The balance sheet does not represent FFP as there are numerous transactions that don't qualify under FFP. Neither of those 2 transactions are in any set of accounts yet, one happened just prior to the end of the 2021 year, and the other early in the 2022 accounting year, so even if the full loss was FFP deductible, neither of those transactions are included yet. If Brereton goes it would be a big sale, presumably at the instruction of the owners, not Waggott. You said you'd roll the dice, but also if you was CEO that you would take £20m. Which is it?

I find it a bit strange that your sole focus is the balance sheet to the point that you don't seem to be at all deliberating against any personal desire to get promoted, to have a go, to actually be going to games thinking bloody hell we could even get to Wembley, we could get promoted, we could make proper memories, and as touched on, what is the point if that isn't in your mind? But back to the financial side, we have already brought in 15m this season so surely the immediate pressure is eased. The training ground was last year, Armstrong this giving us scope in this years accounts to not have to sell because of that. Your potential scenarios, the chance of either a bad injury or bad covid are slim, but not impossible as we saw with Dack, that would if anything make him surely likely to then be willing to renew his contract. His form could go either way. I think this idea that his value halves is totally over the top, but even if say he lost a few million. You could look it at the other way, its maybe a few million for lets say a 1 in 10, even a 1 in 20 chance of the riches of the Premier League? We might not be in a similar position for a few years yet, especially if we are as void of ambition as it seems.

Even if we took at face value that his value would plummet so much in 6 months, which to me is illogical madness and totally baseless. (In theory, if he keeps on scoring his value and interest could even go up a bit, risk and reward) Does any of you think we are 4th in the league, we are actually starting to put something together in the league to really challenge, lets keep our best players?

I don't think it could be summed up better than asking "what is the point of all of this" when we have fans actively encouraging and hoping that our best player is sold mid way through a season in which we are 4th in the league and doing better than basically we have done since these bastards started owning us.

If indeed the article is correct, Brighton are 9th, so the fee is not massively inflated due to supposed panic as nothing is at risk. Brereton can agree a pre contract agreement 6 months after next summer but wouldn't actually leave for the 12 months remaining on his contract. 1/3 of the remaining duration of his contract down should not cut his potential fee in half. Armstrong also had a year left before he could go for free and we managed to get a significant fee for him despite that. Is there absolutely nothing in your mind that says bloody hell, we are 4th in the league, we are actually starting to put something together in the league to really challenge, lets keep our best players? Stuff like that is subjective but either way, losing Brereton will severely weaken us at a time when we are going strong and are actually in the top 6.

Dack is our best player but not fit. Otherwise, the second top scorer in the league I think can safely by referred to as our best player. We might "cope" but we are 4th in the bloody league and doing more than coping, keep our best players, ideally add one or 2 and have a go for once at getting into that top 6. If need be and he doesn't sign a new deal, we can sell him in the summer when his value should remain fairly unchanged.

Well that's a unsubstantiated hypothetical question, there is no reason that he would lose 10m of value in a few months. I don't get why you would be anything but against the idea of selling our top goalscorer mid season when we are 4th.

That is a disgrace.

If we sell our best player in January, it would really sum up Venkys for what they are. There is absolutely nothing to gain from selling him mid season when we are 4th. Sell him at the end of the season if he wont sign a new deal. Why anyone with Rovers at heart would let him go now when he is spearheading an actual promotion push is flabbergasting.

1. Playing players at a competitive rate to get them tied down long term is potentially likely to be financially BETTER, not worse. Give a player 2or 3 grand a week extra, you can sell that player in a year or 2, you have an asset. It is incredibly short term thinking to not give out new deals to try and save money, because you are removing the potential for a fee. Those fees then create less direct reliance on the owners, which removes your other illogical point. You either can't or choose not to fathom that. 2. I have never, ever said that we should "over pay" players. I suspect you have an issue with defining what over paying means, to me it would be paying above what those players could expect to realistically receive, either here or at a direct rival. To have so many needing contracts suggests that the issue is internal rather than ALL of them being unrealistic with their demands. As you yourself say, they are even less likely now to be able to justify high demands due to the post covid market, so I, coupled with the managers frustration, the Armstrong money black hole/summer cut backs and the owners 11 year history, make me believe that the issue is the owners not allowing enough money to be offered in new terms to these key players.

Conversely, how do you know that the issue is unrealistic expectations on behalf of the players? And its not just one player, its a number of players. What is the common denominator, its the club and the money available from the owners. Mowbray had to stop himself from questioning the owners ambition because of the limitations to the wage budget available. I have never once suggested that we should over pay for players, its just a straw man argument that you regularly peddle. The last sentence is a false economy. A bit more flexibility on the wage front allows us to tie down assets, which then sets itself up for future income well beyond that expenditure in the form of transfer income.

Why would whether I am personally buying a solitary shirt make any difference in my perception of the way the club is handling shirt sales in general? I was quite literally taking the piss with the 50 shirt suggestion as an example of how even then, you could use the same nonsensical assumption that anyone who wants a shirt will have one by now. More control over a regular ability to ship over batches of shirts, they were delayed initially, now they haven't ordered enough nor will they be doing. It is piss poor and full of excuses that somehow people still swallow. We are desperate to increase income yet just hide behind excuses as to our inability to increase the income streams available to us.

You seem to think that you do have a very good idea on the inner workings of the relationship between Rovers and their supplier. Your example was made up and was a very high figure (3x the average sales figure) as if that if we want any more shirts, we would have to buy another 13.5k. All hypothetical. I think its a fair statement to suggest that the repeated failure of the club to get anywhere close to the required levels of stock, especially when other clubs seem to manage fine is piss poor. Your last sentence makes no sense either. Obviously ideally, all sales would be at full price, but if a worst case scenario is still making some sort of additional profit, then why is that bad?

You are just making up random, extreme numbers to justify your defence of the club and indirectly of a man of clearly has sweet talked you. I don't get why we would have to either order the insufficient amount that we did or a massively exaggerated number, its a strawman argument that you are putting forward out of desperation, and whenever your extreme numbers are queried, you just repeat them rather than answer as to why you are coming up with such extreme numbers. Also, why does this seem to happen every year? Why don't we negotiate better relationships with suppliers to allow us more control? Are those sold in sales at the end of the season (again that could be minimised with good planning and supplier relationships) still surely sold at a profit, albeit a reduced one? Its never the clubs fault, even though other clubs seem to manage their shirt supplies far better.

Because we are sold out so soon which clearly proves that if we had more stock, we could sell it! Beyond naive/foolish. We could have just bought 50 of each shirt and had the same nonsensical attitude, "oh well, anyone who wants one will have one by now."

Easy to assume that it is greed and that the wage structure is fair and reasonable. Mowbray had to stop himself from publically questioning the owners ambition which hints at a bit of frustration as to the level to which we can go to to keep big assets.

No I never buy shirts or memorabilia but that has absolutely no relevance to the point I am making. The situation with the shirts being sold out so soon seems to happen every single year, it happened last year and it is another area of the club that is piss poor. For a club starved of revenue, we really don't help ourselves. Even if you tried to fob the mismanagement down to unprecedented popularity as if that would still excuse getting stock levels so wrong, it happens every year so it clearly is not that. We can never get a scope for the popularity of any shirt because sales just go up to the very small number to which we bother to buy in.

Good business to run out of stock before christmas, now that is the mindset of someone who I think has been sweet talked by Waggott! Why is the only alternative a "massive" further order of shirts that has already been assumed not to come close to selling out?

I totally appreciate that Bournemouth are a team in 2nd who have ample resources and a good team, therefore an away game there is going to be tough. But we need to get out of the habit of potentially seeing games as a "free hit" if we are genuine about competing for the play offs. We are 4th in the league, there is no need to write off any game or treat any game as a bonus one before a ball is kicked. It takes me back to when we played Brentford away the other year, we was just outside the play offs and we went 2 up in a chance to make up ground and ended up throwing it away and drawing. Afterwards I came on here and the majority were happy with a point regardless of being 2 up as "they would have taken a draw prior." Totally the wrong mindset IMO. Also, they have drawn their last 3 and won only 1 in 6. We have picked up 4 wins and a draw in our last 5. Why go there pre empting defeat?

Definitely the sort of thing that Waggott would have likely said! I dont get why the shirts have to be bought in batches of 5k and indeed how you know that we would only sell 1k more? Lots of assumptions there. The shirt fiasco as mentioned seems to happen every year. Piss poor.

Rovers have in the past hidden behind "police requests" as we did when we kept having home games against Preston and Leeds at half 12 or 12 o clock and it turned out that no such strict requests had been made. They should just leave it at 3 o clock.

Your stance is totally meaningless in that you are bemoaning people who in the main ultimately do not share your need to attend Rovers matches, therefore all such an attitude does ie the very similar stance that Waggott seems to have is fails to be constructive in getting attendances up, it just puts the onus and expectations onto people who in the main may not have that same active interest as us and won't even see such criticism. Even if you think that some/all of the responsibility lies at the feet of the stay away fans, its a totally wasted opinion because its not a constructive one. We don't live in a perfect world whereby every single Rovers fan has an equal desperation to attend, and where things such as price and success don't make a difference. The through thick and thin, club at heart type comments may seem nice but are ultimately fanciful and ignorant to addressing the reasons why attendances aren't higher. Such a mindset depends on implying that all Rovers fans have an equal passion, equal financial situations, equal lifes and quite simply that is not the case. Also, how do you choose that people can't justifiably stay away because of the owners anymore, why is that no longer an excuse? Some people support the club with less urgency and passion, you can either think how do they come back or bemoan the fact that they aren't the loyal fans like yourself.

I wasn't talking about me, I was saying in general.

There is the proof that it is solely down to the finances coming from the owners. Not FFP, not down to their "treatment" from the manager, the owners are being cheapskates and are set to allow a promising core of players to break apart. Venkys Out.

I wonder if refunds will be on offer for those unwilling to comply?