As I said on the latest BRFCS podcast (available here for your audio pleasure), the 'six signings in a week' has turned the 'deadline day generation' into thinking this window is a success. Lets be clear: its four signings (plus one U23 player and one contract renewal) and two returning loans (Buckley, Travis) with outgoings from January of: Sam Gallagher Semir Telalovic Leo Wahlstedt John Fleck Jake Garrett A. Wharton Niall Ennis Yasin Ayari Andrew Moran Ben Chrisene Billy Koumetio Whether these 11 players where any good or not is beside the point. Tony Mowbray, Jon Dahl Tomasson and John Eustace have ALL said the squad is stretched. All of these players need replacing with either educated, well thought our recruitment or established Championship players. The idea that we've had a good window or improved the squad is nonsensical. You cannot just keep removing first team players and promoting youth.

Without wanting to speak on behalf of OldJam… The Trust have over time said time and time again posts on here (or other social media platforms) aren’t official responses from The Trust and are instead views of individuals. Official comms from the Trust come from the We Are The Rovers BRFCS account. They’re under no obligation to post here because not everyone here is a member. Although as many of us are - myself included - realistically the statements are best published by them here because they’ll make their way here regardless. Speaking as the BRFCS owner, I’m grateful The Trust maintain a presence on BRFCS and I think it’s wise they do as we have the largest Rovers active ‘membership’ (ie posters/viewers/active accounts). Should The Trust (or any other supporters group) ask BRFCS for attendance at meetings or opinion on ideas they’ll always get it, but we will say our true opinions and summarise the mood of our ‘membership’ whether that is what people want to hear or not. I would hope (and understand this is the case) The Trust appreciates that and given historically there’s been ‘bad relations’ between the numerous different supporters groups - which served no purpose other than unnecessary division - I personally feel it’s necessary.

Correct. Although Vale has proven himself to not be capable at this level. So replacing and unknown player with a known incapable player isn’t wise.

You can’t just wipe someone from history, Eddie. Whether he was good enough or not he was here and he was an option that needs replacing. Him being an option the manager chose not to use is on budget and recruitment.

The latter question is the exact opposite of how to deal with them, in my experience of discussions with Waggott. He will ramble on for 15 minutes about how they’ve made multiple attempts, mention 8th and 7th place finishes, talk about how football has changed and how it could have been different if (insert injury, or bad decision, or non signing) hadn’t have happened and before you know it he’s talking about something completely off subject and you cant get back to the point.

And perhaps more importantly: “Suhail, you have previously accepted that your knowledge of football is limited. Who has told you that <insert decision here> is a good idea?”

I’m not sure you can have a chair at a supporters meeting, like you say, it won’t work. If the question isn’t answered you simply reply: “I don’t feel like that answers my question, could you please expand/confirm/go into more detail.” and sit and wait. It’s basic interview technique, ask a simple and straight forward question, then let the other person speak. Of course, that’s why anyone from BRFCS would be there. They’re not inviting me because we’re friends! To be fair, with notice we’d probably send @Herbie6590.

If BRFCS is invited to this supporters consultation - much like at the earlier meeting - I'll be respectful and dignified but won't shy away from asking hard questions and pressing until there's an answer.

If they're both attending consultation meetings then its on the supporters to push for the questions and if they're not answered keep pushing.

If there’s clear communication at least the fans will be able to understand the full picture. As it stands there’s so much rumour and hearsay, because they don’t communicate even the basics. I agree with the Trust here, it’s the biggest issue.

“the Owners are committed to continue to fund any losses of Blackburn Rovers for the coming season” This feels like a change in tone @Miller11, usually it’s “continued support for the future” or similar. Was that the impression you got?

I make it 15:37 as we speak and as yet I haven't been e-mailed the meeting notes @Miller11 ... if they're being released any later than 16:00, I hope your family don't intend on speaking to you tonight 😅

Brilliant post. If WATR, or another other supporters group, gets access to Suhail and doesn't treat the meeting with respect then it'll be the last one. You can be critical and demand change without being a cock.

Yes, if you're viewing it as a one-off meeting. If this is meeting one of many and the agreement was "i'll personally improve communication with fans" then its a success.

To be fair I think either i'm completely numb to negativity, or the majority of the responses here have been overwhelmingly positive!

Watch him score 20 league goals...

RE my post earlier: I've since spoken to Duncan. Getting access to Suhail is as close to communication with Venkys as we've had in a long, long time. It is very good news for the Rovers fan base. I don't care who's speaking to him as long as genuine issues are being raised and the key answers are reported back and not hidden from fans. I wasn't aware it was on Friday or if there was any earlier meetings, thus my post. If I was in charge I would have put out some sort of statement along the lines of "On Friday, We Are The Rovers held a meeting with Suhail Pasha and Steve Waggott. Minutes of the minute will be released in due course and no further communication will come from the Trust until that point." to avoid exactly this scenario. But ultimately i'm not on the board, so what do I know. Saying that, there's no use being an after timer and like I say as long as the important messages are getting relayed, this is a significant positive step. I look forward to hearing more tomorrow.

If The Trust have met Suhail then as a member I want to know exactly what was discussed please. Speaking to Suhail is essentially speaking to Venkys, it’s arguably the biggest breakthrough of recent times and with a club-threatening court case just over 2 weeks away it’s at a huge moment. As a side note, when was this going to be spoken about? Would it have been spoken about if Glen hadn’t posted it? How many of these meetings have there been?

Both Bristol (Our old mate Andy Cryer mentioned it) and WBA fans have said he doesn’t have the legs to be a forward anymore - both clubs played him wing back at times - so I highly doubt he’s anywhere near fit enough to go backwards and forwards in CM.

I can’t believe this for a second. He’s not unhappy that we may (or may not) refuse him the biggest opportunity of his career on treble, maybe even four-times as much money at age 29?

It’s what I predict Szmodics will do if we don’t allow him to make life changing money for his family.

Agreed - if between Ipswich and Rovers we don’t find a deal soon, he’s going to royally throw his toys out the pram.

Nixon reported that was the case. I assume under the club to drum up a bidding war. At no point has anyone from the club officially confirmed any deadline.

Nice one, Josè

There’s no gaurentees in life but if you can’t recognise Szmodics was a significantly smaller gamble that Gueye and Ohashi then were just not going to find middle ground here sadly.