JHRover

But he still took over them in the course of the current season, inheriting an upwardly mobile side from Neil and had no input into their recruitment, squad or preparations for the season. Therefore had little-no input into the setup and has had to work with what he walked into. Similar factors that are used to absolve him of responsibility for our relegation - that we were already destined for the drop, had a weak squad and the rot had set in. So in reverse surely it could be argued that all the ingredients for Sunderland to succeed were already there and he's just been able to ride the crest of the wave? Admittedly there's a time difference between the two but I do find it interesting. I'm not trying to be blindly anti-Mowbray but it seems some people consider him the mastermind behind Sunderland's play-off push yet zero responsibility for our relegation, I don't think it can be both. Anyhow his true colours became clear earlier this season when he shamefully admitted, whilst manager of the club, to advising a valued staff member to transfer to a rival club. There's absolutely no come back from that in my book, whether you are Pep Guardiola or Tony Mowbray.

Can I just check, if Mowbray gets Sunderland into the play-offs/promoted with someone else's squad having taken over mid-season does he get the credit for that or is it nothing to do with him as was the case when he took us down with someone else's squad having taken over mid-season?

Mowbray's 'crowning glory' after 5 years in the job, 10 transfer windows, complete autonomy on recruitment, a bloated squad packed with experience was 69 points and narrowly missing out on the play-offs. Tomasson may yet still better that in his first season, with 2 transfer windows, one of which was completely botched, where there has been little to no experience brought in and he has been forced to rely on the academy and on a tight budget. He's also accomplished more in the two cup competitions this season than Mowbray managed in his 5. He's done a better job than Mowbray IMO, even if we get 69 points or less. If he can't get us higher than 69 points in this division in the next 4 years after he's been able to spend and recruit well then there's an argument he's worse.

This summer is going to be similar to previous. The owners aren't interested and aren't investing other than to cover existing costs meaning we are heavily restricted as to our transfer capabilities. Tomasson will know what he wants and what is needed, unfortunately he won't get it unless they drastically alter their approach. Even if we miss out we should be looking forward with optimism having had a good season, with I think a good manager gearing up for a proper crack at things having settled into the role and a quite young squad a year wiser. But anticipate it will be more of the same - scratching around for cheap loans like Mola and Hirst or Liverpool's latest option who they want game time for. Perhaps a couple of Hibs/Aberdeen or League One players. Lets remember that this is the way some people - fully paid up members of the FFP club and we can't do anything else - say it needs to be

I think we will miss out on the play-offs. But after the drubbing this lot gave us at Ewood at the very least I expect to see some pride restored here. The only thing worse than blowing the play-offs will be doing so against the likes of nob end and the dingles.

Anyone know why we have decided at this late stage of the season to have 'ROVERS' emblazoned across the top tier seating of the Darwen End? At first I thought we had put white seat lettering across the upper tier but it isn't permanent, just temporary, just in the DE (surely BBE would be better?). I've no objection to them doing things to make Ewood look better, especially making use of the redundant upper tiers, but would prefer something more permanent and tidier than this.

It has been quite clear from the lack of advertising and general secrecy around this fixture that the Club do not want many extra people turning up. It is bizarre to say the least, another one to remember when they come pleading poverty, FFP rules and wonder why attendances are low yet seem unwilling to look in the mirror and reflect on their own insane policies which cause such things. A club that wanted a full home end would not have charged £30 for a midweek Sky game. It would have at the very least provided for 3 weeks of sales as is the norm for games rather than limiting it to 2, would have had them on sale ahead of the Norwich bumper gate and promoted that fact. Instead they have refused, kept information to a minimum and hidden the game down the 'other fixtures' section on the website below U21 and ladies matches. I'd be willing to wager there will be little to no coverage of the game before, during or after the match tonight, except maybe an announcement after the full time whistle that it is our next game at Ewood. That's the way they want to play it then that's their decision, but I just hope some people remember it when whinging about low gates etc.

Ordinarily I would see the addition such as this as a positive, a step forward. For too long this club has not operated at a level befitting of its size and stature, particularly when it comes to backroom staff. Too many occasions of the manager and his mates running everything as they want, neglectful ownership allowing a vacuum to exist. Jobs for the boys and a mass exodus and head scratching the moment a manager leaves. So for that reason I like what Broughton has worked to do since his arrival - bolstering that backroom team with appointments that look to be sensible in the scheme of things, and in theory putting in place a structure that can last longer term Unfortunately as we saw in January it actually means very little. You can have the best of the best when it comes to coaches, academies, scouts, intentions, but fundamentally in the cut throat world of the Championship you have to be willing and able to get proper signings done at key moments. We failed. We can blame Venkys, Waggott, Pasha, Broughton, Gus Williams, Ian Silvestre or the whole lot of them. Doesn't matter. What matters is we failed to get what we needed to do done. Since then the only change made public has been for Gus Williams to walk off to another job and replace him with Kimberley. I'd be surprised and astonished if there was a suggestion that he was responsible for January's debacle. Other than that nothing but the usual silence and inertia so my only conclusion is that the powers that be are quite content with how things went and are sticking with the same people who oversaw it.

https://www.htafc.com/news/2023/april/a-proud-history-a-new-beginning-202324-season-cards/ £249 per adult at Huddersfield, a club that has ownership and league status uncertainty as well as all manner of financial issues yet can significantly undercut Waggott's pricing backed by the benevolence of our wonderful owners. How?

Yes, I'd still be surprised if Levy and Spurs came in for him as they tend to fancy themselves and go after managers who have been there and done it at the top level - Conte, Mourinho, Pochettino, AVB, Ramos - won trophies and managed at the top level. But beyond Spurs you've got PL clubs in Leicester, Leeds, Palace, possibly West Ham all of whom can offer more than he gets at present. It would be strange yet typical for all of that lot to look elsewhere and leave him where he is.

It is a long standing tradition that tickets for a game are released and on sale no less than 3 weeks before the match itself. I've no idea why it is 3 weeks, but 3 weeks it has been for as long as I can remember and with the exception of replays or hastily rearranged fixtures that is the standard. For some strange reason however the club have decided to cut that down to just 2 weeks. In what must be a first we managed to set prices and an allocation, and provide tickets to the away club who promptly sold out of those before we'd even announced prices or sales arrangements for home fans. I come from the school of thought that home fans come first and you make sure they have the priority and the away team come second. To make matters even worse we bizarrely announce prices on Thursday last week, the day before Easter weekend and our biggest home attendance of the season, but decide not to sell tickets until today. It is strange conduct for a club wanting as many people as possible in the home ends that is for sure. I suspect they will come with some cock and bull about us having Hull and Coventry games before then and not wanting to overwhelm the ticket office but I'm not having that.

It seems Rovers are quite happy for tickets to be limited and as a result a small gate on for this one. The fact we had 16,000 fans on Ewood on Good Friday yet zero mention of this fixture and a deliberate strategy to not sell any tickets for it until today, a mere 2 weeks before the game, tells me all I need to know A club keen on as many as possible on in the home ends would have been advertising the hell out of it during the Norwich game.

Definitely not a coincidence I've lost count of the times we've heard stories and claims of what we were intending or trying to do but for a range of increasingly bizarre reasons failed. January 2022 the excuse they were putting out, randomly, was that there was a budget of several million pounds to recruit but some unfathomable reason the manager turned down the opportunity when the PL was within reach. January 2023 the excuse they want us to fall for is a combination of some sort of Football League conspiracy crossed with a staff member (still employed) 'forgetting' to complete the correct paperwork. End result both times? Falling short, inadequate recruitment but most conveniently of all serious money not spent and importantly nothing at all to do with our owners or their underlings Win win if you are one of them, like Waggott who is measured on the balance sheet and not team performance.

Taking each of those in turn though Since January he substituted Morton for Buckley which coincided with our good run. Buckley's injury has forced him to bring Morton back in. Are there any realistic alternatives? Adam Wharton a possible, but other than that no Adam Wharton was injured for a significant period of time, but even when fit he remains a young lad in his breakthrough season. Playing him 3x a week every week is a lot to ask. Not sure he has sidelined Scott. Admittedly the Dingle away game was a bizarre decision but Scott was playing regularly until he got 2x injuries which kept him out and he's having to earn his place back in the side, which with Carter and Hyam is difficult. The dingle gaffer has had bucket loads of cash and has loaned a load of players. If that's the policy we want to adopt then fine - it's worked for them - but I keep getting told about FFP and using our academy players. It's one or the other - if we want to emulate St Vincent then fine but get the chequebook out and people need to stop obsessing about academy lads and FFP rules because the dingles haven't followed either of those paths.

Chickens coming home to roost on recruitment. January was unforgivable. I had hoped that JDT might work miracles and keep us going with the bare bones but that is asking a hell of a lot especially with Buckley and Dack out. I find myself sat around people shouting for changes, either to the starting line up or during the game. I ask myself who on earth these changes are that people think are going to do better than the players we have out there. Look at the bench today and ask yourselves whether that is a bench you want to be calling on when in need of 2 goals at home against a decent side. JDT isn't responsible for that. He should, at the very latest of January, have been backed with 2-3 new quality signings to add the depth and options we so obviously needed. The negligence of the owners or the charlatans they continue to employ meant that we didn't get that done. Now we pay the price. The options, when desperate for a couple of goals, are to pick from Dolan, Thomas and Adam Wharton. No disrespect to any of them lads who between them have done very well at times this season but it is laughable for a side sat in the top 6 aiming for the PL. In years gone by Mowbray would have had a sulk about it for a few weeks then repeat the whole process again in the summer. I very much doubt JDT will have the same tolerance for being made a fool of.

I just hope that in one of our remaining home games this season we nudge our way past 22,000 attendance at Ewood and in doing so can point to a bigger home gate than the dingles have had in years. Small wins but useful given their recent obsessions about attendances. Realistically on those numbers we are looking at least 6-7000 home fans who aren't ST holders. That is a huge number by our standards and to be honest as a percentage by anyone's standards. Potentially could be matching our ST numbers in matchday sales. Just hope that someone down there has the sense to try and capitalise on those numbers by reminding those people of ST sales and doing something, anything to try and persuade a few of them to get signed up for next season rather than let them drift away.

Ipswich lot have all come out of the woodwork the last 2-3 seasons now they are the big fish in League One and used to winning most weeks. When they were an average Championship side their numbers were far less impressive - usually 15,000 or so on at home and rarely brought more than 1,000-1,500 to Ewood or similar long journeys. You can say similar for others like Bolton and Sheff Wed, who are now getting better numbers on home and away than they were getting in the Championship not long ago. In my experience both at Carrow/Portman Road and at Ewood Norwich have turned out in bigger numbers...which is to be expected because for nearly all of the last 15 years Norwich have been top end Championship or Premier League whereas Ipswich have been mid-table Championship or League One.

I expect with it being high end price wise and particularly being on TV that it will knock a few off the numbers. Would expect 4000 or so, maybe a sell out at 4500.

I said after the January fiasco that JDT wouldn't be here long. Decent and ambitious managers expect support from Clubs and move on quickly if Clubs muck them around. We can sit and speculate until the cows come home about what went wrong in January and who was responsible. Doesn't really matter. It was a joke of a transfer window and I imagine serious bridges have been burned. I don't think the change of agent in February was a coincidence and it might not be Leicester but I think it will be someone soon.

I'm already on the case with that one. As of today there are 11/24 Championship clubs with STs on sale for next year. Cheapest adult prices are: Rovers - cheapest £379 Wigan - cheapest £349 Burnley - cheapest £335 Middlesbrough - cheapest £480 Sunderland - cheapest £390 Sheff Utd - cheapest £380 Stoke - cheapest £344 Norwich - cheapest £534 Millwall - cheapest £370 Bristol C - cheapest £375 Swansea - cheapest £345 So as it stands only Middlesbrough and Norwich noticeably more expensive starting prices than Rovers. Sunderland slightly more, the rest similar or cheaper. I would expect Luton and Watford to come in higher than us going off previous years. I would expect QPR, Cardiff, Preston, Huddersfield, Birmingham to be comfortably cheaper going off previous years.

It isn't early and it isn't cheap. Bolton on early bird sale on 3rd February at £219 for renewals and £239 for new applicants is early and cheap. It is a move in the right direction - earlier and cheaper - but still late and still expensive compared to a significant number of rivals.

I wouldn't say seriously wrong. A price cut is very uncharacteristic of Waggott and Rovers but it isn't a massive cut, and there are strings attached again. I'm not criticising them because I expected a price hike as we've had every year before this but it's hardly revolutionary stuff, just a small saving if you do it quickly, and I wouldn't describe the end of March as 'early' to release prices. Earlier yes, but in the scheme of things not early. Some clubs have them on sale in January and have sold 10,000+ before we announce prices.

It's a move in the right direction and if it ends up being charged that way then it suggests a penny has dropped upstairs that prices were just too high. Suspect that even £379 starting price for a renewal will still be top end Championship and suspect a non-renewer will still be £400+ so still steep compared to local clubs. But at the very least it should ensure an increase in sales on the last few years as you'd like to think almost all who had one this year will renew and maybe a few more on top.

Maybe it suggests, contrary to the narrative espoused in many quarters, that we actually are a big fish in this league and one which Sky can see commercial value in putting us on tv so often now they don't have their precious Leeds, Derby and Fulham to exploit.

If we were charging £250-300 per adult, a la Bolton or Preston, then I suspect quite a few would sign up even though they know they can't get to all the games, conscious of the night matches and the risk of Sky moving a load to inconvenient times. Even if you missed 5-6 games you'd still be getting the remaining 17 for around £15 a game which remains very good value. But when your prices start at £399-450 then people can ill afford to shell that amount out knowing full well they are going to be missing a few. Rovers get compensation from Sky for this to offset reduced sales as a result of changes. If they want people to turn up to watch they need to divert some of that into prices, and that's not just odd bundles or promotions, it is a comprehensive, well thought out, competitive season ticket deal.