Mashed Potatoes

Some have suggested the owners will only sanction significant transfer fees for youngish players with potentially significant sell-on value and that that does not extend to defenders ?

Think he's hoping to be Prime Minister instead

Yes that is what we do - as I said above I know it is a minority position. Regarding the money it is owed to the owners and the debt is now so huge there is no realistic way of it being repaid from within the club's operations so it is their problem. Aren't we all doing nothing really ? Posting on a message board is an amusing distraction once in a while but is not going to change anything.

Not sure that all those clubs you mention are doing as well as you suggest (Derby ?) but that is not quite the point. I think the difference between myself plus a few others on one hand and yourself and others on the other hand is that I try to focus on what I think "would" happen whereas you focus on what you think "should" happen(where you and I probably do not differ greatly). My belief is that "good managers" will always have a choice where they work and based on the get-out clause that Paul Lambert made sure he had before he joined us unfortunately with the present owners we will be a long way back in the queue. Additionally the owners track record with appointments suggests that there is a significant likelihood of someone worse than Tony Mowbray. I don't know how much Steve Waggott is paid - but whilst he might have the title of Chief Executive I doubt if he has the powers or authority usually invested in someone with that position.

Good question ! Actually I am not on a wind up but just gently trying to point out that it is simple to advocate sacking a manager - harder to come up with someone who would want to come to the club where there is a significant likelihood that they would do better - and harder still to imagine that the owners would identify them. For the record I don't think that there looks to be much of a chance that Tony Mowbray will get the club in to promotion contention - but then I don't think he will take us down either. I'd rather hang on with him and hope that he gets lucky and that one or two of the younger players break through to give us a shot. I appreciate that is a minority view - at least on this message board.

Brendan Rodgers got sacked

OK - We'll bear him in mind

Why not ? Who else do you have in mind ?

Tony Mowbray has already delivered Premier League football for West Brom

If I were you before saying things like that I would have a word with Bury supporters about the reality of what happens when you go bust.

It's possible to be "interested" in something but still hopelessly wrong in making decisions about it

I think you are right about Hughton - at least until the end of this season when he may have to lower his sights. Mackay and Pearson look a bit unlikely as they have some "form" on matters not directly related to football

Sadly all those examples of change of manager you correctly identify happened when we had owners of better judgement than the present incumbents. Therefore I don't think it is right to say that the possibility of someone worse should not be used as an excuse - although of course you are entitled to a different viewpoint.

Who do you think it is likely the owners would (as opposed to "should") replace him with ?

What did he have to say about being bottom of the table ?

Sir Alex was a centre forward

Thanks. The Australian does not appear to have followed through on his interest in English football anywhere else so I would guess that it may not have been that serious.

I thought the Qataris emerged after Venkys bought the club ? As for the Australian was that the character called Dan something where it was never clear whether there were actually funds in place ? I agree with you that the debt is now effectively irrelevant. It is now so large that there is no prospect of it being paid off by the club's operations so it only comes in to play on a sale

The trustees will have had to operate the trust in accordance with Walker's wishes as set out in the trust deed. As far as I know none of us have seen that but on the basis of what happened from 2001 onwards approx £3m a year came in to the club from other businesses in the trust - presumably that was in accordance with the terms of the trust but to put in cash there has to be available cash generated by those other businesses and with the credit crunch from 2007-8 I am not sure that the football club could really be considered as a priority - an airline for example could have required significant cash funding. I don't know how many people on this board own the book "The Club That Jack Built" by Charles Lambert published in 2001 but on page 230 there are the statements "A downturn in the trading climate of other Walker companies would have an adverse impact on the funding available for Rovers" and "Whether the trustees will be as indulgent if the club continues to trade at a loss is a question that only time will answer " - prophetic words in my view. Jack Walker was of course a brilliant businessman - but he wasn't infallible because none of us are. In the end he spent £100m on a football club which was in the second tier of English football when he bought it and was back there when he died.

Good to see that there is still a sense of humour at Ewood Park - whether this is serious or not

I was trying to avoid potentially libellous statements. I would agree with you that employing the agent you may or may not have in mind was a serious mistake but in relation to the judgement of the Walker Trust in selling the club to Venkys I am of the opinion that they could not have anticipated that Venkys would go down that route to the degree that they did when as most of us knew it was clearly not in Venkys own interests.

I remember Vinjay - inevitably - putting up the transcript of some case in Jersey about this but to be honest I am a bit hazy about the actual detail

Really

They had put in £3m a year. After the crash the point is that the demands from other businesses in the Walker "empire" meant that there was no realistic prospect of that resuming and they decided to sell - it took 18 months to 2 years to do so. As you probably know there was a court case in which the beneficiaries of the trust sued the trustees for putting too much money in to the club. The trustees had no choice but to bail out. I'm afraid Jack Walker messed up. He should have put the club in to a trust separate from the other family interests with £30m to £50m in cash to help it - the board should have been much the same but maybe with a couple of representatives from the supporters plus the journo from the LET to make sure that the club was run in the way he would have wanted.

No - is yours ?