QPR is off tomorrow due to Covid, with Spurs off today and United also reporting numerous cases.

The increase in potential Covid restrictions may put such numbers in jeopardy.

We don't live in a perfect world. I have no clue why, but people seem to see supporting a football club as something that should universally be an inflexible obligation in terms of attending games. As it is, price does matter, success on the pitch does matter, the manager, the owners, many reasons all do matter, and not everyone supports any club to the exact same degree. The club should now be grabbing the bull by the horns and showing some longer term thinking and initiative and trying to get numbers up at a time of some on field success, Waggott hasn't hence the horrendous pricing for the next home game. On the back of a full house for promotion, season ticket prices went up, again we couldn't get people back into the habit because Waggott is an idiot. Also, it doesn't justify the clubs extortionate pricing strategy because others do it.

Its not what I want or indeed what I think should happen. I would agree with you that we have to live with the virus and would like to think that if restrictions went up that much, that they would be met with mass protests. Your points are very typically self focused, I get there early, I wear a snood, I don't use the facilities, you are just one person. There is no doubt that a football match even in the outdoors is a big spreading event, thousands of people in close proximity including in the concourses, indeed that will be the rationale, especially with restrictions seemingly going up. Taking a bit of the edge off the excellent start to the season, thinking that Boris and his cronies could stop us from watching in person. A man you regularly defend has taken the piss out of us all again having his Christmas do last season with the rest of us in lockdown.

I wonder what the chances are of Plan C not allowing fans into stadiums? It would be stupid not to but you never know with Boris.

Brilliant performance, great to watch, we look in control without having the ball, so well drilled and allowing very few good chances. Anybody looking at this team and encouraging a Brereton sale or indeed any of the contract "rebels" in January needs their heads testing.

I know, because I don't think that it did stop us from going into embargo. Obviously the income will help us moving forward to continue within FFP regulations, but it didn't historically stop us from going into embargo. All sales will help us with that ongoing objective, and allowing key assets to leave for free will massively hinder us on that front.

If Carlsberg did selling your most important player mid way through your first genuine shot at promotion to the Premier League since being taken over by negligent owners? Not sure that advert will ever take off.

You can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't make it factual, its your interpretation which I feel is flawed. You have an arrogance whereby you seem to think that if you push across your opinion so many times, you expect me to fall in line and agree.

Are you going to explain the cryptic nonsense or just keep it to yourself as an ego booster having been smooth talked by Waggott?

We can still get a big fee at the end of the season! But we might also not be in such a position to challenge for promotion as is the case at the moment.

Would the "dead stock" at a discount be sold at a loss or a profit? If it is at a (much smaller) profit surely it is not a bad last resort?

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?