The only game when he really had an influence on the game was that Charlton game. Obviously he scored v Wednesday with a feeble shot that took a big deflection but otherwise hes looked like a little boy lost and has had very little impact on games. Im not saying hes a lost cause or coming to any extreme conclusion myself but equally how you can justify that last sentence based on what weve seen is beyond me.

To be honest, Skys coverage of the EFL is rather standard/average. Heavily focused on the bigger clubs especially Leeds and also 95% focused on the Championship. Ultimately that is demand driven I suspect but I can still understand other teams kicking off regarding that. Coverage usually starts soon before kick off and analysis is minimal, always playing second fiddle to the Premier League but again, it is the second (and occasionally third/fourth) division so suppose again that is demand driven. The actual brief punditry like with football on Sky is standard with good pundits and some not so good pundits just like other networks ie BT, I think it is quite difficult to mess something like that up as people watch for the match itself. Not surprised to see clubs kicking off about red button which as much as it benefits me occasionally has to be scrapped for the sake of football clubs. That and the split of teams coverage as I mentioned. I am not sure how much demand there is for Championship clubs on TV because it is a good to watch league but sometimes at the absence of quality. Something will have to give at some point somewhere because having so many clubs losing money as they are is not sustainable.

You aren't the only person who I have seen say that but I certainly didnt ever see a competent left back in Bell or a noticeable improvement. Still indecisive and utterly unthreatening going forward and easy to bypass defensively.

Not that Hull side it isnt, without Bowen and Grosicki you really see how shit their squad is. But in general playing teams with nothing to play for can be better at this stage.

So does Bell.

Forest will definitely get in the play offs, on the same points as Brentford, whereas Swansea are level with us on points. Between Preston and Millwall for 6th place I think.

I think Buckley for the vast majority of time has looked as far away as you could possibly be in terms of impacting games, which I think is obviously at least partially down to his physique. I remember him coming on for the first time v Bolton last season and he looked like a little boy whereas Butterworth looked really sharp and got involved. I dont think hes been helped being played out wide, hes not particularly fast. The Charlton away game was a different story, he played as a number 10 and he looked a different player, very smooth picking the ball up on the turn and I can see technical ability there. With Rankin Costello I have not really seen what he is about in admittedly much less game time. He also came on at home as a sub I recall and again looked a little overawed. I definitely think that there is more scope for Rankin Costello in terms of the position he could play in the team compared to Buckley as we are desperately short out wide whereas Dack and Holtby are number 10s. I suspect the play offs will probably be beyond us a game or two before the end of the season so maybe additional scope to get them game time.

Think he said something very similar after leaving Coventry. Basically that it was his fault for not getting a leader who can head the ball away. He also mentions Daniel Ayala, maybe in a normal economic situation he would have tried to get him here this summer.

You might query his position etc but ultimately he made zero attacking contribution in either start which as an attacking player is ok to point out. Im sure he tried his best and worked hard but just as its right to acknowledge a good pass at Hillsbrough, its ok to acknowledge the lack of impact in his two starts without pretending otherwise and equally its not negative or not giving him a chance to do so. Hopefully he will do something when his next start comes about.

It is and theres not necessarily anything wrong with the club trying to maximise its profit. The club has gone to the trouble of outlining the various scenarios in which, within an admittedly difficuly situation for club and lets not forget fanbase alike, where they know and have acknowledged that people are not going to be remunerated for a service that they have paid for and not received. The club did a Q&A where essentially it said yeah that is the case but theres nothing we can/will do, hard luck. Youve even said "maybe they should be given an alternative deal" which is all that people are asking for. Whether we think its fair enough or whether we feel its an overreaction, we have evidence on this messageboard that the club will lose season ticket holders in the future due to this. Opinion doesnt come into it when the attendances keep falling. The paying fan holds the power. Looking from a more ethical point of view, to guilt trip working class people, many of whom will be struggling themselves at the moment, perhaps furloughed too is out of order and out of touch. Mowbray regularly references the working class people paying for a ticket and suggests he knows what they want from their football etc, but seemingly Waggott or whoever is responsible is more out of touch. Waggott and the players meanwhile have salaries which as far as I am aware may have been deferred but not in any way reduced to "save the club." Also, there is no way that the club is financially fragile to the extent that these refunds could make a major impact on the very existence of the club. 60 quid x 9000 STH's would be just over half a million pounds, baring in mind many people are happy with the ifollow option and any refund liability (deferred against a then guaranteed ST) would not be make or break to the club. The FFP line is also baseless because refunds can be deferred.

Was totally ineffective in his other start v Fulham too. Looked overawed whenever he got the ball.

I suspect that obviously the policy is financially driven, but ultimately as touched upon, it will quite possibly damage the club, even if you discount ethics/morals and focus solely on it from a business sense. I dont even think they needed to offer an option of being able to withdraw the money immediately necessarily. Or offer add ons like DVD's, because those who do get value from the ifollow option do not need to be further remunerated. I and many others am happy enough with the ifollow links, a DVD wouldn't make any difference to that. Even if you only offer a deferred discount on the next season ticket as an alternative, you are then ensuring that the person buys a season ticket in the first place and are only suffering the comparatively minor hit on a refund at that same time. Focusing solely on those who obviously arent happy with ifollow. If 1 in 6 (roughly) of those people who arent adequately remunerated decide as a result that they wont buy a season ticket next time out, any supposed saving on refunds is nil. Then of course you have the long term effect of them people not returning indefinitely.

Walton Nyambe Lenihan Adarabioyo Bell Travis Evans Downing Holtby Rothwell Armstrong ...with maybe Williams over Bell.

Very much so. One of the areas that Waggott and co are really coming up short is communication. I dont think that there is a chance that ST prices will be reduced to factor in this lack of option regarding refunds, and if they do go back on their current policy at all, I suspect it would just be reacting to bad publicity. It had to be done as an alternative option within that original statement, as per most Championship clubs, because then you have scope to use that goodwill to encourage the ifollow option as preferential to the club, but you are satisfying those that can or not get value from that option to know that they will get that refund on the purchase of their next season ticket. That way, you are also almost guaranteeing that they are going to buy a season ticket. Theres a consistent vibe of guilt tripping throughout the PR coming out of the club during Waggott's time and quite simply it will not wash and it will not yearn an increase in attendances. Sorry to keep reverting to your posts @Mattyblue but one thing you often reference is a lack of understanding in terms of the clubs fan base and how it works and that is evident here.

Ultimately the majority of Championship who of course are in the same situation have opted to give that option though. The line about having a club to support is an overdramatic simplification. I think many would have chosen the ifollow option anyway, and any potential refunds would have possibly been a small fraction of the maximum of 500k, deferred against the next season tickets to maintain cash flow to ensure that it was only felt once income was coming back in. And indeed because this hasnt been an option, it may well lead to people (including a couple on here) cutting ties with the club and not renewing. Take ethics and morals out of it and even as a business decision it makes sense to allow at least a deferred refund option. The reason it particularly rankles is because of the tone of the statement, guilt tripping working class people in situations whereby they get no value from the ifollow option, if they dont have a computer, if there is more than one person in a household, or if they have no interest in BCD, all of which situations strangely were outlined only to be dismissed in the statement, into thinking that wanting to get value from a refund would be seriously harmful to the club, considering that the person behind the statement is the main factor behind a 300k rise in director remuneration last year and the players weekly wage bill dwarves the likely liability caused by anyone claiming refunds. You can already see the dent it has had on the club and supporter relationship, the idea of cardboard cut outs may have been seen as proactive had it not come a day after being told that refunds for those not getting value from an ifollow link are off the cards.

Out of interest, and apologies if youve already said, but what did you make of his limited appearances in the first team, which is the real acid test rather than in the reserves where of course its impossible to replicate that same standard or competitive edge.

Would that not extend a month if their contracts were extended as such?

Has there been anything from the club in regards to the numerous players out of contract at the end of the month? In terms not of their future next season, but Again considering the supposed financial vulnerability at the moment, you would think that a ruthless approach would be taken on the players. QPR are the latest club to make financially driven decisions on contracts, Marc Pugh has been released even though he has played fairly regularly as they cant afford to extend his contract. I think Walton and Adarabioyo will be needed for sure. Downing is needed too, he will get another year. The rest are up in the air. Bell definitely shouldnt get an extra year, but maybe we need him for the last 9 games as a left back though. Graham is a difficult one, could go either way, if hes on decent wages though maybe its a luxury we cant afford. Smallwood and Samuel I think it is clear that we dont need. Leutwiler isnt good enough anyway, I would be happy to have a young keeper on the bench and not pay him for an extra month. Releasing Smallwood, Samuel and Leutwiler might save 50k over the next month, and if they was to release Graham, that might almost double. The wages are total guesses but that would be a decent saving and potentially 1.5k refunds if things really are as desperate as is claimed. If players like Smallwood got a small extension even for 9 games when they almost certainly wont play, it would make further mockery of the approach towards refunds and the pleading of poverty.

It is a bit different for Chelsea, a Premier League club owned by a oil rich benefactor. United and Everton are rich too and Premier League clubs. Thats a totally different market really. To be honest, if Rovers started splashing the cash (which they wont) it would just further highlight how unjust it was from Waggott yesterday begging, pleading and guilt tripping the fanbase. You would think we would want to sell players anyway based on how desperate the aforementioned statement was, but who is going to buy our players? I don't think any of our players will seriously attract Premier League clubs and there certainly isnt going to be clubs with money to blow in the Football League. It cannot be a normal market, aside from signing a freebie keeper and maybe a centre back, surely we do not have the luxury to be signing other positions, its all about stability and survival. If our CEO is begging fans not to get refunds of £60 then surely things are really desperate.

I dont think that its dawned on you yet that its not going to be a normal transfer window, we should sign x, y and z, "any Blackburn news Al?" kind of summer. Yesterdays statement proves that on the back of the pandemic that there isnt the money for transfers about. We will I am sure sign a keeper as we dont have one and possibly a freebie or another loan once Adarabioyo goes back but aside from them necessities, we wont start signing loads of other players surely. And if we do, it makes the clubs stance even more hollow. The whole market will surely grind to a halt. We cant sell players really because no one will be able to buy our players. Peterborough have said that Ivan Toney has to be sold, I have no idea who they think can or will buy him.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2020/june/face-in-the-crowd2/ Asking for £25 or for a "VIP" version £45 for a cut out in the crowd. Not sure how much take up this would ever get but the day after theyve stuck 2 fingers up to fans its just coming across as desperate rather than proactive.

If it is an option then its poor communication by the club as it certainly isnt clear, if its not as I suspect then it is very poor relations with supporters.

Have they offered discounts on next years season tickets?

I dont understand the mindset of those going out of their way to defend the club in this case. Like myself, I presume that most of those people are content with the ifollow option, they feel adequately remunerated and like myself on a personal level are happy to leave that there. Or even in isolated cases, arent STH's/regular attendees and are just struggling to empathise. As @Mattyblue touches on you also have to appreciate the bigger picture ie that it could be harmful for the club longer term because it is a big example of potentially straining a relationship with its supporters. Defending and condoning the statement yesterday, both in its content and tone is leaving the responsibility and guilt of a "struggling" club upon the working class rather than the directors whose salaries have tangibly sky rocketed recently and the players who have as far as I know agreed to defer their wages but not in any way compromise the amount they will receive. You would never expect people to donate £60 to the club to help to "safeguard it" otherwise so if these people do not feel adequately remunerated, if they dont have a computer, if they are part of a household of multiple season tickets or if they hold no interest in BCD as an alternative to what they paid for then essentially letting that rest and going without would be donating £60 to the club and people shouldnt be guilt tripped into doing that. The FFP excuses has been laid to rest to because the refund could be deferred.

I suspect he has just picked up a knock, when you consider Samuel, Graham, Downing etc all played including Smallwood who hasnt featured all season and it was just wishful thinking on my part.