You've gone way off on a tangent. It should be simple for any owners. Do I trust the manager? Yes - carry on funding constructively. No - sack Anyone normalising such warped thinking is crazy.

Maybe it was only a realistic proposition upon promotion.

Did Mowbray's transfer record warrant a sudden halt of funding? Especially on the main 3 for £15m, of which that has already been recouped with a similar receipt imminent. But the main point of all, is if a normal owner loses faith in a manager, surely he bloody gets sacked, not retained on even less of a budget! It's a theory I don't go along with anyway, but if there is any truth in it, it highlights Venkys as even bigger idiots than initially thougj. We had to take enough numbers so literally basically everyone left contracted went seeing as so many players have left. If they had needed anymore, they would have had to take some of the womens team!

Because he is bloody awful! Stop reverting back to questioning my trust in a manager who hasn't managed a game yet. If he involves Magloire regularly then I certainly will lose trust in him because he certainly isn't capable of performing at this stage. I am almost certain though that Tomasson will have enough common sense NOT to have him regularly in the squad.

When did Mowbray say this? Reinvestment of a fraction of the Armstrong money would have allowed us to continue a potential process that Mowbray regularly mentioned, buying players, selling at a profit, reinvesting a percentage and so on. Spending nothing at all last summer upon receipt of the Armstrong money will eventually halt this process. Assuming this farfetched theory that Venkys stopped funding because they didn't trust Mowbray, which I personally think is a load of bollocks. Do you think it is normal for owners to lose trust in a manager yet keep him on albeit with no money to work with? Yes or no. Do you think Mowbray's record in the transfer market, particularly his main 3 signings, of which 2 will double that investment, warrant that lack of faith? I am not even sure if a £3m buy (if it happens, big if) would be "backing" the manager. Brereton will go for £15m or whatever, as far as I am concerned spending £5m/6m on 2 or 3 assets would be reasonable to continue the process of trying to profit from assets, keeping the rest to help offset losses. Problem is with these dickhead owners, even if they do that this summer, give it a year or 2 and they will suddenly turn the taps off again and we are back to square one, its how they work.

Tyler Magloire?! Is that a joke, he is absolutely shocking. If he is anywhere near the squad this season then it is time to seriously worry. I haven't asked you to give your take/opinion on the Armstrong money disappearance, so don't worry about it.

If that was the case, then it is an absolute farcical way to run a football club. If they don't trust the manager, the logical thing to do is sack him but the reinvestment in assets needs to be continuous regardless. As it happens, the £15m investment in 3 players will likely lead to doubling that investment so there is no logic behind specifically not trusting him either. I suspect that theory is a little farfetched and thinking too much into it personally.

Seems a fair assumption moreso down to fitness than speed, he isn't available enough. If it is implied that this has come from someone internal, I don't know how I would feel if this sort of talk was being leaked via gossip to random fans! Did he? Seems like an assumption with an agenda to put failed signings down to Mowbray "disregarding" his recruitment department. Mowbray was the manager and he takes the responsibility for ALL signings under his tenure, good and bad, with the recruitment department merely working to help him. If Ayala goes, we DEFINITELY need 2 centre backs as we would only be left with 2. If we spend £3m that would be very welcome but equally it will be a small fraction of the Brereton money, disregarding the previous Armstrong sale.

Always happy when we win and always annoyed when we lose. My mood/satisfaction is determined by the result.

Have you ever come off a Rovers game dissatisfied after we have won? Conversely, have you ever come off a Rovers game in which we have lost but feeling thoroughly entertained and satisfied?

You have moved way off the initial point as per usual.

Yes, with the aim of winning the maximum number of points possible.

You are much more likely to get floating fans back by winning games, we have seen a correlation with success and attendances. You don't base your style of play on what is the most likely to attract floating fans, you base it solely (or should) on what will get the best results.

To which question?

Samba is leaving although Henderson has joined on loan from United this morning.

Is it a modern day phenomenon to put so much focus on "style of play?" Has anyone ever come off a Rovers game "bored" after a win? Or entertained following a loss?

Would Norwich play him tonight if a move was imminent?

Cantwell is playing for an admittedly second string Norwich side tonight. I can't see that move happening at all and certainly it doesn't seem imminent.

Specifically in response to "Waggott trying to make it appear like he actually does something worthwhile and is indispensable." Your opinion on Waggott isn't unclear, my point was that he seemingly is indispensable to the owners whom you place so much hope on, despite his performance which you clearly think is terrible. It was specific to Waggott being judged by our dickhead owners.

Absolutely no relevance to my point whatsoever.

If only those who give hope that positive change is afoot actually judged employees on performance.

Whether Venkys or their nominated conduit have to sign everything off or indeed as we saw in January, refuse to and overrule people far more capable of making such decisions is ultimately splitting hairs to appear ITK. There is a constant delay that is needless but sadly the owners refuse to change, and there is clearly potential for conflict in decision making with people appointed to do a job undermined by people with no comparative knowledge of what they are doing. It clearly isn't about a lack of trust from the owners/Suhail either as they are left in situ until their contracts expire. Waggott should be let go as Mowbray correctly was but they become easy scapegoats for things that ultimately revert back to the common denominator, our terrible owners. Tomasson and Broughton hopefully will be 2 canny operators but lets not pretend that barring unexpected massive changes above them, that they like everyone before them will have a hand tied behind their back. Also, Wallace, Dembele and 2 others? Do me a favour.

Obafemi would have been part of the Armstrong deal and Maja was a loan deal. We had been trying to renew their contracts for 2 years, the contracts that were renewed in a similar time frame were either existing senior players, younger players or in Dack's case a player recovering from serious injury. Those 3 would have required considerable rises from their last deals when their stock wasn't half as high as it became. The budget seemingly doesn't have much flexibility at all due to heavy cuts that come from the top, not Waggott. He is incompetent but his main failings are not in this area. One of those key assets could have been sold at considerable profit but the owners prevented that. Out of interest, do you agree or disagree that owners shouldn't be interfering like they did in January?

Ah yes, the I know something you don't know routine.

There was nothing to suggest that anyone bid for the first two, and the intention would have been to reinvest the Rothwell money, something not allowed when Armstrong sold, so financially it would have made no difference, they didn't write off any money. It should be left to the manager and relevant associated staff to make such decisions.