Don't supporters help put the agenda together? So not really that surprising that attendances feature on it. 3 reasons attendances haven't gone up as much as they could/should/would have liked: 1) Not putting season tickets on sale until the last minute, missing out on potential sales during the success of last season 2) Putting prices up 3) Annoying people by closing home sections, then claiming it is done to make it more convenient for home fans when really it is all about making it easier to get more away fans in.

Their behaviour towards the end of Bowyers tenure is precisely the reason I refuse to be taken in by a 12 month improvement since last year. Things have unravelled very quickly from a position of relative stability and strength under their watch before and whilst we are almost all quite happy with how things are at the moment you must have selective memory to overlook what happened not long ago and blindly believe a corner has at long last been turned.

I've said for a long time that primary school children in BwD should be It seems Waggott, Cheston, Caley and co. take home the same salary if we've got 12,000 on or 20,000 on home games so they won't be awake at night worrying about it. Waggott and Cheston are tasked by Venkys with reducing losses and increasing revenues so as long as there's evidence of progress on that front in the books that they can produce at the annual summit meeting - losses down and income up - then they'll be happy. The quickest and easiest way to ensure that is to bump up prices for those who can be relied upon to attend whatever the weather and to roll out the red carpet to away fans as they will come with no effort required from Rovers. Caley is tasked to ensure matchday runs smoothly without any serious issues. 11000 turning up all on the database is easier to manage and much lower risk than 20000 turning up from all over the place, drinking to excess and not being on the all important database to be tracked down. The difference with Stanley is that it is Holt running the show and his back pocket money comes into and goes out of if less people turn up, so he might well lose sleep over it.

I can see where the aggrieved clubs are coming from. Given the atmospheres and entertainment value and even quality of football the product on offer in the Championship isn't far behind, in some cases is even ahead, of many fixtures and clubs in the Premier League, yet those clubs receive vastly greater incomes for ultimately putting on a poorer show. Recent televised games such as Cardiff v Burnley, Fulham v Huddersfield and Cardiff v Brighton were no better than anything you would see in the Championship, yet those clubs receive mega-cash just for being in the Premier League rather than the Championship. The problem I have with it is by bumping the Championship up closer to the Premier League, whilst improving the balance sheets for Championship clubs, is only going to see the gap between the haves and have nots grow, and the gap down to League One and League Two will become massive, which I don't think would be good. The Premier League won't want to know as they won't want to agree to anything that will see their pot diminish or anything that will take away any of the artificial 'mystique' of the Premier League by bringing another division closer to it in stature. It would dilute the prestige of the Premier League. I'm interested to see how this one works out, hope there's plenty of fireworks and the EFL and Sky are made to squeal.

BBC once again substituting 'biggest support' for 'best support' as though the two are the same. Just because Aston Villa and Leeds have the 'biggest support' doesn't mean they have the 'best support'. An Accy Stanley season ticket holder is every bit as good as a Leeds season ticket holder, just because there are more of them doesn't make them any better.

Ipswich are doing the same and are selling tickets for their game against WBA for £10 or £15 an adult (can't remember which).

Yes I read that yesterday, very good piece

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46282788 Part of me wants this to kick off big style to see how far it goes. The red button thing has set a dangerous precedent for me and if true that clubs are concerned about it but have been ignored whilst Harvey and his associates steam ahead and sign the deal it just confirms my long held suspicions about what has been going on.

Do Stanley put a surcharge on their tickets on matchday?

The thing with Stanley is they are starting from an almost non-existent base. So they can try allsorts and a couple of hundred extra here or there will make a massive difference to them. Even in the last couple of years they've had less than 1000 home fans on occasions so to be at double that on occasions this season is good going. How much of that is down to Holt's running of the club compared to Coleman's unbelievable performance as manager, promotion and upward trajectory over the last 3-4 years is unclear. The proof will be when they inevitably end up slipping down the ladder how many turn up to watch. At the moment I think a lot of their fans are traditional Dingles or Rovers fans who find it easier to go watching them or indeed do both. e.g. I was one of those who went on against Barnsley on Saturday. Got to say, after the game I went into the clubhouse with my mates and we ended up staying until 8:30pm, the place was packed, cheap(ish) ale, cask, no idiots, bouncers or cops, no charge to get in, some Barnsley fans were still knocking about afterwards, Holt and Coleman were mixing with supporters. Really good atmosphere that you simply would never find at a Championship ground where it is all geared up for hospitality, plastic glasses and £4.50 pints. Its not so much seeing them as a threat but interesting to see what such a small and limited club can do with a bit of imagination and proactive thinking. They know they're up against it big-style in trying to compete with Rovers and Burnley on the doorstep so are thinking outside the box and are trying different things. At Rovers it just seems to be groundhog day with what is offered.

I was once told by someone who worked in the Community Trust that there were rules in place about where you could market/promote your club to avoid Football League members clashing or trampling on each other's toes. Apparently he was told that Rovers weren't allowed or were under the impression that they weren't allowed to promote themselves in certain towns/schools etc. because it was too close to other clubs. I can kind of understand the logic behind it but in the case of Rovers and also Burnley a huge part of their catchment areas has always been in Hyndburn, which as you say is an artificial creation which just so happens to be based in Accrington. No reason whatsoever why places like Harwood, Rishton or Ossy are any more Accy than they are Blackburn except they report to the same town hall and have their bins collected by different people. Also fairly sure it isn't true though because I can remember buses between Blackburn and Preston carrying PNE season ticket adverts and I'm also sure Fleetwood and Fylde do a fair bit of encroaching into Blackpool to pick up the Oyston drifters.

Accrington Stanley today are repeating last season's trick of handing out free Stanley shirts to all Primary school kids in Hyndburn. Among them being primary schools in Rishton. Proactive. Rishton is a Rovers area (similar distance to BBurn as it is to Accrington) yet I'd like to know when the last time Rovers did anything with primary school children in Rishton. Without wanting to appear 'threatened' by Accrington Stanley they are clearly making sustained efforts to lure in young children from across Hyndburn who would traditionally have been Rovers or Burnley supporters. It might not work much but then again it might.

I would like to think that if they are so keen that they're happy to throw £7 million at Mowbray on a 19 year old who has subsequently spent most of the season restricted to 20 minute appearances off the bench then coming up with a decent chunk to bid for Reed would be a no-brainer. For me much less risk with Reed, and if a deal could be done there it would make complete logical sense to spend big on him given his age, performances and versatility. In theory they would look at Reed and realise that a major outlay on him would be worthwhile for multiple reasons, and that their prospects of a major profit on him are probably better than they are on Brereton at this moment in time. As I've suggested numerous times, I don't think it is as simple as looking at the Brereton deal then trying to apply that to other players. I still maintain that cash came from a special pot that wouldn't necessarily have been available otherwise. Logically if you're going to spend £7 million on Brereton then £5-7 million on Reed is a no-brainer, but somehow I don't see that happening.

I agree that our fanbase has expanded outside of Blackburn over the last 20 years. Partly because our success in the 90s and 00s enticed people from beyond the town boundaries and significantly because in recent years more and more people have left Blackburn and have migrated out to areas such as the Ribble Valley and South Ribble. In itself those things shouldn't in theory be a major problem, provided the club understands what has happened and puts measures in place to overcome it. This is where things like convenient parking come in, as a large number will travel in by car for the game rather than wander down from the town centre as they might have once done. The club also needs to market itself in those areas, along with Hyndburn. Adverts in the paper, on bus shelters, on the back of buses. I live in Ossy and other than the Lancashire Telegraph and online I see no Rovers promotional material anywhere in Ossy/Accy despite a huge number of our support base living in those areas. I firmly believe that the attitude is that Hyndburn is Stanley territory and the club are worried about or under the impression that they shouldn't be promoting themselves in these areas through fear of upsetting Stanley. School visits - the club seem to do plenty of these through the community trust but they are all in Blackburn or Darwen - why not Ossy, Accy, Leyland, Chorley etc.?

Where have you got those figures for Armstrong from? Why would we pay Oxford £100,000 for Rothwell when he was out of contract? As I say, up until the last minute Brereton deal (which was so last minute we didn't have time to get it done and instead got him on loan until Jan), our net spent wasn't great. I was content as the priority really was keeping the squad that served us well last year and I was impressed with the Reed and Armstrong additions. Do you agree something seems just a bit out of place? We supposedly had £7 million sat there through June, July and August yet signed 6 players, 2 on loan, a kid from City, and a couple of free agents, along with bringing Armstrong back in, and then suddenly at the 11th hour as deadline day approached we went around making huge, eyeraising bids for people that seemed to take everyone by complete surprise, including Forest and Brereton? Just doesn't stack up right with me, but hey ho, I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

He was out of contract at League One Oxford so whatever fee was involved would have been nominal. Like I say, not trying to rubbish the efforts made as the investment is appreciated, I'm just not sure I buy this theory that they're suddenly going to be going out spending the cash. If we look at what they did in the summer - the net spend was less than £2 million whilst keeping what we had. The sudden unexpected Brereton deal changed the outlook significantly.

The money we spent in the summer was peculiar in itself. Lets be honest, the cash was spent on Armstrong and Brereton. The rest of our business was in the scheme of things a pittance. Rodwell and Rothwell on a free, Reed on loan, Davenport not much. It was bizarre how the Brereton one came about. I've already admitted I was wrong as I never envisaged them spending multi-millions, I was pleased with the Brereton signing and I think one or two people are out of order for writing him off after a few substitute appearances (but not surprising given what has happened in the past). Reading between the lines of what Mowbray said it seems the cash materialised at quite short notice for a big one, and Mowbray felt he needed to get it spent or risk it not appearing again in future. It also seems a primary concern with the signing was to ensure the owners' investment was protected, and in this case he invested in one for the future to be a slow burner rather than making 2-3 smaller signings which would have covered multiple areas but perhaps not offered the same prospects of major profits in a few years time.

Anyone who believes that £7 million will be going out of Rovers bank account on 1st January to pay for Brereton or indeed an even more far fetched theory that we'll be signing Burke for that sort of money needs to go and have a lie down. Brereton fit very strict criteria and the admittedly large amount sanctioned on him in comparison to recent business was only approved because he ticked numerous boxes. Makes me chuckle that people still seem to be under the impression that Mowbray was posted a cheque for £7 million and had free reign to do with it whatever he wanted. No way.

Having just checked the rules I'm not sure that it still applies anymore, they seem to have deleted it from the rules. Previously home clubs could do local promotions and charge less for home fans than away fans. We were once stung at Huddersfield when they had £10 tickets for home fans and £20 odd for away fans. I can't find any reference to it in the rules, instead it says away fans have to have the same offer.

For standard games correct, although you can differentiate between tiers. So the BBE lower and BBE upper can be different prices as can the DE lower and upper. Nothing preventing us from making BBE Upper and DE Upper premium pricing and putting away fans up there and charging them accordingly. No different to what Leeds, Norwich, Middlesbrough, Bolton do on a regular basis to away fans. I refer you to Rule 34.2.8 of the Football League. https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-5--fixtures/

Birmingham and Reading have done it whilst we've been at their places, I think on both occasions they had the decency to extend it to away fans

Ooops, substitute for WBA then, everything else applies as before

Good idea, which I would support. My usual argument would be to blast Sheffield Wednesday fans with £30+ tickets and we could still do that whilst offering home adult tickets for £10 each. Use it as a local promotion game and we are perfectly within our rights to do that. Thereby Waggott can have his precious 3000-4000 away fans paying full whack whilst also showing serious efforts to get a bumper home gate on. If Wednesday were to bring 4000 in the lower DE and we were charging £10 an adult on New Year's Day I'm certain there'd be 20,000+ on Ewood and a fantastic atmosphere. Unfortunately the concept of local promotions appears to have been lost on those at Ewood as I think the only time it has been done in the last few years was against Oxford last season. So instead I expect we'll get Category A pricing on the basis Wednesday can be relied upon to bring 3000+ whatever the price and on the false basis that Rovers cannot charge less for home fans (even though they can and the rules specifically allow them to do so). So it will be £25 all round and £28 on the day preventing a late surge and as a result 16000 at best on Ewood. And I suspect the majority of staff employed on matchday will be quite happy with that number as it is easier to prepare for and manage than getting 22000 on. What a shame. This is the sort of fixture, on a Bank Holiday, that people would make a late decision to go to after they had got New Year's Eve out of the way and have time on their hands the day after. Also the sort that would probably attract a large number of non-regular fans rather than say Reading at home midweek.

The argument that Rovers want it this way to ensure they know what supplies to get in and what staff they need for the ticket office doesn't stack up. Even if they managed to convince 99% of people to buy in advance there will ALWAYS be some people who buy just before the game, and the club will always have to provide for those people by opening the ticket office and putting staff on (unless they go one step further and simply stop selling tickets on the day of the game, which wouldn't surprise me) As i've said before, the club shop is busier on matchdays than it is during the week and they have to have extra staff on at the tills. Do prices of merchandise go up by £3 to cover this cost? No, the costs of extra staff are absorbed by the increased receipts. If they need extra staff on for the ticket office on matchdays the costs of those staff should be covered by people buying tickets and coming and spending their money on other things whilst there. It's absolute nonsense to try and deter people from coming along at the last minute so you can save a few quid on ticket office staff. If the surcharge puts 20 adults off buying at £25 a person that's at least £500 in lost income, which itself will comfortably cover the staffing costs of an extra 2-3 people on the ticket office for the day. It's ultimately done because the club want everyone on the database and everything to be tied up in advance, but that is being done on the assumption that the 'incentive' to buy in advance or pay £3 more isn't becoming a 'deterrent'.

Has Waggott ever explained the reasons behind his decision to increase the surcharge this summer from (i think) £2 up to £3. I'd be interested to know why he felt that was necessary or what the logic was behind it, other than to squeeze an extra quid out of the few hundred who buy just before kick off. 'Oh, but some other clubs have a £3 surcharge' is about all we've had, which isn't a sufficient explanation.