A good idea and good to see the club trying something. If nothing else it will make the sparsely populated Blackburn End look a lot better. I heard about it a few weeks ago but thought they were introducing it as a permanent thing. Not sure why it's capped at 2,500 when there's 3,000 seats up there. Also only just over 50% of those with tickets are schoolchildren, so a fair amount of adults in there. My only concern would be the risk of upsetting a few people - in particular those who formerly sat up there for many years who paid good money who were forced out and now those seats are being given away for free. Likewise those in the family stand at the moment who have paid for their seats might not be too impressed. Ultimately though it is the only way we're going to be able to attract good numbers of new fans. i hope it is done regularly and spread around the whole of Lancashire. About time we tapped into our wider region.

Given the uproar on here at Dack being photographed in a bar somewhere the other day, I recommend nobody on here buys OK Magazine as him and his bird have a 'piece' on them. (And no, if anyone was wondering I don't buy OK Magazine, I've seen a photo of it)

We're unusual with our badge and I quite like that. Nobody else has the shape ours has, whereas many have the generic shield or circle. Bristol City another one to this week ditch their coat of arms and adopt a minimalist circle, very similar to Brentford's. We're also unusual because we were late to the party with wearing a badge on our strip and then since we started we've only had 2 different variants in 40 odd years. I prefer that to the constant alterations that some clubs seem to have. As a club we've always been recognisable by our unique kit and that has come before the badge on it. Having said that I do think ours looks dated now and would benefit from a slight modernisation or tidy up to bring it into the 21st century. I think we should keep the general format of what we have at the moment but simplify it, get rid of some of the lines and colours and bring in a darker blue. I think the original version(s) of the one we have now were better - smaller writing, more blue, less lines and detail. I'm not a fan of the yellow/black lines and red on our crest which is quite needless. Dark blue, white writing, bright red rose, dark green stem.

I do the same. It might be sad but the bigger concern for me is that I genuinely think I put more time and effort into worrying about these sort of things than anyone involved at Rovers does. You're probably correct, it won't change, but if I find enough time I'm going to put together some data for Waggott's attention the moment he complains about how many season tickets we sell and how we can't compete.

Jalil Saadi has been on the fringes of the U23s recently. Come off the bench for short spells a few times.

Also need to bear in mind the number of occasions he has switched between positions during games. Other than demonstrating his 'versatility' and Mowbray's 'tactical' adaptability I don't think it has done him or us any favours to constantly be shunted around between 3-4 different positions. Is it too much to ask for everyone to play in their favoured position and moving forward to sign people with a view to them playing somewhere they are used to playing well?

Has he played at RB the MAJORITY of the season? He seems to have played every game, no injuries. I genuinely don't know the stats but my impression was he'd been in midfield the majority of games, and at RB in the minority. Either way, 1 goal and 5 assists in nearly 40 games isn't impressive. As I've said before, I reckon you could drag a 6 foot bloke off the street and put him in the team 46 times a season and by law of averages he'd notch more than a goal just by being in the right place or getting lucky.

Season ticket check. Bristol City have announced they've sold 13,000 for next season. Only another 6 weeks to wait for ours to go on sale. Then come August the men upstairs can moan about below target sales and dwindling revenues!

Absolutely right. Those who try to compare us to Sheff Utd I don't think have spent much time looking at Sheff Utd. The only similarity with us is that they have recently got out of League One. Their recruitment, energy, system, style of play, organisation - absolutely miles ahead of us. They've signed players to actually play in particular positions within a system. We just seem to sign players to play in numerous positions and not really excel in one.

This season would be Sheffield United without a doubt. Leeds, WBA, Boro not impressive and Norwich the biggest set of cheats going.

The only real difference between ourselves and other owners at other clubs is the way Venkys have decided to 'fund' the club. Comparing for example to Cardiff, or Hull, or Fulham, who have been dependent on rich owners but those owners have done things differently. If Venkys had written their debts off, which most owners would have done, then I think people would feel a whole lot better about our situation, even though our losses are still significant. The reason for most of the horror stories in the press is this £100 and odd million 'debt' figure that never goes down, only up, and Venkys appear to have no intention of writing off or reducing. They aren't getting that money back until we survive in the Premier League for many years and they siphon off some of that income each year. That money has gone and has been paid to cover their errors and negligence over 8 years. Once you incur the cost you have to shoulder that cost. No different really to buying a new car or house on borrowed money. Clearly for one reason or another the way they want or are being advised to do it is by heaping millions a year onto the debt mountain with no repayments ever being made. I think it was Fulham who owed Al Fayed hundreds of millions for his investment over the years, so he may well have operated along similar lines. Clearly he was never going to get all that back either so walked away from most of it.

We've had it all before and really the only time we've recruited very well was the 2013-14 season when we brought in Cairney, Marshall, Gestede, Evans and Conway in a couple of transfer windows. Bauer will likely happen which will be seen to box off the CB issue. He'll replace Downing but probably on bigger wages which they will agree to in the absence of a transfer fee. Reed will be away so along with Palmer there'll be some leeway on wages to bring in a free/Premier League loan or two. The question is will they make £7-8 million available for 2-3 quality signings actually in areas we need. I won't hold my breath.

Every manager and board member they've appointed have shielded the owners by saying money was available and that the owners will back the club. Unfortunately for a catalogue of reasons we haven't seen much evidence of that and when we do see money appear it is usually either wasted or invested in unexpected ways at unexpected times. We go on about a plan and doing things sensibly and methodically and yet as an example the purchase of Brereton was arguably the most bizarre and to date biggest waste of money in the entire division last summer. Lessons learned? They're either still running the club as a cowboy operation or the structure they've put in place to handle their investment isn't working if that is the best they can do. What went on in League One was basically us going down with a Championship squad on Championship money and Venkys agreeing to fund that on League One income to try and get straight back up. More often than not that works in League One where most clubs haven't got any money. We've only to look at Bolton, Wigan, Barnsley, Sunderland as clubs that have gone down, kept most of their squad intact and bounced back or look like bouncing back immediately. Given Mowbray's transfer dealings to date I'm not sure there's any need for a scounting network. Virtually everyone he's signed he's either worked with before or experienced them first hand in games against his teams.

But Venkys idea of backing might not be on a level required to make a significant difference. Remember that they thought 5 million net a year was enough to bankroll a Premier League club. Mowbray and other club staff are never going to say that there was no money available as that would turn the spotlight on the owners, whereas the party line is that they are great and support the club financially each year. I don't know but I find it astonishing if there was a decent pot available that the manager couldn't or wouldn't use that to improve the team.

I keep hearing this suggestion that if we end up in a decent position to make a push for promotion then Venkys will back the club/manager heavily to try and get us over the line. I don't see much evidence of that. In our time outside the Premier League i think we have reached January in with a 'chance' of promotion to the Premier League maybe twice - in Bowyer's first season and this season. Arguably this season we were closer than we have ever been - at the end of January we were on cloud 9 with 4 straight wins, 3 clean sheets, victories over form sides WBA and Hull. Well placed with a decent run of games coming up. What happens in response to that wonderful position? Not a penny spent, and by most measures we end the month weaker on paper than when we started it. Now either that is Mowbray's fault, or Venkys. If it is the case Venkys were ready to invest to push us on and Mowbray refused to spend then i would hope they are as concerned as I am that we have a manager who refuses the opportunity to strengthen. The alternative of course is that they won't 'back us to the hilt' and probably had no idea about our impressive January results or position just outside the play-offs. My suspicion is they haven't a clue. Madame sets a budget in May for the year and sends Mowbray on his way to do his best with it. The only change is when Mowbray goes to her with his begging bowl for more cash or someone else (Balaji) suddenly dumps a pile of cash on Mowbray's desk expecting him to unearth a diamond for a massive profit down the line.

I'm trying to think of the recent occasions we have gone out into the market and signed ready made, proven Championship players who are able to go straight into the team. I suppose we had Danny Graham, although we rescued him from the scrapheap and had him on loan for 6 months to get him up to speed and settled in before we committed to a deal. Going back before then we had Evans, Cairney and Marshall but with apart from Evans none of them had really been playing regularly at their clubs and had become surplus to requirements, but after coming here and getting games went on to prove their worth. Duffy was another in this group. Not really many to be honest. Williams was struggling for games at Bristol City. Plenty of punts on inexperience or players from lower down the leagues. We're likely to need to change that approach if we're going to be sure of getting the quality needed this summer. Of course it can be done without experience but the likelihood diminishes.

The losses we posted were in effect £7 million greater than they would have been purely because we were in League One and didn't receive Championship level tv income. So knock that off and the losses would have been more like £10-11 million, albeit our wage bill would probably have been higher which might bump it back up a bit, but our commercial and ticketing revenues would also have been higher in the Championship. If nothing else we'd have been able to hand over the DE to Villa, Leeds, PNE etc. whereas last season our biggest away following was only a couple of thousand. All in all had we been in the Championship last season our losses would have been considerably less than those we had. When we look at losses of £11-12 million those are within FFP regulations and actually better than many other clubs. Well run PNE reached in excess of £7 million. I suppose what I'm getting at is Dack doesn't have to be sold to facilitate investment in the team. There are plenty of clubs who have spent more than us, not sold players and have not been sanctioned. I agree however that the club will be looking at selling him and no doubt pocketing the majority of the balance. Mowbray has already begun to pave the way for that and I suspect he'll be under pressure to deliver a big profit for the owners to keep them on side after no recent major sales and the Brereton fiasco. I believe that given the position we are in the only thing that we should be focusing on is radically improving our squad, and the last thing we should be doing is getting rid of Dack or Graham who have shown their value this season. The Telegraph are already working away doing their bit priming readers for a big sale.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47664643?ns_linkname=sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_mchannel=social# Doesn't look pretty at Swansea. Seeking redundancies from across the board except players and the manager. Also recently appointed Trevor Birch as chairman. Birch has a reputation for being a financial firefighter and he was involved at Bolton and Portsmouth during their troubles.

Mowbray was appointed as Head Coach because Paul Senior was in place at the time as Director of Football. In the aftermath of relegation Paul Senior walked out leaving a void and from then on Mowbray was referred to as Manager rather than Head Coach. It seems when he went to India in the summer of 2017 it was agreed he would assume responsibilities for recruitment as he had at his previous clubs and the Director of Football position would remain vacant. Some of the traditionalists prefer that arrangement with a nice man like Mowbray apparently in control of transfer strategy at the club. As I've raised many times in the past I think with our ownership structure a Director of Football and Head Coach system is more likely to reap rewards for us in the longer term. I think there is too much power in the manager's hands and if/when the time comes to make a change there is a big void to fill. This would be reduced if we had a D of F who liaised with the owners and had oversight of the operation and could change head coach when needed. Some outlets, mainly Radio Lancashire, still refer to Mowbray as Head Coach which I think is them being behind the times.

One constant of Venkys reign at this club has been that employees are quick to heap praise on them for their caring nature and their supposed eagerness to invest into the club and support it in whatever way possible. Time and time again we hear about how much money they have and how they want to invest into making the club better, yet also time after time that is followed by a big 'BUT'. In years gone by it was all about them being keen to invest BUT unfortunately FFP rules stopped them doing it. These days its about them being keen to invest BUT Mowbray wanting to slow things down, BUT there not being good value in the market etc. I don't question they are extremely wealthy people who are probably quite generous with that wealth. But it is also easy and cheap to talk about spending, not so much actually spending it. Anyone can sit back after the transfer window has closed and talk about how much you could have spent. Likewise it's easy to talk whilst we see next to nothing invested into the Ewood stadium and pitch each year. A lot of ifs, buts, maybes and excuses in my view. Those owners determined enough to do it just go ahead and do it. If you have a manager who wants to put the brakes on and slow you down then you decide and make a change if necessary. I don't remember Wolves owners last season moaning about FFP rules or talking about what they could have done.

How much of £10 million do people reckon Venkys would release back into the transfer kitty? I'll go for £1.5 million with the rest not to be seen again. Seen it all before and it doesn't end well for us.

On one side we've got the routine of dipping into other clubs academies hoping to pick up a bargain and sell on for a profit. Davenport and Hart were two examples of this. I'm not convinced by any stretch of the imagination that either of those signings were made by the manager. My reasoning for that is the lack of first team opportunities for either. It is quite obvious to anyone that Hart is nowhere near good enough for what we need and yet he was signed last season and handed a new contract in January, Who was responsible for that? I don't think it is beyond the scale of believability that Brereton was another one of those signings. It's clear that Mowbray hasn't trusted him in the team from the word go. I accept we are still far from being a normal club. This concerns me going into an important summer. A normal club would already know its budget for the next 12 months and would have a head of recruitment and manager working away now on targets to they could strengthen even on limited funds. I've no faith such a thing is happening here. It seems nothing happens until the summit meeting when Madame takes stock of the last 12 months and decides on her next step. By which time we're playing catch up. We still don't know who takes precedence in the hierarchy at the club. Looking at the deals done last summer it is clear that Armstrong was Mowbray's man, and Chapman in January. Both conveniently fit into the young British likely to grow in value model. In terms of Brereton and Davenport I'm not convinced. Reed and Rodwell low risk - short term deals that were probably Mowbray's but approved due to lack of commitment required by the club financially. I imagine Soton are heavily subsidising Reed's presence here as they see the value in him playing in the Championship every week and we're probably so far off numbers wise Mowbray knows there isn't a cat in hell's chance on that front.

If we are deducted points after the way we have operated financially over the last few years in comparison to others then it suggests something is very, very wrong with our operation. Clubs like Forest, Derby, Sheff Wed have spent millions upon millions on established players on considerable wages and haven't been deducted points. We have (by most accounts) spent years bringing down the wage bill, and with the exception of the bizarre Brereton deal not spent much (if anything) on new players. Ironic that our owners seem to expect lots of credit for keeping paying the bills and keeping the club ticking over and yet the vast majority of money they have lost has been a direct result of their incompetence and negligence. The latest example we have is the latest 8 figure annual losses, about a third of which were the result of a major drop in media income coming from relegation to League One, itself a clear and direct result of appointing a poor manager which anyone who knows anything knew was a bad idea, yet our esteemed owners and their friends, eager to cut corners and save a few quid, made the appointment despite the availability and interest of far better alternatives. So there went another £7 million or so from relegation - easily avoided had they conducted a proper managerial search and appointed the best man for the job rather than the cheapest or most favourably connected.

A lot of their troubles are being blamed on their ex-Chairman Edin Rahic who it seems was interfering in decisions and creating problems for them. He's now left but it is probably too late in the day. I bet Bowyer was fuming on Saturday after being trounced by his former club managed by his former assistant. Meanwhile strange goings on at Port Vale. Their owner went on local radio on Saturday and said he would fund them until May and then wouldn't put another penny in forcing them into administration. He also owns Vale Park under a different company and wants to sell the club without the ground so he can lease it back to them - recipe for disaster.

The League are as much up to their necks in it as anyone. Birmingham haven't just broken the rules, they've done it with flying colours. Almost £10 million over the maximum limit, not a toss given about the rules, a wage bill at 200% of turnover, blatantly ignoring the League's threats by signing a player despite being under an 'embargo'. And the grand punishment is a deduction of points that is likely to have no serious impact on their league status. Meanwhile when we were found guilty (when the rules were in their infancy, we were struggling to adjust post-Premier League and had made efforts by cutting costs) - they couldn't wait to sanction us quickly and decisively by putting in place a multi-window transfer ban. I'd argue we had a worse punishment than Birmingham have had.=.