If it is an option then its poor communication by the club as it certainly isnt clear, if its not as I suspect then it is very poor relations with supporters.

Have they offered discounts on next years season tickets?

I dont understand the mindset of those going out of their way to defend the club in this case. Like myself, I presume that most of those people are content with the ifollow option, they feel adequately remunerated and like myself on a personal level are happy to leave that there. Or even in isolated cases, arent STH's/regular attendees and are just struggling to empathise. As @Mattyblue touches on you also have to appreciate the bigger picture ie that it could be harmful for the club longer term because it is a big example of potentially straining a relationship with its supporters. Defending and condoning the statement yesterday, both in its content and tone is leaving the responsibility and guilt of a "struggling" club upon the working class rather than the directors whose salaries have tangibly sky rocketed recently and the players who have as far as I know agreed to defer their wages but not in any way compromise the amount they will receive. You would never expect people to donate £60 to the club to help to "safeguard it" otherwise so if these people do not feel adequately remunerated, if they dont have a computer, if they are part of a household of multiple season tickets or if they hold no interest in BCD as an alternative to what they paid for then essentially letting that rest and going without would be donating £60 to the club and people shouldnt be guilt tripped into doing that. The FFP excuses has been laid to rest to because the refund could be deferred.

I suspect he has just picked up a knock, when you consider Samuel, Graham, Downing etc all played including Smallwood who hasnt featured all season and it was just wishful thinking on my part.

I noticed that Bell was not involved, is it me being hopefully optimistic thinking that maybe with contract soon to expire that he has refused to play and will be leaving ala Lyle Taylor? Then again, Williams isnt out of contract and was also missing so maybe not.

But they wouldnt have to be handed out now, only when the income is coming back in again so that argument holds no weight. And even then, the net effect of refunds requested against season ticket holders lost could go either way. There is also the potential for FFP to be temporarily removed. To be fair you have acknowledged that a deferred refund should be an option anyway.

In response to yourself and @J*B The main reason that the FFP reason doesnt wash is that any refunds could be deferred until we are allowed to sell season tickets again. Therefore the refunds would not touch the accounts or the cash flow until we are able to resume receiving income as normal. There is clearly a large proportion of people, myself included who are content with the ifollow option so the refund would not come close to the 540k 9,000 season ticket holders could potentially claim at 60 quid a do. Also you have to factor in that it wouldnt be as straight forward as a reduction of season ticket income based on people claiming refunds, although that is the short sighted approach Waggott is taking, very much in character. The club is damaging a lot of supporter goodwill and straining an already strained relationship and indeed people on this messageboard have said that if they arent refunded then they wont buy a season ticket next time so it could very well work out that by not allowing deferred refunds, that the club becomes worse off financially! It certainly doesnt sit right either that the club is begging and guilt tripping its fanbase when for example the CEO that has given the go ahead on the statement today is a direct benefactor from the close to £300k increase in directors remuneration in the last account, and both that amount and also the weekly wage bill would be both individually higher than the likely amount claimed in deferred refund. Surely there is more room for manouevre within those 2 areas before they need to plead poverty with the fans.

I know we dont! Can you please stop blabbering on about government guidelines and the doubt over next season, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of this! I know that we dont know when the stadium ban will end. When is irrelevant to the principle of allowing a clear alternative option to ifollow links of a deferred refund as a reduction of a season ticket WHENEVER that is. People shouldnt have to contact the club and the timing shouldnt be in doubt, it should all be at the same time in the same place. Expecting a further statement down the line offering refunds is a cop out, its totally speculative, its unlikely, and it would only result as a reaction to negative press. Other clubs at this level have clearly stated the various options available, ifollow links as we have, plus refunds (both deferred and instantly claimable) and all the information at the same time, and not only is it good for their PR, but they will reap the benefits I suspect from that maintained supporter relationship when season tickets can next be bought. We have gone down the routes of only offering ifollow links, and whether there is an element of doubt as to how legally binding it is or not, a plea and a guilt trip as to why we should not expect or try and claim refunds, and basically any potential for a season ticket holder not getting value from said ifollow links, whether it be lack of interest, numerous STH's in the same household, lack of computer nous, whatever, its just tough shit basically. What is frustrating is that the statement came out, you had a clear opinion that you disagreed with it and thought it was unfair. Then almost instantly, you reverted back to going off on random tangents and now even claiming that you didnt initially properly read it to revert back to type and defend the club. You clearly still disagree with the club so why are you going so far out of your way to still defend it for something you dont agree with?

Exactly, so if next season is not allowed, then the season after, or whenever. The deferral would be flexible in that it wouldnt specify the date which is unknown, just the next possible opportunity to buy a season ticket once fans can start to attend again. Thats what I said. If that was going to be an option then the appropriate time to mention it would surely be when the ifollow option is also mentioned. No bollocks meaningless cliches about concentrating on this season, as the refund does relate to this season. Ive said that I will take up the ifollow option so why would I contact the club? You are just trotting out lines as if you work for the club. My point is that we are potentially losing supporter goodwill and potentially reducing the number of people that take season tickets when it is possible to attend games again, not that it affects me personally. So do you still think that they should have offered a refund, ? You said today that it was a "poor action" by the club not to, do you stand by that comment? Yes or no. Also, what do you think to the tone of the statement, very guilt tripping as has been a consistent theme through the marketing and media messages under Waggott, "we're committed, are you?" and now this. Do you think that is the correct way to go to retain customer relations.

I wouldnt read too much into a friendly where 2 teams are being put out. No way that Armstrong wont play for a start.

I forgot of the irritation of Gallagher out wide.

A refund would be in relation to THIS SEASON. Stop going on about focusing on this season as if that is a reason for any of this. It is about THIS season. There doesnt have to be a specific season for said refund to be deferred until. I have never said NEXT season. If we cant go next season, it can be for the season after, etc. Just whenever that is. Ultimately the cash flow wouldnt be dented until season tickets are purchased anyway. Indeed without this gesture, some of those season ticket purchases may not happen because fans as a couple on here have shown may become disillusioned You cant have a cop out that there is a refund. A refund is NOT offered on the statement. You cant have the cop out that it may be announced later because if it was going to be announced it should have been announced TODAY as an alternative to the ifollow links. You have reverted to type. You initially criticised the club fairly and within your next post, reverted back to defending them by your usual mix of acting as a spokesperson for the club and spouting irrelevant or inaccurate phrases to muddy the waters of the conversation.

That makes absolutely no sense. The deferred refund would be based on this season.Therefore it makes absolutely no sense not to include it in the press release alongside the ifollow form of remunerating STH's. If it was to be offered in a couple of weeks, which I doubt, then it would be perceived as a reaction to any backlash received. Initially you said that you thought the club should offer a deferred refund option. Do you agree with that opinion you stated in the last half an hour?

Absolutely. The thing is, take emotion, take loyalty out of it, purely as a business decision it makes sense to give deferred refunds because the people driven away will surely offset the refunds that need to be given.

Nothing that I have said relies on the fact that we are. I never said next season. Whenever fans are allowed in, thats when the deferred refund could apply. I find it strange that you agreed initially that the policy adopted by the club was poor form, specifically mentioned the deferred refund idea as one you endorse, only to instantly revert back to type.

How on earth is it "judgemental" to state a fair opinion that a player did not have an impact on 2 games he started on?! He didnt! If I had said "he doesnt deserve any more chances" "he will never be good enough" etc then youd have a point but I quite clearly stated that theres plenty of time for him yet. If we are at a situation where you cannot point out when a player has no impact on a game then we really are in a sticky situation.

Thats just the deferred refund you agreed with in your previous post. Its not something that requires background work or should be held back, it needs to be announced alongside the ifollow option. It could be along the lines of, receive the ifollow links, or alternatively receive the pro rata value of the remaining games deducted from your next season ticket. A date doesnt have to be given because it is pretty obvious that no one knows when that will be.

Well said chaddy. As you say, some people wont want to watch a stream, some people arent interested in BCD, some people wont get value with numerous season ticket holders in the same household, some might not have access to a computer, especially the older generation. We could potentially be damaging the chances of them renewing next season with these actions.

He seemed totally overawed and nothing in his game stood out, technical ability, pace etc. To be fair it was only 2 starts so plenty of time yet.

Another much more random point regarding ifollow, why are match passes cheaper for those out of the country?

The thing is, how much would a refund be for a season ticket holder, say it works out at around £60. How many season ticket holders do we have? About 10k, maybe slightly less, so the maximum refund there is 600k. And it goes without saying that it wouldnt end close to that figure, I would be amazed if it got close to half of that. It does rankle a little more when this week the latest accounts were submitted and directors remuneration more than doubled, increasing by £288k. I suspect that amount will be more than the amount that they would have been expected to refund had the option been available. Even if it was a deferred refund, ie it wouldnt immediately harm the cash flow, that would make sense because it could be offset against a future season ticket purchase. As it is, there may be a few for whom there will be no season ticket purchase in the future so its a terrible and short sighted move by the club. @Mattyblue great post and bang on with the guilt tripping, and also the fact that im sure many will come out the woodwork on social media desperately trying to defend the club, as you say many of whom wont be ST holders so wont be personally effected. I also will watch the streams but it doesnt mean that the club hasnt made a massive own goal here. The damage done will be seen in seasons to come.

Rovers have released some information regarding the rest of the season: https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2020/june/rovers-provide-further-update-on-streaming-service/ Essentially the solitary option is streaming the games BCD on your laptop. Refunds which other Championship teams have offered (both home and away strangely, I got a Barnsley refund as soon as the game was called off) and numerous STH's in a same household not getting value by sharing the same link or even those with no computer or internet access are basically expected to grin and bear it with a touch of guilt tripping/woe is me and a fancy hashtag thrown in for good measure. I personally am ok watching the streams and do to an extent understand the need to preserve cash flow. But I think they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Quite a few people have no interest in BCD football streamed on a laptop. I suspect many would take up the streaming and I am content enough personally to do it but those who arent interested could be lost long term treating them like this not even offering them the option of a refund, even if it is a deferred one until next season if that is open to fans at some point. I cant say I am surprised though.

To be honest I was thinking of the starts back to back v Boro and I think Fulham at home. In both games he was totally ineffective and practically invisible, he couldnt get into either game, he seemed a little ponderous and overawed when he did get the ball. To be fair I forgot about the Sheffield Wednesday game. Whilst obviously he came on at I think 4 up v 10 men, I would say that his pass for the final goal was very good. For me that is the sole thing to cling on to during his very brief gametime to date. For the record I am not saying Buckley and JRC will not make it or anything like that. Just that they have certainly not proved themselves at this stage. Buckley impressed me away at Charlton as a 10 after repeatedly looking a million miles off on his appearences prior.

But the fixture list is pre agreed to play each team twice, home and away. Its not just a random cut off, its a pre agreed and consistent format that remains the same each year. It IS fair if a team is relegated after falling into the bottom 3 on the final day because at the END of a COMPLETED season in which every team has played each team home and away, at that point the league table doesnt lie. To make out as if where the season has stopped is just a different but equally valid cut off (admittedly due to necessity) is not an accurate repesentation. Apologies to the poster who posted it but there was a table posted yesterday showing the significantly variable differences in remaining fixture lists. Teams DO have advantages and disadvantages from their run in, and that is an unavoidable unfair advantage or disadvantage no matter how you try and dismiss it. It might be the point that makes the difference lost in a tough fixture against a top team when your rival was playing a poorer team that you was hoping to make up. You seem to have adopted a mentality whereby if you were in a bad position when the league was without pre warning cut short, you deserve any punishment that comes to you. Its a very harsh way of looking at it, various factors come in to it, financial resources, injuries etc but ultimately until youve made it mathematically impossible not to be able to recover then you either deserve a chance if possible to save yourself, if that isnt possible which it isnt then you dont just deserve punishing anyway. You are also only focusing on the teams who have missed out on promotions and not those who will suffer mathematically provoked relegations. If a club is willing to play out its season but obviously something it cannot control means a club in a lower division hasnt earnt their promotion, you cant blame them for that. I havent seen any clubs claiming that but I as a neutral think it would be unfair so even if a club is sticking up for their own self interest it is still a valid point. I get that you dont want to waste the work that has gone into the games played to date and it is desperately unfortunate but it is not a reason to just force through an unavoidably flawed mathematically derived conclusion just to justify that football played.

Wigan have offered 3 options including refunds: https://wiganathletic.com/news/2020/june/2019-20-Season-Cards-and-Match-Streaming/ Preston have also announced details on streaming but not sure theres an option for refunds. Surely Rovers should announce soon. Very annoying that it cant be streamed on a tv.