I might be wrong but I estimate we’ve won more than 50% of the games with him with us. The relevance of his “tangible” impact far outweighs the relevance of his comments. That said, his approach in interviews is something I appreciate. I’m not assuming his likeable demeanour in these interviews means he can’t be hard with the players either. You don’t spend 10+ years at a decent standard and pick up several honours as a professional, if you’re a patsy.

Once again, from my perspective you are wrong and Tony is right. It takes time to “nurture” improvement. In his time, the squad is better, the individuals are better, the recruitment is better, the atmosphere is better and overall so far the results have been as good as we’ve had since Big Sam. Particularly the home form. All the minimum expectations have been surpassed. The club from the outside seems to be better on every front you could list, and I think is disingenuous to dismiss the poor state he took over when considering the improvement overall. Things change quickly in football but I have a large amount of faith in Tony to carry on the good work, which for me has been a resounding success so far.

Is that more down to the way he has been utilised? I don't recall making a post that set out excuses for every missed placed pass, poor reaction or mis hit shot.

I doubt Mowbray is ecstatic about his impact so far, but I don't think he will have expected what some fans will. The discussion on what his wage/fee will actually be has been done to death, as has the arguments about how 7m could've been spent this year differently. That said; There seems (from my view) a lot of naivety about the financial climate and level of competition in the championship, combined with the current wage scenario at the club. The response I often get to that is a lot for Rovers, and whilst I agree to an extent, its a very insignificant amount of the 200m+ spent by Championship clubs so far in 18/19 or the 250m+ spent in the same league in 17/18. Not forgetting the average wage in the premier league is 2.5m a season before taxes, its not difficult to imagine that many of the deals made in an attempt to get teams into that league came with contracts worth a lot more than 7m. Many of them players come with no potential re-sale value, and many of them will return nothing on the cost. For all the sarcastic remarks towards the managing director saying there was scope to move the budget between wages and fees, the 7m figure has been used as a "cosh" to suggest this particular transfer was intended to be immediately key to the first team. For example; You call him a marquee signing, but by the words upon his deal completing and comments since, combined with the way he has been used (Graham the number one forward) suggest this was never the case. I would've liked to see more so far, but there is not the rush suggested in my opinion. If you look at the squad as a whole - combined with a few of the u23's on the fringes, its quite easy for me to get excited about the near future. It will only take 2 or 3 making similar jumps to what Travis did last month, or Nyambe early season, to see this squad improve drastically. If he does do, as you suggested - leave here and make it somewhere else (the devil on my shoulder has also suggested this possibility) then it will certainly be the fault of the manager(s) and coaching staff, for the way he was used during his time with us.

You need to look up the meaning of Straw man! You said you don’t think cutting prices, ergo cutting revenue will make much difference. I disagree entirely. We need to maximise our income to compete. Just because the turnover for season tickets is small fry compared to the yearly wage bill, it doesn’t mean it’s completely negligible - and FFP limits investment.

Keep up - youve suggested we slash the turnover and it wont make a difference.

I have made plenty of posts about the key being re-engaging with the schools and getting kids in for free.

Sorry BB, 3.5m is a huge slice of the clubs overall turnover at this level. I understand it’s negligible in the prem, but even with the Rao’s investment and 5m tv money for the championship - that money will be key for helping us compete.

Well since we’ve lost on average about 15m a season since the owners rocked up, it’s not hard to imagine that we may fall foul of those rules, especially if the turnover is written off by slashing season ticket prices.

Criticism is criticism. I have never understood your irrational need to constantly look for cracks and flaws in club management. The assumption of expertise is tiresome - your input on what the club might or could do holds absolutely no weight since you’ve neither the experience or information at hand. That constant need to suggest improvement or isolate potential flaws shows unwillingness to see a situation (none of us are experts in) with any balance. I personally think, or rather should say “know” since it’s impossible to argue against - if we had bigger attendances, we’d be in a better starting position for moving the club forward. I can’t empathise with fans who will only support their team when it’s a big game or after success - and why should I? That attitude is far more detrimental to the club than using the word “Commitment” in a marketing gimmick. It listening to countless excuses for not supporting the club (under generally false guises) has made me view some “supporters” with a certain bitterness, then so be it. There’s scope for improvement but the key thing is how we play, not the pricing structure for me. If we are in a good place come April, it’ll impact ST sales too. What about FFP?

Turnover directly impacts outlay on wages and transfer fees. If you cannot accept or see any validity in this notion - why are you constantly referring to the "obscene" fee for Brereton as an issue? 3 games in 12, or 3 games in 3? Newcastle looked for the taking and the performance away will have definitely encouraged more fans to attend. The premier league pull, combined with those other elements AND the cost will have brought more fans - however I don't think 12000 would've paid £10 if you have 0 wins in 12 running up to it, or if the game wasn't premier league opposition. What will encourage people to take up those 6 games? or say the last 3? A chance of promotion, a run of good form and something to play for. This is the main issue. Hence why I don't agree with those highlighting the price as a key contributor to putting fans off.

Dearie me..99 quid for 6 games is not expensive. Complaining that the "bring a friend" offer is on tv and it means you might have to move seat, scraping the barrel. Season tickets are key - so why the rush to criticise any attempt to get more people into the habit of regularly attending? I think you are talking absolute bobbins about a perceived attitude toward people not attending. My priority is the club in this case, more fans, more money - better atmosphere. You know that non-attendees are directly hurting the prospects of the team - but you'd sooner justify this position by complaining about the clubs offers. To see a marketing strategy as "passive aggressive" is the icing on the cake really, I mean surely anybody who wants the club to move forward knows that commitment from fans, players, the manager and owners is key. Its a buzzword to inspire some level ownership - you might have a different subjective opinion on the impact that strategy might have - but to see it as insulting is an absolute joke. The reason people don't attend is individual, but the groups over the years change with the wind. One minute its NAPM, the next its too expensive. Who are Newcastle by the way, and what do you think (bar price) may have inspired more people to attend that game? Level of opposition perhaps? Run of form up to it? Performance at St James? Nobody has demanded the club spend more? Forget straw men, that is just a blatant lie. If you remember correctly, its only 10 days since the "lack of ambition" was disected on the transfer thread.

If you’ve read my posts, you’ll know that I don’t think any ticket deal is going to bring in the numbers without success on the pitch. The price is being used by many here as a reason why some won’t attend. I just don’t agree with that idea, I think some suggestions are frankly ridiculous(for example halving the cost of the ST). Referencing the premier league “fortress Ewood” strategy ignores the attractiveness of fixtures compared to this level, and it also ignores the FACT (not opinion) that turnover or sponsorship money through the league made our ticket money negligible. Its also pre-FFP, and whilst many people have had their say, I don’t recall anyone even mentioning those rules, and how a bigger turnover from tickets would allow the owners to invest more without sanction. I also get the same irony @magicalmortensleftpeg talks about - a correlation between demanding the club spend more (After the most investment the team has had in years) and demanding it lowers prices “to suit all fans” Im not sure those views can go hand in hand with a straight face. If you want dirt cheap tickets then you surely understand the clubs turnover drops - along with wages/fees. As one famous moaner says, the tickets aren’t directly paying for wages/fees, but the more costs they cover, the more playing budget.

Whilst you’re bumbling for reasons to justify non attendance on cost, remember the key part of what I disagree with is; ”99 is a lot of money for 6 matches” I’m not sure how suggesting success is the main barometer for attendance figures is being contrary. What’s the main goal here? Bring back attendance and atmosphere or appease the those who will only attend one off games? Price will always be secondary to the stuff on the pitch. Since you’re obsessed with Strawmen, at 10 pound, would ten thousand extra turn up for last years final game (vs Oxford) If we hadn’t been promoted? All three of us know the answer to that.

So don’t put the rationale down to price. Its not, and never has been about cost. Theres plenty who will come back, but only through success on the pitch. Marketing is subjective. I think these multi ticket deals are a good way of getting people into the regular habit.

Again, 17 quid a game isn’t a price anyone could legitimately complain about. Yet they do, and will. I’m not attempting to justify it like you are.

Yes or no; “99 is a lot of money for 6 matches”

Sorry but I can’t do any further into your post without pointing out that the first sentence is utter garbage. This thread is hilarious, I’ve never seen so many people try to justify the non-attendance position. You talk as if it’s putting off fans - as MagicalM said, the same fans are complaining that we aren’t investing more money on the team. Genuinely, what is a game worth these days? Rather than avoid the question and go into some anti Chaddy rant, you tell me what you think the average game should cost.

3/4 PW according to FM19 - and I’d suggest that is far closer to the truth than me and you can simply assume. Question for you - do you really think 7m was available for signings, on top of the wages that the likes of Celina/Bamford that would’ve required?

The points you put across are a similar fantasy of stinny, from my perspective. Also particularly dismissive of the current crop of senior players, something I’ve made clear I disagree with. If you think signing BB was akin to adding a senior wage to the squad, from my perspective - you’re wrong. I’m not one of those people who simply chooses opinion by volume of those who agree! Armstrong came from a premier league club so my assumption is his wage would be more like our top earners. Brereton was young and his experience at championship level was always going to increase his fee compared to his wages! My thing with BB deal is people unfairly see 7m as the same or similar to signing rhodes, Kalinic, Davies, grabbi et al. I think that’s stupid personally. I think we only had the potential to spend that money because this particular player was in a wage bracket that meant more was available for the fee. The chairman (waggott) said pretty much the same.

You won’t accept the quotes of the person who actually sanctioned the deal so what is the point replying beyond that? I didn’t say we gave him his first pro contract FFS. I said we signed him from that. The fact you’d mention his previous experience in this league means you should associate that with a larger fee. For example, Armstrong who had question marks against his form in the championship cost allegedly half! Why? If you can’t see the difference between the yearly cost of that sort of deal, compared with someone more established and/or on premier league wages - it’s pointless carrying on.

Yea it’s called age. Someone on their first professional contract is always going to cost less monthly than your average proven championship level player.

Not convinced about the part in bold, especially the reactions to results on social media and here. Kalinic a good example of an expensive signing that didn’t really live up to expectations initially but by the time he left, looked like a bit of a waste.

Yea but then we’re back to the cyclical argument that we haven’t actually spent 7m on Brereton and the reduction in wages for him would’ve never been possible for a solid top level championship centrehalf! It’s like the Brereton maypole, round and round. It is a symptom of the clubs improvement that we are discussing such specific qualms, as opposed to lambasting the entire direction of the club.

I agree it’s fair enough for people to have their own opinions but every element of it from my perspective of what he said was wrong, hence asking what you thought. If giving an opinion (forgetting I didn’t post after the game until this morning or in the match thread) causes me to be a nightmare, I’m quite sure you need to toughen up - maybe stay a bit longer on holiday it sounds like you need it.