I think the other thing to remember is that pouring £20 million a year into a Championship club isn't especially unusual or unique to Rovers. There are other clubs in similar sorts of figures. This is the price of it these days. The alarming thing here isn't that the club is losing that much a year. Its that we've done it every year for 10 years with the same owners, the 'debt' keeps on piling higher and higher. Other owners have done it but run out of money, given up, got bored, thrown toys out of the pram and walked away. Other owners take a keen interest in their clubs, actually use the money to better them by trying to get to the PL or improve their facilities and structures. You rarely see reports on PNEs losses or how much 'debt' they owe to Hemmings, which granted won't be as high as the figures here but still substantial. I think Hemmings also wrote off his 'debt' which inevitably makes things look healthier but changes little on an operational basis as long as Venkys don't seek their 'debt' back. Here the club decays and withers whilst the wage bill keeps on ticking over. Andy Holt can spend fortunes improving Stanley's facilities and giving out free shirts to kids whilst our £20 million a year buys us Waggott's salary and new deals for Smallwood and Gladwin. This has generated a stockholm syndrome situation with many fans who see that eyewatering 'debt' figure and think it will be called in or need to be paid off and as a result we should be grateful for Venkys. But really it will need to be wiped off sooner or later.

If Venkys were running the club properly, learning from mistakes or providing anything positive in return for their 'investment' then I might be impressed or grateful for their support. A club losing £20 million a year should not be fighting relegation in the Championship, should not have a filthy stadium or non-league pitch. That sort of investment should at least see us as a powerhouse in the Championship with PL standards throughout. As it is I cannot and will not be grateful. They deserve nothing but contempt.

Couldn't be less interested or motivated if I tried. Reckon this is the first time I'll be missing a first team friendly since 2010 and the worst part is its my choice to do so. A sign of things to come perhaps.

Yeah but without Venkys we'd be Wigan or Bolton (with their 9000+ season ticket holders).

Relegation costs an immediate £7 million in lost income and much more in lost ticket and merchandise income. If there's anyone down there working out pros and cons of selling Armstrong I suggest that's where they start. Waggott and Mowbray probably so deluded they still think promotion is achievable.

They could start off by clearing out the cluster of con men around the place.

Just imagine how uninspiring it must be for a player to turn up for pre-season after that run last year to find the usual suspects all still in place, as you were, ready to do it all over again. Why would anyone want to be part of that?

Preston have just announced that a negative lateral flow test will be required.

The only way the Telegraph get their information is from the Club. We know that - because the people working there now simply don't have the connections to anyone else for their intel - and we can be pretty confident that the Telegraph wouldn't run with a headline of saying Rovers had rejected a bid unless someone at Rovers had given them the info or go ahead to do it. Question then becomes why would someone at Rovers pass that information on to the Telegraph? Why not just stay quiet or deny a bid is in? Answer is because it suits them for the Telegraph to run with it and plaster it all over social media and the paper. Why does it suit them? Because they want him gone but I suspect have been disappointed at the level of interest so far and numbers on the grapevine. If the local media runs with this it prepares fans for the sale, gradually reducing expectations on the fee, and also puts other clubs on alert that they might need to put their bids in pronto. Venkys clearly don't have a clue and as they showed with Cairney and Raya are happy to sell assets at an undervalue. What they won't be happy with is if people think they have offloaded Armstrong because the club is skint. That damages the egos of the billionaires who never refuse a cheque and love the club. The answer to your last question is that you increase the cap in these sort of circumstances. Speculate to accumulate. Surely there's room on the payroll to do it after offloading 15 and dishing out sympathy deals to Gladwin and Smallwood?

Seems a bit ridiculous all this when Bamber Bridge are playing Preston in front of a sell out crowd.

Where did I say they were lying? I don't think they've the capability to lie. More that whoever is drip feeding them stuff from the Club is playing them. Why? Because Mowbray and Waggott clearly want Armstrong sold, but also want to cover their own arses when he is by telling everyone that there's a contract extension sat there unsigned thereby shifting culpability away from the people running the club and onto the player for refusing an offer. They're very good at this sort of thing. They don't like blame heading their way or landing on the owners doorstep. So it's all about the player having his head turned and not about Rovers failing to secure star players down to appropriate contracts. The club have been unable or unwilling to extend contracts of any senior players over the last 18 months (other than the 12 month Johnson extension). They've been dormant and inactive for months, unable to even do the most basic or simple of things such as communicate or sort tickets out. I'm supposed to believe there's a reasonable offer on the table for Armstrong?

I think the Telegraph are doing the clubs bidding here. An almost daily reference to Armstrong, now they've started with the 'bids' in but rejected. I don't believe them. It is in Rovers' interests to keep this in the limelight for as long as possible. Zero information in that article beyond what we already knew. They're trying to bring interested parties out into the open. Normal clubs would be pressing ahead with recruitment and planning for improvement next season, the focus here is on cashing in. Shameless.

Well strictly speaking isn't Venus now Mowbray's boss? I'm confused but I'm sure at one stage Venus was Head of Football or something. Maybe he's taken control. Mowbray likes to let Venus manage which is why some games he makes a point of sitting down or upstairs all the game not moving and leaves it to Venus. Weird stuff but a quick look at the Coventry stuff suggests they've form for it.

I predict that there will be such a turnover in players (much of it brought on ourselves) and so many new faces to integrate at once that Mowbray will baffle himself and everyone else with all sorts of experiments and theories on how to play. Sad part is that swathes of the fanbase will buy his BS when he talks about developing a new team or system to move forward with. He has no idea on a system or what he wants which is why we've had various through his time here and lurched from one to the other. We know that when Armstrong departs (which I reckon Mowbray wants) he can then buy himself another 6-12 months of muddling around trying to develop an identity and system without him. He'll talk the talk and the Telegraph will print it every week and the laptop gurus will fantastise about tactics and systems and Mowbray will act like he's Rinus Michels. Next one will be that he needs to develop a system of being less reliant on one goalscorer and spreading the goals around the squad more (ignoring that finishing in a relegation battle with a 29 goal striker proves managerial incompetence). But he'll get away with it. "It was always going to be a summer of transition after Armstrong was sold" "What is Mowbray meant to do when we are under FFP restrictions? No manager could do anything other than aim for survival" "There's been a pandemic. Once that's out of the way we will be fine" "He's using the younger players and he deserves chance to see them develop" (whilst their contracts run down and they get taken away).

I see that Forest are expected to appoint Dane Murphy as CEO when his contract at Barnsley expires. A club that learns lessons after a crap season and takes steps to sort it out. Compare and contrast to the defeatism and cronyism in place here.

Probably never given our lowest numbers were in the early 80s at a time when the above were often down in the 4th division.

Depends which side of the owners are making decisions. Could be the stubborn side - Phil Jones and Jordan Rhodes - by all accounts very stubborn and not willing to sell on the cheap Or it could be the firesale grab whatever cash we can side - Tom Cairney a notable example - in which case it will happen whether the player wants it or not.

A lot to respond to but here goes. I've already explained why we need more than 4-5 signings. We've lost around 15 from last season. We need a minimum of 4 CBs to call upon. One of them has barely featured because he's a crock (Ayala) and it would be suicide to plan on the basis he is going to remain fit. Wharton is out until AT LEAST September with a serious injury. It goes without saying I want him back and fully recovered asap but that is taking a chance - he might have a setback, he might not get back to where he was. Too many IFs and Buts with that sort of injury - same goes for Dack. We've lost 2 in HB and Branthwaite and also Williams and Mulgrew who were experienced options. So we need 2 to come in. It isn't wasting money if having depth to the squad saves us from relegation. That's called being sensible and pre-empting inevitable injuries. I honestly think some people would sooner we never spent any money again and saved on transfer fees and wages - but you'll never get promoted or succeed by scrimping and saving and cutting corners. It isn't 'making a signing for the sake of it'. CB is a key position. Arguably the most important. You need solid, reliable consistent players there and you should then build from a stable and effective defensive unit. You don't just throw in a couple of youngsters in the hope they do alright, you don't cut corners by trying to fill the positions with loanees for a few months. The situation with Wharton was the same in January as it is now - he isn't fit and isn't going to be for some time. By September (earliest all being well) the course for the season will be set. A poor start and you can get stuck down there. Carter wasn't out long term. He was loaned out to Burton because Mowbray had no intention of using him here. You take a very black and white view with the U23s. Of course a player can play well for the U23s and not be ready to play in the Championship. Scoring goals in the Championship is a different game to scoring goals in the U23 league. I'm not saying McBride is or isn't good enough, I am saying there's scant evidence to suggest he will bang in goals in the Championship. If your logic was correct then we would never need to sign anyone ever again as we could just dip into the academy to find our first team players. I would say both McBride and Vale need to prove they can do the business in competitive football before we gamble our status on it. Minimum £7 million for getting relegated - are you willing to gamble that? We shouldn't have re-signed Chapman. I don't know what they are playing at but something doesn't sit right with it. I suspect there's minimal cost to the club in doing it and they think they can eke a few goals out of him and sell him for a few quid. Quite clear Mowbray's not a fan.

I presume it is something to do with the University of Stirling given they are specialists in sport so will have all sorts of facilities suitable for hosting a football team for training.

It's not a conspiracy theory to say I don't believe them. Do you think the stuff about the training ground was another conspiracy theory or that the club were lying on that one?

We need more than 4-5, but it is looking like even that is going to be a struggle. We need 2x CB. Wharton and Ayala can't be relied on at this stage which is why we signed two loans in January for that position. LB is a problem now. Armstrong replacement. Depth to the squad. Chapman being used/relied on with his history here? You must be joking. Vale and McBride? Why? Because you genuinely think they are ready to perform in the Championship or because they've done alright for the u23s? It could be done using the free agent market but we aren't even adept at that - rival clubs busy signing people whilst nothing happening at Rovers. If I'm supposed to believe/accept that the reason for this is because the EFL are picking on us and taking ages to trawl through our accounts whilst the likes of Millwall and Luton have got themselves sorted I'm afraid not.

No not quite that extreme. Through the course of last season we knew they were on loan and knew two very important elements of the side - creatively and defensively - were temporary patch ups with high likelihood both would need replacing - in addition to several others - this summer whilst still dealing with all the other issues at present. If we'd have signed two players instead last summer - on 3 or 4 year deals - we wouldn't need to sign anyone to replace them this summer, so any restrictions imposed by the League would be of much less impact. Or we would get a hefty transfer fee to reinvest/offset to achieve compliance. Armstrong should be the silver bullet for FFP - we should be getting £20 million+ which should smash FFP out of the park for the forseeable. Sadly more poor planning means we will be forced to sell him for much less which will have minimal impact on FFP accounts. I see the Telegraph are starting with the suggestion that Armstrong hasn't signed a contract offer from Rovers. Anyone actually believe there's a suitable offer on the table for him to stay?

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. I'm not interested in how good or bad those leaving are or were. I'm interested in the fact that we are facing huge obstacles in recruiting new players ahead of the new season, and how that challenge could have been reduced by not relying so much on loans (that now need replacing) or not allowing so many players to be out of contract all at once. The fact remains that those senior squad members have left the club, and will therefore need replacing. To replace that number of players is a tricky question at the best of times. To do it in a pandemic, with Brexit, with no money from the owners, clueless management, and then to top it all off the extra hurdle of League embargo or restrictions makes it extremely difficult. The Club knew all the above was happening, so if it is the case that we are embargoed or heavily restricted on what we can do then I think the question that needs asking it why this has happened. We'd have been better keeping some of those out of contract (admittedly many of them not particularly good) than having a mass exodus that we can't overcome. Where do you think the money is coming from to persuade Barnsley to sell one of their best players?

So we've allowed 10+ players to depart this summer and relied heavily on loans despite presumably knowing that FFP trouble was on the horizon and that there was a strong chance we would be restricted on signing new players this summer. First question- what sort of morons do we have running things here? Second question - why do they get to continue in their jobs?

From Middlesbrough so definitely a possible.