JHRover

Actually, he hasn't, at least not in the interviews I have read. If the way it works is that all subjects previously discussed are taboo because there's no point repeating them then I don't get the point in having the meeting. These meetings are not designed for the football manager to talk about his plans and aren't designed to talk about the matchday programme. Its about keeping supporters in the loop as to the club's plans, decisions, structure, finances etc. Those present should be board members, an owner or if not then someone empowered to speak on behalf of the owner. Not the manager. If they can't be forced to do that then again what is the point in the League introducing the meetings as compulsory for clubs? I accept that the media department (mainly the twitter and instagram accounts) has improved significantly in the last 12 months, credit to them for that, but again I think there are more important things need discussing than this.

Is it this season that all midweek games can be watched online and via Sky? If so expect very small travelling numbers to those places. We often seem to have Reading away midweek, must be the 4th time in 5 visits.

Expect Sunderland to clog up the live TV game schedule. Might even reduce the amount of Leeds games to accommodate it. If this anticipated Villa financial crisis unfolds expect their Sky coverage to drop accordingly.

An idea of who makes the serious decisions around the club would be helpful. I'm not really interested in his job description, but given a complete lack of information from the owners and that Waggott is the most senior staff member (on paper) then an idea as to who has final say around the place. What precisely the role and influence is of the owners representative given they were so public about advertising his job on the website and have since gone to great lengths to conceal his existence. For example, do the people in India still have to authorise expenditure on minor and trivial items, or can Waggott now do that as CEO? If the answer is that those things still have to go to India for approval, taking days or weeks to achieve, then I wonder what has actually changed. My suspicion is that Waggott has no say on what Mowbray can and can't do, as Mowbray has a direct line to India. If that is the case then I still have grave concerns about the structure as I believe it is flawed to have a CEO who is in effect equal or even below the team manager. Whilst the going is good and results are positive then we can all sleep easily but we've seen previously what can happen when results deteriorate and we don't have power on the ground to act. It may well all be the way our owners want to do business but I'm not comfortable with it, and I think an explanation as to how things work and what the structure is at the top of the club is the sort of serious issue they should be discussing in these meetings, not the new turnstiles they are installing.

So Charlton suddenly decided to quadruple their asking price from £500k to £2 million?

Leeds away on Boxing Day. No way will that be a 3pm game.

Ipswich away first game. £35 a ticket no doubt. First 5 are on paper very kind to us. Ipswich and Hull away and Millwall, Reading and Brentford at home. Need to get off to a good start this time round.

I would like the club to be transparent, within reason, about major issues. Admission/acceptance of what has gone wrong, recognition of why, how things are being approached these days to try and avoid a repeat of the past, what the owners want, when they want it, what Waggott's precise role/powers are, how much power/influence/presence the owners' rep has, what the debt and financial situation is, what investment they expect to make moving forward, what major staffing appointments they intend to consider making. There's a time and a place to discuss the new kit, new turnstiles, community work, season ticket arrangements. That's what the Fans Forum is there for. Consultation Meetings were set up because the Football League were coming under increased pressure from all angles to be seen to be doing something about dodgy owners wrecking clubs whilst ignoring their supporters. These meetings were set up to try and alleviate fans concerns and guarantee a bare minimum level of communication from owners down on major issues. And I don't think that Mowbray should be at these meetings either. He is an employee, not a director. His presence at these meetings enables attention to be directed away from the owners/executive and towards the football. Again there's a time and place for Mowbray to do his thing and impress us with his passion and sense, these meetings aren't that place. I'm fairly sure when the rules were introduced (not that i would ever expect the League to enforce their own rules) there was an expectation or requirement that at least one of the owners or a representative of the owner(s) would attend each meeting. The reason there are only 2 a year and there is flexibility on when they are was so that they could be done at a convenient time for these people.

I can't help but think these meetings are ending up on a trajectory that they weren't designed for. Many of the things here are the sort of things I would expect to see on a Fans Forum agenda. Programmes, sponsors, kits, tickets, seating arrangements, kiosks, BAME/Integration, charity policy - without wanting to sound flippant about these things they are relatively minor issues. The whole point in the Supporter Consultation Meetings being set up by the League was to meet with supporter representatives to 'discuss significant issues relating to the club'. I don't consider the turnstile system or the #OneRovers festival to fall into that category.

What time does it kick off?

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.