JHRover

I've never seen us win at Ipswich, it's certainly a 'bogey ground' and we're due a win there. Best it has been in recent times was that Marshall free kick last minute equaliser, other than that it has been by and large dross, quite often on very cold Tuesday nights in the winter with about 300 away fans.

I'm pleased that we've shifted more season tickets so far than we did all last summer. That alone should see a significant increase on crowds from those that we had in the Coyle season. Noting that we're now at about 81% of Waggott's 'stretch' target I'd be surprised if we reached that now, unless something major happens in the next month. I'd expect 95%+ of those prepared to commit to a season ticket would have bought one by now before the deadline. There'll be a few who for a number of reasons leave it until later and pay the higher price but it won't be many. Still, I think any sort of increase is a step in the right direction and progress, so long as those people are enticed to remain and be built upon in future years with a period of progress and positive development.

Don't accept the smallfish part. I hope nobody approaches this season with that attitude given we're bigger than many clubs in the Championship. Last season we were top of the league expecting promotion, this season we aren't and probably won't be up there. If we start like a house on fire and are in promotion contention like Sheff Utd were last season then our followings will be as big or probably bigger than last season, even with scandalously high prices for some tickets.

I was thinking similar. I wonder if the club are aware of impending problems with the Riverside. Although it was denied the other year there were rumours doing the rounds that there were subsistence issues with the river behind, the stand is certainly showing its age. Wonder whether they know it will have to be shut/redeveloped in the not too distant future. I think a new stand along similar lines to PNEs pavilion could be done at a reasonable expense. Blackburn apparently has a shortage of hotel rooms so incorporate one into the Riverside and it could be a money maker.

https://www.stokecityfc.com/news/free-coach-travel-to-continue Good effort from Stoke, more should do the same.

We can always rely on at least one or two horrific long midweek games. This time round it is Reading and Swansea to start off with, potentially another couple depending on cup progress and tv games. For me Swansea will be probably 2 days off work. To get down there it will be a late morning or lunchtime departure, so working that morning is probably pushing it, then with motorway closures we're looking at potentially not getting home until 3am or beyond, so the following morning is a write off. These 2 midweek slots should be arranged so we play Northern Teams, or midlands at a push. I accept when the cup gets going it becomes more difficult but it isn't difficult to split the Championship into northern and southern for the midweek slots and ensure clubs only play teams from the same section. That would rule out 10 hour round trips to South Wales on a Tuesday afternoon with work the following day, but then again those making the decisions will be on travel expenses and complimentary tickets so they don't care.

I thought that was the idea behind supporter consultation. Keeping supporters involved in what happens and why. Most clubs already had Fans Forums to discuss pies and programmes. The Football League, under pressure from the government, went one step further and made it compulsory for clubs to hold bi-annual consultation meetings with supporter groups. If I want to listen to Tony Mowbray talk he does enough of that already in the paper and before and after games. Not what these meetings were introduced for. 'Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club'' 'All 92 professional clubs need to meet the Government Expert Working Group requirement for club leaders (owners/senior executives) to engage in structured dialogue with a representative group of supporters; 'There is no specific requirement for the club to provide information that is not already in the public domain, however the EFL would ask clubs to look favourably on reasonable requests that would aid informed discussion'

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.