Banner opportunity? I don't want things to descend into Kean out levels. As I actually think Mowbray is an ok fella, but stubborn and a bit deluded. Kean was a crook. But the owners refusal to make decisions pushes people into trying in whatever way to make their voices heard.

The main reason I've mentioned it and I think is on the radar of a few others is because reading between the lines in his interviews, it feels as though that it what he is hinting towards. I'm not comfortable with the idea. I like how @tomphil put it that he has Tony Blair god complex. He believes in what he is trying to do and his journey. The rest of us can see it's madness. Given the power of a director role I do believe that he would only install someone willing to continue his exact same philosophy. A puppet. At the same time though. If Venkys had a plan he'd be gone already. We are vulnerable. And I do not know what the best solution could be.

Mowbrays recent comments about the owners needing a plan and if he isn't on the journey, not letting them throw it all away are odd. Does he have an eye on an upstairs, director of football type role... If he did. My view is he wouldn't allow a manager to manage. I think he'd be sticking his oar in. He does love to talk football. He's a stubborn man as well. Too principled at times. I think he'd cause conflict. But.. at the same time. We feel a bit fucked. Venkys don't have a plan. As soon as Mowbray is gone the vultures will be circling to mug us off once again. Because the owners still don't have a clue what they are doing. The perfect situation of a proper set up is never going to happen. Having a person with football experience in place at director level in Mowbray, even though I'm sure it would come with conflicts and challenges could be the next best scenario. I'm not a fan of this as I'm typing it. But. Like I said. In my opinion we really are a bit fucked.

30th Jan Rovers - 39 points Cardiff - 31 points Today Rovers - 40 points Cardiff - 53 points

Speaking of which. Wasn't he supposed to be fit at the end of February. Not sure we'll see him again this season to be honest

Thing is I don't think we have any kind of evidence that Dack needs a target man strike partner. I think Arma actually isn't too bad at being a bit of a pest. He can judge the flight of the ball, pick his spot and back in a bit. Granted he will never win a header but Graham just used to let it hit him or he was making sure the defender could only get half a boot or head on it. Dack then picked up the scraps and bobbling ball as Graham would make sure it was falling within 5 yards of him. Arma is far from the best at it but he can actually do it. And just letting it hit you is actually far more effective than Gallagher hurtling through the air like he's been shot out of a cannon to bonce the ball all the way through to the opposition keeper. We've not actually really played Dack in the 10 as part of a 4-2-3-1 behind Arma. Dack is terrible in a 4-3-3. He was a quaterback/right back when coming on against Coventry. The two players who I'd say actually don't fit into a system is Dack and Rothwell. Rothwell needs the 433 to thrive, Dack needs the 4231. I like Rothwell. But given our contrasting fortunes with the two formations I know which one I'd be going with.

There are too many contradictions in the facts and what Waggot has said making this proposal not add up. Something is fishy and call it gut instinct. He's hiding something and I don't trust a word. 1) In the interview he talked about covid costs, new pitch, trying to compete. VS In his next sentence that 100% of the STC sale income would go on upgrading the new training centre site. It might even cost more. Ok then Steve which is it. Why are you talking about other costs if 100% revenue is going into the redevelopment 2) We know the reason that the second site was purchased. There was simply not enough space on the original site where the academy now is to house everyone under one roof VS A new integrated state of the art training centre. It wasn't feasible before to have state of the art facilities under on the one site. It's factual, nothing has changed in that regard. 3) We've know we have Category 1 status on both sites so the line about them being built 30 years ago which gives the insinuation they are dilapidated old sheds which need upgrading is false VS Again saying the new centre would be state of the art. It already is state of the art. They have the official status to say so. Proof there is a slimy sales pitch, purposefully devaluing what we already have to get people who know no better on board. 4) Waggot says that all the money will be invested in the new site VS When quizzed on plans for the new site, openly says there aren't any. Again proof this is a sales pitch. There are no plans, no costings nothing. There are £££ signs in his eyes and the lack of plans show that the sale has been what is considered, not what the club can gain from this in terms of infrastructure. The fact there are no plans show he is bullshitting. Why this wasn't questioned in the Q&A I have no idea. I could go on forever. But in summary there are no redevelopment plans yet he says 100% will be reinvested in the redevelopment, whilst also talking about other costs. Contradiction!! The academy isn't big enough for an integrated site, we are already state of the art, yet we are being told this would be an upgrade. Doesn't add up. He can't escape the fact they all have a very dark history from Coventry in this regard. It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense and he is lying. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be able to see the bloke isn't telling the whole truth. Somewhere there are some fat grubby fingers waiting to smash their way into some pies if this is given the go ahead and as far as I am concerned he can piss right off. The bloke has done absolutely naff all to justify his wage or improve us as a club apart from acting as a shield for Mowbray. Which whilst I'm at it. When have you ever seen a board member dissecting past games to back up excuses the manager is giving (obviously aimed at the owners). Absolute joke of a set up here. Always has been under Venkys. They never learn. Their negligence is about to cost us and them all over again!! Rant over.

Dodgy start. But then I thought we were very decent the rest of the first half. We had them pinned back and were threatening. Second half was abject. Bullied all over the pitch. They were winning every header against our back 4. Horrible looking football from them but it was working. And that's the problem. If we've got a so called style. Then we need to be able to nullify that threat by getting on the ball in the middle and moving the whole team up the pitch. Stop us getting pinned. Anyway second half was shocking. One other point which is worth making. Bradley Dack. You're my favourite player but where the hell are you playing. He was like a right back quarterback. Has he got a Trent poster in his bedroom. Surely Mowbray has to be looking at that and in a split second correcting it. As in a totally different way. It's as ridiculous as Gallagher playing right back.

My thoughts exactly. I've just never been able to see the facilities with my own eyes to confirm. To me it quite simply doesn't add up. And when that's the case you can guarantee there is someone with an agenda stinking the place out.

I don't know if this has been posted in here anywhere. To much to trawl through. I've seen the site maps of the current facilities, but can anyone who has been a regular to both sites shed any light on the current standard of the facilities in real terms. I was always under the impression that both sites already were state of the art and some of the best around. The category 1 status backs this up. Do either of them, on an individual basis really need a major upgrade?

Posted this on youtube as all comments seemed to be that it looked like a great move. Between the snippets of Waggot repeating state of the art, state of the art, state of the art, I heard money for new pitch, costings of having two separate sites, difficult year with covid. The costs are true. We can't necessarily look to Venkys to fund everything. But selling off of infrastructure is a slippery slope. I'd rather see Arma go and maintain the facilities. If we look at the facts, the core reason they were built on separate sites in the first place is because of a lack of space. That hasn't changed. This will be a downgrade. It is now clear from Waggots words the inception of this idea came from Mowbray and him. The best mates have wasted money on poor recruitment. Given the performance of the team on the pitch and now the stepping forward of selling off key infrastructure that Jack built. There is no option other than Mowbray and Waggot should be clearing their desks. I hope not all fans are taken in by the words state of the art and integrated. It was a great sales pitch. But this doesn't have the clubs long term and best interests at heart.

He's that bloke you assume has moved on, only to see him in the corridor a year later

I think the squad is good but unbalanced. Kaminski, Nyambe, Lenihan, Travis, Davenport, Rothwell, Elliott, Arma, Dacky are all capable of pushing a side into the top 6. But the lack of depth at centre back and the lack of width with Brereton and Gallagher really unbalances the side. Coupled with Mowbrays constant insistence of his full backs playing like wingers, constant rotation, obsession with dominating the ball at all times rather than playing the ebb and flow of a game. A permanent switch back to a 4-2-3-1. A little more conservative at times, signing a bit of natural width. More quality at centre back and I think we would be flying. One other thing I have noticed is that even though Arma is a midget. He's actually far better at backing into defenders than Gallagher is. And long balls up to him can sometimes bounce off of him. Not quite like Graham used too. But personally I don't see why we couldn't see Dack in the 10 behind Arma. One natural winger who is truly capable of running at defenders. A more conservative winger the other side. A bit like Mowbrays soldiers and artists, 2 and a half attackers from league 1. And suddenly I think we would be very competitive.

I'd like to know who the hell is behind this as well. Is this driven by those at the club or India. I can't see any upside to this right now. If it is those at the club who are peddling this then they should be clearing their desks today. If it's a directive from India. Things could begin to look very, very grim if the owners are looking to claw their money back.

I think he's integral to the side but his body can't maintain the levels needed. The only real time we've looked genuinely on song this season was when Holtby was in form. That dropped off and so did we.

Firstly Chaddy we were discussing the attractiveness of our club. Someone then made reasonable comparisons. So you say just go and say. Yeah well he's not HSH so it doesn't count. It's how kids argue. And j wrote OUR LIMITATIONS hindering our search. Not you 😂 Read what was written before replying. You literally haven't replied to one thing I've written in these couple of posts.

Such a boring answer Chaddy. Its not even what we're talking about. We were talking about the merits of rovers as a club and the merits/appeal of Carrick as a manager. But as per you deflect. Face it. Your backing of Mowbray until very recently is deluded. And now you're just on this stupid theme of our limitations hindering us in any search for a new manager. Its tiresome. Tony is done. For better or for worse he needs replacing. And we are an attractive proposition. That's all there is to it.

Has Mowbray ever 'walked' before?

Who do you think we are as club? JH Rover just put together a great list of why we're an attractive proposition. All you can come back with is waffle about how managers were recommended. Face it Chaddy. There are very clear similarities between the three managers mentioned and Carrick. Question is. Would we want Carrick. Not the other way around.

Possibly. Or Nyambe has questioned why Gallagher was playing right back last game. Why wouldn't you. If he's said something strongly or weakly, Mowbray has often made scapegoats out of younger players. And he can bring a 'loyal solider' like Bennett back in. Could be contractual. Could be a very strong sign he has lost the dressing room.

Reality is his contract just like many others should have been sorted a long time ago. We are in a weak position now. Not so weak we are vulnerable to being completely done over if we act quickly but I imagine if he were to resign a release would be insisted on. We seriously need to put a contract in front of him with a hefty raise and a release clause that is fair on the club but offers him freedom should he continue to perform

Pretty sure he just said he was available at a price. Not that he has a release clause whereby we have no choice but to accept

Has there at any single point, ever been a suggestion Arma does have a release clause?

Mowbray talking absolute marbles in his false 9 justification. Mate is a QPR fan and read Mowbrays comments. This is what he had to say and from the rest of our chats was totally baffled by Mowbray but thanks him for the 3 points.

Nixon is on the wind up here. £8 million. Us wanting £10 million. I can literally see the bloke taking a sip of his coffee and chuckling away to himself when he types these things. In terms of the interest. Doesn't take a genius to work out that Arma is on a short list with a few others for West Ham. We do need to sort that contract asap though. Or the max we will be able to get is about £15 mil. Long term, decent raise and include a release clause. Suits all parties.