JHRover

Brilliant trivia. Can't imagine there's 2 closer together. Roker Park and Stadium of Light are less than a mile apart and I presume both have hosted England games.

Who is that and what claims has he made that have been proven wrong?

I know you're trying to disagree with everything I say. Can we just leave it in simple terms. We are weaker than we were at the end of last season when we were in a weaker division. Agree?

We need more than 4. Just because 4 appears to be the number we are hoping to get doesn't mean it is enough. We've 1 week to get signings in before the season begins. Points are won and in our case usually lost in the first month of the season whilst we're still assembling our squad.

All 3 were regulars in the 1st team squad. Like them, loathe them or be indifferent about them that's 3 players out of our matchday squad who carried an attacking threat who haven't been replaced in any shape or form. If you had said to me after the Oxford game that our transfer business before Ipswich would consist solely of retaining Armstrong, Payne and Antonsson I'll admit I'd have been disappointed. If you were to offer me that right now I'd take it over what we have. That's how far expectations for this summer have fallen in the last month or so. As you say, lets hope we can salvage it and make something positive happen, but until that happens we can only go off what we have.

Yes, the inert Football League sat on the information whilst Leicester romped their way to promotion and then a few years later decided to sanction them by way of a miniscule fine. Pretty much getting away with it. Technically they didn't get away with it because they were found guilty and punished but the punishment was so utterly insignificant and pointless that it might as well not have been handed down. Still it probably kept the League coffers topped up for a year or two. If the consequence of breaking the rules and succeeding in reaching the promised land of £100 million a year tv money is a £3 million one off fine then its a waste of time.

So Bolton are about the same stage as us then? I.E. About 6 signings short of where they should be. Not bad for a club on the cusp of financial oblivion in comparison to a club owned by billionaires who never say no to writing cheques. It isn't all about who you sign. It's also about who you lose. We've lost 3 big players from last season in Armstrong, Antonsson and Payne, who between them featured regularly in the team/squad and notched 20 odd goals. To my knowledge the clubs you list haven't lost such numbers and important players. Hull have signed Reece Burke from West Ham, a winger from Genoa in Serie A and a CB from PSV Eindhoven, along with Eric Lihaj from Forest. I'd rather not compare ourselves to Rotherham. Diluting the importance of the players we have lost will not overcome the fact that we have lost them.

That's it in a nutshell. The ONLY use to Blackburn Rovers of them owning 99% of shares is that they invest money that the club could not pay on its own steam. If they've no interest in doing so then their time is up and someone else should be brought in to do it. Trying to run this club or any in the Championship off its own steam is futile

You came up with the 30 million figure not me. I bet they won't bring in 30 million this summer and they won't receive punishment for not doing so. Villa are starting from a much, much higher level than we are, with a much bigger and more expensive squad. They can afford to sell a few and still have a good side. We can't. It's hardly an achievement on our part that we go through a summer by selling less than they do. They're packed with Championship quality some Premier League quality. We've maybe half a dozen who would be sought after by other Championship clubs. If we had to be crafty by 'renaming' Ewood or a stand in order to facilitate significant investment in the squad yes I'd take it. Birmingham have 'renamed' their ground yet everyone still calls it St Andrews, same as when Newcastle changed their ground name. Its a way round the rules. Sponsorship money isn't the same as owner investment, so if Venkys or one of their numerous companies or associated companies in their vast global empire decided to rename the family stand as the VH Group family stand they could do so and use that to pump in funds that would be discounted from FFP calculations. That's why those other owners do it.

Brace yourself for 'there was money available but we decided not to use it as it was a ridiculous market and we have a responsibility to be sensible and not spend for the sake of it' Mowbray said in May that transfer planning had been ongoing since before the end of last season. If we end up with a couple of loans with Rothwell and Davenport it won't go down well.

The thing is I think we can all accept that it isn't really realistic to expect us to compete financially with the likes of Villa, Derby and Leeds given their crowds, nor currently the likes of Stoke and Middlesbrough with parachute cash and wealthy owners underwriting it. But it seems to me we're struggling to even compete with the smaller clubs. Not really any excuse for that. The old 'bigger crowds' story doesn't really apply to QPR, Brentford, Reading, Ipswich, Millwall, PNE, Bolton, Wigan, Rotherham and Hull. Any being left behind has nothing to do with club size or revenues and more to do with management.

So why are they 'in trouble' and supposedly being forced to sell some players then if they haven't broken the rules? IF it is correct that they have to find £30 million from somewhere to meet FFP criteria then they are clearly in breach of the rules at this moment in time as they haven't sold anyone as yet and haven't brought any money in as yet. Its commonly accepted in football circles that they should be in serious FFP trouble given the cash they have gone through in the last 2 years yet once again the rules aren't being enforced strictly or consistently. I'm not getting onto this again with you but I seem to recall our very own Steve Waggott mentioning that 10 or 11 clubs in the Championship were in breach of FFP rules and facing sanctions, yet none have done. I can't quote him on that but I'm sure he said something along those lines earlier this summer, perhaps at the consultation meeting or the Q & A. I'll look back and try to find it tonight. If true do you think Derby and Villa might be 2 of those 11 rule breakers? If not which ones are? Lots of examples if you look closely enough. Birmingham have recently renamed their stadium after their owners which is a blatant attempt to get round the rules. Forest were sponsored by Al Hasawi whilst he owned the club. Sheffield Wednesday are sponsored by Chansiri which isn't a company just their owners name and he sponsors a stand and their kit. Ipswich have been sponsored by their owner's company for years. Also add Wigan and QPR as clubs who have 'struck' lucrative sponsorship deals with companies owned or closely linked to their owners.

My comment? The transfer window shuts in 7 working days. To date they, and every other club, have not been sanctioned. No fines, no points deductions and no embargo. Heck, maybe they will eventually get an embargo in a weeks time when the window closes and it has no impact at all on their squad or performance. I did call it with Villa. It isn't bragging its pointing out that whilst one or two were warning of the pitfalls of overspending and yet there they are with a quality squad and quality manager ready to start the new season whilst we rush around for some last minute additions to fill out our threadbare squad. Have I understood wrong? Have they been punished? Very easy to say they might be or might have to do something in some non-specified point in the future. Means nothing in the here and now as teams prepare for the big kick off.

We ideally need 5. Of extreme importance and urgency are attacking options with pace/height. At LEAST one goalscoring forward who will work in tandem with or ultimately replace Danny Graham, preferably two as I don't think Samuel and Nuttall are good enough. Also a couple of wide players. Essential. Conway is a last 30 minute player at best and if starting games with him I will be appalled. I like Conway but we are shooting ourselves in the foot if starting him as we will have to use up a sub on him after 60 minutes. So that's 3 or 4 to rebuild the attack after the departures of Antonsson, Payne and Armstrong. Mowbray has also made no secret of his desire to add a CB and authorised Wharton's departure this week so there should be an arrival in that department. 3 arrivals leaves us short.

I'll come back to my original 'conspiracy' theory. That 6-7 was the desired/target number of incomings but that they were only going to happen if we got rid of people first. We've been trying to shift out Hart, Caddis and Gladwin who between them will be on a fair amount over the next 12 months, and their departures were required before more incomings, particularly permanents, were sanctioned. We have a ceiling on the number of players on the payroll and having stuck Rothwell and Davenport on permanent deals (replacing Ward and Feeney) we're now back at the limit again. Think they might stretch to a permanent signing and a couple of loans but my theory is that more would only happen if there was a departure or two first.

Yes, I reminded myself of that earlier, there was definitely a desire to add a goalkeeper as we were 'linked' to Frank Fielding in May by the Telegraph.

I'm sure when I glanced through the Telegraph article first thing this morning it said we were hoping for at least 4 more arrivals and has since been changed to at least 3 new arrivals. Worrying. Seems we're constantly retreating from Mowbray's early hopes and now we're setting the bar at 3 of which a couple will be loans.

I trusted Gary Bowyer and look how that one ended up. No money spent and a firesale of key players. Mowbray is an employee of the club and our owners have shown in the past they'll do as they please, not what their employees want.

National media enjoyed a few days of hysteria spreading after such a 'big' club failed to go up, but really seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing. Terry was always going to leave if they didn't get promoted. Grealish may well go but if he does it will be to a top club for huge money and would happen regardless of Villa's circumstances. Steve Bruce doesn't usually hang around at clubs where trouble is imminent, see Hull and Birmingham where he walked the moment things began to turn sour. One or two on here were filing it away as 'evidence' of what happens if a club gambles on promotion and fails yet it seems at this point the only real consequence for them has been the arrival of a couple of billionaires to try their hand at getting to the Premier League.

It wasn't a poor Sheffield Wednesday squad. They had a bad run with injuries and massively underachieved after 2 play-off campaigns before last year. We'll see on Preston. They probably won't hit the same heights but they're starting from a healthier position than we are.

Hugill left in January yet they maintained their play-off push without him. Almost dingle-esque. Fair enough on Cunningham though not sure how much of a miss he'll be.

Sheffield Wednesday had a massive bloated and expensive squad. Even letting a few go and not adding anyone they've still got a strong squad for this league. Preston very nearly made the play offs and haven't lost anyone major. When will Birmingham be put under an embargo? October when the window is shut? We are weaker than last season and we were in the 3rd division last season. Can't say that for many of our rivals.

Villa confirmed Bruce staying on. Sensible move. They'll be right up there again. No disaster, no firesale, no embargo.

Ah yes. Sky Sports essentially run the EFL through their multi-million rights package. B Sky B were once significant shareholders in Leeds United Sky Bet are headquartered in Leeds and have additional lucrative sponsorship arrangements with Leeds. Murky.

Absolutely. Some people just can't see what is going on in front of them and prefer to convince themselves that all these other Championship non-parachute monied clubs just build up a £10 million profit to stick under the mattress to spend on players when they want to. Quite clear to most people that Derby and co. are spending way beyond FFP limitations and the only thing keeping them out of sanctions is clever accounting tricks and most importantly an inert and inept governing body that hasn't got the appetite to enforce their own rules, probably out of fear that more will follow the QPR route of refusing to submit. Also the risk that the entire façade will come crashing down if an owner fights them all the way. Rovers were happy and dare I say grateful for the excuse of FFP rules to reduce spending and cut costs when really our owners would have done that either way as they've never been in this to invest significant amounts of cash.