JHRover

It depends on the scale of it. Why do it if only 'minor'. Usually these things are done due to the vast amounts of money at stake. Not that this matters. Fundamentally whether it is £1 million or £100 million if illegal activity e.g. fraud or money laundering has been taking place it is a crime. If that is found to be the case I don't see how anyone can accept the club being funded in such a way. It was legal proceedings that brought down the Oystons at Blackpool and I've always expected this is the only way of getting this lot out of Rovers. Fingers crossed.

Please delete

Whatever the outcome of all this, which we are powerless to control, surely we all agree that if something dodgy or illegal has been going on with the funding of the club then that needs to be the end of Venkys? I hope nobody is suggesting that we should desire their continued presence / input if illegal activities have been taking place?

So much for slippery Steve being 'honest' and up front about the issue like many were rushing to credit him for the other week. Quite happy to let people believe the nonsense that the Indian government had changed their tax laws overnight and unsurprisingly once again a bit of online digging and third party new outlets reveal the truth, not our CEO only this evening they claimed: "One of our key strategic aims and priorities is to have an open dialogue and clear communication with our supporters surrounding key subjects" Whilst MSN and co have revealed more about these owners than Waggott has in 5 years

With Broughton here I am relatively confident that he could find us another decent option from overseas, although anyone would struggle to surpass JDT's results and popularity to date. Broughton seems to have his head screwed on and knows what he is looking for and I think would have a plan if JDT walked. If Broughton was to leave or was bypassed on the managerial search then god help us, because with Waggott and Pasha in control it will be the most dismal, uninspiring, cheap, easy option you can possibly think of.

Just think though, if it wasn't for Venkys we'd end up in a terrible state like....um.....Bolton, Blackpool, Derby

EFL Regulation 128.1: "Clubs shall hold at least two meetings / fans forums per season to which its supporters (or representatives) are to be invited in order to discuss significant issues relating to the Club. The framework for these meetings shall be documented in the Club's customer charter , but are subject to the following minimum criteria: 128.1.1: Club's must be represented by the Club's majority owner, Board director(s) or other senior executive(s) 128.1.2: Where meetings are not open to all supporters wishing to attend, the supporter representatives must be elected, selected or invited in line with basic democratic principles 128.1.3: Individuals cannot be excluded by the Club without good reason Now when supporter consultation meetings were first made mandatory by the League they ran in addition to the Fans Forum meetings. The idea was that the Fans Forum meetings would continue on their 2-3 monthly cycles and cover the usual business and then these bigger meetings would take place once or twice a year to cover more important and signficant issues. Unsurprisingly, as with shareholder meetings, Waggott has seized advantage of Covid as an excuse to stop these and is now getting away with just having the small forum meetings every few months to talk about predominantly minor issues such as ticketing, catering and merchandise. I'd also suggest that with the exception of Waggott the other people present at Fans Forum meetings are not of sufficient seniority to comply with these requirements. In times gone by they have also tried to blag it by inviting the manager and Bob Coar, again neither of which meet the criteria above. I will be writing to Waggott to request an explanation as to why the Club has decided to cease holding shareholder meetings and standalone supporter consultation meetings.

I think that ever since the shadow man started to take a more active role in the running of the club there has been a precarious balance of power at the club. A balance of power that at present is in the shadow man's favour and has been for the last few years. Cast our minds back to Gary Bowyer's tenure. Up until the summer of 2015 things had been pretty hunky dory with him. He'd done pretty well, rebuilt the squad, had some reasonable backing in doing that, settled things down and had developed some serious assets. Whilst he failed to get us into the top six we weren't far away. Summer of 2015 things start to change. Bowyer doesn't get his annual India trip, doesn't get any money to spend, has to resort to dross like Delfouneso and Koita on free transfers and meanwhile they sell off Cairney and Gestede. It was quite clear then the direction things were going - no cash, free transfers, more outgoings than incomings. It was right around this time that the shadow man first became actively involved on the ground at Ewood. Once Bowyer's line to India was severed that summer the path was clear for his removal. The Lambert stunt was Shadow man in action. The biggest compliment I can give him is that he appears to understand the need to have some experience and track record behind the scenes on the football side. Once Bowyer was out of the way it was structured so that Lambert and then Coyle did not have direct access to India. They had to go through shadow man. Unsurprisingly neither of those managers received any serious financial backing, neither of them lasted long, both had to oversee large player sales and disappearing profits (Rhodes, Duffy, Hanley). Then Mowbray comes along and in his first summer after relegation he goes out to India, coming back with a new contract, new job title and some serious financial backing. I suspect after the calamity of that season and costly relegation the shadow man was held at least partly responsible cut out for a while. Mowbray being allowed to keep all his players after relegation to League One, being allowed to sign big hitters like Dack and Armstrong. Personally I think at this point the balance of power shifted away from the shadow man and back to the dugout. We had a return to the Kean and Bowyer days with the manager liked by those in India, with a direct line to India and with authority to spend directly from India. Shadow man was pushed to one side. This continued fairly steadily for a few years with Mowbray allowed to assemble a big, at times bloated, and expensive squad, allowed to spend millions on the likes of Armstrong, Gallagher, Brereton. Allowed to hand out big contracts to his mates as 'reward' for promotion. Occasional inconsistencies such as the odd signings of Sam Hart and Jacob Davenport suggested that there was someone else with an input into transfers. Then after a few years, be that due to covid, or due to those in India getting fed up at the lack of return, the balance of power shifts again. Mowbray can't have his India visits, his transfer funds dry up. Contracts are neglected. Armstrong is sold. Mowbray doesn't get the cash. He's reliant on loans. Mowbray becomes visibly fed up with things and is practically begging to be sacked. So now shadow man is back in control. Mowbray is out of the way and he needs a new structure in place. One that will keep things ticking over on the 'strategy' he wants / is instructed to oversee which is little to no cash, a small portion of funds generated reinvested, reduction to the wage bill and age of the squad. No ambition. This is where Broughton and JDT come in. They are supposed to do the job without a direct line to India, needing to go through the shadow man for everything just as slippery Steve does upstairs. I found it very interesting that Broughton announced at the start of the summer that he and JDT wanted or planned to go to India to meet the owners. I was very hopeful about this, and when it didn't happen my expectations for the summer fell through the floor. I have no doubt they wanted to go to India, realising that their chances of any sort of reasonable budget this summer depended on it, realising that this is the way to get backing at this club. For some reason that trip didn't happen. Maybe India wouldn't agree to it, or maybe someone intervened to prevent it, knowing that he would be sidelined if it happened. I do find it funny that the repugnant EFL make such a song and dance about communication and transparency, make rules that clubs have to have bi-annual supporter consultation meetings where owners or their reps are supposed to speak to fans groups, yet at Rovers no such meeting has occurred in over 4 years and the owners and their rep have never spoken.

It takes some doing to miss out on the top 6 on GD and the FA Cup semi by a hair's breadth and then a couple of months later treating a 3-0 defeat at newly promoted Plymouth as a 'learning curve'. Life in the Venky lane eh.

All these clubs seeing a surge in numbers and good old Rovers are (at best) standing still. And to make it even worse nobody from the owners down gives a damn.

A predictable defeat. One look at our bench today tells the story. Beyond ridiculous that we are turning up at tough away Championship games with a bench like that. Well short.

Sunderland v Cardiff is on the Sunday because England women are playing at the Stadium of Light on the Friday night. Something of a fixture crisis developing here. The logical solution is to tell Sky to pick a different game for their Friday night slot but doubt that will happen. Don't think Cardiff will be keen on playing Tuesday night if they've been up to Sunderland on the Sunday afternoon. I'd be furious if Rovers agree to play Wednesday v Cardiff then Friday v Leicester.

How have Harrogate identified which people are Rovers fans and which are genuine locals / Harrogate fans? Simply by matching email addresses? How do Harrogate know that those people have a recent purchase history with Rovers? Presumably Harrogate have requested, and Rovers have supplied, details of supporters and purchasing history. Perhaps those affected might want to ask Rovers what other information they have handed out to third parties without the consent of the individual(s) concerned.

They were on his case last season at Ewood too, then soon after they climbed up the table and like us spent all the second half of the season in and around the top 6. I think he's a negative manager. It works in this league and I doubt Millwall would have done better with a different approach, but when getting well beaten people will quickly turn.

1875 membership advertised as being £15 per person. But impossible to pay less than £18 due to hidden charges that aren't mentioned in any of the literature and are applied at checkout. 1875 membership initially offered 20% off matchday hospitality, then subsequently changed to 15% and it seems this was down to a 'mistake' (amateur hour, surely these things are checked before going to the public?) 1875 membership claims to offer 'priority access' to away tickets which I suspect is the only reason the vast majority of people buy one, yet it doesn't offer priority access because there are other people ahead in line for tickets who do not need to be a member. It now turns out that tickets are only available online, so I would suggest that indirectly discriminates against those who are older and aren't familiar with using websites to buy tickets. I'll be interested to see what the delivery options are on these tickets and whether buyers are forced to pay an extra fee on top for 'delivery' even if they want to collect from the shop. We knew that the whole thing was rushed and poorly thought out, overseen by a poundland CEO who makes things up on a whim to grab some extra cash in from the fans, we also know that the advertisements and literature weren't correct when released. It is bad enough, in my opinion, deploying these sort of stunts to milk extra cash out of the most regular and loyal supporters, but to do it in such a hodgepodge way, imposing hidden charges and generally just making it hard work and annoying people, is the last thing this club should be doing.

My bad, but nothing at all on twitter

Harrogate have had ticket details up on their website since Wednesday and on sale since Thursday. Game is 10 days away and radio silence from Rovers on tickets. So they can't do the usual and blame the other club. Maybe they are so flummoxed by the limited allocation and high demand they are just hoping people forget about the game?

Another random 1 minute added on at the end of the half, which surely is impossible if the referees are adding the time on for all stoppages as I thought they were.

15,617 That's the sales total of Bolton season tickets. No PL football. No city catchment area. No affluent part of the country. No billionaires subsidising them. And the CEO of Blackburn Rovers, a league higher, dares to suggest our figures are good.

No money in a loyalty scheme. Better forcing loyal fans to pay extra for membership to secure priority on away tickets.

I see that Watford v QPR last weekend was reversed with the agreement of the league and clubs as QPRs pitch wasn't ready, meaning QPR play 2 away games to start off with and Watford have 2 home games. Still don't know why the same couldn't happen with Luton v Dingles.

When they are doing things like avoiding two local teams both playing at home on the same day there is a reasonable excuse and basis for it - avoiding / minimising the risk of fans clashing or stretching police resources too thinly. It also doesn't affect who plays who just that one will be away when the other is at home. But when the actual games - and teams - are being fixed to suit a media company's agenda - which is what I think is happening here and has happened several times in recent years - that's taking it to a new level and leads to the question - if they are capable of setting the fixtures to suit what the media people want then what else are they capable of fixing or changing in the name of 'entertainment'?

Whether they should or shouldn't they always do. Possession of a season ticket is usually essential for inclusion in first phase of cup ticket sales and that's the case at most clubs. But I agree those who went to the Walsall game should have priority over those that didn't for a game such as this where there is clearly a very small allocation.

I've no idea how many people have signed up for 1875 membership but imagine quite a few have joined since last night. If reports of a 400-500 allocation are to be believed then I hope Rovers are going to impose additional purchase requirements and phases rather than just throwing it open for a free for all. What I'm hoping for is some degree of protection and priority to those who go regularly. Perhaps ST + 1875 members who bought a Walsall or Rotherham ticket etc. What I'm expecting is first come first served which with a small allocation is bound to cause issues. Or Waggott coming up with some scheme to extract more cash from people to secure priority.

Yes, and then the Dingles get a week off. Still don't understand why Luton weren't forced to reverse the fixture or if not find an alternative venue.