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?

I can never understand why people shoot down the idea of being able judge players based on what they see. "Don't write them off," "get behind the lads" etc. You do not need "links to coaches" or "to watch them train everyday" to comment on player performances in games, they are right there in front of you. And if you do share more extreme, definitive views that don't come to fruition, so what, its a bloody internet forum, does it matter?

Call me naive but I doubt that Waggott would outright lie about offering new deals. For me the issue falls with how much we have offered these players, something I suppose we will never know but having been told that we have offered as much as we can, how difficult the pandemic is in India and various lines about our wage budget needing to be slashed, I suspect that they have not been offered competitive amounts. But the amount we can offer these falls on the owners if indeed it is down to money rather than Waggott in that case. Bang on about the training ground trick AND Armstrong sale though, both in different accounting periods too. Many keen to delude themselves in thinking that Venkys are doing everything possible to support us.

I don't think that registration is a concern. Don't we have Magloire in there as well who could easily be ditched, and I doubt we are going to sign 3 or 4 to begin with.

I know it is a naive viewpoint but viewers abroad should NEVER be prioritised and games should never be moved for overseas TV, affecting match going fans in the process. I suspect that my attendance may depend on when the game is played, if the game is changed day then it may be much more difficult for me, and perhaps to a lesser extent if it is moved to earlier or later in the day. The schedule of the third round last time fans could attend was farcical. But ultimately none of the authorities give a shit about the match going fan anymore so I suspect that it will be moved for the mass amount of viewers about to tune in around the globe to watch a much changed Wigan side play a much changed Rovers side.

Venkys are clearly going through one of their typical particular disinterested phases, you can tell as to the dysfunctional, ignorant way in which they run a football club from things such as if Brereton does go, Mowbray hasn't the foggiest whether he would get any of the money, so the silence from India is actively impeding any ability to plan forward. The line repeatedly trotted out is the struggles of the pandemic in India, it seems that they are unwilling to invest at the moment which ties in to what you say about the Armstrong money vanishing. FFP has only been mentioned on here, the training ground trick prevented any embargo in the year ended June 2021, Armstrong's sale is in June 2022 so in theory, surely there is a bit of wiggle room if as defendants of Venkys like to claim, that FFP is the sole issue. We wanted Maja apparently although on loan, is there going to be any permanent additions in January? The idea that Venkys have spent heavily has always been a bit disingenuous to me, I don't think that merely covering losses through issuing of share capital can be deemed as spending heavily, you could perhaps point to the signings of Brereton and Gallagher maybe but its hardly masses of money especially when you factor in that the Armstrong (and Raya) sales basically cover all of that. You are correct on the issue of new contracts, being so strict on a self imposed wage ceiling is somewhat of a short term approach that long term will see assets leave for a fraction of their cost if not for nothing at all. But equally, a club with a shred of ambition wouldn't encourage a fire sale whilst 4th in the league.

Lets hope they dont move all of the games to random times like they did last time, they should think of the fans but never do.

There is an opportunity there for a top 6 finish and we are going to strive for that by considering bids for our key players to let them go mid season!