Great if true. I just worry that without Mowbray there may be a void in which chaos could thrive. As you say under Allardyce and Hughes we did well at identifying these players and bringing them in. The owners ruined that with their running of the club and fair play Mowbray has worked to address it I just hope that it isn't contingent upon Mowbray being at the club and hope it will be a permanent fixture regardless of which manager is in the dugout.

That all may be correct, but I'd like to know how this investment and structure compares to other Championship clubs before hailing it as some sort of masterstroke. The fact that it has required Mowbray's input over 3 years to get to a stage where we have this network having not had one for years is worrying. Hopefully we are now catching back up to other clubs but for a club of our size and league we shouldn't have been in that position.

Hughton in the Championship 1 season at Newcastle - won the league 1 season at Birmingham - play offs with a decent European run 2 seasons at Brighton- play offs and automatic promotion. Also kept Brighton and Norwich in the top flight. Mowbray in the Championship 1 season at WBA - won the league 3 seasons at Middlesbrough- mid table 2 seasons at Rovers- mid table Relegated comfortably in his only Premier League season, also spent 18 months struggling in League One at Coventry. Hughton is a better manager. Good for Forest. An owner who knows what he wants and will do what is needed to get there.

If you or Waggott seriously believe that a 9 point penalty this season for FFP issues is going to happen then we've no hope. It isn't going to happen. And it certainly won't be the reason we will lose players on free transfers. Infant quite the opposite. Our biggest shield against FFP issues is to ensure our promising homegrown players are secured for the long term. Our failure to do this will cost us millions of pounds and contribute more to FFP risk than anything else.

When Steve retires we should look at ex employees of Coventry and Middlesbrough because I'd wager that's where his successor will be selected from. Then again they might just not bother with a CEO like they did before Waggott.

But it isn't an aeon away. We haven't got zero income coming in. We are still getting the media money which constitutes the majority of our income, we've got similar merchandise on sale to previous years and are finally selling season tickets. Granted we don't have matchday revenue (or overheads) and sales of season tickets are currently around a third of last years. But let's not suggest there is no money coming in. Also remember we are currently around £70,000 a week down on wage commitments from last year which will go a long way to covering lost ticket income. We've got to get these deals done and quickly. A club in our position cannot afford to lose prized assets on free transfers through dilly dallying.

Yeah but the point i was making was that whether the players are world beaters or dross the moment they head through the exit door they need replacing. Many of those e.g. Bennett, Evans, Rothwell, whilst arguably dispensable, are still experienced and competent players to call upon when needed. This setup and manager simply isn't capable of bringing in a dozen players in one window. Which is the sort of number we would need if all those left. Dack I also worry about. The 12 month option for the club, whilst a safety net, I feel if activated rather than him sign a new deal, is simply going to be a countdown clock to him leaving the following year. If we can't get it sorted by next summer we can't get it sorted.

sometimes the club and owners have to see the bigger picture. Short term savings or medium term massive losses through contract expiry. Like saving a few quid on avoiding Neil Warnock and getting Coyle. Good for the short term balance sheet. Ended up in League One instead of the Premier League. Not the brightest here is the lesson to learn.

Not really. If the transfer budget and wage budget is impacted by the number of season ticket sales who in their right minds would sit and do nothing until mid September and then complain by early October about numbers sold? Why set a transfer and wage budget and then wait 3 months before starting sales? Doesn't add up and you were the one who brought season tickets up. As I say, doesn't actually matter. I'm more interested in the precipice of next summer. I just hope nobody has the audacity to complain about limited money if those players walk for nothing.

And whose fault is that?

That's ignoring the estimated £70,000 a week shaved off the wage bill since last season. So extensions/wage increases should be coming out of that pot. As I say, doubt this 'pot' will be used for either new contracts or permanent additions. End of the day it doesn't matter. What actually matters is the fact that half our burgeoning young squad will be able to walk away for nowt in the summer. Unless we act quickly and decisively we are going to lose millions in assets and face a mammoth recruitment job next summer. Not interested in excuses. I just want it sorting and quick.

Where have I said that our academy isn't a success? It clearly is a success with the number of players in our first team. There's a difference however between the academy being successful and default relying on it all the time when better options are available externally. Keeping Category 1 is not a miracle. A third of Championship clubs have it and as you say, given our productivity it would be senseless to get rid of it. Its more than covered itself in the last decade with Jones, Hanley, Lenihan, Travis etc. Sunderland, Wolves, Leicester and Norwich all retained Category A status in that division without billionaire backers. If you aren't going to secure these players down to long term deals then you lose millions in fees and never get anywhere. Its madness but further evidence of the approach these owners have. If they had an ounce of interest they'd have instructed staff to issued new deals to these players. Instead it seems Mowbray is trying to persuade them to do it. It's like a parallel universe. I notice last week Mowbray said contract extensions may have to be paid for from his transfer kitty. Ludicrous. Yet if I were betting now I'd put money on neither happening before January.

And that's good enough or acceptable?

I'm not giving them stick for not doing it. Just pointing out that there are ways and means for those owners determined enough to get where they want to be. Nothing ever happens here other than this 'developing' players routine (which we risk losing for nothing due to the contract situation). It's a bit like the Wolves one - their owners came in with a determination and a plan of how to do it and rolled with it. It involved all sorts of shenanigans with the Portuguese players and Jorge Mendes. Might not be what the nice folk want to see with an agent running the show but now Wolves are changed beyond recognition for the better whilst we kick around skint in the Championship. It worked for them and they beat FFP.

No, but there would be nothing stopping the owners doing that for future windows if they wanted. They could have done it last year or 3 years ago had they been determined to beat FFP. Of course they won't do it, because they don't have the interest, desire or wherewithal to do anything about it. Much easier just to trot out the 'woe is us' routine every time a window comes around. Plenty of ways to skin the FFP cat, you can either tackle it head on - see QPR, Bournemouth, Leicester, Derby, Forest, Watford - or you can get left behind and spend the rest of your days whinging about it - see Waggott and Rovers.

Good for Forest. Bad for us. That's what owners and clubs determined to beat the system do - find clever ways of getting round the rules to bring good players in despite FFP. Do I like it? No Should it be banned? Yes Is it in breach of any rules? No, and if it gets them where they want to be they'll be happy. We'll just sit on the sidelines shrieking about how unfair life is and how much of a struggle it is. Derby were another lot with their dodgy Rooney deal. Got away with it.

So we have a lower matchday revenue than Preston, Millwall, Reading - something seriously wrong down at Ewood if that is correct. Mismanagement of the highest order. Why is it pretty good being ahead of Preston and Sheffield United? As a club we are far ahead of Preston in stature and size and probably about the same as Sheffield United. Either way I'd like to know why, what, how, when outfits like Wycombe, Reading, Luton, Brentford, QPR, Millwall, Preston, Rotherham, Barnsley, Huddersfield, Middlesbrough got themselves into a higher bracket than us on revenues, attendances etc.

I agree with much of what you say and the general point of how having no crowds in grounds could actually help us. I disagree that we are 'far less affected financially by having no crowds than almost every other club in the Championship'. Obviously lost income from 10,000 fans at Ewood is going to be less than that at Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Forest or Norwich with their 20,000+ a week crowds. But elsewhere I can't see that much difference. Waggott will be probably more concerned by the losses of Leeds and Aston Villa from the division and not being able to give them a third of Ewood. "Only a few clubs have smaller crowds but their commercial income and matchday prices are as high or higher than Rovers" - I don't think that is correct. I look at clubs like Luton, Wycombe, Brentford, QPR, Millwall, Reading, Swansea, Preston, Rotherham, Barnsley, Huddersfield, Middlesbrough and I ask myself what sort of numbers those clubs would normally get through the turnstiles. I don't believe there a single reason why Rovers should be getting less through the gates than any of those clubs, or why our commercial income should be less. None of those have the ability to hand over unlimited away tickets or have the excellent facilities that Ewood possesses. If any of those clubs are raking in more, despite grossly inferior statures as clubs, far less seasons of Premier League history to fall back on and far inferior facilities then that is more a damning indictment on those running Rovers than a sign of where we are as a club. "Blackburn is a seriously ecomonically disadvantaged area" - I'm not sure if it is disadvantaged or if so why in comparison to places like Middlesbrough, Barnsley, Huddersfield, Preston, Stoke, South Wales. But even if it is, and I've made this point a million times before, Blackburn Rovers as a club does not correspond with the boundaries of Blackburn. We have South Ribble, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, Hyndburn and wider Lancashire all on the doorstep and I'd go as far and suggest a majority of regular home fans live in those areas rather than Blackburn itself. In some respects those areas are absolutely booming at the moment and some are quite affluent.

In a decade of ownership they've spent nothing on improving Ewood or Brockhall beyond essential maintenance that they can’t dodge on. It shows, even just watching on Quest. the most interest they've shown was when they stuck the Clayton and Douglas murals up. Makes Waggott's talk about a new Riverside pie in the sky stuff.

If this is the way they treat and speak to fans whilst in Blackburn and trying to get money out of them you can only begin to imagine the way they think and speak about the fans over in the Pune Ivory Towers when trying to impress the owners. Waggott having to justify his salary will presumably have sold himself to them on the basis he is going to make those fans pay what they should and reduce the burden on Venkys. The owners won't have the foggiest but probably impressed by his spiel as so many supporters seem to be, as some were with Senior and Shebby once upon a time. We will only see the long term impact of such policies down the line when Waggott's enjoying his retirement a long way away from Blackburn and the owners are still tucked away in India and those left are rattling around Ewood.

Waggott's £300,000 per year expertise in selling season tickets: 1) Leave it as late as possible to begin selling, often months behind rival clubs 2) Increase prices in all areas 3) Zero consultation with people who actually buy tickets 4) Come up with some pointless 'strapline' this year being 'We are Together' to try and project an image that we're all in the same boat whilst hard up low income fans pay his exorbitant salary. 5) Embark upon a campaign of guilt tripping and emotional blackmail and imply that people considering not renewing are harming the club and are to blame for any hardship that comes along in future 6) Marketing efforts go as far as plonking Mowbray and various players infront of a camera and tell us how fantastic the supporters are and how much they are needed 7) Deliver a reduction in sales numbers year on year

I'm not sure what the last 3 years and what Mowbray has spent money on has to do with the situation we are in today. The reality of our current situation is that only a matter of weeks ago he said he wanted another 6 players. Since then we've signed 1. We are therefore 5 short of what he wanted. We've dealt with CB by signing Ayala (I've said several times that he is a good addition that I am very pleased with, although 1 good CB doesn't compensate for not addressing the other positions) and we've brought Williams back into the fold (although I'm concerned about what is going on there with the manager recently making public comments that he didn't think he had a future here and only this week Williams himself throwing doubt on his future). We still haven't signed the back up GK, LB, CM or RB that were all sought. We've also lost Travis to long term injury which increases the need for a CM. We are being prepped for only loans. Virtually everything that has come from the Telegraph, Mowbray and Radio Lancashire has been about how it is likely to be the loan market from here. Only last weekend Andy Bayes was saying it was looking like loan additions only from here. This is in complete contrast to the bullish confident talk after we signed Ayala where he was meant to be the first of several and we had players ready to sign and talked about dominoes falling from then on. Two and a half weeks on and everything has gone quiet. You talk about loans being the 'correct' way to work this summer. I don't know how you can claim that. To begin with the cost effectiveness of loans depends upon wages involved and loan fees. If rumours are to be believed Tosin last year cost a small fortune to borrow for a season. So a repeat of that, whilst a good player, would not be cost effective for the club. If we cough up a small transfer fee for a hidden gem or diamond and put him on a multi season contract and he performs well then we would have a cash asset on the books, therefore protecting the club medium term and ensuring we get cash in when he leaves. We've a small squad and half of it is out of contract in the summer. Padding it out with loans from here isn't going to address anything. All it will do is create another issue to resolve next summer when we are replacing players. There simply has to be more to our recruitment than bringing players in for the season because it avoids having to commit to a contract. Turning to the claim that recent developments will have impacted on our ability to do business I'm afraid that simply doesn't stack up. It is another example of grasping any external excuse available to explain our transfer market failings - file alongside FFP, no European scouts etc. To begin with I cannot comprehend why the owners would sanction a budget for signings and wages that was contingent upon having some fans in the ground in October. Why? Because October was always the 'best case' scenario. Anyone following case numbers and the news would have put money on a second wave or increase in cases at some point over the winter. Even if fans had been allowed back into grounds the revenue streams from limited capacity attendances with no away fans would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the costs involved in recruiting half a dozen players on average wages of pushing £10,000 per week. We've also seen with the manager's contract awards to Smallwood etc in the summer - where half a dozen players were given extra time to their contracts because it was the right thing to do - that cash for players and their wages isn't directly linked to fans through the turnstiles. If it was then those deals wouldn't have been done.

That won't happen. They say this every transfer window. The money doesn't materialise. Then it will be all about it being a tough time to do business and better waiting until the summer

If you had said on here back in the summer of 2018, 2019 or even the start of summer 2020 that we would be in October 2020 and still relying on Amari Bell as our only senior LB and Derrick Williams as CB you'd have been laughed at. Yet here we are. No surprises to see the shift from some people from a position of we need a LB and are going to sign one (the position of all summer) to now preparing for the inevitable disappointment on that front which will be dressed up with 'Bell had a good game against Derby so we can make do' We've already been prepped to expect nothing but loans from here and clearly we are relying on things falling into place on that front including a suitable candidate becoming available and the loaning club striking a mutually beneficial deal that we are willing and able to pay, all within a matter of a few days before the window shuts. Unlikely the way our recruitment department operates. We'd be better off preparing for the January window given the time it takes to get deals sorted.

I think the problem is that whilst the 12 month option is a safety net for the club, it shouldn't really be used unless absolutely necessary. Before then we should be proactively dealing with a new long term deal. There's little indication that we are doing this, not just for Dack but all the players. Of course times are hard and uncertain but the club has to look at the bigger picture. These players could be worth millions and dwarf whatever season ticket income we get. Insanity to let them go for nothing.