There aren't many, if any, clubs in the Championship that are a 'step up' in size or stature. There are some like Leeds, Wednesday and Forest that get more fans than we do but have regularly been also-rans in the Championship. Mid-table/top half sides these days are PNE, Brentford, Sheff Utd, Millwall, Bristol City - frankly I'd be horrified but not surprised to see those clubs sniffing around. The only ones really are the likes of Stoke, Middlesbrough and Villa by virtue of parachute cash and somehow being able to spend tens of millions on players, but that's about it. I'm confident he won't get a Premier League club. You'd like to think we'd be in a position to resist those clubs as we are or at least should be expecting to be in a similar or better position than those sort of clubs but we've all got memories of the last few seasons and players moving on to rivals. Rovers should be moving heaven and earth to get him nailed down to a healthy, long term deal, but I'm not confident such things will be done.

Depends what the club's ambition is doesn't it? Serious about progressing and building something - then offer him a new deal on good money. He's been here for years and if he gets made an attractive offer at a club he sees is going places then he'll stay. Not serious about it then allow him to be poached by a rival club as we have with countless others of our best players in recent years whilst coming up with cock and bull sob stories about FFP etc. Comparisons to Hurst at Shrewsbury are different - Hurst has taken a major step up both in leagues, finances, club size in moving to Ipswich - a genuine step up in every respect - whereas we know deep down that when/if Darragh leaves here it won't be to a bigger or better club than Rovers, just one prepared to spend more money in pursuit of success. Think Sheffield United or Birmingham and that's the sort of club who will be interested.

New 1 year deal for Conway confirmed https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/june/craig-nets-new-contract/

I believe that Morocco would have been a more authentic World Cup. A single host rather than 3 countries is preferable. Having multiple hosts takes away some of the prestige and novelty of a single nation hosting the event, a formula that has worked since day one. Morocco a much smaller country is easier to travel around for fans than jetting over the North American continent, Morocco is well located on Europe's doorstep all in one time zone. Then there's the 'advantage' of them being in Africa which FIFA are keen on. For a relatively small country like Morocco the prestige of hosting the World Cup would be massive and really put them on the map. Is it going to benefit the US? They already have superb stadia and facilities, and have already had a recent World Cup, along with many other major sporting events.

Get them spending I say. Every penny they spend on inflated transfer fees and increased wages is a penny less they can save away for the future or for infrastructure improvements. Even better when those inflated fees are being paid for players relegated last season.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/13/nottingham-forest-smash-transfer-record-signing-joao-carvalho/ But FFP? Perhaps Waggott and Venkys could go and have a word with them at Forest and find out how to do it.

Wonder if they'll persuade Del Bosque to come out of retirement for the tournament. With his experience of the national team and most of the players it could be a sensible move to put him on a plane to Russia.

Seems a bit pointless including Mexico in the bid. They're very different to Canada/US, they've hosted the World Cup on their own before, are a strong footballing nation, culturally and economically very different to the others. Possibly it is just the usual attitude of everything has to be bigger and therefore better than elsewhere. I can see the attraction of the US and Canada joining forces as they are quite similar and football is still developing there, and they link up in various sports. Canada and Mexico are going to be very much junior partners in this with the US running it and hosting the vast majority of games including all the latter stages.

They're making a point by avoiding having it in the traditional European nations - assuming you don't count the vast expanses of Russia as a traditional European nation - by the time 2030 comes round it will be 24 years at least since Germany hosted the tournament. The rule of thumb was always that a European nation hosted it every other tournament. To make some sort of point FIFA have moved away from that with their increasingly strange/sinister selection of host nations. USA 1994 was the start of it - then Japan/Korea in 02 - at least those nations had the infrastructure to do it although the joint-bid was something they clearly said they weren't going to do again in future (until the dollars from the 2026 bid reached the table). South Africa was another political statement open to only African nations although again SA had most of the infrastructure in place and capability to do it and it seemed to work reasonably well. Then Russia and Qatar were as dodgy as can be. My money is on China for 2030, the money they are throwing around FIFA will be all over it and will be quite happy to legitimise a Communist regime with appalling human rights because they've got the money.

'United 2026' has won the right to host the 2026 World Cup, split between USA, Mexico and Canada. It will be the biggest World Cup in history with 48 teams, 3 host nations and 80 matches. Seems ludicrous to me, I thought they had abolished joint bids after Japan/Korea in 2002. Spreading it over a full continent seems extreme, particularly for travelling supporters but who cares about them. Clearly money talks as ever with FIFA. This is effectively a US dominated World Cup given the small number of venues in Canada and Mexico. Its only 20 odd years since the USA last hosted the World Cup. The alternative was Morocco, which might not stand out as a great destination for a World Cup but they've put loads of effort into their bid and in my opinion would be more appropriate than a combined 3 nation continental bid.

Considering the appalling standard of our programme it seems rich for Rovers to moan about declining sales and not making money on them. Perhaps if they put some effort into a product that people would want to buy rather than charging £3 for rubbish then sales would increase as would profitability.

Spain have sacked their manager, Lopetegui, 1 day before the World Cup begins after he took the Real Madrid job. He never lost a game as Spain manager in 2 years incharge.

Sensible in that he's as close to a cast iron guarantee of putting a club into promotion contention as you can get. His record at Birmingham, Hull and Villa includes 4 promotions and one play off final. I'm sure a lot of Leeds fans would ignore his history if he got them promoted. Leeds reckon they want promotion yet their conveyor belt of random head coaches over the last 4 years has been ridiculous, with very few of them carrying CVs that suggest they are able to deliver promotion and none being given long enough to do it in any event. Complete unknowns like Christiansen, Milanic and Hockaday, inexperience like Heckingbottom and Redfearn, now they're going for another bloke who at least has managed at a good level around the world yet doesn't speak English and has left his last 3 clubs in bizarre circumstances.

Think Bruce getting a bit of unfair stick. Yes he's had a huge budget and ultimately failed to get them up but they went very close and considering the mess they were in 18 months ago he's done well to steady the ship and get them winning games again. I expect if he sticks around even with budget cuts they'll be up there challenging again because he's a very good manager for the Championship. Like with McCarthy he might not have a fancy name or exotic background but he's pragmatic, knows the league inside out and wherever he goes gets results and makes his teams hard to beat. He has form for walking away from clubs, particularly early on in his career, but he probably knows that Villa are probably the best he's going to get. Not many Championship clubs will have better prospects than Villa of getting up and staying up. Even with cutbacks Villa will still have a big budget and fanbase. Heard rumours of him moving to Leeds but that would be out of the frying pan and into the fire. Besides, Bruce is far too much of a sensible option for Leeds, they prefer to go for bizarre left-field appointments and then sack them after 6 months.

But the fact that clubs have agreed to remove the compulsory nature suggests there are a lot of clubs keen to no longer be bound to produce one and are happy to do away with it. It wouldn't have been passed at the AGM if a lot of clubs weren't happy to remove the obligation, and that's likely because a lot of clubs want the freedom to decide for themselves. Whilst the majority are indicating they will continue at present, I suspect it is only a matter of time before that changes. The momentum is in one direction only. If you are a programme collector then the minute some clubs don't bother making one the whole point of collecting programmes is diminished. If Rovers do away with it and 2-3 other clubs do then from 46 matches a Rovers fan might only have 20 programmes to show for the season. Its an incomplete record.

I don't think anyone is panicking at this stage. I was merely pointing out that the manager himself made it clear recently that he hoped or expected to have most of his business done by the time they went away to Austria a week on Sunday/Monday. For that to come to fruition a lot needs to happen over this week and next. A couple of additions will not represent all/most business when realistically we need 5 or 6 just to make up for those who have departed. I accept that most clubs haven't got going with transfers yet and many players and managers are still off on holiday but Mowbray must have had reason for saying he wanted it done early. Seems a strange desire to go public with if it is unlikely to be achievable. And we're never going to sign 5 or 6 in one day. We might see 2 announced in one day but never more than that.

One thing that is already getting on my nerves is the frequent references to 'promotion pay increases' that will now kick in and seemingly the theory is that a large chunk of our budget is going to be eaten up before we start by contracted players getting more money. To begin with - all these rises will be budgeted for as an expected expense written into the various contracts, just as wage decreases were written in the other way. Secondly, how many of the squad will have such clauses? Probably Mulgrew, Lenihan, Bennett, Evans - people who signed decent deals when in the Championship - but are many others really suddenly going to be getting massive wage increases? In any event, the cost of these will be expected and ought to be on Championship revenue levels and will be well outstripped by the increases in revenue from promotion. Can't help but think these 'wage rises' are being pushed into public consciousness more and more as a means of trying to convince people that money is being spent when really it isn't and is an excuse for limited spending moving forward. Anyway, the story goes that Venkys never refuse to sign a cheque when asked so I'm sure we'll see it happening soon.

Well 2 weeks from now the players and management will be in their hotel in Austria after their first day of training. Given that Mowbray has publicly said that he wants/expects the majority of summer business to be done before they depart (just over 12 days from now) we're either going to have an extremely busy week or so or he's going to be disappointed. That's assuming we're after at least 5-6 new players to replace departures and strengthen the squad and also need to factor in new contracts for Dack, Lenihan.

That was the order of the day with Coyle's scattergun loan signing process. Fill up the numbers quickly, easily and on the cheap by taking whoever the Premier League clubs would let out for nothing to get game time. I've said many a time I'm not a fan of loans, particularly not as a means of building a squad. By all means add a couple of quality loans to add options and layers to the squad but only to go on top of your own contracted players, not as a means of recruiting on the cheap. Armstrong and Payne fell into that category - came in mid-season to complement those already here and to carry us over the line to promotion - made sense and they were tried and tested at this level - clearly quality players for the division given their exploits elsewhere - but when you're running around Premier League academies looking for favours I'm not keen. Not just because of Byrne and Samuelson etc. but because the vast majority don't seem to work out. You might get the odd one like Tammy Abraham at Bristol City, but not many.

Just generally a more professional appearance. No need for photos of players or landmarks from Blackburn or silly spray paint effects or scruffy writing all over it. Blue & White halved cover, Rovers v Whoever, Ewood Park, glossy finish. Save all the silly writing and photos for the inside. I believe that discussion has taken place and clubs are no longer compelled to produce a programme. Of course the biggest concern with the bigwigs wasn't further erosion of supporters matchday experience or traditions of the game but whether their precious sponsors would be negatively affected by removing a printed programme with their names all over it. As far as I can see nobody has announced they are stopping doing a programme as yet. Will be interesting to see which clubs decide to do away with it, I bet Rovers are keen to do so.

An example I'll use is the Under 23s. Last season the coverage of their games and results in the matchday programme was appalling. They didn't even bother to display the u23s fixtures. Now I can understand some people might not be interested in learning about past meetings with the opposition or players who have featured for both, but keeping supporters in the loop with what is happening in the u23s, especially when they are winning the league and need all the support possible, yet the club doesn't even bother to let people know about their fixtures in the programme, is shameful. If they really treat such things with such contempt then it would be more acceptable to 'do a Fleetwood' and just produce a small pamphlet with the teams and managers notes and charge a quid for it. At least that would be acceptance that the product is inferior and so should cost less. But this continuing to charge £3 in line with the other clubs whilst making nowhere near the effort that smaller and less well supported clubs make, is wrong. The proof will be in the pudding this summer. Rather than taking steps to improve the product and 'catch up' with our rivals we'll be going the other way and I suspect working towards abolishing the programme or if not then diluting it further. In terms of making the effort I suspect they could ask any one of numerous retired supporters if they'd be prepared to spend an afternoon every couple of weeks putting together some notes and information together, probably even on a voluntary basis, as plenty of people would enjoy the task of doing it, and would come up with something better than what we had last season, which looked like it had been cobbled together on someone's lunch break.

I don't mind as long as there is acceptance on both sides that he isn't going to be a starter. I didn't like it last season when he had a run of starting games when everyone knew he couldn't last 90 minutes and would need to be taken off after 60 minutes. That isn't his fault and I don't doubt his effort and professionalism, its just a sign of the times that he cannot complete 90 minutes any more. It seems silly to me starting him knowing that one of our subs is already used up taking Conway off after an hour. If he knows and the manager knows that he's a second half sub that can come on and use his experience then I'm happy with it.

I collect programmes insofar as every match I go to I buy one, and I've done that for the last 7-8 years. I find it a source of embarrassment that Rovers continue to charge £3 a time whilst producing probably the worst programme in the league. All the excuses about declining sales, content, difficulties in producing a programme, shifting to digital platforms all fall flat on their face when you consider the quality of programmes on offer at clubs like Rochdale and Bristol Rovers this season in League One. The only ones that were possibly worse than Rovers' were Blackpool and Fleetwood. Fleetwood produced essentially a leaflet and only charged £1 for it whilst Blackpool are hardly a model club to set our standards by. How can it be that those other far smaller clubs, with much smaller fanbases and staffing levels, can find the time, effort and need to produce far superior programmes at the same price? If it really is such a burden on the club to make one then how come every club doesn't take the option of churning out a flimsy cheap effort like Rovers do? Bristol Rovers as an example - their programme was more than twice the size of ours, packed full of information and things worth reading, including past meetings between the clubs and various bits of trivia. They only charged £3 for it and their gates are smaller than ours - so how can it be worthwhile for them and not for us? The word is 'effort'. Some clubs take pride in appearance, others can't be bothered with it and do the bare minimum to get by.

Another gamble on an inexperienced manager by a relegated club. Fair do's to them they're putting their faith in a young highly rated British manager but like with Moore at WBA he's got no experience of working in the pressurized environment of the Championship.

First round draw for the Cup will take place on Friday morning in.....Ho Chi Minh City.