Shouldn't be difficult to find some better from just about anywhere, according to the thread since yesterday. Wahlstedt is on his way according to the Telegraph as well.

Who mentioned money? You're telling me there won't be one new player coming in?

I can't see Eustace not having a keeper top of his list, if indeed he wants one. I can't for one second see Eustace making do with Pears, if he doesn't fancy him.

As you know, I'm not talking about the obvious errors, I'm talking about the ones which wouldn't have even been mentioned normally. Like Markanday making a mistake and losing the ball, but it was somehow Pears' fault, that kind of scrutiny. It all got a bit ridiculous. My main point was, a keeper should be relatively easy to recruit, if he's still in goal come August, it will be because Eustace wants him. There shouldn't be any talk of having to make do, or can't afford him. Those arguments won't stack up, like it or lump it, he will be Eustace's man.

What went in Pears' favour last season was his injury. The clamour for Wahlstedt to play resulted in some over the top criticism every time Pears played,some "mistakes" which were highlighted were beyond ridiculous. Once Wahlstedt had tried his hand, the magnifying glasses were put back in the drawer and we had some more reasonable criticism. He obviously dropped some clangers, but the defence was notably steadier when he came back in,i don't think anyone would argue. The question is, does Eustace want him? Money wise it shouldn't be a problem, and it should be Eustace's number one priority. For that reason, I would imagine that if Pears starts as his number 1,it will be because Eustace wants him as his number 1.

Are we desperately trying to sign a new keeper?

Tomasson rated Pears over Kaminski, you might not agree, but there's nothing strange about it, it was just a manager choosing his favoured keeper.

Good shout on the services. Missus and 3 daughters get the Blue light offers on stuff, pretty sure it would be easy to implement for all things Rovers,assuming it isn't already. My idea was for a half season ticket to be used over the full season, for those struggling to get to every match.

Ta, it's an interesting comparison, although with little uns at Rovers still only costing £23,it does look on the whole like they've looked after the youth.

The majority stay away because we're shite,I've no doubt, but they won't give you that reason, they'll cite the owners as the reason. I can't give you the reason why they do this, you would have to ask them. For many, it's probably a combination of both.

I can't know 100% obviously, I might get run over tomorrow , but the last home game I missed was Peterborough in League 1. It's still £15 a game, whether I can go or not is down to me. All I can say is that if a season ticket doesn't suit your needs, then don't buy one. If they were £200, you'd still miss a lot of matches. My suggestion was a flexi half season ticket which could be used over the full season, just need to section off part of a stand. Someone did point out, though, that it might impact the sale of full season tickets.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the last bit, I don't particularly think that a lot of them are honestly boycotting, but I've heard it used as an excuse for staying away many, many times. First thing, don't use the stooge argument, it's ridiculous. For me it works out at £15 a game, I can't argue for you because I don't know your working situation , why would you buy a ticket if you can't go? There are 23 games averaging out at £15, whether you attend or not.

Just checked, under 11s are free at Preston, up to under 19 are £131. Under 12 at Rovers are £23, Under 18s are £56

How does that break down, are Preston's under 12 tickets cheaper?

I honestly haven't checked, how much is it for a family of 4 to buy season tickets at Preston and Rovers?

And yet, Burnley's are a bit dearer.

Believe me, I've got 4 kids and 6 grandchildren, I am definitely not out of touch. The tickets are available on finance. There are all sorts of factors going on at Rovers. Just lowering the price will not automatically mean we'll meet Preston's sales, it's a bit naive to think it will.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter how cheap you make the tickets for the thousands who are staying away because of the owners. If you think an extra £54 off would get close to selling out even the bottom tiers, I think you're deluded. If £15 a game isn't cheap enough, and particularly £16 for a parent and kid, then let's face it, there are more staying away in protest than you would care to acknowledge.

If I win the lottery, I'll tell Waggott I'll subside season ticket prices so they're the same price as bloody Preston's, just to settle the argument ffs. Deepdale at a 20k capacity is too big for Preston, and they're still nowhere near to selling it out with the cheapest tickets,and a far bigger population draw.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It never rang true to me, not when we turned down a fee for Gallagher, with also the chance to shift the biggest earner's wages off the books. I think it was all to do with the fall out.

It certainly contradicts the Travis leaving to save his wages rumour. Not that I really ever believed it.

I wasn't even giving it my personal opinion, I don't know why someone has given me a thumbs down, it's a fact, he's got the best record since Sir Alf. God knows what people said about Robson and Enables.

He's the best since Alf Ramsay.