Waggott's talking completely out of his backside anyway. In one breath he says that we won't budge on wages etc. in the next he completely contradicts that by saying they can always go to the owners in a special case. You'd think the article was a spoof if you didn't know any different - "we've doubled the amount spent on recruitment" - whoopy doo - shame we can't afford to bring anyone in though - at least a team have been given employment looking at players - and "everyone's looking at what we do". Why, so they can start failing to bring players in as well? I'm genuinely starting to think that after this and the cringeworthy ST statement Waggott isn't very bright at all. He obviously doesn't realise how everything he says fails to match up with reality and how ridiculous he sounds.

So Raya's good enough for Arsenal but not good enough for Tony. Strange one that......... Should have been sacked for flogging Raya on the cheap and replacing him with Walton alone. Never mind squandering 12m on BB and Gallagher, or paying our top paid player not to play for us for 2 seasons or paying Smallwood and Hart for 12 months not to play for us then giving them another month or giving Gladwin an extra deal as an act of Charity while he recuperated. And people blame the owners for the fact we're short of money!

More shame on the Telegraph if they're trying to spin the line that was the plan all along.

Yet more sob stories about missed targets today I see. Only another month to go and Mowbray can drop the pretence. No way would that lad from United be starting ahead of Corry and Bradley in Tony World. It would be a complete waste of everyone's time and our money.

Never found it more difficult to assess our prospects going into a season. I think a lot still hinges on whether we can make a few astute additions before the end of the window and there being no late major departures. The other variables are whether Mowbray is here all season and on the assumption he is, whether he gives the youngsters a proper crack or does his usual and plays it safe by shoe horning in senior players out of position. Best case scenario if Mowbray is replaced with a better manager and the youngsters are given their head - 10th with a view to future improvement. Worst case scenario and it's same old same old 20th to 24th.

Because, if the Club were upfront about it and put ST's on sale on the clear understanding that if they were unable to deliver full attendance due to Government restrictions there would be no refunds, I and many others might have bought one regardless to help out at a difficult time in the form of a quasi donation. We would also have had the advantage of knowing that by by acting now, if numbers were severely restricted, we'd be more likely to get in when allowed. Those that would prefer to know exactly what they were getting before purchasing should also have that option at any point but on the understanding that it's first come first served and all availability might be gone by that time. I really can't see the issue.

Hardly any headline fees are payable up front these days, they're all spread over the life of the contract. The only exception might be if a particularly rich Club paid all or most of a fee up front to keep a top player out of the clutches of rivals. It's therefore no excuse to a duff transfer to say that the full fee doesn't have to be paid in year one, after allowing for any unmet add ons, it all has to be paid eventually!

I'm happy to believe what everyone says about the contract, I just fail to see how it would be enforceable in practice if he decided he wanted to leave.

You're still talking nonsense in an attempt to make it sound like possibly recouping £120k on a player we'll end up shelling out the thick end of £2m for over 2 seasons not to play for us is some kind of result or clever management. No-one ever suggested £120k was not a lot of money in the real world, that wasn't even part of the discussion. On balance I'd send Mulgrew out on loan as well but I don't think the relatively small saving (in footballing terms) is that much of an advantage as opposed to having him available if needed. I think you're just as usual taking Mowbray's side and agreeing with him whatever he decides to do. Taken as a whole the Mulgrew saga has been a disaster for the Club irrespective of whether he goes out on loan to Fleetwood. I also have little doubt that if tomorrow TM brought in a CB or LB the same age as Mulgrew cheap cover on a one year deal on 2.5 k p.w. , you'd be hailing it as a masterstroke!

He won't be changed I agree but as soon as we come up again anyone half decent he's found lacking I'm.

I thought it was fairly widely accepted that after we lost the opening home game of last season, (for which as you say CM was not only selected but captain) Mowbray blamed the defence in the press which Mulgrew took exception to and this culminated in them having a stand up row at Brockhall in front of everyone on the last morning of the transfer window. By the afternoon he'd been shipped off on loan to Wigan with us no doubt paying most of his wage and relations between the two obviously haven't improved since.

Southgate is incredibly PC and says all the right things for FA purposes and is very touch freely as is the modern way and in tune with the players feelings etc but in footballing terms there's as much chance of England winning something under him as Rovers being promoted to the Premier League under Mowbray! England have some good youngsters as well. Southgate wouldn't last 5 minutes at one of the big Premier League Clubs.

What does he stand to gain from agreeing to a two year deal with a further 12 m option entirely at the Club's behest as opposed to a straightforward two year deal or three year deal?

Why would Dack agree to that?

Sooner than defenders!

Nyambe's value will be negligible bearing in mind we have somehow allowed him to enter the last year of his contract and he will probably walk away for free in summer. Dack's in the last year of his deal as well despite talk of a 12 month option in our favour which I can't see is enforceable unless both parties are happy with it.

You're talking absolute rubbish. Whether Mulgrew does or does not go to Fleetwood and whether we can either have him at our disposal or save (say) £120k is a marginal benefit either way and fairly irrelevant in the general scheme of things. The issue is that Mowbray gave him such a ridiculous contract at his age then compounded it by falling out with him putting the Club in the position of having to pay the player the thick end of £2m quid for 2 seasons not to play for us.

Think you've nailed it there. In all the talk about whether it's better to use the youngsters and maybe finish lower, or bring in expensive loanees to finish midtable, there seems to some sort of idea that by doing the latter we are close to achieving promotion whereas in my view we're a million miles away using this method. Back to square one every summer and likely to regress at a rate of knots as the few better players get bored of waiting for anything to happen and move on. The only apparent hope is the youngsters come good but I suspect under this manager they'll only play peripheral roles whilst senior players are shoehorned in out of position. Many of us questioned at the time the lunacy of handing out blanket long term contracts to average ageing players as some sort of loyalty bonus and its now coming back to bite us on the arse over the last couple of seasons

Considering you're suddenly so keen to save £120k I don't recall you voicing your dissent when we paid Gladwin for 6 months to use our facilities, or Smallwood and Hart for an extra month for doing nothing!

I doubt that. I was told Downing was on 15k p.w. Mulgrew will be on less than Ayala but the principle is still the same. You scoffed at the notion we would hand out an overly generous contract to someone of a certain age.

Wish I'd had a pound for every time I'd heard that during every abysmal transfer window from the Mowbray supporters! It never gets any better by the end of it either! Last two Jan windows only Club in the League not to sign anyone and Chapman respectively, last summer £5m wasted on Gallagher, no permanent keeper acquired and the dreadful Walton in, the summer before (probably) having to go back cap in hand to the owners at the last minute having missed out on all our targets and over paying for Brereton in a last minute panic buy.

If it's good enough for Mulgrew why not Ayala?

I think you're spot on about loans.

I'd go even further than you in your criticism of loans. In isolation Tosin looked reasonably impressive but imo was far from a worldbeater. We finished 11th and conceded 63 goals, only 6 fewer than the season before that. ( Although you might argue that that itself was an achievement with Walton in nets) I'd far rather we'd finished a few points lower but saved the £1m loan fee plus wages but much more importantly allowed Wharton or Magloire to get 12 months experience under their belts at Championship level. And I will feel the same way this season if, having spoken of the need for "men" at the back Mowbray splashes out again on a loan for a Premiership youngster the same age as Wharton or Magloire leaving us back at square one yet again in 12 months time.

Imo the notion that Venky's won't pay for defenders is just another stick to beat them with and excuse the failings of successive managers. Everyone conveniently overlooks we paid a reported £7m for Scott Dann although admittedly that was some time ago.