Just waiting for the school holidays to pass then we're good to go.

Telegraph doing their thing with that Gallagher article. Rumour appears over the weekend online about us potentially being interested in him and Southampton being prepared to sell. A £5 million figure fee quoted. Tuesday morning comes around and it's in the Telegraph as a potential piece of business but with the usual caveat of 'wages might be a problem'. The sell to buy thing with Dack I have grave misgivings about as a policy. Once again there's a difference between allowing him to move should a higher club come in with good money and there's setting out on our summer with a desire/intention to sell him as a way to generate some cash. Option 1 is what Norwich did with Murphy and Maddison - step ups for them and good reinvestment. Option 2 is what we did with Jordan Rhodes and Tom Cairney - step sideways and no reinvestment.

Debt is irrelevant to both Ffp rules and how much a club can spend, especially when nearly all of it is owed to the owners.

I'm not sure i'd agree that what we have is sensible. More than previously yes but I still think we're miles off what is needed to succeed in this day and age. The fact our football manager is spending May flying around the world to try and persuade the owners to spend some money sums it up.

Best take a leaf out of Villa, Derby, Forest or Sheffield Wednesday's books. Hasn't done them any harm.

Selling Dack to bring in loans is the very definition of short termism and a lack of vision. It would only pay off if we immediately got promoted. If we didn't then we'd have lost our best player and biggest asset and have nothing to show for it with the loans off to their next club in the summer.

None. Don't think any are good enough from what I've seen/heard IF our ambition is promotion. If it isn't then they might be ok. Don't think Barnsley will let Lindsay go without a fight.

In January Mowbray said that money had been made available by the owners for him to use if he wanted but that he had chosen not to use it, instead continuing with what we had with a view to that cash being available at a later date when it was better to do business. He either said or strongly inferred that the money would be ring fenced for later use and not lost. Last summer he spoke of a multi season project being agreed and set in motion. He spoke of the owners wanting promotion but him slowing them down and selling them the gradual build model. He claimed money was available all summer and the bulk of it was then spent on Brereton. After the end of this season he spoke about aiming for the play-offs and promotion and targeting new players who would improve the team. He mentioned defender(s) coming in for starters. Going to look a bit silly if all that was nonsense or they've backtracked again and we end up with no money or having to sell to buy.

With new entries to the Championship being Cardiff, Huddersfield, Fulham, Luton, Barnsley and Charlton the only excuse for Rovers is parachute cash. Can't hide behind the usual 'massive' clubs with 25,000+ a week turning up as a reason we can't target success.

Nobody has any right to do anything but the situation at Sunderland arguably more unstable than it was here. New owners only just in the building last summer, back to back relegations, massive financial rebalancing to deliver, new manager who has never worked in England before. Mowbray did well to get us straight back up but not doing so would have been failure, as Sunderland's season has been. Mowbray did his job, as Cook did his and Stendel did his at Barnsley. Jack Ross has failed and I expect he'll get the boot now.

No win situation today in the play off final. Villa win and they'll have got away with it and another club proving that you can buy your way out of the division free from difficulties. It would be funny to see them fail again and hopefully one day face these long awaited sanctions. The media love in for them is sickening. Derby win and they're another lot who will have got away with it, spending way beyond their means for years in a row with no punishment and on the brink of the ultimate get out of jail award. The Frank Lampard obsession is also pathetic. I'd also feel more confident in our own chances in a division with Derby in it than Villa, but on balance I think I'd just about prefer a Derby win.

Gallagher needs to understand that his career is at risk of falling by the wayside if he stays where he is. He isn't going to play for Southampton in the Premier League any time soon and so sooner or later will have to accept that the Championship is where he will need to go. He's going to be very lucky to get a salary close to his current one and will have to drop his demands. Harrison Reed is in a similar position albeit probably has more chance of making the grade at Southampton and if not will have more interest in him. I'd be very happy if we went to Southampton with £8 million for the pair of them. I think in 12-24 months both could be worth more than that each and in the meantime would fit seamlessly into the squad. Bring Hanley back from Norwich and we'd have strengthened the side well.

Ipswich have just signed a new keeper so he could well be on his way. Don't think for one minute that we'll be paying 8 figure sums out for a goalkeeper.

Derby's owner has sold their stadium to himself, legitimately. The League has given it the go-ahead. Other clubs don't like it but there's nothing they can do about it now. It has enabled them to assemble a quality side that on Monday might be in the Premier League. Speaking of gambling and putting clubs in danger our owners have heaped £150 million of debt on this club and until the last couple of years were running it as a cowboy operation. Both a far bigger risk to the club's long term future than selling the ground to themselvses. If I was putting my trust in someone I think it would be the Derby owner who has invested to make his club better and had them in promotion contention every year. You refer to a 'self sustainable' build but that isn't going to be possible. If we want to be self sufficient then we are going to need to sell more than £10 million of players every year, yet if we do that we'll probably end up back in League One.

Its not a question of whether we would trust them. If they wanted to do it they could and there's nothing anyone on here could do about it. The point here isn't whether we'd agree with it - I'm sure no Derby fan was consulted prior to their owner doing it and I don't recall much uproar from them as most appear to trust him to get on with it and do the right thing. The point is that there's an awful lot of moaning from people at Rovers about FFP rules and how tough it is to deal with those rules yet little evidence of anyone actually doing something about it. The Derby one is an extreme example of how to do it, but quite a clever way to dodge the rules. There are other ways such as fake sponsors and training ground sponsorship etc. Sadly our billionaire owners who claim to own 90 odd companies or whatever it was don't see any benefit to one of those sponsoring the club to allow funds through the back door to avoid FFP trouble. Much easier to do nothing and then moan when other clubs spend far more without sanction.

Who was the most recent club to be put under a transfer embargo for a breach? Birmingham were put under a 'partial embargo' whatever one of those is and still went ahead and spent £3 million without having to sell anyone. They had a phase of dishing out embargoes 5 years ago when the rules had only just come in but since then there's been very little. There's a difference between betting the ranch and spending heavily. Depends on what the owners want to do. Spending gazillions is fine as long as the owners are prepared to do it and won't chuck in the towel as soon as it doesn't work well. We're told Venkys are billionaires and are desperate for the club to succeed. A sale & leaseback of the ground need not be gambling the club's future. What Derby did was clever, helped them avoid FFP trouble whilst assembling a good side and now they're on the cusp of promotion because of it. Very clever. No doubt when the time comes their owner will transfer their ground back for a nominal fee and in the meantime they'll be paying peppercorn rent. It isn't the case that he's sold it off to 3rd party property developers etc. Burnley had parachute income when they went up so were at an advantage that apparently we can't compete with. Think Norwich were too. Sheffield United signed people like Norwood, McGoldrick and Clarke none of whom fit into our recruitment criteria of value growth. Mowbray is now balancing the demands of a support base with the lunacy of the owners. Tough job.

As above I don't think anyone on here would deny or begrudge Dack a move to Man Utd or Everton, as unlikely as both seem. It would tick all the boxes for him and would be a step up and we would be powerless to resist. The trouble comes when we're selling players at reduced fees to rivals like we did with Cairney even when the player didn't want to go and manager didn't either because we fancied raising some quick cash. Just hope we're not going down that route again.

This is the crux of things. People appear to enjoy hiding behind FFP rules or want to throw them up as a shield to protect the owners from any criticism as though their hands are tied by these rules. For me if you are determined/desperate to get promoted there are two ways of doing it. Option 1 is to spend your way up - like Bournemouth, Leicester, QPR, Brighton, Wolves and Derby/Villa will have done. Last time I checked none of those clubs had been given anything other than a token fine for their rule breaking whilst most have established themselves as top division sides and are now laughing all the way to the bank. They speculated and now they are accumulating. Do do that you of course require owners with very deep pockets, who are happy to spend. Obviously there is a risk that if the spending isn't done wisely or if things don't work out then promotion might be missed - Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Villa, Forest, Middlesbrough - and last time I checked none of those have been punished either, except some vague/inconsistent transfer 'restriction' placed on Sheffield Wednesday last summer which nobody really knows what happened and it didn't see them come to any real harm and they've since brought in Steve Bruce who will probably get them up. Infact the only club to receive a serious sanction was Birmingham City, who were safely secured in mid-table before a points deduction was imposed and the slate wiped clean. It's hardly brought their world crashing down has it? Option 2 is to do it another way - spend more sensible amounts of cash but within a coherent well thought out structure - Norwich, Huddersfield, Sheffield United - not losing money hand over fist but not self sufficient either. I don't recall Chris Wilder talking about signing players to increase in value and sell again - everything I've ever seen from him is about getting a winning team together and giving it everything for promotion. Of course amongst all the wailing about FFP rules there is the fact that there doesn't appear to have been any serious attempt from the owners in their bungalow on the other side of the world to do anything about it. Simple answer is they aren't interested enough to waste their time doing it. Birmingham's owners sponsored their stadium and training ground. Derby owner sold their stadium to himself. Other clubs have attracted prominent sponsors. We've done next to nothing yet complain more than most.

A few issues I have with that: Whether Rovers have offered inferior terms to Conway's existing deal isn't my concern. My concern is that we're attempting to keep him for another year when it is clear he's not really up to it any more. Why not bring in someone younger and better? Why are we wasting time offering contracts to people who weren't deemed good enough last season to start many games? I don't agree that we have an 'unusually young' squad. Our first team regulars contain Graham, Evans, Bennett, Smallwood, Mulgrew all heading into the latter years of their careers. Dack, Rothwell, Lenihan, Williams, Bell don't count as young or inexperienced any more. Even Travis is 21 which isn't young. Brereton is young but is experienced. In terms of the scouting system - it is only worth investing in and persevering with if it is going to last. The problem we have is it's creation appears to be the brainchild of Mowbray and dependent upon his guidance and input. I don't think anyone has any serious issue with us reluctantly selling Dack if that is to a top division club for good money. We'll shake his hand and send him on his way with thanks for his service. What I would have serious issue with is us hawking him around rival Championship clubs trying to generate interest and tempt someone into chucking a bid our way in some desperate attempt to raise a few quid to please the owners or pay interim bills. I firmly believe this sort of thing went on in the days of Cairney, Hanley, Duffy being sold off and that sort of behaviour will cause massive problems. Once again it seems people won't differentiate between reluctantly allowing your best players to move up a division for good money and then having a transfer policy solely concerned with growing player values with a view to sales and selling to anyone who comes up with cash irrespective of the impact upon our team whilst strengthening rivals. This player value/self sufficiency stuff is all fantasy though. We'd have to sell £15 million worth of players every single season to break even and that's before thinking about bringing new players in and spending money the other way. Aint going to happen.

If you believe what Mowbray says in his interviews at least one of the owners was looking for a real push last season but Mowbray put the brakes on and talked them out of it. I'm sure things should be the other way around?

Another thing to take from that interview was the opening comment from Mowbray. We won't be fishing in a big pond for players this summer, because in his view the new scouting system won't be up and running. He says it will take another 2, 3 or 4 years to deliver results. I'm afraid that's unacceptable if true. We're already 2 years into his project which is longer than many managers get, he's been on about the super new scouting system for months and it still isn't ready to deliver results? At a club that appears to be planning on developing and increasing value on players that is poor. Mowbray must be very relaxed and confident in his long term future if he can take such a long term view. Most managers these days last a couple of years if they are lucky whereas Mowbray won't even have got his scouting up and running by year 4 or 5. Truly bonkers. We then move on to my other issue. It seems people are confusing two things on transfers. It is one thing to do clever transfer business, have assets on the books worth money, be able to sell those players if needed and make profit on player trading. It is another when the sole purpose of transfer strategy is to recruit on the cheap to try and turn round profits. The former was our success story in the Premier League days with Bentley, Bellamy, Santa Cruz - players brought in who performed immediately, delivered success for the team and were then let go when a big offer came calling and they wanted out. Everyone bar Barcelona and Real Madrid are vulnerable to selling their best players from time to time and the key is to reinvest well. Good transfer business but going hand in hand with a successful team. Big difference between that and then the sole remit of player trading being to try and increase squad value with a view to a few big sales every now and again. Big difference. Mowbray's comments in that interview lean towards the second, in which case promotion might be some time off.

Hmmm. Whilst I agree that the free agent status of a player and avoidance of a transfer fee might then see him demand more wage wise, I would suggest if we're struggling to meet the demands of a free agent who has been playing at Charlton in League One for the last few years then we're going to struggle to get much serious business done this summer. He won't be on much at Charlton in the 3rd division. Unless of course Bauer is coming up with ridiculous demands but I doubt some of the stories on that front. Can't see why he would jeopardise a potentially career making/defining move up a division through unreasonable demands. At his stage in his career and with no rumours of any rival interest from the Championship he would be wise to take a wage rise and moving up a division rather than risking it not happening through unreasonable demands.

Having only listened to that 2 minute clip of him talking it appears he is very much focused on a plan of buying cheap, developing, then being in a position to cash in and make a profit down the line. Probably music to Venky ears. It doesn't sound as though we're going to be going shopping for 28-30 year old proven players who can hit the ground running more than a 21 year old out of League One.

I imagine Mowbray is keen to remind the owners/those in India about that particular deal. If they have any doubts about either Mowbray's ability in the transfer market or the merits of backing him with more cash this summer he can quickly mention Dack as his ace card as they'll have at least made 10x their initial investment, probably much more, if they do sell him. I would like to think Mowbray is also telling them that whilst they could sell him for a big profit his value will go up again if he has another good season, or indeed if his promotion plans come to fruition with Dack at the centre of it then the rewards far exceed any profit on Dack. The worry of course is if the owners decide funding is limited/non existent having not sold anyone big recently and want to see some return and instruct/encourage Mowbray to sell before buying. That is when things get scary.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to see the Independent running with that one as I've never seen anything that suggests we've ever been late with wages, or struggled to pay them, or defaulted on them. To be fair to Venkys that is one area they have been good at consistently - making sure wages/tax/essential costs are all met on time and we don't go through the humiliation of winding up petitions and unpaid staff like Bolton and others lower down the system have gone through. They've even managed to do it despite what must be quite complex and difficult issues of distance and time with them being based in India. We've seen with Reading and Birmingham for example that getting funds across the world on time isn't always straightforward. I suspect that wages are met on time because it is 'out of sight and out of mind' for the top dogs at Venky HQ. It will be numbers on the payroll that goes out automatically and doesn't require much thought or choice on the part of the owners. Presumably all going through the company balance sheets. Don't pay and they'll be shown up among their rich mates and also will eventually lose control of the club. An altogether different ball game to them coughing up additional lump sum cash amounts out of their reserves or personal accounts which isn't essential and isn't the bare minimum required. Extra cash to spruce up Ewood or lay a new pitch or bring in a couple of quality players? Not so simple. Open to persuasion maybe if they get the taste for it and like what they hear from the manager but the ball seems to be in his and Waggott's court to persuade them, rather than the owners deciding they're spending X amount and instructing those at Ewood to get on with it. A very odd setup. Some positives yes in that we appear to be owned and financed by a stable, successful business that doesn't seem likely to pull the plug on us any time soon but also a distinct reluctance to go beyond that and a lack of interest in the smaller things that see clubs improve and progress.