Like everything else associated with this club what happens in years to come will come down to what our esteemed owners want to do. It won't be the division we are in or the amount of fans turning up or FFP rules that drag us down, it will be a decision from India that funding has to reduce/cease and efforts to achieve that. No different to any other club. If the owner wants to do it he/she can do. If the owners want to continue to fund the academy then that is their decision. I'm not going to lavish praise upon them for doing that, not when the infrastructure was nearly all already in place before their arrival and they have benefited to the tune of £20 million+ from selling Phil Jones and Grant Hanley alone directly as a result of the academy status. When you're churning out profits like that on player trading that cash would keep the academy going for another 10 years. Another couple of those lads emerge in that time and it pays for itself handsomely. Where there's a will there's a way. If they want to do it they can do. If the requirements from Category 1 academies become more difficult to meet, then they could invest in improving facilities to meet the requirements. FFP rules are irrelevant in terms of investing in infrastructure/academy development so they can't hide behind that excuse.

Wolves, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Villa all have Category 1 status and will be outside the Premier League next season. This season Newcastle, and Brighton also had it.

Yes perhaps they are. And if we were then we would be able to compete with them. That's the whole basis of my point. If we were run properly, like those clubs seem to be, then we would be able to keep hold of someone like Mahoney rather than watch him join clubs like Barnsley and Preston.

Its not arrogant. Its concern as to the current state of this club and the direction it is going. If Blackburn Rovers cannot afford to pay similar or the same wages as PNE/Barnsley to a local boy who is supposed to be our brightest prospect then something very serious is going wrong with this club. I'm not trying to do those clubs down, just that they shouldn't be able to offer significantly more money than Rovers, and if they can something has gone seriously wrong at Rovers.

The real slap in the face is that the compo we get for Mahoney will be about 10% of the pay-off Stokes gets for the remaining 2 years on his deal.

Do we know whether Mahoney has even been offered a new deal? Or is the temptation of £100-£150k compo too much to turn down for someone who was last season a squad player/regular in U23s in the first half of the season? If he has been offered a new deal, is that offer a serious, respectable offer, or is it a derisory wage reduction that tells the player that we don't really want to keep him? (see Ben Marshall and Jason Lowe for examples). When clubs like PNE and Barnsley are offering substantially higher wages than we are its time to cry.

We need to keep people like Mulgrew and Lenihan. When Newcastle dropped to the Championship they kept their better players and added to it, when Bolton dropped to League One they kept their better players as they knew they couldn't adequately replace them. If this club is serious about getting promoted next season then the first thing it needs to do is convince those sort of players to endure a year of 3rd division football to try and get the club back up and repair the damage of last season. Mowbray should be seeking assurances that not only will he be able to retain these players, but also that he will be able to sign the 5-6 needed to have a squad rather than first 11. Mowbray shouldn't be offered a new deal at this stage, or certainly not an extended one. If they want to pay him more or change his job title to manager then fine. But he hasn't earned a longer deal yet. He should be told to get on with getting promoted and he will get improved longer terms when he delivers that. Are they going to replace Paul Senior? If not then who runs transfers as Mowbray is only 'head coach'? Why was Senior appointed if 6 months later his position is redundant?

The rules say you're only allowed to start a game with 11 players on the pitch. I'm sure if they could managers would love to start with 12 or 13 as that would give them an advantage over rivals, but they aren't allowed. The rules say that whilst competing in the Championship you must field your strongest side, so when a manager makes 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday it is a blatant breach of that rule. The manager might want to rest players en masse and essentially write a game off as the play-offs are already secured, but unfortunately rules are rules and must be strictly enforced. If that manager, his players or Huddersfield fans don't like it then they should write to the 'EFL' and complain and ask for the rule to be removed, but until it is they should abide by it or suffer the consequences. I'm sure if Huddersfield had made 4-5 changes for the game then they could have argued that it wasn't a second string side. But their manager said: "We will now make the right decisions in the next two games to keep everybody fresh for the play-offs. Today we celebrate" Following that he made 10 changes to his starting 11 between Wednesday and Saturday. That is as blatant as it can get. The 'EFL' have already said that the only action under consideration is direct against Huddersfield i.e. a slap on the wrist fine and a nice timely boost to the coffers for the boys down at HQ. The rules are the rules. All clubs sign up for them in advance. We've suffered at the hands of rules which on the surface appear daft e.g. FFP, our complaints fell on deaf ears as we'd had ample time to prepare. Huddersfield have earned themselves a place in the play-offs and a chance to get to the Premier League. They haven't earned themselves the right to break the rules to give players a rest and affect the relegation scrap in doing so.

Two points there. What Huddersfield do in the FA Cup is a matter for the FA and not the 'EFL'. Most importantly what Huddersfield do in the FA Cup in a replay they were 99% certain to lose regardless isn't the same as what they do in a league game on the penultimate game of the season when the opposition are embroiled in a relegation dogfight and are placed to gain an advantage from that selection compared to their rivals. The reason the rule is there is to try and protect the integrity of the league and ensure there are no accusations of certain teams benefiting from teams fielding weakened sides. If Brentford decided to make 10 changes on Sunday compared to the team that drew at Fulham last week then I would expect them to be punished also, as would every Forest and Birmingham fan.

So you're ok with teams breaking the rules? The motivation behind it and the consequences of it are irrelevant. The rule is there, they broke it, they should be punished and so should any other team that makes 10 changes between matches and has a manager that admits to resting his biggest players.

Mike Cheston will play Mr Poe. Nothing wrong here children, everything's fine.

All that matters is that Huddersfield have clearly broken Rule 24.1 and that damages the integrity of the competition. There can be no denying that. Making 10 changes between Wednesday and Saturday and their own manager admitting he was going to rest players breaks that rule. It is simply impossible that Huddersfield have fielded their strongest team against both Birmingham and Wolves. One or the other wasn't full strength and therefore action should be taken. As a result they should be punished. If they aren't punished then its yet another example in a long line of occasions when the authorities in this country turn a blind eye to their own rules being broken. They might as well erase that rule if so. It isn't really a question of whether it has harmed our survival changes or whether Huddersfield are partly to blame if we go down. It's a question of whether they have broken the rules and whether the League have the balls to do anything about it other than dish out a nominal fine and line their own pockets in the process.

Again, the issue for me here isn't Huddersfield's decision to make wholesale changes so much as the failure on the part of the EFL to enforce their own rules. I know that the reason we're in this position is mostly to do with our own clubs horrendous failings over the last few years. But the fact remains that there is a rule in place in black and white that clearly states that full strength sides should be fielded at all times. I can't see how Huddersfield can argue they didn't rest players, and thus broke the rule. Of course we know why they did it, but that doesn't mean the rule should be ignored. We'll get the typical outcome - a nominal fine to top up the bank balance down at London HQ and to tick the box of taking action.

The issue here isn't whether Huddersfield wanted to make 10 changes or whether we'd have done the same in their situation. Of course they've earned the right to do it by securing a top 6 position with 2 games to spare and if I were their manager I'd probably want to do something similar. The question is does making 10 changes to a starting 11 that won at Wolves on Wednesday constitute a breach of Rule 24.1. If it does then they need to be punished. If it doesn't then I'd love to know what does constitute a breach of that rule, because other than playing the Under 16s I'm not sure what more Huddersfield could have done to show they weren't fielding a 'full strength' team yesterday. Of course as ever it's deliberately worded in a vague manner by League so as to ensure that they can't be held or forced into action. So as ever nothing will get done. These are the people supposed to be policing the game and yet they'll look to wriggle out of doing anything.

Section 5 Rule 24.1 of the 'EFL' rules: 24.1 Each Club shall play its full strength in all Matches played under the auspices of The League unless some satisfactory reason is given. In the event of the explanation not being deemed satisfactory the Board shall refer the matter to a Disciplinary Commission which has the power to impose such penalties as it shall think fit. Read more at http://www.efl.com/global/section5.aspx#MLSbJ4BSMdtcogMI.99 If making 10 changes to a team that played on Wednesday night and won 1-0 isn't a contravention of those rules what is? If they aren't going to act on Huddersfield then they might as well erase that rule because it won't ever be used.

Brentford are a dangerous side and score plenty of goals. They've won 12 home games this season. They put 5 past PNE earlier this season, 4 past Reading, Rotherham and Derby and 3 past QPR, Brighton and Villa. 73 goals scored this season which is only bettered by Norwich, Fulham and Newcastle. If we're still alive by the time we go there it is going to take a big effort to go there and get the win that might well be necessary. Amazing what they can do on 10,000 crowds and a shoestring budget Mike.

Birmingham have done the same as us and reduced prices to £10 anywhere in the ground for a huge game. This morning they announced that they only had 100 tickets left. They've already reduced Huddersfield's allocation to increase the home section.

Huddersfield have let us down at every hurdle. Let us hope they break the habit of a season and turn up against Birmingham. I know we shouldn't get into the habit of trying to heap blame onto other clubs but their results against our rivals have been absolutely terrible for a side pushing for promotion. In theory Birmingham's 2 remaining games are just as difficult as ours. Huddersfield haven't yet secured a play-off spot and might need a win on Saturday to guarantee it. On their day they are a strong side. Bristol City away is a tough place to go at the moment and although they will likely be safe by then I wouldn't fancy going there needing a win.

Where has this conviction come from that the players will be taking substantial pay cuts next season if we go down? Whilst these owners and the club have been setting up for relegation for some time now, it wouldn't surprise me if there was very little by way of wage decreases in the event of relegation. That seems far too sensible and well thought out. There's no way that the likes of Graham, Conway, Evans, Bennett, Mulgrew and Lenihan will be here next season. All our transfer 'strategy' for May and June will be geared towards getting those lads out of Brockhall for as much money as possible. This has been the strategy with our 'best' players now for the last 2-3 summers and will continue regardless of our league status. Relegation just makes it that bit easier as the players themselves will be in more of a hurry to leave and they can use the relegation to justify a mass exodus and further cutbacks. I reckon in today's climate there's a few million quid still sloshing around at Brockhall. Lenihan has had a good season and could fetch a couple of million at his age with a couple of seasons now under his belt. Evans when fit would bring in 500k, so would Bennett. Once these lads are out and the cheques have arrived in the post then expect to see Stokes dealt with by way of a pay-off for his 12 months remaining. Then they'll start to look at putting together a squad for next season and Senior can get to work on his list.......unlike some I have little to no confidence in the latest 'director' selecting quality players.

Lets look at our likely partners in relegation - Wigan and Rotherham. Will relegation be a disaster for them? Probably not. Both clubs know League One, both have been there recently, both have owners and boards that understand the league and know how to deal with it. Both have squads of players that will be able to adjust to that level on wages that are probably manageable at that level. I fully expect both will be at least pushing for the play-offs next season. Will we have a plan? Senior reckons he does, but if/when we go down will we see action or inertia? Our finances are shot at. Our squad is a joke, a mixture of loans, crocks and short term deals. The few with any value the club will actively attempt to sell rather than try to keep for a promotion push. Its obvious that their intention is to use the U23s to fill up the first team squad, both to try and boost player values ahead of another batch of sales and also to avoid having to pay any transfer fees It pains me but I'll be expecting back to back relegations.

Far too good a man to be working for SISU and Venkys

More down to Fawaz's unusual business style and refusal to appoint a CEO than a lack of money or investment. Infact just about the only thing he can't be criticised for at Forest is spending money. He's spent a fortune, albeit with a lot wasted. Recently they've had a few big sales as he looks to cut costs but then he still allowed re-investment into quality like Clough to the tune of a few million. Investment in football is putting above and beyond the bare minimum in to keep the doors open to try and improve the club and its chances of success. Venkys think investment is servicing the debt and paying the wages they have contracted themselves into paying. A bit like me buying a house and claiming investment because I pay the gas and electric bill. Never mind the walls are falling down and there's no roof.

Forest have spent cash, but remember that they've brought a lot in through sales of people like Antonio and Oliver Burke. Unlike our lot who have used the cash from player sales to pay wages and bills, the Forest owner has allowed some of that money (not all) to be reinvested into decent players such as McCormack and Zak Clough. Cheston will try to tell us all that it can't be done due to FFP but that simply isn't true. Forest brought in about £15 million through selling Burke last summer and in January spent a few million the other way. They've still made £10 million+ and avoided FFP sanctions this year. We could have done the same if we had owners who wanted to invest and had any ambition.

I agree that it is a shame that Mowbray wasn't in place in December so that he could use the January window to his advantage to give us a better chance of survival. I suspect the whole reason that the managerial change was left so late was to ensure that the new man wouldn't have the opportunity to request cash for transfers. Conveniently with Mowbray arriving in February he couldn't demand support/funds and has just had to work with what was already here. Also the refusal to spend in January was dressed up by some as a way of Senior pushing Coyle out the door and vetoing his transfers. I suspect these people aren't as daft as some think they are. They usually find a way to get through transfer windows without spending anything. Managing their coaching changes to avoid having to back the new man with cash is the oldest trick in the book. If Mowbray does keep us up expect a summer of inertia with him walking away in disgust after months of trying to get backing and someone else given the job with no time to make signings.

You have to earn it. Wigan are a limited side but a team willing to graft and not give up. Unfortunately if last weeks evidence is anything to go by that is the opposite of us. The poor sides who work and don't give up can turn those sort of games around. Those with no plan b and no idea won't.