, most of them off the bench, in 3 years. You want to rely on him? What has suddenly changed to make him a trusted, reliable Championship quality player? The same goes for Harry Chapman. Just because they are here doesn't mean they are good enough or that we shouldn't strive to improve on them.

Maybe. That's ignoring the 3 years £15 million investment that Mowbray had before then and substantial wages he was allowed to dish out. Also ignoring the shambles Warnock inherited in 2020 compared to the freedom and stability Mowbray enjoyed. Warnock didn't need to reach the play offs to make a laughing stock of Mowbray and his slow build drivel.

They got a lot closer than us, spending less money, and he only took over a little over a year ago. Year 5 of Mowbray and we're regressing.

McCarthy is at Cardiff because they sacked Harris after a dreadful run. They will also sack McCarthy should they struggle or go on a dreadful run. That's why there's no point comparing us to other clubs. Mowbray is unsackable and has been able to appoint his mates as CEO, assistant manager/head of football and now head of recruitment. You know it is outrageous. I wish you'd just admit it.

I'd normally be happy and encouraged with the appointment of a Director of Football. By its very description a Director of Football should sit at the top of the football structure, be accountable to the owners or board, and have the ability to make changes to playing and coaching staff. I suspect there's zero prospect of this mon ever looking to get rid of Mowbray and even less chance of the owners taking his advice before Mowbray's. For that reason alone this is a sham. Appointed on Mowbray's say so and unable to do the job as it should be done makes it rather pointless other than to con people into believing things are happening and to bolster Mowbray's position.

Probably not as concerning if the manager in question is actually doing a good job. Which the current one isn't. But when Hughes did that it was 15 years ago. Times have changed and rarely are managers given such power and freedom nowadays. There's an old saying in football that no man is bigger than the Club. I don't think that applies here. I think Mowbray is bigger than the Club now.

The Club. Owners/board. He's Head of Recruitment and should be here independently of the manager/head coach. What happens when, hopefully soon, the manager departs? The Club needs an overarching strategy bigger than the current manager.