JHRover

I expect Villa will make some cuts and probably a sale or two. I'm doubtful they'll be given a FFP punishment, doubt they'll go into administration and doubt they'll end up doing a Sunderland. If they have gambled on promotion and failed yet the worst they get is losing a couple of decent players and reducing the wage bill then that's not bad given the amounts they've spent. With Bruce as manager and even half of their current squad they'll probably be in play-off contention again next season. Of course I might be wrong and their world might come crashing down around their ears. Lets wait and see. Only today Alan Hutton has signed a new deal having been linked with various other clubs. Derby and Sheffield Wednesday are similar. The summer started with rumours of problems at Derby after another missed promotion - supposed FFP trouble and having to make cutbacks - Rowett moving to Stoke appeared to be the start - yet they've appointed Lampard who won't be cheap, are now favourites to sign Jack Marriott from Peterborough who won't be cheap so I see no sign of imminent difficulties there. Sheffield Wednesday spent massive amounts to the extent that they had £10 million Rhodes making up the numbers on their bench last season, failed to go up again after 3 seasons of heavy spending yet no unfolding disaster there yet either. The impression I'm getting is either these FFP rules are very easy to work around, and all these big spending clubs are getting away with it, or that they aren't being enforced properly. Either way nobody has been sanctioned in recent seasons and in the 'EFL' I see a weak organisation unable or unwilling to enforce its own rules.

Pretty sure QPR haven't paid a penny as yet. They were given a fine because they broke the rules and won promotion, only they refused to pay up and have since been in a multi-year long legal battle. When they do have to pay up we can be sure it will be considerably less than the £40 million it could have been.

I'm advocating that we stop incessantly banging on about FFP rules as a club when another club (not in receipt of parachute money) is on the verge of spending £13 million on one player. 'If we get promoted it doesn't matter' is another myth - there's no evidence of any club being sanctioned even if they miss out - Villa are rumoured to be in trouble but lets see if anything actually happens. Bolton were sanctioned because they failed to produce their accounts because they were going bust - not because they overspent or were found guilty of overspending Cardiff and Fulham had embargoes that lasted a matter of weeks/only impacted on one transfer window and both have since won promotion so it clearly didn't do them much harm. The only others were ourselves, Leeds and Forest, one of which is spending 8 figure sums on players so they clearly haven't learnt much of a lesson from it. The extra revenue that the likes of Forest may have over us does not account for them spending £13 million on one player whilst we deal in loans and frees. Chuck in their January business and other signings this summer and I reckon they'll be pushing £20 million before wages are factored in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44481033 Here we go. A 'holding company' that owns Birmingham has entered into a sponsorship deal with the club to rename their stadium and training ground. A 'significant' deal which will enable 'improving the playing squad'. Trillion Trophy Asia will 'benefit from increased exposure, and commercial/marketing opportunities' (pretty sure they don't sell anything and their website sheds no light on what they do). Basically just a back door to pumping money into the club which will get them round FFP rules (Birmingham rumoured to be on thin ice last season after the Redknapp spending - yet haven't been sanctioned yet). Once again nothing stopping Venkys from renaming Brockhall as the 'VH training ground' for multi-millions to inject into transfers. At least Venkys are a brand that sells things.

Because FFP is nonsense and they know it, and also because their owner wants to get promoted. Just like Wolves, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and all the others, none of whom have been sanctioned despite tens of millions spent. No doubt some will say 'but poor Rovers only get small crowds and they get bigger crowds than us' as though an extra 5,000 a week turning up in the Championship equates to that sort of money. The only ones incessantly bleating about FFP are those who want to hide behind it and not spend.

Interesting conundrum for Rovers to live with. They'll be desperate for these clubs to fill the Darwen End at £25 a head and shift 7000+ tickets yet their track record suggests they'll do what they are told by the cops. If the cops want a 1pm kick off they'll get it, but that could well slash the numbers turning up by a considerable amount. I very much doubt they'll be able to rely upon full houses from PNE and Villa again. Last time it was a big PNE day out for the family having not been to Ewood for years whereas this time the novelty will have wore off and Villa are another lot who if they are struggling and aren't going for promotion won't fill it. https://www.rovers.co.uk/siteassets/pdfs/fans-forum-minutes/14th-march-2016.pdf The police stipulate an early kick off when the whole Darwen End is allocated to the away club. Technically the whole Darwen End is allocated for every away club now home fans are no longer in there. If the club gets it's wish and Villa, PNE, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Stoke, WBA, Sheffield clubs all get the whole stand then they will be lunchtime kick offs. Won't be many Saturday 3pms...

Rovers might play at home whilst Burnley are at home. The police have set a precedent with their decision last season with both clubs playing at home on the same night, so why couldn't/wouldn't we both be at home next season? Likewise brace yourselves for plenty of lunchtime kick offs on Ewood. In our last Championship season the club said that when allocating the entire Darwen End to away fans that games had to kick off early on police grounds. Waggott has said that the Darwen End has closed to home fans to accommodate bigger away followings and allow them the whole Darwen End so I can only presume that means all those games will be early kick offs?

The role of linesman is being diluted even further. Now being instructed to not raise their flag for close call offsides and instead pass the buck to 'VAR' to make the decision. So short of giving the obvious and easy decisions is there actually that much need for a linesman any more? Technology can supposedly do his job on the tough decisions. Might as well get rid of them altogether.

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.