Here's a scenario. Next season we're 2nd going into the final game of the season. We're 3 points above 3rd and have a +3 goal difference over them. We play them on the final day. Anything better than a 2 goal defeat and we go up. We ring the football league the week before the game and tell them that our players are going on strike and we aren't playing the game. We presume that they will do the same thing as with Bolton and award a 1-0 win to the other team. Happy days.

'Blackburn Rovers' trust do not respect boundaries and targets kids in our borough of Hyndburn' That suggests to me that he seems to think 'Hyndburn' (an artificial collection of several towns younger than most people who go watching Stanley) is their 'territory' and should be left alone for them to try and develop their club in. I think we need to be very careful as a club. It is a fact that traditionally and today a huge chunk of our existing and potential support comes from 'Hyndburn'. In particular Ossy, Rishton and Harwood but also Accy, Baxenden etc. Over time i suspect the percentage from those areas actually grows whilst the percentage in Blackburn declines due to migration of people in and out of Blackburn. We cannot afford to neglect such areas. There needs to be a realisation at the top of our club that Blackburn isn't a city, isn't affluent and that our support comes from across Lancashire and not from within BwDBC. I'm not sure what the club does to promote itself in Hyndburn, Rossendale, South Ribble, Ribble Valley but they really need to do something as over time people will have less and less connection to Blackburn and less reason to support its football team. I have a lot of respect for Andy Holt and his efforts. He's got pride in their stadium, pitch, image and is trying to impove it (more than can be said for our lot) He's got a tough job and I've no problem with him or Stanley trying to build their support. But that certainly doesn't mean we should give up on our own backyard. Unfortunately I think we are giving up on our own backyard. I'll keep an eye out when I'm out and I bet i won't see a single poster or advert about these new season tickets in Hyndburn. If we were determined to grow numbers I'd expect to see them in pubs, clubs, bus shelters, papers. Stanley recieve less money than Rovers and Burnley do because money is allocated on your infrastructure and previous success. Our overheads are massively higher as our facilities and provision is massively bigger. Why should they get as much? Like saying we should get as much sponsorship and media income as Man City despite them achieving more and being way ahead of us. No problem with a bit of healthy competition. Bring it on. We should win it hands down. Trouble is Holt makes more effort than we do and people can see that. I also suspect Holt is a dingle or at least has dingle tendancies. He won't admit it but I'd put my money on him leaning that way before his Stanley involvement, given where he and his business is based.

I couldn't resist taking him on. I'm not sure what he's referring to as I've seen no evidence of Rovers Community Trust doing anything in Hyndburn. Once again it comes back to the theory that all of Hyndburn is one and Accrington is at the centre of it. Trouble is I think a few at Rovers think the same. I'd love to see a survey done and see how many Rovers, Stanley, Burnley and other regular football match attenders live in Hyndburn. I suspect the majority go to Rovers, then Burnley, then Stanley.

Yes. Unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat with a takeover they're either going to have to risk liquidation on Wednesday or go into admin before then, which I presume will get them off the hook with the winding up petition with HMRC forced to accept less but will see a 12 point deduction. It's astonishing how Bolton/Anderson/Bassini thought they could get the takeover done. Its clear to anyone that Bassini doesn't have remotely near the cash required to sort Bolton out and fund them moving forward, surely they knew the EFL rules on proof of funding. Appears to have been a massive waste of time. I can see why Bassini would try it on as he doesn't really lose anything out of the whole circus but I'd have expected Anderson to have seen right through him from the start. Unless he is so desperate to get rid he'd hand it over to anyone willing to take it on.

I was quite surprised at the tone of Mowbray's comments last night regarding defenders at the club. Whether he is genuinely at his wits end with them or whether he was playing it up for the audience and cameras I'm not sure. Once again we hear that he's planning big things for the summer and a high calibre of player being targeted, but we had all that last summer when he rubbished the Armstrong and Chapman rumours because he was after some big hitters and then we signed them anyway.

Hopefully with a positive start the summer in terms of transfers the fans respond by beating last season's sales. Get through the 10,000 mark would be a nice start. Good that they've kept prices frozen (though would have been daft to put them up) and good they've focused on the key 18-25 group.

It might affect bonuses. I'm not sure what sort of clauses there are in contracts but I don't suppose it's unrealistic that some of our players or PNE's might have something in their deal that they get a few quid extra if the club finishes in the top half of the table. Same goes for sponsors who might have to pay more if the club reaches certain levels. I hope Bolton have the book thrown at them for this. If they go into admin that's an automatic 12 point deduction, but they've committed two other breaches - firstly by failing to play the Brentford game when it was due and secondly by failing to play it on the rearranged date that the League asked them to. The least I would expect to see is 6 points deducted for that. I expect they'll get the 12 for admin and the league will try and wrap everything neatly under that and argue that the 12 points is sufficient. It goes beyond not playing the game, it's bringing the league into disrepute and damaging the competition, Very lucky that it's only happened now for the last couple of games and the teams they are due to play aren't involved in promotion/relegation.

Bolton/Pompey/Leeds are the once in a decade example of when things go horribly wrong at a 'big' club. Generally speaking the vast majority of top 3 division clubs are sold or transferred elsewhere before that sort of trouble unfolds. Also worth bearing in mind that for all those clubs problems Leeds and Pompey have rebuilt and are looking forward to bright futures under new ownership. It remains to be seen what unfolds at Bolton but one or two rumours that a few groups are waiting for admin to clear the decks then take over a healthier situation. It isn't clear whether the move towards 'self sufficiency' is being driven by the owners wanting to reduce their spending or whether it is being driven by FFP requirements. Waggott very clear that the club needs to boost income and reduce reliance on Venkys, fair enough, but is that because Venkys are trying to stop pumping money in or because they have to boost income for FFP reasons? Seems strange that they've brought Waggott in with this remit and then go out and spend £7 million on Ben Brereton which in one swoop wipes out any income growth Waggott will have delivered. I'm not criticising them for investing in players but it doesn't seem to stack up. I'm still not clear on the season ticket situation. Waggott claims he wanted them out by now and the delay has been due to 'collecting data'. On that basis I look forward to seeing some changes/imagination in the pricing and categories rather than a straightforward repeat of last season.

Rangers have hosted home games v dingles and Wigan in the last couple of pre-seasons so I would like to think it's a possibility. Refreshing to hear that Mowbray has already sorted out the friendly games but it would be nice if the club could release this information as soon as possible so people can plan ahead.

I don't really understand this. So they are saying that the club has to get the game on for Tuesday next week, but that if they go into administration before then the game doesn't have to be played? Because the administrator would have enough to deal with without sorting a match out? So what happens then? Bolton and Brentford end the season on 45 games? I'm sure clubs have been expelled from the Football League for that sort of thing in the past.

Try and get the club on the cheap, through their desperation? Free publicity, enjoying the media spotlight for a few weeks? Seems his plan has come crashing down as he's been forced to provide evidence of funds to last two years, which comes to £14 million, and he simply can't do that. Wouldn't have had to do it when he went into Watford as the rules wouldn't have been as strict back then.

I can see what motivates the club to do it. Unfortunately going watching Rovers in the 2nd division on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon is very different to buying train tickets/flights or festival tickets where you have to buy in advance to ensure you can go and where there is high demand and limited supply. At Rovers where we've 20,000 empty seats most weeks we aren't ever going to have more demand than supply. Many people will simply go and do something else with their spare time if it is too much or too difficult to get in. Its only a football match, they'll take it or leave it, decide in the spur of the moment. Maybe if the weather is nice, or if other plans fall through, or if the kids/girlfriend/mates change plans. It's just something to fill a few hours. Actively trying to deter people from making a late decision to go, by bumping prices up even more, I think is self-defeating. Ultimately Rovers aren't in a position to try and discourage on the day buyers, they should be gratefully welcoming anyone who is willing to pay to watch us and do whatever is needed to get as many in the ground as possible. We survived perfectly well with pay on the day with no surcharge for years and years. This surcharge nonsense has only appeared in the last few years. All done to make life easier for the small group of people who are paid well to run the operation on matchday and not done to get as many people into the ground as possible. They aren't even that heavily discounted. £15 is reasonable and decent value these days for the Championship but it isn't exactly cheap for a dead rubber that is live on TV for many people.

Good old Football League have effectively given the go-ahead to owners to 'sell' stadia to other companies for a hefty profit to allow them to spend heavily and dodge FFP sanctions! Some way of 'protecting' clubs against overspending - encourage owners to sell off assets to raise cash! Birmingham have 'sponsored' their training ground and stadium. I'd have no objection to Brockhall becoming known as the 'Venkys training centre' if it meant they could chuck another few million in through the back door.

Every manager says he wants to get his transfer business done early and in an ideal world everyone would. No manager is going to say he's relaxed and happy to wait until August to do his signings as fans would be in uproar. For a variety of reasons that isn't usually possible. Of course we are at risk of losing some of our players, and might have to wait for things to fall into place for our signings to arrive. But given we've already allowed 3 weeks to go by since survival was mathematically secured and yet Mowbray seemingly has no idea as to his budget and that it won't get looked at until he goes off to India I know where I direct accountability for our late dealings - Venkys. In terms of pre-season i'll be disappointed if there's no foreign game(s) once again. There was nothing last year either. I love to go to Europe in early July to watch us kick off our friendlies against unusual opposition in the warm weather, and we must be alone in the top 2 divisions to not arrange any matches abroad. Once again is this Mowbray's preference or just a lack of planning and imagination at the club? I suspect the latter given we also didn't have many games abroad under Bowyer. We seem to do things back to front. The manager somehow working to two budgets until he discovers whether he has successfully persuaded the owners to cough up the funds required. It should be the other way around - owners decide what they are spending and manager does as he is told.

Bank of the PFA have intervened and 'loaned' players their wages to enable the final two games to go ahead. Once again off the hook at the 11th hour. More lives than a cat that lot.

I reckon as it stands it is either the Bassini deal or nothing. It sounds like Anderson was close to putting them into admin until he reached agreement with Bassini and now surprise surprise the money hasn't materialised/he hasn't got proof of funding. I expect Anderson and the League are desperate to pass the club over to Bassini to avoid admin and any more embarrassment but the League are bound by their own rules and will require evidence of enough cash from Bassini to keep it going, which he presumably doesn't have but is frantically trying to get. They can't keep this going forever with the fixture crisis, unpaid wages and the winding up petition next week so he'll have until this time tomorrow and if he doesn't provide the evidence I reckon it will be administration. An automatic 12 point deduction for that PLUS what should be a further deduction for failing to fulfil their fixtures and they'll be staring at League Two.

Swansea's away form is atrocious. Hopefully we can finish off with a win and end up in the top half and above the noisy neighbours.

Was Mowbray at the Awards Night last night? Or was he away in Europe scouting?

The other advantage to Luton and Barnsley coming up and hopefully also Doncaster/Peterborough is it takes away another excuse from Rovers. If it were Sunderland, Portsmouth and Charlton coming up you can guarantee there'd be talk from Waggott and Mowbray about how tough it is to try and compete with these clubs and their support. Mowbray has been at it frequently this season talking about other sides having 'full houses' even though they don't. Luton and Barnsley are the two latest examples of smaller clubs showing that reputations and crowds are diminishing in importance as they've left Pompey and Sunderland in the play-offs. In no measure can either of those clubs be considered better placed than Rovers. Two less examples for us to hide behind. With Huddersfield, Cardiff and Fulham coming down none of which get substantially bigger crowds (or at least won't when the Premier League numbers have dropped off).

The problem though is you still have to have possession of 1875 membership. So if you don't want to pay the extra fee you are running the risk of not getting in. You could have 40 years straight of being a season ticket holder and going to every away game, but not want to pay extra for 1875 membership, and not be able to go to a game. Of course the likelihood is that a fan of that description would pay the extra £10 but the club are playing on people's loyalty to the cause to squeeze extra cash out of them. Really possession of a season ticket along with a history of buying tickets and points allocated on the number of tickets bought over the year should be the measure and test of priority, not whether you are prepared to cough up even more money on top of the basic amount,

Davenport joined them in January 2018 and made 17 appearances in League and Cup and they were relegated at the end of it. He's not experienced and the limited experience he has had was of struggle. I'm not criticising the lad but he's a long way to go for me before we can pin our Premier ambitions on his shoulders.

1200 out of 2000 total tickets? I'm fairly sure there's only one turnstile or one set of turnstiles at Leyland anyway, so unless they put a temporary turnstile in at the other side it seems all fans will be using the same one and then be split once they are through. My guess is they'll send one set of fans left towards the top end and round to the top half of the stand and the other set will go right to the bottom end with the seating area split down the middle. Only one set of toilets for spectators too so won't be easy to split off. Everyone enters from one side at Leyland so they can segregate inside the ground all they like, any trouble could easily flare up on the car park outside where fans will be free to mix. The LFA car park is usually full for bog standard league games with a few hundred on so can see it being chaos next week with almost 2000 there.

Prefer Luton and Barnsley to get up than Sunderland, Charlton or Portsmouth. Just have to hope that either Doncaster or Posh can do the business in the play-offs!

It sounds like the alternative is administration. I suspect the EFL are well aware of this and so are trying desperately to see if Bassini can come up with the goods when it is clear he doesn't have any money himself. The EFL will absolve themselves of responsibility by turning around afterwards and saying they've given him every opportunity to come up with answers and instead blame Bassini/Anderson.

I know where you're coming from Matty, the difficulty is that I have always had a habit of booking them as soon as they go on sale and a bit of paranoia on my part that one day something will happen and I won't be able to get a ticket. For example, this coming match next week v Burnley at Leyland - only 1000 tickets - I've no idea how sales are going but it might sell out, so I had to move quickly to get one as soon as they went up. I don't want to leave it to chance. Next season @ Luton - small allocation, expect it to be a popular one - might well need membership to secure a ticket. Most clubs have loyalty points or purchasing history as criteria but is seems Rovers are happy to ignore and discard all that and make priority for those who pay extra for it. Not nice really.