I get the impression that arranging pre season is just done like everything else at the club. As cheaply and easily as possible. Rather than setting our stall out with some ambition to get games against a couple of decent European sides, try to get some interest going ahead of the season, try to lock horns with a decent side to test ourselves, its much easier to give Rochdale or Bury a call who will be more than grateful for the game with 500+ away fans turning up spending £10-20 a piece. I initially believed it was a result of inexperienced and relatively unknown managers in Kean and Bowyer who didn't have the contacts to sort games out but its been the same under Mowbray. I think the Waggott experiment last season of bringing PL 'giants' to Ewood failed to deliver the full houses he expected and so hence no home games this year. I find myself wondering why they go straight out to Austria in late June to train rather than in early/mid July as most clubs do and we always did traditionally. Is it purely because Mowbray prefers it that way or alternatively is it because it is cheaper to fly out there and book the hotel and facilities that week when other teams don't want to go? The lack of a fixture abroad is disappointing. We appear to be going backwards on that front. Gone are the days of Hughes and Allardyce going abroad and playing 2-3 matches in Germany/Austria. Since 2012 we've had but a handful of fixtures abroad. The 5 games announced so far are extremely dull and uninspiring. It is of course accepted that there will always be 3 or 4 of these lower league local sides but given we've played these sides very recently in the League it doesn't really generate much interest. It's now 2 weeks since Richard Sharpe said the Rangers game was good to go and just a case of rubber stamping the arrangements. I think it is safe to assume a similar approach to pre-season and forward planning as there is with budgets and transfers - nothing incurring significant expense can be done without authorisation from above.

Basically we've now reached a stage where: Anyone over the age of 30 is likely to not be an option for the club, as it doesn't fit Mowbray's self-proclaimed policy of signing younger players who will grow in value. Indeed most people on here would seemingly be pessimistic about any such deal as it brings back memories of Danny Murphy and apparently the policy we 'should' be following is to avoid players on their last legs. Anyone at the young end of the scale or unproven will set alarm bells ringing as it will suggest we're still in the developing players for more money phase and there is immense concern at Mowbray's track record on that front. Anyone who has played regularly at Championship or Premier League level and people will lose their minds about us potentially paying or being expected to pay big wages and we 'shouldn't' be going down that route these days. If we sign someone proven people will get their knickers in a twist about us possibly paying out big wages and being at risk under FFP rules. So what we end up with is all the focus being on players from League One who tick all the boxes e.g. not fresh out of an academy, league experience, cheap - e.g. more Dacks or Rothwells knocking about. Unfortunately that doesn't really stack up with what Mowbray was saying in the aftermath of last season when he said he wanted proven quality who would help us immediately push on towards the top 6 in the Championship.

Carroll and Austin not for me unless they're the icing on the cake. Too old and certainly too injury prone. Given our luck with injuries over the years I expect they'd spend most of their time sat on the treatment table. If we sign someone else plus one of those then fine. Too many eggs in one small basket otherwise. No chance of either really anyway. Too expensive, don't fit the self-proclaimed policy and both will have PL interest. Doubt Mowbray would even want Carroll as his speciality isn't really compatible with Mowbray's approach with no wingers.

Quite sickening reading parts of Mowbray and Waggott's interview in India. Talk of selling Dack and using Burnley as an example of what we are trying to do here. Not what I like to hear in public really, even if that is privately the policy. The big interview and the talk is of trying to copy Burnley and potentially selling your best player. Not exactly going to get the pulses racing is it?

So Mowbray made his bid and offer before going to India and Maher turned us down whilst they were out there? Or no serious bid or offer was ever made by Rovers because it couldn't because nobody at the club had a clue what the budget was?

Correct. We're at a disadvantage before we even start. The fact that Mowbray will have only just have had his budget confirmed in the last week at the end of May, having known since early April that we were mathematically in the Championship, suggests to me that the period in between has been wasted. A competent club and structure would have pencilled budgets in on the basis of Championship football and automatically approve those upon securing that status and the ball would start rolling then. You might have got away with such a lackadaisical attitude and approach 30 years ago but these days in such an intensely competitive industry it is the proactive, quick, decisive ones who get where they want to be. The laid back, indecisive, incoherent ones end up struggling.

He went to Holland to watch a match. Any evidence that he was the one he watched or that it went any further than a scouting trip? Anyways, even if he was the focus of the trip and Mowbray was keen, given he's just completed a transfer whilst Mowbray is flying around the world finding out his budgets suggests to me that we were a bit behind the game on that one.

My prediction, and I'd love to be proved wrong, is a similar routine to last summer. We'll see maybe a couple of freebies early doors, be hoping on a couple of half decent loans arriving down the line, I don't think there will be direct pressure from upstairs to sell anyone but Mowbray might eventually decide that he has to do so to generate enough funds to play in the market, with the outside chance of Balaji or whoever coming up with a bonus at some stage like with the Brereton deal.

Bloody hell, that didn't take long. So we're not even out of May yet, Mowbray and co. only just getting back from India yet we're already through Option A ideas and onto the B and C list? Where will we be on deadline day in August/September? If Downing is on List B I shudder to think who is on list E,F and G. No evidence Maher was ever a serious target. The fact he's agreed a move at this relatively early stage of the window suggests that one has been in the pipeline for some time now and given we're still at the deciding budgets stage of proceedings I doubt we ever had a realistic chance on that front. If we'd have been in with a chance we would have needed to get everything teed up weeks ago and that isn't possible under this regime. IF we're keen on Downing it just sums up the haphazard, inconsistent and bonkers strategy we have. Mowbray talks about developing assets, signing players who will improve and grow in value and be better than what we already have and talks about tapping into new markets and being clever with our business yet his first port of call is to go to a 35 year old being released by his hometown club whose supporters are glad to see the back of? Random. More likely Mowbray is just lining up who he can in the absence of a serious plan or budget.

Still no update a week on. Sharpe reckoned all sorted and just crossing the t's and dotting the i's.... We'll need another one if Bury go bust soon

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.