Hmmm. Hanley was part of a Newcastle squad that won the league the season after leaving us and has since become a regular at Norwich (mid-table side). Marshall last seen at play-off chasing Millwall where he earned rave reviews. Cairney has become captain and most important player at Fulham who have been in promotion contention for 2 years. Rovers have suffered a lot more than those players we sold who have at least remained mid-table Championship players if not improved.

Yet they are in the 3rd division and are a shambles. Having parachute money got them nowhere last season. So definitely not higher up the food chain.

Depends on what you class as the 'food chain'. Premier League clubs yes, and I'd have no problem with departures to those, but which Championship clubs are we considering as 'higher up the food chain'? In my view none of them should be. Yes some are armed with parachute money but that doesn't inevitably mean we will lose our best players to them. I worry we're getting into a 'them and us' mindset of us being smaller fry and others as 'bigger fish' who can come along and pluck our best players. Of course it all comes from what approach our owners take, if they want us to be a selling club who loses better players to rivals then that's their decision, the alternative is we fight tooth and nail to compete with these clubs and don't entertain approaches from them for our players. The evidence of recent years with Rhodes, Cairney, Marshall, Hanley and Duffy is that they will entertain such attention, but i don't accept it is inevitable or unavoidable. Plenty of non-parachute clubs fight to keep their talent and succeed in doing so. Sunderland aren't higher up the food chain and if people running this club believe that to be so then we're in trouble.

I'm of the view that the step up isn't massive. If you look at how ourselves and Wigan have run away with this league, reaching 96 points+ each, winning games on a regular basis even when not playing well, that tells me that we've been a level above in this league, thanks partly to retaining the core of squads from the Championship. I think even with limited additions and investment we should compete in the Championship. It might take significantly more to think about threatening the top end, but again there's plenty of evidence to suggest that money and investment is a side-issue - Norwich, Hull, Forest, Sheffield Wed, Sunderland - all struggled last season despite big budgets or parachute money whilst Brentford, Millwall, PNE, Cardiff all performed well without.

I'll give you McCormack but then again Fulham themselves signed him from Leeds for £11 million a couple of years earlier. Malone joined Huddersfield after they were promoted - higher division = fair enough. Doubt Fulham would have sold him to Bristol City last summer.

Yes, to Leicester a team a league above them. Brighton massively in debt to their owner who poured fortunes in to get them promoted and admitted himself they'd have probably failed Ffp rules if they missed promotion (though would have probably fought an embargo rather than accept it as we did). Fulham owe £100 million+ to their owner. They finished below us the season before we decided to sell our best player to them for a knock-down fee without even consulting our manager. An extra few thousand through the doors every week won't account for millions on new players. Every club in the Championship loses millions a year. We aren't a special case on that front. Thanks to these owners we're one of a very small number who decided to try and solve it by selling everyone decent. The direct consequence was relegation and millions more lost. Anyhow, I think we're getting off track. My point was that some (Chaddy) are convincing themselves that these owners won't dream of selling Dack or others to rivals for a fee like £3 million. My point stands that they've a very recent record of doing exactly that, so i wouldn't be surprised at all if they did it again when it suits them.

Is it a different situation? You tell me. I thought it was a different situation when Bowyer was manager, then he was sacked and Coyle happened. We had a CEO in place when Cairney was sold. Derek Shaw was his name. Didn't stop a player being sold behind the manager's back. Every Championship club is a selling club? Tell me when the last time Fulham sold a key player to a Championship rival? Villa? Derby? Preston?

Default setting of any Telegraph reporter is to say 'nothing in it'.

Surely you're not still falling for that old chestnut that all those players had their heads turned by other clubs and pushed to leave? It was the club who wanted them gone and they went. Not the other way around. The evidence for that is the way the £30 million disappeared not to be seen again. Clubs that reluctantly lose their better players generally follow that up with a signal of intent by replacing them, not pocketing the dosh and replacing with trash. The club wanted them sold. By the time Marshall, Hanley and Duffy (our last 3 decent players) were bundled out the door to Championship rivals the club and owners had made their intentions abundantly clear by getting shut of Cairney, Gestede, Rhodes and Olsson with no reinvestment along with the Lambert fiasco and appointing a clown like Coyle as manager. Those decent players left knew full well the club was going one way and the owners wanted the £30 million that came with it. I recall people making comments about 'grass being greener' when Ben Marshall left Wolves to go to Millwall in January yet last time i checked he went on to play a central role in them rocketing up the table and nearly making the play-offs. Millwall and their fans very impressed by his contributions to a team that finished in the top 10 of the Championship last season, so another one who I'd class as 'decent'.

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that both Fulham and Brighton (clubs we actively sold our best players to) posted losses on a similar level to ours and owe similar amounts to their owners as we do/did. Difference with them was they were/are serious about getting promotion. So sales weren't inevitable, they were optional as a means of clawing back lost cash. The fact those players went on to be successful and worth a lot more than we sold them for goes to show what a shortsighted and flawed policy it was. Had we kept them, built around them and seriously gone for promotion the chances are we'd have gone up instead of those clubs or if not we'd have had Cairney etc. worth 5 or 6 times what we actually sold him for. So we got the triple whammy - selling best players for less than they could have fetched - weakening ourselves massively - strengthening rivals massively. My view is that if you ignore or try to justify their behaviour between 2015 and 2017 and instead focus all your attentions on what they did from 2017-present then you're leaving yourself open to major disappointment. Every club is a selling club insofar as a bigger club in a higher league wants one of your players then you're going to struggle to keep him. But when you're actively following a policy of selling all your best players to whoever wants them from the same division then that isn't acceptable. To my knowledge no club in the Championship has embarked on such a firesale of quality as we did to league rivals. Plenty sell the odd player or two mainly to higher divisions but that isn't what we did.

They sold Cairney to Fulham for approximately £3 million and Cairney is/was a better player than Dack, proven at Championship level. You don't seem to have learned from experience. I agree that in today's mad world £3 million for someone of Dack's importance would be below expectations, and I agree that if we had any sense a contract extension and simple not for sale to a Championship rival stance would do the trick, but again, we've seen from experience that might not happen. Once you get a reputation as a selling club keen to do business with anyone (including smaller clubs in the same league like Fulham and Brighton in recent seasons) then more and more rivals will take the mick with cheeky offers and stunts to try and nab our best players. Firm rejections put an end to that but here they keep on cropping up because we don't tell them to clear off.

It appears so although I was under the impression he was out of contract. He and Conway signed new deals when Lambert took over and it turns out Evans signed until 2019 but Conway only until 2018.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16218560.Corry_Evans_disappointed_with_season_ending_but_eager_to_kick_on_with_Rovers/?ref=mr&lp=14

We need to be bolstering the squad with permanent signings to begin with whilst retaining all those we want to keep. So get rid of Feeney, Ward, Gladwin, possibly Whittingham make a decision on Evans and Conway, sign 4 or 5 Championship standard players to replace them, new contracts for Dack and Graham along with others if needed, bid for Armstrong, then sign a couple of quality loans later on if needed. If you have ambitions as a club you don't sell your best players to rivals. So if someone wants Dack it should be the Premier League or nothing. I'm tired of sob stories about FFP and parachute money. If we're serious about moving forward we fight and we keep who we want to keep unless the player has a step up to a higher division.

So we've WBA, Swansea, possibly Stoke, Ipswich, QPR, possibly Charlton, possibly Scunthorpe all in the Championship next season under new managers. Throw into the mix the rumblings at Leeds, Bolton and Sheffield United, and the consequences of Villa not going up, and you've almost half the division could be under new management come next season.

Comes back to my theory from last week. I suspect that the plan moving forward is to close both upper tiers unless essential and to allocate all away clubs the entire Darwen End lower e.g. 5000 seats with more on demand if needed. Therefore if WBA and Bolton etc. only bring 3000 or so that area will still look reasonably full without needing to go upstairs. Someone in India wants to see full stands on camera so this is another step on that path.

I'm sure if they'd have been clear from the outset that the rationale behind it was to save a few quid whilst condensing the home support then even those being moved would have understood the decision. I'm also sure that if they ran a scheme of relocation to a suitable designated block elsewhere it could work quite smoothly without upsetting existing season ticket holders. To now try and make out as though it is being done to help supporters because we're going into the big boys league and will get massive away followings is quite insulting. Last time we were here only PNE, Leeds and Villa filled the Darwen End (or got close to doing so). For those games the Darwen End people were moved into side stands, no problems. I also find it quite insulting that the club suddenly claim to be concerned about supporters convenience and yet you can bet when Leeds or Preston come to town with a full Darwen End the club will agree to move kick off times to 12noon to significant inconvenience to a lot of supporters.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/may/darwen-end-statement/ So Waggott says the decision was purely to avoid inconveniencing home fans. He's expecting Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield United, Leeds, Preston, Bolton, Wigan, Stoke and West Brom to all bring sufficient numbers to require more seats than the 4,000 that can be allocated in half of the Darwen End without needing to move home fans from the Darwen End. I think he might be disappointed on that front. Leeds will fill it and PNE might fancy a big day out again but other than that unless one of those are going well for promotion I don't see them bringing that many. Agreeing to noon kick offs for those games will also guarantee smaller travelling support.

Marcus Maddison transfer listed by Peterborough.

He seems to either do very well or be a complete disaster. Very good record at Middlesbrough, Twente and Derby but dreadful with England, Wolfsburg and Newcastle.

Think McClaren gets a bit of unfair stick. Yes he failed horrifically at Newcastle but more relevant to his potential QPR appointment is his record at Derby County over two spells. In his first he took them to the play-off final in his first season, very unfortunate to lose to a last minute goal against 10 men, and in his second he had them going well for promotion until the wheels came off as he was being lined up to go to Newcastle. In his second spell he turned them around after a dreadful start to the season under Pearson where they were bottom of the league. Win %s of 53 and 44 in his two spells. Not saying he's a brilliant manager but his record in the Championship at Derby is good, add on top of that he's worked at QPR before and can fit the 'head coach' structure and it strikes me as a half decent appointment. Trouble with QPR is that they still haven't learned lessons and still think changing manager every season is the way to success. Holloway was a strange appointment seemingly based more on his history with the club than his recent results.

Hope that is true but very difficult to quantify it. Would be better if they said it was x% greater than the first day last year etc.

Clearly someone orchestrating the whole thing, wanting Venkys to appear to be open, accessible and involved in club affairs. No surprise that Balaji embraced the publicity side of it and was happy to throw his doors open to Sky Sports to show them his luxury car collection, but more surprising that the puppet master of the scheme managed to get Mrs Desai on speed dial. Of course as Venkys continued to put their foot in it through their ridiculous comments and statements it added to the public belief that these were merely well intentioned but clueless owners, rather than the alternative, which was that they had minimal involvement in it at all other than providing a front and the capital whilst other people ran the club and made the decisions.

I've always found it odd how in the immediate aftermath of the takeover and during the Kean days all of the Venky clan were easily accessible, particularly to our friends at Sky Sports. Not just the chuckle brothers from the moment they were paraded on the pitch at Ewood before the Villa game but also Madame who provided numerous interviews and was on hand to provide her opinion on all things Rovers even though she had previously admitted not understanding the game. Then the shutters came down and it is rare for even the manager or staff of the club to get chance to speak to her, only happening face to face once a year at her behest in India. Probably more difficult to speak to her without an invite than the Queen. Curious how for such supposedly private people someone managed to persuade Madame to find space in her diary to provide interviews and how when things went horrifically wrong that she suddenly becomes an intensely private and busy person who can no longer speak.

Stoke and WBA would only need remotely near 5,000 if they were going well for promotion or if it was a special occasion - e.g. bank holiday or cheap tickets. If they were mid-table or bottom half they wouldn't bring anywhere near. Likewise as you say the big North End day out whereby they bring almost as many to Ewood as they get on at Deepdale is unlikely to be a regular event. Leeds will always bring 5000+ unless obstacles are put in place to prevent them. Villa and Boro - again - capable of filling it when the going is good but I'd be interested to see how many turned up if they were 15th in the League. Easy when you're sat top 6 and going for promotion. My concern is that Rovers are mistakenly thinking that 5,000 away followings are going to be frequent and are hoping to milk that by charging £30 a ticket like Bolton and Leeds do, which will ensure next to no walk on fans at home. Nothing stopping Rovers from charging away fans £30 for tickets but then offering Rovers fans a 30%+ discount on those prices for 1875 members. We've been done in the past with the old membership trick at Old Trafford with away fans charged more than home fans who are 'members'.