Bit of a trend developing here isn't there: "Sorry an Eagle eyed fan unearthed the planning application before we had a chance to announce the plans, it went in sooner than we thought" "Sorry we have a new kit supplier but we haven't got around to announcing it. The deal started sooner than we expected." And why can't we announce Season ticket details now we have crawled to safety and now know what division we're in? Should have been finalised ages ago: "If we're in the Championship prices are X, if we're in League 1 they're Y".

Devil's advocate mode on: Arguably it's a disadvantage if 1) You're scared to upset anybody too much because you want a seat on the Board 2) You can't formulate a strong position on anything because you have to canvas the views of thousands of members first. and 3) You're stymied if the views of those members come back split.

Someone needs to start jumping all over Reg and his ilk every time they start spouting shite. A recent example was his contribution that it was a "minor miracle" we were in the 2nd tier of English football. That needed instantly rubbishing by pointing out we've only spent seven (?) years out of our 146 year history in the third tier. Haven't read that thread so whether someone actually did I don't know. I'd do it myself but for some reason I can't log into the LT site to comment, it never sends me the confirmatory e-mail to register.

I could believe: "We'll let you off this season due to it's one off nature but next season when the schedule is back to normal and there are no extenuating circumstances we expect a genuine challenge for the top 6". I don't believe: "Because you completely messed up last season we'll write off the coming one as well." I think Sharpe is making stuff up to fit the ludicrous narrative Mowbray has been peddling in recent weeks. The next few weeks will tell I suppose. If you're right it doesn't bear thinking about.

Not wanting to shoot the messenger but if true that would be absolutely insane. Who gives an employee at work lower standards and expectations because they've already made a colossal mess of things? That would be bizarre and erratic even by Venky's previous standards. Not sure if I believe any of that at all.

For himself and his mates.......not for the Club.

Ouch!, bit harsh, how often do I post what you could class "inside information?" Furthermore I am not "an ITK" nor have I ever claimed to be. Bit of an odd one this, I still haven't given up all hope that something will happen this month but as Paul Mani says the longer it goes on the less likely it is it will happen. It does seem though that at least three different people heard basically the same thing from three separate and seemingly entirely credible sources. What are the chances of that if there was nothing in it in the first place? It would be entirely typical of the confused decision making at the Club that the Rovers Trust highlighted if a certain course of action had been decided on and then the Coventrio had managed to talk their way out of it on the basis of results in a couple of dead rubbers. Irrespective of all of the above, even if there was never anything in it, (which I don't agree with) tomorrow is always another day and that doesn't preclude a change of heart if a particular point of view or set of facts suddenly resonates with the owners. So I won't be letting up with efforts to see off the Coventrio.

I don't think it was Mike, never mentioned by Waggott. Plus, maybe more tellingly, it was exactly the same modus operandi at Coventry. Reasonably detailed plans for a housing development and promises of a new training ground but absolutely no detail thereof. In fact at Coventry they didn't even have a site to build a new training ground on which was the reason why Sport England blocked it. I think I'm correct in saying they then tried to wangle it through for a second time by acquiring an OPTION to purchase some land as opposed to the land itself but were blocked for a second time by Sport England.

I respectfully disagree. Whilst he may not mention being away from his family every week, his overall demeanour is that of someone who finds managing the Club an absolute chore. When we started playing again after the first lockdown he made it pretty obvious he thought we shouldn't be playing at all and that therefore he wanted paying for doing nothing. At that time when the season started we were in an outside chance of the play offs but tailed off dramatically. Unsurprising given the manager's lack of enthusiasm. This season he has mentioned being away from his family on several occasions. I don't want him to do anything now as I want him gone but the solution would have been either for him to move them down here or resign. I can't imagine he needs the money and family comes first at the end of the day. There will be numerous managers out there who would consider managing this Club to be an absolute privilege and who wouldn't talk the Club down at every possible opportunity.

As at mid April the understanding was that he was leaving, no two ways about it, but not until the end of the season. I personally thought that was one of the main reasons why we were in the midst of a death spiral of one win in 14 at the time and the players were performing so badly. They weren't responding to him because they knew he was a dead man walking. (At that point)

Thanks for that reply, a far more informative and well thought out response than the open letter itself. Thank you also for your kind remarks about the Brockhall letter. I have to say though that if that is the way you have to operate you should have waited and canvassed your members views well in advance before penning a far more forthright letter for the owners' consideration. I suspect though there's a reason you didn't want to wait which has nothing to do with the Club or strictly footballing matters.

Exactly Stuart, people are trying to trivialise criticism of the letter by making out critics are being pedantic about minor grammatical errors. "Poorly thought out plans to redevelop Brockhall" etc - that kind of implies that if the plans had been slightly better thought out they'd have been in favour. And as you say to squeeze it in between the pandemic and the European Super League as an issue makes no sense at all. The three things have no correlation whatsoever and it completely trivialised Brockhall as an issue. The main problem with the letter though is that it doesn't have any overall point or message. I want the RoversTrust to stand up for OUR Club. I couldn't care less where they stand on issues affecting the National game or what National groups they are affiliated to if I'm being honest.

Exactly. If the pitch were that much of a deal to him he would have insisted it was done from scratch.

My own personal view is that the next three or four weeks are absolutely pivotal to the future of the Club. I don't think we survive another summer and season of Mowbray, Waggott and Venus and may never ever come back from it. If the owners or their representatives are reading this then you still have it in your power to change the Club's future for the better but time is running short, certainly in respect to next season.

Doesn't matter whether he'd be on 1k, 2k 5k and 10k per week. It'd still be money wasted. I'm 57 and could never play in the first place. You might as well give me 100 k p.a.

Not sure if others have made the point but Bennett and Johnson are both past it and in my view neither have ever performed since they've been at the Club in the first place anyway. Their wages should have been saved and combined to find an experienced midfielder who can still perform. If it's the case that Johnson had a new deal automatically triggered by a minimum number of appearances then we should have been careful not to trigger it as he's been desperately poor overall since arriving at the Club.

Says more about the players' belief or lack thereof in the manager and the "skill" of our negotiating team than necessarily being a reflection of our financial situation imo. If the manager wanted any of the three whose options have been extended badly enough he would pull out all the stops to secure them and made savings elsewhere. If another poster was correct in saying that Nyambe had been offered a new deal on the same terms then that is a colossal insult. Mind you, he would probably have taken some persuading to sign a deal on hugely improved terms the way he's been treated.

How many Brad Lyons and Joe Graysons would Johnson and Bennett pay for though? We try to penny pinch in certain areas whilst at the same time wasting far larger amounts in others.

Indeed. Good job we've got an astute operator in the transfer market like Tony ultimately making the decisions on recruitment and Mark Venus getting the deals over the line. Oh wait...........

Can kicked down the road as regards Nyambe, JRC and Rothwell. Fairly instructive we've been been able to persuade any of the three to sign new deals. Absolute joke that Johnson has got a new deal and that we're even contemplating offering Bennett any sort of terms. I am actually pleased Chapman's been offered a new deal, might still be a player in there under another manager. Overall it's obviously going to be more of the same next season IF there is no change this summer and Mowbray and Waggott are still in situ. I'd be interested to hear what those who watch the U23's make of their list.

Yes. I understand the Trust do have a problem in voicing opposition in that I understand that their ultimate aim is a seat on the Board. They do have to nail their colours to the mast though, are they committed to a seat on the Board for appearances sake and to the exclusion of all else, I.e. a seat on the Board even if it be alongside the present incumbents or are they genuinely committed to change and wanting the Club to improve? The silence from the Trust on the Brockhall issue was absolutely deafening and I genuinely feel this latest contribution along the lines of "The last ten years haven't been good enough but never mind, just crack on as before lads and we'll maintain a watching brief" is pretty unhelpful in the overall scheme of things. Edit: For the sake of clarification by "present incumbents" I mean Waggot/Cheston/Mowbray/Venus etc

I thought that as well, almost as though the paper are deliberately running with a fairly bland and toothless commentary on the last ten years and one which almost completely ignores the current issues on purpose.

Agree with all of the above. A good idea in principle but bland, poorly written, largely irrelevant to Rovers specific situation, lacking any overall point and failing to offer any solutions. It needed doing but far far better than that. That said, if it does enable you to get an audience with the owners, I take all the above back and issue my humble apologies.

What's the point of that letter - "the last ten years have been crap but this is not a protest" - Well it bloody well should be. "As you were lads - nothing to see here". Sheesh.

If they're getting desperate.