It is and theres not necessarily anything wrong with the club trying to maximise its profit. The club has gone to the trouble of outlining the various scenarios in which, within an admittedly difficuly situation for club and lets not forget fanbase alike, where they know and have acknowledged that people are not going to be remunerated for a service that they have paid for and not received. The club did a Q&A where essentially it said yeah that is the case but theres nothing we can/will do, hard luck. Youve even said "maybe they should be given an alternative deal" which is all that people are asking for. Whether we think its fair enough or whether we feel its an overreaction, we have evidence on this messageboard that the club will lose season ticket holders in the future due to this. Opinion doesnt come into it when the attendances keep falling. The paying fan holds the power. Looking from a more ethical point of view, to guilt trip working class people, many of whom will be struggling themselves at the moment, perhaps furloughed too is out of order and out of touch. Mowbray regularly references the working class people paying for a ticket and suggests he knows what they want from their football etc, but seemingly Waggott or whoever is responsible is more out of touch. Waggott and the players meanwhile have salaries which as far as I am aware may have been deferred but not in any way reduced to "save the club." Also, there is no way that the club is financially fragile to the extent that these refunds could make a major impact on the very existence of the club. 60 quid x 9000 STH's would be just over half a million pounds, baring in mind many people are happy with the ifollow option and any refund liability (deferred against a then guaranteed ST) would not be make or break to the club. The FFP line is also baseless because refunds can be deferred.

Was totally ineffective in his other start v Fulham too. Looked overawed whenever he got the ball.

I suspect that obviously the policy is financially driven, but ultimately as touched upon, it will quite possibly damage the club, even if you discount ethics/morals and focus solely on it from a business sense. I dont even think they needed to offer an option of being able to withdraw the money immediately necessarily. Or offer add ons like DVD's, because those who do get value from the ifollow option do not need to be further remunerated. I and many others am happy enough with the ifollow links, a DVD wouldn't make any difference to that. Even if you only offer a deferred discount on the next season ticket as an alternative, you are then ensuring that the person buys a season ticket in the first place and are only suffering the comparatively minor hit on a refund at that same time. Focusing solely on those who obviously arent happy with ifollow. If 1 in 6 (roughly) of those people who arent adequately remunerated decide as a result that they wont buy a season ticket next time out, any supposed saving on refunds is nil. Then of course you have the long term effect of them people not returning indefinitely.

Walton Nyambe Lenihan Adarabioyo Bell Travis Evans Downing Holtby Rothwell Armstrong ...with maybe Williams over Bell.

Very much so. One of the areas that Waggott and co are really coming up short is communication. I dont think that there is a chance that ST prices will be reduced to factor in this lack of option regarding refunds, and if they do go back on their current policy at all, I suspect it would just be reacting to bad publicity. It had to be done as an alternative option within that original statement, as per most Championship clubs, because then you have scope to use that goodwill to encourage the ifollow option as preferential to the club, but you are satisfying those that can or not get value from that option to know that they will get that refund on the purchase of their next season ticket. That way, you are also almost guaranteeing that they are going to buy a season ticket. Theres a consistent vibe of guilt tripping throughout the PR coming out of the club during Waggott's time and quite simply it will not wash and it will not yearn an increase in attendances. Sorry to keep reverting to your posts @Mattyblue but one thing you often reference is a lack of understanding in terms of the clubs fan base and how it works and that is evident here.

Ultimately the majority of Championship who of course are in the same situation have opted to give that option though. The line about having a club to support is an overdramatic simplification. I think many would have chosen the ifollow option anyway, and any potential refunds would have possibly been a small fraction of the maximum of 500k, deferred against the next season tickets to maintain cash flow to ensure that it was only felt once income was coming back in. And indeed because this hasnt been an option, it may well lead to people (including a couple on here) cutting ties with the club and not renewing. Take ethics and morals out of it and even as a business decision it makes sense to allow at least a deferred refund option. The reason it particularly rankles is because of the tone of the statement, guilt tripping working class people in situations whereby they get no value from the ifollow option, if they dont have a computer, if there is more than one person in a household, or if they have no interest in BCD, all of which situations strangely were outlined only to be dismissed in the statement, into thinking that wanting to get value from a refund would be seriously harmful to the club, considering that the person behind the statement is the main factor behind a 300k rise in director remuneration last year and the players weekly wage bill dwarves the likely liability caused by anyone claiming refunds. You can already see the dent it has had on the club and supporter relationship, the idea of cardboard cut outs may have been seen as proactive had it not come a day after being told that refunds for those not getting value from an ifollow link are off the cards.

Out of interest, and apologies if youve already said, but what did you make of his limited appearances in the first team, which is the real acid test rather than in the reserves where of course its impossible to replicate that same standard or competitive edge.

Would that not extend a month if their contracts were extended as such?

Has there been anything from the club in regards to the numerous players out of contract at the end of the month? In terms not of their future next season, but Again considering the supposed financial vulnerability at the moment, you would think that a ruthless approach would be taken on the players. QPR are the latest club to make financially driven decisions on contracts, Marc Pugh has been released even though he has played fairly regularly as they cant afford to extend his contract. I think Walton and Adarabioyo will be needed for sure. Downing is needed too, he will get another year. The rest are up in the air. Bell definitely shouldnt get an extra year, but maybe we need him for the last 9 games as a left back though. Graham is a difficult one, could go either way, if hes on decent wages though maybe its a luxury we cant afford. Smallwood and Samuel I think it is clear that we dont need. Leutwiler isnt good enough anyway, I would be happy to have a young keeper on the bench and not pay him for an extra month. Releasing Smallwood, Samuel and Leutwiler might save 50k over the next month, and if they was to release Graham, that might almost double. The wages are total guesses but that would be a decent saving and potentially 1.5k refunds if things really are as desperate as is claimed. If players like Smallwood got a small extension even for 9 games when they almost certainly wont play, it would make further mockery of the approach towards refunds and the pleading of poverty.

It is a bit different for Chelsea, a Premier League club owned by a oil rich benefactor. United and Everton are rich too and Premier League clubs. Thats a totally different market really. To be honest, if Rovers started splashing the cash (which they wont) it would just further highlight how unjust it was from Waggott yesterday begging, pleading and guilt tripping the fanbase. You would think we would want to sell players anyway based on how desperate the aforementioned statement was, but who is going to buy our players? I don't think any of our players will seriously attract Premier League clubs and there certainly isnt going to be clubs with money to blow in the Football League. It cannot be a normal market, aside from signing a freebie keeper and maybe a centre back, surely we do not have the luxury to be signing other positions, its all about stability and survival. If our CEO is begging fans not to get refunds of £60 then surely things are really desperate.

I dont think that its dawned on you yet that its not going to be a normal transfer window, we should sign x, y and z, "any Blackburn news Al?" kind of summer. Yesterdays statement proves that on the back of the pandemic that there isnt the money for transfers about. We will I am sure sign a keeper as we dont have one and possibly a freebie or another loan once Adarabioyo goes back but aside from them necessities, we wont start signing loads of other players surely. And if we do, it makes the clubs stance even more hollow. The whole market will surely grind to a halt. We cant sell players really because no one will be able to buy our players. Peterborough have said that Ivan Toney has to be sold, I have no idea who they think can or will buy him.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2020/june/face-in-the-crowd2/ Asking for £25 or for a "VIP" version £45 for a cut out in the crowd. Not sure how much take up this would ever get but the day after theyve stuck 2 fingers up to fans its just coming across as desperate rather than proactive.

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?