3 -1 flattered us last night. Fragility at the back and lack of goal threat is not a good combination. The much lauded fighting spirit was conspicuous by its absence. Dack is either not fit or not interested. Body language and lack of talking among the players suggested low confidence all round. Team selection totally bemusing. There is always one team that plummets into a relegation battle in the second half of the season. I hope it's not going to be us!

Sorry if this has been asked before. Does anyone know if we can pay on the day for the away end tonight ?

This statement is a direct quote from his talk at the fans consultation meeting on Thursday night -word for word ( as recorded for Radio Lancs so probably taken from that). Not a reaction to Saturday's match at all.

He was quite clear about his opinion on Brereton's abilities at the moment. Also said he was a great lad and well liked by everyone. But it sounds like he's not getting a game up front any time soon. Have a listen on radio Lancs on Wednesday night. Hopefully it won't be edited.

Well that was embarrassing. I work in Preston so not looking forward to Monday morning. I came away from the fans consultation meeting on Thursday full of admiration for Mowbray and convinced he was the best man for the job - and then he comes up with that brain-fart of a team selection. Total blame is on him for complete nonsense idea that nobody else would have come up with. Unbelievable. Even after the fillip of the goal at the start of the second half we continued to give a Coylesque performance. It was the team selection that had set the scene and reduced confidence. On Thursday Mowbray said quite categorically, on and off the record, that Brereton is not ready to play down the middle due to his lack of upper body strength, inability to hold the ball up or turn defenders. I am convinced he was not Mowbray's choice when he was signed ( See Ben Brereton thread for full discussion). Venky's playing some sort of Moneyball game in my opinion. Very, very disappointed with that performance- players to some extent but mainly by Mowbray.

Yes, I can see why PNE is an appealing match but it seems strange that so many people don't find ANY home matches appealing enough to attend.

Interesting fact that was quoted by Steve Waggott last night about the 5,500 tickets sold for the PNE game this weekend: Nearly 2500 of those fans have not bought a single ticket for a home match this season ( and are not ST holders). Is it that many folk just prefer the away-day experience or are big numbers still deliberately boycotting Ewood matches? Didn't cause much discussion last night but I thought it was an amazing stat.

I think you have just made a good point against the surcharge which you seem to have been defending in your previous posts - nobody likes paying them. Everybody has a limit to the amount they are willing to pay and increased costs are a reason some people won't attend - not an excuse. Nobody needs an excuse not to attend - it's a free world. Maybe £30 is a barrier too far for some people. You say yourself you wouldn't pay it. Buying any tickets on the internet seem to incur surcharges these days and EVERYBODY moans about them. People are not just picking on Rovers for doing it. It would be great PR if Rovers dropped the surcharge to encourage attendances - simple as that.

OK, so I don't have a credit card and like to pay cash. An advance trip to Ewood to buy a ticket would cost me more than £3.00 and take up valuable time. Why should I pay more than anyone else ?

Firstly, you don't need any excuse - it's a free world. However, if a ticket is normally £27 but £30 on the day it is a consideration to some people. If the surcharge puts one person off then Rovers lose out by by £30 so it takes 10 other 'walk ons' paying an extra £3.00 to make up the difference. It would be far preferable to get all 11 fans paying £27 in the ground and get (very nearly) the same income. If it never puts anyone off and everyone is happy to pay the surcharge then Rovers income is up slightly but not great for PR

I completely agree with you on Mowbray's record and suitability as Rovers manager - there is no question that he is the right man and doing a great job. I also agree that nobody can judge Brereton yet as he hasn't had the chance to prove himself. This thread exists purely because he cost a vast amount of money. I am just not sure that any manager would have chosen to spend 80% of his transfer budget on a player that is unlikely to get a starting place in the first team. That's why I think Mowbary was perhaps not the instigator of Brereton's signing. Having said that, it is not necessarily a bad signing - it could turn out really well - who knows?

Maybe this is a Venky signing and Mowbray didn't have much say in it?

I think you are right with this assessment. Maybe it wasn't his decision.

I was talking to a Rovers' scout a couple of weeks ago. His remit is to report only on young (23 or below) British players who are proven at their particular age levels ( ideally international appearances), will accept a reasonable wage ( he didn't know what this figure was ) and will increase in value over a 2 year period. That's it - Rovers will not permanently sign anyone who does not fit this description. That is what he understands ( not sure if Rothwell or Bell fit completely !) He was not aware of any Rovers scout watching Brereton or any reports sent directly to Mowbray - but he admits he wouldn't necessarily know this anyway but sometimes he hears things on the scouting grapevine. He thinks the fact that Liverpool, Man Utd and Chelsea definitely had scouts watching Brereton last season made it a bit of a coup for Rovers to get him but he was not necessarily Mowbray's choice. He just ticked all the boxes and was seen as an investment. Loans and free signings are entirely in Mowbray's hands but permanent signings, so he has been told, could be more of a club decision based on the above.

That's the way polls work Chads. You ask a number of people and extrapolate to give an idea of how a larger number of people might vote. 14 out of 70 IS significant. Especially on a message board for dedicated fans. I'm not one of the 14 by the way. I don't have Sky and a red button would never keep me from a Rovers game if I could possibly attend. On the other hand, Venky's ARE keeping me away from Ewood and it's still away matches only for me.

It's only a small sample but the poll tells us that over 12% of fans are already influenced by the red button and 6% are undecided. Assuming the undecided are obviously wavering because they feel they may be influenced at some point, that's a large percentage of dedicated fans who may not go to a game at some point due to the availability of the red button. Over 18% in total. When you consider that the people who spend time on this site are probably Rovers 'addicts', that says a lot. The figure is probably higher than 18% among fans who have an interest in Rovers but only attend now and again. So it looks to me like the red button may have a big influence on attendances at all clubs given those figures.

Wow, £120. Be interested to know how many takers there are at that price.

Managers should never be rewarded for selling players at a profit. How would anyone trust that their transfer activity was for the good of the club and not self motivated?

A 6 year deal is of benefit only to the manager not the club. If the manager is sacked he will receive a massive pay off. If he fancies a different job he simply resigns from his current post. He doesn't have to commit to staying the full 6 years. 3 years is enough to give security for the manager and continuity for the club. If that then leads to another 3 years then thing must be going really well and everyone is happy

Nearly eight years already ? Time flies when you're having fun!

Patrick Bamford?

JHRover also stated that he didn't think 4 x £2million would have been authorised. Maybe we should be asking which available £6/7 million player would have been a good signing and an immediate impact at Rovers?

Anybody pay the £3.00 last night ? It would be interesting to know if the club feels the extra revenue is worth it when considering the possible deterioration of fan satisfaction. If one fan decides to stay at home due to the £3.00 late fee, it will take 10 late payers to replace the income of that one fan. False economy

The exploitation and control of certain aspects of our lives by VENKY'S continues largely unchallenged by those who buy their products.

For an evening match that starts at 7.45 pm, how many fans are at the ground by 6 pm ? Especially if you work until 5 or 5.30 pm. I would say the majority of 'walk ons' for an evening match will have to pay the (post 6 pm) £3.00 extra. I believe the intention of the hike is to try and get people to the ground early so they spend money there ( food, drink, club shop) rather than go home for tea and turn up just before kick off. The surcharge also discriminates against fans who travel further and can't possibly make it for 6.00 pm after work. It would be more honest to advertise the tickets as £31 ( JWU ) with £3.00 discount for early birds. It is nonsense to compare the surcharge with theatre thickets and other events because they normally have no problem selling out. Rovers have thousands of spare seats each match to try and fill.