There seems to be a belief that it is one or the other - either a gung ho approach in which we spend big money and gamble on getting up or face big problems with Ffp and increased losses - or the slow build in which we spend small amounts each season to try and keep within Ffp rules and that in a few years we should have built towards promotion contention and that if we don't go up everything will be rosy in the garden because we haven't overspent. Problem is though that the slow build concept ignores the likely loss of our best players and difficulty in replacing them, failure to do so would likely see regression. It also ignores that we aren't self sufficient by a long way and every year we are out of the top flight we lose 6 figure amounts. It also ignores that only one other club has been sanctioned for breaking Ffp rules and that whilst spending more carries some more risk, the rewards are greater. The more you spend the greater value the assets are likely to be. Ffp has brought a convenient excuse to Venkys doorstep. If they don't want to spend more that's up to them but just be honest about it. Doing it our way isn't noble or better than others.

In 7 years we must have had 30 loans from Premier League clubs and about 4 who were any good. Cairney, Reed, Gallagher, Keane. They're either hard to find or we aren't very good at picking them but the majority have been a waste of time, space and money. Either way, basing our promotion plans on it is risky. We need a better squad before adding a couple of quality loans. We will struggle to do it paying 5k a week out when WBA are paying 30k.

The 2-3 years from now project is a myth. The only way that will end up is with us selling 2-3 of our best players either to claw some cash back for the owners or because the players get better offers elsewhere and then the whole thing starts again with the excuse being that we are in transition and waiting for new players to settle in. Before you know it you're 5 or 6 years down the line no better off, still hemorrhaging cash trying to find someone else to sell. The sort of mentality that sees a club in the doldrums for decades until or unless you get lucky, like the dingles did with Coyle the buffoon. Doubt Wilder was telling his boys to slow down this season as he has a 2 or 3 year plan. Went out to win every game and got the job done.

As with most transfers the merits or not of paying the asking price will only become clear down the line. It's a gamble but one you have to be prepared to take from time to time if you seek success or big returns on trading. Here and now there's no argument that the Brereton one has been a waste of money. But if he comes good, there's a decent chance yet that one day we will make a profit on him. Same with Gallagher. At his age, with his pedigree, I reckon he'd be worth a punt. No guarantees either way but there are signs it's worth doing. Obviously next question is how much we have overall to spend. If it is £6 million I'm not in favour of spending £5 million of that on Gallagher. If we've £10 million+ (lol) then I'd be doing it. I'd be delighted with a 3 pronged recruitment of Gallagher, Hanley and Reed which would go a long way to sorting things out. Probably talking £10 million + for all 3 though.

Yes, but the fact he mentions it in virtually every article on the owners or our finances suggests he feels it is worth reminding people about, or that it is different somehow to what happens elsewhere.

I suspect it is an orchestrated attempt to convince as many people as possible that operating at a loss is unusual and that Venkys are doing more than they need to or should be expected to by funding it every year. If they don't want to do it then clear off because we ain't going to be self sufficient at this level and there sure as hell isn't anything else they're bringing to the party.

Can someone name me a club without Sky tv/parachute money that DOESNT rely on a benefactor model? There seems to be a belief or attitude coming from somewhere that we are unusual and that everyone else balances the books every year.

Flyers through letterboxes, adverts in the Telegraph/Observer, posters on bus shelters - haven't seen any myself

£10 per adult for a local friendly? In my experience that is standard and any higher would be quite outrageous.

Pretty horrific sales figures as we enter June for a Championship club really. Of course the majority won't be in any rush and will leave it until nearer the season (me included) but it does show how far off the pace we are when the likes of Forest are hitting 20,000 in May and we've sold 2,000.

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.