My guess is we won't get stripes or halves. Judging by what Umbro have done at other clubs they seem to like solid kits of one colour with trim. As I said earlier I'd love that Hull kit but yellow and pale blue instead of amber and black, but think we're more likely to get a solid dark blue effort.

That's it, very nice though might be better with black body and red sleeves.

Sorry, I saw a photo with '1995 Champions' under the badge and thought it must have been worn the season after. The one the following season was nice too, red body with black sleeves.

Actually the kit I had in my head was the one we wore the season after we won the league, red collar and pinstripes and mainly black. Very nice.

One of my favourite ever away shirts, however having had Black and Red stripes last year I'd be surprised if they had Black and Red again this year. They run the risk of people keeping last season's rather than buying the new one. I seem to recall in the 90s we had a mainly black with red pinstripe away shirt. Can anyone confirm? Nearly all black with red/orange/yellow trim or pinstripes would be nice. So long as we avoid navy and white, can never understand why Rovers would have either of those as an away kit.

Indeed. Unfortunately for those orchestrating the fire-sale the Cairney one was the giveaway. With Duffy, Hanley, Marshall there was sufficient time before they were sold to develop the impression that those players were angling for transfers and that Rovers were trying to keep them. Drop in a few 'contract offers' into the Telegraph which never came to fruition and it wasn't difficult to convince people that those players were bad eggs who had their heads turned at that the club was acting entirely reasonably in selling them. The Cairney one was so quick, out of the blue and clearly done without any pushing from the player or manager that it gave the game away. Not even Rovers and the Telegraph could concoct a plausible cover story for that one - no rumours of the player wanting out and no time for contract 'discussions' to stall - pure and simply the cash was offered and Rovers were desperate to take it with scant regard for the implications - as time has shown another dreadful decision.

Actually my interpretation is that we wanted rid because we knew we could get a few million quid for him and we weren't willing/able to offer him a new contract to stay with us. If he did push for a move it was likely a consequence of the club's behaviour in selling numerous other quality players and making our ambitions quite clear by appointing Owen Coyle and spending no money. Whilst I wasn't a fan of Duffy's by any stretch he's just another one that a lot at Rovers were happy to see the back of but who has gone on to better things whilst we have gone backwards. The narrative is that Hanley, Duffy, Marshall, Gestede, Rhodes all got too big for their boots and wanted to leave Rovers. I think its the other way around - Rovers wanted shut of them to cash in and as a result of that those players realised they weren't wanted and looked elsewhere.

BBC are instructed by the government to be anti-Russian in their news coverage so hardly surprising they're also showing anti-Russian bias at the World Cup. Russophobia widespread in the UK media.

Every tournament we get the same thing, and I find it very boring. Hysteria over certain players and making all the focus about Premier League stars. Anyway, Russia winning so I'm happy with that.

This isn't exciting to watch, its been garbage and I can't imagine it could have been much worse without him and all the hype.

Gary Lineker introduces BBC coverage of this game by saying 'good news, Mo Salah starts for Egypt'. I don't see why it is 'good news' that the best player in a rival team is fit to start. At this stage it is more of an irrelevance to England what Egypt do but I wouldn't describe it as 'good news' any more than I would consider the absence of Messi, Griezmann or Ronaldo to be beneficial to our chances of being successful. The BBC seem utterly obsessed with pushing the Premier League product by giving massively disproportionate amounts of coverage to players who are regulars in England, presumably because they think the majority of those watching are only interested in Premier League players or only understand it if there is reference to 'famous names' Personally one of the things that makes the World Cup worth watching is daily exposure to different players and countries to the same old faces from the Premier League, I'm certainly not getting excited that Salah is fit to play for Egypt so we can all pay homage to him and his goalscoring last season for Liverpool.

But according to Nixon Rovers' representatives were in London last week discussing terms. Which suggests either a bid has been agreed, is close to being agreed or at least that Rovers know the valuation and are prepared to meet it.

I don't think that is the point. Whether you are in the Premier League or Championship ought to be irrelevant. Whether you are Man Utd (whose u23 side will be a division below ours next season) or Blackburn Rovers ought to be irrelevant. Every club with Category 1 academy status is on an even keel and has to meet the same minimum standards. Just because some clubs have more fans/money or have a stronger first team doesn't mean their academy is any better or more deserving than another. I can begin to accept or understand a policy of starting with those clubs currently in the Premier League, then working down. That still doesn't explain how Stoke/WBA/Middlesbrough have been invited before us. Why is there a better argument for WBA or Stoke to enter this competition than there is Rovers? Are their U23s better? No. Are their academies of a higher standing? No. So why are their kids more deserving of an opportunity in the Checkatrade trophy? I think you're confusing the rules. This season we aren't in the Checkatrade as we are in the Championship. The only way we could participate is by entering the U23s which is what we did 2 years ago. Last season we had to participate with our 'first' team which is why we got the hybrid reserves/first team selection and Mowbray had to sit in the dugout. At that stage I agreed that we should treat the competition with contempt and field a weakened side. This season is different and we could participate with our excellent crop of young players having a chance to compete against League One and Two clubs with no impact whatsoever upon the first team.

Exactly this. Back up British goalkeepers are an easy and cheap way of boosting UK presence in the squad. We know how expensive British players are, particularly those good enough for the Premier League, so its easier to sign them in areas where the damage will likely be limited. Brighton need a 2nd/3rd choice - Steele will be cheap, happy to make up the numbers and ticks off a UK space.

Hmmm. I think that is the way the league are approaching it - that because we were competing in League One last season with our 'first' team playing in the Checkatrade that for some reason this puts us at the back of the queue for this season's entry to the Checkatrade, and they've gone through those clubs in the Premier League before getting round to those in the Championship who were in the Premier League last season. They must think that those clubs enhance the competition more than say Rovers or Reading U23s would. However, I don't see what relevance it is whether the first XI is a top half Premier League club or bottom half Championship club. It makes no difference to how the U23s perform. Irrespective of how well a club did last season the development squads all adhere to the same criteria and so should be treated in isolation. If they were admitting Premier League academies to try and enhance the competition or help young players develop then they should be including the best academies on merit, not those who are at the bigger or those currently better performing at first team level. It makes a mockery of it because Rovers and Reading for example performed better than several clubs and yet their youngsters aren't getting the same chance as say Stoke's and West Brom's youngsters who finished bottom of Group 2 last season.

Surprised that the club allowed those comments to be published on the website. Doesn't fit with the pro-Venky narrative that they stump up on new pitches every year when from the horses mouth we can see that it is a basic re-seeding and 'make do and mend' job rather than a new pitch. Then followed up shortly afterwards with acknowledging the owners for spending on it, but lets be honest if they didn't sanction that spending on the Ewood pitch it would end up looking shocking.

The pitches have been re-seeded, I don't think they've been 'dug up' more just the top layer scraped off and then re-seeded. I understand it is the bare minimum pitch renovation required at the end of the season and it is now a very long time since the pitch on Ewood was completely dug up and done properly. I also heard that we've spent less on the Ewood pitch in the last few years than Stanley have on the Crown Ground. Don't know if that's true or not but when you see Championship rivals installing Desso pitches for 7 figure amounts and we're spending similar amounts to Stanley then its not hard to see why the pitch looks worn in the winter.

I've little to no knowledge in what goes on with Rovers Women but notice that Man Utd have had no difficulties in obtaining a licence for next season having only just bowed to public pressure and formed a women's team. I've no idea what the difference is between the Women's Championship which they are trying to prevent us entering and the Women's Super League which United have gone straight into but I suppose they need to make room for their favourite clubs somewhere along the line. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, but expect some elaborate and confusing 'criteria' to emerge as justification for it all, when really the only criteria here is ££££.

Its scandalous really. I suppose its possible that Rovers may have been invited in but declined the offer, but more likely Is that the 'EFL' have us at the back of the queue of Category 1 academy clubs, despite the fact that we have had Category 1 status longer than most and our development side have performed better than many clubs, having won promotion last season to the top division. I was under the impression that possession of Category 1 status put you on an even keel with others with that status, regardless of how your first team was performing. It seems to me that someone at the 'EFL' are selecting clubs on the basis of how their first teams perform (hence mainly Premier League clubs) and have then got round to those who were recently in the Premier League but have dropped out. Of course if it was a competition based on merit then the best performing academies from last season would be invited in, which would put us ahead of most. In theory it damages the competition because they're overlooking a well performing academy and allowing worse ones in. The most insulting part is their continued insistence that there is some sort of player development aim in mind here, when actually the lads at Rovers are being denied the chance to challenge for this competition because they are at Blackburn Rovers and not a club where the first team is currently higher up. Of course the competition is ludicrous and I'm relieved our first team isn't expected to be part of it, but the league really do disgust me with their decision making.

Surprised that Rovers haven't yet got tickets on sale for Liverpool/Everton. We've announced prices but the website merely says 'on sale soon'. Seems odd for what they want to be a bumper attendance.

Certainly seems that the playing squad/managers budget is completely separate to the staff/infrastructure budget. The odd thing is that Venkys don't seem averse to sanctioning multiple signings on decent wages and even a few million on new players now and again, usually when the manager goes out and persuades them to do it, and yet much smaller amounts of cash don't find their way into the other side of the club - such as improving the facilities, spending on a new pitch on Ewood, employing a high calibre commercial director, or even just giving the whole place a good facelift and clean. Seems to me that the club has to wash its own face in as far as it can on a day to day basis with bills, maintenance etc. hence the stories about how short of cash we are and how we need to boost income, and then on the other side we have the playing squad and wage bill which is obtained by the manager on request.

Whatever it is its better than the old model of signing people because their parent clubs will loan him for nothing or because he has the right agent.

https://www.efl.com/news/2018/june/invited-under-21-teams-confirmed-for-201819-checkatrade-trophy/?utm_source=Direct Invited teams for this season's FL Trophy. Notice that Middlesbrough, Fulham, Stoke, West Brom, Newcastle, Southampton and Wolves have all been invited ahead of our U23s despite finishing below them in the league last season, and being a division below us next season. I suppose the excuse for that will be that Fulham, Newcastle, Wolves and Southampton are in the Premier league (not sure why that is relevant to participating in this competition). Nor does that explain why Boro, Stoke and West Brom have got invites ahead of us. It shows a glimpse into the thinking of the league though, clearly preferring certain clubs in their competitions over others. All the gusto about helping young players develop yet Rovers' excellent crop of youngsters are being deprived of this opportunity behind West Brom's kids for reasons unknown.

I didn't say we wouldn't get to 10,000 season ticket holders. I said I didn't think we would get 10,000 each paying £349 for a season ticket. There are a lot of seniors, juniors and kids who won't be paying anywhere near that, then there's freebies for all the staff. If we did sell 10,000 at £349 compared to 8,000 at £300 it isn't a huge difference. Maybe an extra £1000000 which certainly helps with paying the bills etc. but wont enable the club to go out and shop in a different department on transfers. Just like Forest shifting an extra 8,000 season tickets at similar prices to ours earns them an extra £2 million or so. Helpful money but it doesn't mean they can suddenly go out and spend £13 million on one player.

But we won't get 10,000 at 349 pounds. We'll be lucky to get more than 10,000 including kids, oaps, and complimentaries. Factor in that kids and juniors are less than £100 and oaps £200 then that brings the cash receipts down significantly. The money received won't be anywhere near £3.5 million, more likely to be half of that. That money is useful and probably pays for the running of Ewood and the staff there, but won't be much left for players and their massive wages. Like most other clubs including those with 20,000 season ticket holders the vast majority of money spent on players and their wages will not come from ticket receipts.