Villa was an odd one for him. Went there and finished 6th in his first season despite only taking over in November when they were fighting relegation, top 10 finish in his 2nd season, struggling in his 3rd but I think by then the money was very tight and Ellis was looking to sell up. Not exactly the disaster that some have suggested. O'Neill never got them higher than 6th despite having a lot more money to spend yet he has had a better reputation. Amazed he's never got another job in England with his track record but maybe he doesn't need the aggro anymore.

Yep, one time Premier League heavyweights such as David O'Leary, Alex McLeish, Alan Curbishley - all of whom are real managers - have had a fraction of the coverage in the media that Kean has had since he left Rovers. Friends in high places indeed.

Oh yes, that old excuse. Perfect for Mike Cheston. Amazing how it doesn't seem to stop everyone else in the Championship, only Rovers. Wolves spent 15 million on one player in January and I'm supposed to believe FFP rules are forcing us to sell everyone and spend nothing?

They are getting mentioned because 12 months ago they were our 'star' players who we should have been holding on to or fighting our hardest to hold on to, and in the event they did leave were a source of substantial cash that could be reinvested into the squad. As the summer went by we witnessed an absolutely disgraceful transfer window which ended with Hanley and Duffy sold, the money trousered, Coyle bringing in Wes Brown and Gordon Greer and Marshall still at the club disillusioned and his mind elsewhere without a new contract. In my opinion, other than the role of Coyle himself, the sales of those players and the manner of their replacements last summer was the 2nd biggest factor in our eventual relegation. To be fair to Coyle any manager in the world would struggle to replace those players with no money and very little time after they were sold. It is being mentioned because Coyle spent the whole of last summer claiming that they didn't want to sell etc etc. But in the end they were sold and the club was relegated. Mowbray is now saying Mulgrew and co. aren't for sale, yet its only June, and as last summer showed, with Venkys at the helm there can be allsorts happen before September. Lets not crack open the champagne just because Mowbray says they don't want to sell anyone.

So Venkys suddenly decided to sanction substantial wage increases after 2 years of relentless cost cutting and selling of our better players? Why would they do that? Why if they were prepared to offer so much more to those two players were they not prepared to offer better terms to others such as Mahoney who is on far less money? Doesn't make sense, and I therefore don't believe it.

Its really irrelevant to our season next year whether we get those figures for them or not. If they go, the money will not be reinvested, and we will be losing a lot of quality and experience, and will have to replace it on a shoestring budget. Beyond that it is adding to an already massive turnover in personnel. I don't care how good the players are coming in, they will need time to settle and get used to playing together. At the moment we still have a core from last season to build around, but start breaking that core up and what do we build a squad around? If I remember correctly Coyle spent 6 months saying he didn't want to lose Hanley/Duffy/Marshall but that old chestnut of 'we can't do anything if they want to go'. In the end they all went at damaging times and none were replaced adequately or any of the money reinvested into the club. So I'll take Mowbray's words with a pinch of salt. Not wanting to sell is different to Venkys turning bids down and not selling.

Not really fair to compare Mulgrew to Marshall/Duffy at this stage. In the cases of Marshall and Duffy the club was actively trying to sell them to cash in on them. Lies about Marshall being offered a new contract or if he was it was deliberately too low so that he was never going to accept it. Propaganda to make people think it was all Marshall's fault for wanting away and the club had no option but to sell him, when really it was as much the club playing games and trying to encourage people to come and bid for him, not to mention showing zero ambition, that pushed him away. It remains to be seen what the case will be with Mulgrew. We certainly wont be able to command a fee on Duffy/Marshall levels. Will they start playing games through the Telegraph to try and get clubs to bid for the players or will they actually try and keep hold of them? I know which I expect to happen.

So how do you account for 3 consecutive 5th place finishes in the seasons directly prior to that? One season of struggle among a decade of challenging for promotion to the first division before Jack Walker and his money was flowing in. Some might say Walker was the final catapult we needed to get over a finish line we'd been close to for some time. Others prefer to subscribe to the 'club going nowhere' theory that league finishes in the 80s prove wasnt the case. Those people are usually those uncomfortable with what Jack Walker did.

No we weren't. We were challenging for the play offs in the 2nd tier most seasons. 1990, 1989, 1988, 1985, 1984 and 1981 saw top 6 finishes. 1987, 1983 and 1982 were top half finishes. Only two bottom half finishes between promotion in 1980 and Kenny Dalglish's appointment in 1991. The 'unnatural ascension' you refer to was happening before Jack Walker, despite poor infrastructure and a lack of finance. Media fuelled lies about a 'struggling' 2nd tier club not 100% accurate. Based on the league finishes over that decade we'd probably be something similar to Derby today. Regularly top half or pushing for the top 6 but not quite getting over the line to promotion. I'm sure you know where Burnley were finishing in that decade though.

We're drifting off topic here but would you say Burnley 'earned' or 'bought' promotion season before last? After all, their bank balance was swelled disproportionately thanks to Rupert Murdoch and Sky TV money which enabled them to spend way beyond their natural income levels and sign people like Andre Gray. So did Burnley 'buy' promotion through inflated transfer fees/wages helped by Sky?

Hopefully a home draw or if we are away I'd like Lincoln or Port Vale for the new ground.

Like everything else associated with this club what happens in years to come will come down to what our esteemed owners want to do. It won't be the division we are in or the amount of fans turning up or FFP rules that drag us down, it will be a decision from India that funding has to reduce/cease and efforts to achieve that. No different to any other club. If the owner wants to do it he/she can do. If the owners want to continue to fund the academy then that is their decision. I'm not going to lavish praise upon them for doing that, not when the infrastructure was nearly all already in place before their arrival and they have benefited to the tune of £20 million+ from selling Phil Jones and Grant Hanley alone directly as a result of the academy status. When you're churning out profits like that on player trading that cash would keep the academy going for another 10 years. Another couple of those lads emerge in that time and it pays for itself handsomely. Where there's a will there's a way. If they want to do it they can do. If the requirements from Category 1 academies become more difficult to meet, then they could invest in improving facilities to meet the requirements. FFP rules are irrelevant in terms of investing in infrastructure/academy development so they can't hide behind that excuse.

Wolves, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Villa all have Category 1 status and will be outside the Premier League next season. This season Newcastle, and Brighton also had it.

Yes perhaps they are. And if we were then we would be able to compete with them. That's the whole basis of my point. If we were run properly, like those clubs seem to be, then we would be able to keep hold of someone like Mahoney rather than watch him join clubs like Barnsley and Preston.

Its not arrogant. Its concern as to the current state of this club and the direction it is going. If Blackburn Rovers cannot afford to pay similar or the same wages as PNE/Barnsley to a local boy who is supposed to be our brightest prospect then something very serious is going wrong with this club. I'm not trying to do those clubs down, just that they shouldn't be able to offer significantly more money than Rovers, and if they can something has gone seriously wrong at Rovers.

The real slap in the face is that the compo we get for Mahoney will be about 10% of the pay-off Stokes gets for the remaining 2 years on his deal.

Do we know whether Mahoney has even been offered a new deal? Or is the temptation of £100-£150k compo too much to turn down for someone who was last season a squad player/regular in U23s in the first half of the season? If he has been offered a new deal, is that offer a serious, respectable offer, or is it a derisory wage reduction that tells the player that we don't really want to keep him? (see Ben Marshall and Jason Lowe for examples). When clubs like PNE and Barnsley are offering substantially higher wages than we are its time to cry.

We need to keep people like Mulgrew and Lenihan. When Newcastle dropped to the Championship they kept their better players and added to it, when Bolton dropped to League One they kept their better players as they knew they couldn't adequately replace them. If this club is serious about getting promoted next season then the first thing it needs to do is convince those sort of players to endure a year of 3rd division football to try and get the club back up and repair the damage of last season. Mowbray should be seeking assurances that not only will he be able to retain these players, but also that he will be able to sign the 5-6 needed to have a squad rather than first 11. Mowbray shouldn't be offered a new deal at this stage, or certainly not an extended one. If they want to pay him more or change his job title to manager then fine. But he hasn't earned a longer deal yet. He should be told to get on with getting promoted and he will get improved longer terms when he delivers that. Are they going to replace Paul Senior? If not then who runs transfers as Mowbray is only 'head coach'? Why was Senior appointed if 6 months later his position is redundant?

The rules say you're only allowed to start a game with 11 players on the pitch. I'm sure if they could managers would love to start with 12 or 13 as that would give them an advantage over rivals, but they aren't allowed. The rules say that whilst competing in the Championship you must field your strongest side, so when a manager makes 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday it is a blatant breach of that rule. The manager might want to rest players en masse and essentially write a game off as the play-offs are already secured, but unfortunately rules are rules and must be strictly enforced. If that manager, his players or Huddersfield fans don't like it then they should write to the 'EFL' and complain and ask for the rule to be removed, but until it is they should abide by it or suffer the consequences. I'm sure if Huddersfield had made 4-5 changes for the game then they could have argued that it wasn't a second string side. But their manager said: "We will now make the right decisions in the next two games to keep everybody fresh for the play-offs. Today we celebrate" Following that he made 10 changes to his starting 11 between Wednesday and Saturday. That is as blatant as it can get. The 'EFL' have already said that the only action under consideration is direct against Huddersfield i.e. a slap on the wrist fine and a nice timely boost to the coffers for the boys down at HQ. The rules are the rules. All clubs sign up for them in advance. We've suffered at the hands of rules which on the surface appear daft e.g. FFP, our complaints fell on deaf ears as we'd had ample time to prepare. Huddersfield have earned themselves a place in the play-offs and a chance to get to the Premier League. They haven't earned themselves the right to break the rules to give players a rest and affect the relegation scrap in doing so.

Two points there. What Huddersfield do in the FA Cup is a matter for the FA and not the 'EFL'. Most importantly what Huddersfield do in the FA Cup in a replay they were 99% certain to lose regardless isn't the same as what they do in a league game on the penultimate game of the season when the opposition are embroiled in a relegation dogfight and are placed to gain an advantage from that selection compared to their rivals. The reason the rule is there is to try and protect the integrity of the league and ensure there are no accusations of certain teams benefiting from teams fielding weakened sides. If Brentford decided to make 10 changes on Sunday compared to the team that drew at Fulham last week then I would expect them to be punished also, as would every Forest and Birmingham fan.

So you're ok with teams breaking the rules? The motivation behind it and the consequences of it are irrelevant. The rule is there, they broke it, they should be punished and so should any other team that makes 10 changes between matches and has a manager that admits to resting his biggest players.

Mike Cheston will play Mr Poe. Nothing wrong here children, everything's fine.

All that matters is that Huddersfield have clearly broken Rule 24.1 and that damages the integrity of the competition. There can be no denying that. Making 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday and their own manager admitting he was going to rest players breaks that rule. It is simply impossible that Huddersfield have fielded their strongest team against both Birmingham and Wolves. One or the other wasn't full strength and therefore action should be taken. As a result they should be punished. If they aren't punished then its yet another example in a long line of occasions when the authorities in this country turn a blind eye to their own rules being broken. They might as well erase that rule if so. It isn't really a question of whether it has harmed our survival changes or whether Huddersfield are partly to blame if we go down. It's a question of whether they have broken the rules and whether the League have the balls to do anything about it other than dish out a nominal fine and line their own pockets in the process.

Again, the issue for me here isn't Huddersfield's decision to make wholesale changes so much as the failure on the part of the EFL to enforce their own rules. I know that the reason we're in this position is mostly to do with our own clubs horrendous failings over the last few years. But the fact remains that there is a rule in place in black and white that clearly states that full strength sides should be fielded at all times. I can't see how Huddersfield can argue they didn't rest players, and thus broke the rule. Of course we know why they did it, but that doesn't mean the rule should be ignored. We'll get the typical outcome - a nominal fine to top up the bank balance down at London HQ and to tick the box of taking action.

The issue here isn't whether Huddersfield wanted to make 10 changes or whether we'd have done the same in their situation. Of course they've earned the right to do it by securing a top 6 position with 2 games to spare and if I were their manager I'd probably want to do something similar. The question is does making 10 changes to a starting 11 that won at Wolves on Wednesday constitute a breach of Rule 24.1. If it does then they need to be punished. If it doesn't then I'd love to know what does constitute a breach of that rule, because other than playing the Under 16s I'm not sure what more Huddersfield could have done to show they weren't fielding a 'full strength' team yesterday. Of course as ever it's deliberately worded in a vague manner by League so as to ensure that they can't be held or forced into action. So as ever nothing will get done. These are the people supposed to be policing the game and yet they'll look to wriggle out of doing anything.