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.

Interesting. The first time there has been any real publicity or coverage of these summit meetings in Pune, certainly by Indian media. Sakal Times appears to be a relatively small operation but still a change from the clandestine meetings of the past. I would actually appreciate some sort of interview of the owners or a least a photo of them meeting Mowbray and Waggott. Would add some transparency to it and give off the impression of a united 'we're in it together' front.

I noticed there was a photo on Twitter of Mowbray and Waggott sat giving a media interview in Pune. I don't think it is arranged by the club. I wonder whether this interview will be available online anywhere?

No and no.

I think the club loses money on the home fixtures, and combined with the hassle of organising extra games and ensuring the pitch is ready 2 weeks earlier than it needs to be means we don't see many at Ewood. That doesn't bother me as such as unless we get a true glamour fixture like the Barcelona one we aren't going to get good numbers on home games. Even the Liverpool and particularly Everton ones last season weren't exactly well attended. Loads of empty seats even after the local tourists had turned up with their cameras. I imagine Rovers had to pay to persuade Liverpool to turn up or at least give them a share of the takings so doubt Rovers were left with much after that. It's a given that most fixtures will be local(ish) away games against lower division opposition. Always has been. Don't mind 2-4 games against the Bury's or Blackpool's particularly midweek. But we all need at least one 'curtain raiser' or big game to look forward to and whet the appetite ahead of the new season. If we get an away game at Rangers I think most people would relish that game and a trip up there. Sharpe seems to be putting his neck on the line as far as he ever does tonight with that one but I still have my doubts. The rest are very much 'meh' fixtures, not even the novelty of a couple of new grounds to go to and 3 of them we played in the league the season before. The fact that all have taken players from us recently, or in the case of Blackpool are managed by our ex-assistant, suggests they have been arranged off the back of those deals. Most frustrating for me is the lack of foreign match. The real curtain raiser for me was going away to Austria or wherever and watching us play a European side in a foreign ground. Fantastic. Used to look forward to it for months. For some reason we're one of the only clubs at this level to seem to want to avoid such fixtures. Presumably because those sort of games are harder to arrange than picking up the phone to the mates down the road. No good for those supporters who enjoy going though.

Guardiola is a big part of the dominance of City. Their entire operation has been assembled to work around him and with him as the icing on the cake. He is clearly in another league in terms of managerial ability with very few able to get close. Klopp has given him a run for his money at Dortmund and Liverpool but fallen short on both occasions. Mourinho can rival him for trophies and achievements but in the last 3-4 years has fallen out with everyone around him and picked a couple of poor jobs. As long as Guardiola remains City will remain dominant. The trouble for them is that he has no connection to Manchester and is only there for the project and vast salary he'll be on. As he showed at Barcelona he'll get tired and move on before too long. I don't believe he'll do a Ferguson and be there for many years. I reckon he'll walk after next season if they win the league again and don't win the Champions League. Then he'll have a break before picking another project. For City whatever comes next will be a comedown.

And the connection this time is we sold Tomlinson to them in January. Links like that through all of them so far. Would be nice if we could organise one without.

Mansfield away on 17th July (Wednesday). So only one slot left to fill. So far 1 Conference club, 3 League Two Clubs and a League One club.

Possibly. Though surely they've known for a long time they were going to be participating in those barring a disaster?

I was told that it was due to happen but that Rangers had pulled the plug owing to other options and as such we were left 'in the lurch' trying to find someone else to play. Hence the delay in announcing the other friendlies after the 4 already announced. Expect some dross instead. My bet is on one of Carlisle, Bradford or Oldham.

The trouble is it won't be sustained. If the likes of Liverpool, City, United and Chelsea went off to a Super League then that might see the back of the plastics and tourists for a while, but Sky would pull the plug or drastically reduce their funding. This would effectively bankrupt the Premier and Football League. Then from the ashes the beast would rise again, slowly but surely, as media giants would compete for rights and foreigners would come sniffing. Rather than it being Chelsea or City at the top of the pile hoovering up all the quality with all the money it would be Leicester, Everton or Wolves doing it. Eventually we'd end up more or less back where we are now, perhaps on a smaller scale without the current giants. The only way it is going to work is if the government or some other powerful body puts their foot down and restricts the ownership of clubs by mega foreign groups and comes up with some sort of system to make it work longer term on a more even playing field. In my opinion this would need the Premier League and Football League to be once again under the same umbrella rather than separate, with a more even distribution of prize money and media money, with proper FFP rules in place and serious sanctions for those who break the rules. Ironic that since the introduction of FFP rules spending by clubs has actually increased. I still shake my head when people go on about FFP rules for Man City when the only rules they are subject to are the UEFA ones. Nothing stopping them spending under Premier League rules. None of the above will happen so we'll get a middle ground of more and more European games gradually building towards a super league in all but name.

Very odd indeed. My interpretation is that Mowbray is playing everything safe pending the outcome of his Pune meetings. If he doesn't know what (if any) money he'll have to spend then he might regret it if he gets shut of Leutwiler, Conway etc. now. So safer to activate extensions and enter into talks just in case.

My long held suspicions about Holt's dingle leanings are seemingly well founded. Exactly the sort of comment a resentful claret would come out with. Of course he would deny any such tarring as it doesn't fit his Accy lad image. Not only very disrespectful but also incorrect. Walker's investments here were not gambling the clubs future but were putting in place infrastructure to enable the club to grow and thrive longer term. Also seems to be ignore the massive profits on player trading which is the hallmark of a well run and sustainable club. Ignorance but agenda driven.