Not sure if they need "praising" for it as it's them who's created that level of loss in the first place by allowing incompetents to run the gaffe and allowing money to be consistently wasted like water over the years. However I can't see the harm in acknowledging the level of contribution over the years. Whether it be £15m or £20m p.a. that's a hell of a lot of money to me. If you dont think that's a lot, that's up to you. If they'd been putting less in over the years also presumably we wouldn't have been able to run as big a wage bill and wouldnt have been as competitive. I think we're seeing that now when in addition to the Court proceedings the tax laws have allegedly changed to our detriment. So I see it more as their contribution as to be acknowledged rather than praised If they'd employed better people over the years and achieved a lot more success on the pitch for the same financial input then that would have been praiseworthy.

I'm still not really sure what you're on about, I'm fairly sure the Venky's haven't "set up" these Court proceedings it looks like they've been foisted upon them. As regards funding Rovers from one of their other entities outside India, I'm really not sure about the legality or otherwise of that. Isn't funneling money where it shouldn't be going the very reason why they attracted the attention of the authorities in the first place?

I don't remember that at all. Who was name checked and criticised or do you have a link to it?

Did we miss that Appeal Commission report? Who was found culpable and negligible?

I don't understand what that's supposed to mean. I can't see why Venky's would invent a series of events which paint them in a desperately poor light and which involve them having committed acts of illegality. They could just say "We're not prepared to put in the same level of funding anymore" Didn't Mike Graham reproduce Court pleadings which related to the finances?

Yeah - whatever - aren't you the guy who thinks the stories about the restrictions and having to go to Court to release funds are all fabricated?

I didn't say that larger attendances automatically equated to success on the pitch but if you can get 33% more fans in without losing any net revenue then no-one can seriously suggest that's a bad thing. Not for the first time you're trolling for the sake of it.

As opposed to us who are falling from 7th to 17th or even lower? Please explain why you think it's a bad thing to have more fans in the stadium.

Exactly.

Well.....even more than normal then!

Good find. It's not a massive increase in revenue but crucially it isn't a loss either and the feel good factor from having 33% more fans in the stadium is immeasurable.

I know everyone likes to blame the owners for everything (and recently with good reason) but this is one conspiracy theory that doesn't make sense. Why would Broughton take this deal right up to the dotting the i's and crossing the t's stage without seeking authorisation to go ahead in the first place?

Fair to say Belgian 3rd tier not as good as League 1 in England? I've no idea, I don't think anyone realised these Leagues even existed before now.

It's hard to believe that it would work with any lower level of funding.

I know the question wasnt directed at me but no, for once he wasnt lying - as DOF it's his responsibility. I think they'd agreed between themselves beforehand that no-one would face any recriminations therefore Broughton came out and gave that insincere Oscar winning apology during which he promised to eventually explain what happened and of course didnt. How come even though they may not have done it personally, everything that happens at Ewood is (rightly) vicariously the owners fault but when something goes wrong on the football side of things people don't apply the same standard to the Director of Football (Broughton) ?

People often keep bringing up the cost of the Academy as an argument for scrapping but at the time Waggott wanted to downsize the training facilities the net cost of the Academy was "only" about £1.3m I.e. £3.2m less a grant of £1.9m. May have increased a bit since then in line with everything else but I'd argue its still pretty good value and fairly small beer in the general scheme of things. Certainly doesn't account for £9m worth of "other" expenses.

That would be a slightly better way of doing it but I'm still not aware that Arsenal have an outright obligation to purchase Raya at the end of his loan.

Before Broughton fucked it up. Not really supporting your own argument there.

Every day.

Because Nixon had suggested it, and on the assumption we will get £5m when Raya moves permanently to Arsenal in the summer, Chaddy wanted to offer Brentford a substantial discount on the sell on clause by saying they could give us £3m if they paid us early in this window. Aside from the fact we'd lose £2m, unless I've missed something, whilst it looks like Arsenal will make Raya permanent they're not obliged to do so, so if that happened Brentford would be paying us then Arsenal could back out of the permanent deal and they'd be out of pocket. As if we could just afford to waive £2m at the moment as well.

I quite like Dolan but he hasnt kicked on as well as I expected. Do we want to?

You seem to be having a hard time following anything that's going on at the moment. Whilst the budget cuts are being enforced on the owners, the fault lies with them for spending money on things they shouldn't have done in the first place and I've said that more than once.

One of the alleged offers was from Nice wasn't it? Around £4m. The other two offers were supposedly sub £8m from Leeds and Everton. "Right Ben we've had two offers from Leeds and Everton. You can go now for £20 k p.w." Or you can join Villareal in the summer on a free for the same money and a £2m signing on fee. "I'll stay put thanks"

Different stages of their development, are you actually quibbling about one goal? Gallagher has only scored double figures once in his career.

Whether we did or didn't meet him you can't give anyone credit for players that don't actually end up here!!