Absolutely that's the only thing for me that makes me not gutted that TM isn't gone. Not saying he is a good manager but being run by a substandard agency does mean replacing him well will be nigh on impossible. Venkys and the horror show previously are probably key reasons why he is popular with elements of the fan base too. In a normal club, or Rovers pre Venkys, everyone would want him out. Look at the stick Sam got for doing a much better job. It always comes down to Venkys and the effect they have on us, one of which is the erosion of standards.

There's a few things that undermine this. 1) Holtby wasn't out that long, 2) Holtby has been available throughout the return period and we have played a stupid false 9 formation instead and 3) losing your best player is going to have an impact as you say. Adjusting for this (for which there was plenty of time) doesn't necessarily mean getting a like for like replacement. Maybe we could have replaced Dack's goals with an improved defence bringing in a defender to equally lessen what we conceed, or a striker who was more clinical. Sure keep the formation but that doesn't mean adjustments for Dack being out cannot be made in other ways. Again Evans' injury record is exceptionally well known. Sure one of them was unfortunate and not due to being injury prone but he consistently has been injured throughout his time here as post lockdown has shown. Relying on someone with such a terrible injury record is asking for trouble. In fact it's plain stupid. This point also ignores the fact Johnson was brought in to be the midfield partner of Travis and has tanked at it. So whatever way you look at it, this is the manager's fault for relying on a sicknote and/or buying a dud alternative. I agree the Cunningham injury was bad fortune. However we never replaced him even with ample time. It also ignores that Williams was our cover for centre back too, so if one of our centre backs had got injured we would have still had a hole in the defence because the manager did not have adequate defensive cover. This is horse manure to put it bluntly. Sorry that's harsh but it feels like a complete rewriting of how Bennett has been handled by TM. Remember Bennett played the last game because Nayambe "had played a lot of football." Nothing to do with the injury situation but forcing his golden boy into the team at any cost. The idea that Bennett has only played as much as he has because of injuries is laughable. Further evidence of this is that Downing did a decent job at lb (and I thought JRC looked ok there too) but Bennett has been played there ahead of both of them on several occasions. Apart from the January transfer window. Plenty of time to rectify it there. Or having adequate defensive cover. Or not relying on a permanent crock in Evans. Plenty of ways we could have improved planning or predicted elements of our misfortune. Again two issues with this. Firstly other than blind hope what makes you think Gally or Ben will step up, they have been absymal. There's very little evidence whatsoever that they can step up. I don't think we should be giving TM more time because these guys may come good, as they very much look like they won't. Secondly even if all of this is accepted (and I think I have made a decent case for why it shouldn't be) what about all the other errors? Gally on the wing. Midfielders as a false 9. The terrible transfers of players such as Walton. The tombola selections. The non scoring strikers. The bottling it whenever we are near to the playoffs. The struggles TM has against teams when we are clear favourites. There's a hell of a lot of issues on top of the ones in your post, even if you can excuse them.

Ah but let's be honest with this such a mixed record - which shows more bad than good - is pretty appalling. Mixed is a very clever term as it is vague and can be spun positively, whereas the context determines what rate of mixed is acceptable. For example at uni a mark of 70% is a first and therefore a good result, whereas 70% pass ratio for a safety check would be horrifically inadequate. So in the context of a football club a mixed ratio of successful signings is pretty poor. from this list given 50:50 would be the best ratio TM could be said to have with successful transfers (I think the list suggests it is worse but we will go with that for now.) So that means half of our signings are duds. Given probably two thirds of our squad is made up of signings and half of them are duds that means a third of them are dead weights because of TMs mixed transfer record. When we look at the context and examine the specifics we see this is far from positive but horrifically mixed. It gets worse when we consider the level of risk and opportunity costs of the failed signings too. After all a low-cost failure doesn't have the same negative costs as an expensive one. Hughes for example trialed a few failed strikers such as Jeffers (and Fowler). They stunk but at low cost the risk and damage was minimal. Contrast that with TM - the big signings have gone badly wrong the last 2 years and 2 of the 3 expensive ones in league 1 went badly too. Theres a lot more damage from these signings being missed in terms of costs and not being able to respend the money or have used it elsewhere. Also on this loans. Loans are to give you things you otherwise couldn't get. They are there to rent a better quality than you could buy, like Tosin. Problem is this better quality in than we can afford often hasn't been the case. The likes of Harper and Walton have been poor, but also use up slots that really should have been top quality. Slots that were an opportunity to get better than what we could buy. So yeah mixed is the word, and in the context of a football club that is a terrible result.

In fairness I think Bell looked a good move on paper. He was doing excellently in league 1 and seemed to have the physical attributes and scouting reports would only have come back positive. So I see why we signed him and is one of the ones I think has been unlucky. I also think that under a better management Rothwell would do better and we would get more out of him. But you missed Palmer and Leuitweiller off your list of duffers. Not that it needed the two names scratched off replacing. Even without a few debatable ones it's a hell of a list of mistakes.

See this is the thing. Short of destroying the Jack Walker statue and changing the kit to jockstraps I struggle to see how any new owners could be worse. We won't get anywhere being the plaything of an agency with owners who won't even use Skype for planning. We are literally set up to fail. I mean seriously the bar is so low now I fail to see how it could be worse.

Very mixed record. Shame that most of our bigger signings each year have been poor - Whittingham, Bereton and Gally. Also factor in how many really bad signings - as in not just not worked out or been mediocre but been detrimental to the team. I cannot remember another manager bar clueless and the odius one (neither of whom count) having so many utter flops at big expense and/or in key positions.

Quite simply whilst Venkys are here it ultimately doesn't matter who the manager is. Under their reign of terror we will always have the handicap of a poor management structure and huge delays to setting budgets and targets. Under their reign we will always pick managers from the same shoddy, third rate agency. And yet people think they are good because they haven't killed us off from the mess they put us in? People think they're good despite their agencies ties and incompetent way of running things making things a thousand times harder than it should be to recover? Nah, there is no way that Venkys past or present are anything but a curse to Rovers. The worst of it is they aren't going anywhere.

Words fail me. How can people forget they put us in this position?

I don't know who would. But I do know ANY owner would be better than what we have. I mean aside from their well known history of the club they still let us be run by agents, are late in deciding budgets, don't have any sort of accountability in the club or a proper management structure. And that's them at their best. Defending Venkys is literally defending the indefensible. Not saying you are but pointing out asking who will want it is daft as anyone would do a better job. That said they will never sell because they have a house full of skeletons at Ewood never mind a closet and they won't want that exposing at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53403060 Another reason why I hate football as well as love it. It allows players to act like this. Seriously wonder why a player would throw away their career like this though - no pride or ambition whatsoever.

I've just read a Mike Omar crime book in the Zoe Bentley series and fantasy book The Killing Fog be Jeff Wheeler. Found both of them good reads. Speaking of fantasy I really hope the youngsters are blooded but they'll be competing with the regular lads for spaces as TM won't want anyone to be unhappy. Reckon it's a nailed on win. Nothing to play for, fan criticism of TM - all hallmarks of a Rovers victory.

I think it's called morbid curiosity rather than excitement...

Personally think that was one of @chaddyrovers best posts. Until the last point about we don't know who we would have signed it was all based on reasons and well articulated. I disagree with a fair number of the points but appreciate reason, rational and facts as oppose to we don't know what would happen arguments. To suggest the loss of Dack hasn't had a huge effect is nonsense imo. Would it be enough to get us top 6? I'm not convinced as we weren't top 6 with him in the side. But given he is such a key player I'm confident we would likely be a bit closer/doing a bit better. I think the main thing for me from this is that it doesn't absolve TM as blame as there was no effort to replace a key player who was evidently out for a long time. To me that shows utter negligence, and whilst a like for like replacement would have been difficult, to not take any measures to counteract his loss is criminal. He could have thought ok we have lost Dack's goals so we need to conceed less and get a defender (or actual keeper in) or get a striker with a few more goals in them, buy or loan of budget is low - plenty of possible solutions to the absence of Dack. He is absolutely influential, not addressing his loss has been a big mistake. I think the arguments focusing in on the Millwall game is a bit of a red herring as there have been many occasions where the formation and the roles players have been playing have been real head scratchers. Personally the issue of playing favourites and the nadir of the lot dropping Nayambe for playing lots of football screams out that happiness of the squad is put before winning and is a sackable offence in and of itself. The European scouting network will take time to establish and I'm not sure when it was set up. If it was on our return to the championship it is unreasonable to expect any fruit from it last season, and an argument could be made for last summer depending on how long it took to establish (I have no idea on this!) 4 windows however does seem a tad alarming and there is a lot of pressure for it to work now. Whatever the length of time it takes to establish it cant be used as a positive for TM until it actually produces something! The loan situation and transfers in the summer in general is a huge problem because there is so much to do! We knew Mulgrew and Graham had limited shelf life in League 1 due to age and yet 2 years on neither have been replaced effectively. Admittedly not for want of trying but 12 million on we are no nearer to a replacement which is criminal. Factor in we need 3 key elements of our defence replacing - an area of the team where consistency and continuity are even more crucial - and the age of Johnson and Downing. That's 7 players needing replacing before standing still. (The Mulgrew situation taught us something no matter how poor is better than notjing.) Even a slight less emphasis on loans would make this summer's task much easier. Given the age of the squad having so much emphasis on loans was a mistake. No issues with them being the missing pieces of the jigsaw, in fact they clearly are, but they shouldn't make up so much of the picture when half the pieces also need replacing due to age. There's also no doubt TM has made some great signings as listed by Chaddy BUT the issue is there's just as many clangers and they tend to be more costly. In the transfer review thread I gave him a 50:50 success rate on signings but when half of them are clangers that ultimately means half the squad are duds. And when the overall longevity of the squad is considered you can only wince at the problems we have. Yes we have some great players but it is totally undermined by the clangers we have in the team and unbalanced squad. Tosin is brilliant but it is undone by Walton's howlers. Armstrong is on fire but too many resources are lost in Ben and Gally who also won't contribute goals. One step forward, one step back. The biggest defence of TM is that he isn't a complete duffer as evidenced by promotion, some decent signings and our mid table finishes. In any other club that's no reason to keep a manager on whatsoever. However at the circus that is Rovers in the thrall of a substandard agency it is a very pressing and relevant factor. Their past record shows they couldn't appoint a good manager if they tried and are beholden to an agency so aren't really trying. Such circumstances make TM considerably more attractive as a proposition. Sadly though it doesn't make him a good manager.

Yet with a bit more nous we could be in the playoffs. A fraction of the £12 million better spent, a few less times players played out of position, a little less use of the false 9, a bit more cover in defence or for Dack, a couple less games when Bennett squeezed in at full back, a marginally better keeper than Walton - any number of minor baffling decisions, some of which like the players in the correct position were super easy to sort, could have given us that bit extra to be in the playoffs and a potential escape route out of this mess.

This is interesting as I generally see you as an optimistic poster. Excluding Holtby who I think I have been overly generous about, what's interesting here is as a TM fan, you think his best signings are worse than I do, but his worse signings are better than I have rated them. Wouldn't have expected that. What makes you think Downing and Tosin aren't as good as i do, and yet Walton and Gally better. Appreciate this is all opinions but it's an interesting outcome I wouldn't have expected.

What I pick up from his interviews is a man who plays favourites and says one thing and does another. For example: defenders are coming - starts Mulgrew game 1, they only come on loan, and the bare minimum arrive, leaving us still threadbare for over half the season. I picked Bennett because Nayambe had played a lot of games - in other words he has favourites. I highlight Nayambe's mistakes in the press but not Bennett's - more favouritism. I stopped the owners from spending money, told them to put away the cheque book - I may be imagining this one but if true you wonder what's going on. Heaven knows the squad has needed strengthening for two years. We have a European scouting system - yet no players from it. I'll be honest his comments don't make me think he has passion but that he's full of horse manure.

Whilst he will struggle to be worse than Walton, this is still a very low bar. Keeper is one of the most important positions on the pitch and yet we are going for people I would be dubious about having as a second keeper. It's so frustrating that we look at such substandard candidates. Also it seems totally at odds with our striker signings adding further credence to the theory we aren't allowed to spend money on anything but attacking players.

A very interesting set of stats. Shows how vital Lenihan is and that he is more important to us. Tbh that's a tad worrying given his injury record. That said I don't think the possession stuff is as wasted it we might first appear. It's often when the ball is constantly given back to the opposition that it invites pressure onto the defence, resulting in more goals. So I imagine that us retaining possession through Tosin actually probably does make a difference to the amount of pressure on our defence and limits the number of attacks. It's probably one of the reasons the current defensive partnership works so well. That said, I would agree, the out and out defending of Lenihan probably is of greater value. Edit: Just a thought but could also the lack of Lenihan and the stats showing more defeats when this happen be attributed to the lack of his leadership skills. When Lenihan is missing there isn't much leadership and it's probably then when ahem, our favourite "right back, is "leading" the team? Just another factor/thought on the influence of Lenihan.

Some interesting thoughts. On hearing people's well articulated views, I think I may have been overly kind to Holtby. I think I've a couple of mid-season matches in my head where he played really well, heavily influencing my thoughts. So perhaps a 6.5 or 7 may have been more appropriate. Potential wise I think he has a lot in him, so could become a very good signing, which again perhaps influences the rating. A cynic may say him likely to be at Rovers for more than one season is seen as an overwhelming benefit given the rest of the signings but i like to think that it was more potential than a lack of short-term-ism influencing the rating. As for Johnson, given his wages, how crap his bad performances are, his fitness issues and the intentions for the player - not to mention he is another short term signing - I stand by the 3.5. Perhaps I'd go as high as a 4 for his good performances but really would struggle to give any more than that. Really helpful and interesting to hear what others think.

The bull about confidence really can't be true at all. After all if that were the case Bennett can't be feeling too confident after his recent forrays at full back and Walton looks shot of confidence after some utter clangers of late. Half our strikers have zero confidence which shows in their hesitation on the pitch. Funny how confidence only seems to be a factor with Nayambe.

The admission that Nayambe was left out because he has played a lot of football, is the clearest, most blatant evidence yet that Bennett must be included at all costs. When a player is dropped for playing a lot of football (not I note, because he was fatigued) then it says performances or winning don't seem to be number one on the agenda. TM's handling of Nayambe is appalling. No wonder he won't sign a new contract. For every player we bring through, it seems like there's a decent chance TM will alienate them like Raya.

I've done a few of these now assessing the previous year''s transfers. I think I started doing this back in League 1 to help me process TM's work in the transfer market, and if nothing else, the last few years have certainly made for interesting debate as to how our transfer business (and TM) have done. We're coming up to the end of the season, and since Rovers have evidently signed off early, I thought it would be fine for me to do likewise and wouldn't hurt for this to be a couple of games early. As it is I'm not sure too much will change in the last couple of matches to make this review obsolete. As ever, I'm really interested in others thoughts on our transfer business. So here goes. It should be said that in some ways this is a rehash of last December's review, given that there were no new signings in January. The more I think about this the more inexplicable this is for so many reasons. Firstly there was the injury to Dack. Given we had lost our best player, to make no adjustments and sign no one as cover is incredible. Fortunately Armstrong took over the role of pinch hitter - who saw that coming? - but even if there was a suspicion that he could do this, there was evident need to share out the burden of Dack's influence. Given TM has at times commented on missing Dack, to not make any move to replace whatsoever, seems a tad odd. Cunningham's injury and a threadbare defence is another shocker as to why there were no buys. The defence looked thin when Cunningham was fit, without him it looked threadbare. Given his injury was even further before the transfer window than Dack's again it seems incredible we didn't replace him. We've since had Williams covering two positions, and Bennett drop to new lows at left back. Again, this all seemed pretty needless. We've been very fortunate Lenihen hasn't had a more typical season injury wise for him. Thirdly, we were meant to be chasing playoffs. I'm not saying we should have gone crazy but a little bit of extra help may have seen us mount a more successful push for playoffs.Even had it not been for the two crucial injuries that needed replacing, the idea that a bit of fresh blood could have injected a bit of energy and competition into the squad seems like something we really could have done with. Especially given the players and formations didn't always seem a natural fit. So whilst it's not a signing as such, TM's omission to sign anybody in January, given the huge need, is a huge failure of omission imo, and needs to be factored into evaluating our transfer dealings. As for the signings themselves, with the benefit of a year of playing, here are my thoughts. Walton - 2 If you had asked me pre lock down it probably would have been a 5. A poor half of the season was seeming to be offset somewhat by some solid performances, although that in part just accentuated the problem of having a loan keeper. Since then Walton has shown that his first half of the season wasn't simply an adjustment period and has (bar the West Brom game) put in some of the most abject performances of any keeper in a Rovers shirt, costing us a number of points. So two thirds of a season he has been horrific, we don't own a first choice keeper so it doesn't matter if there's potential in there (his few good performances suggest that he might become decent in a number of years) .and he cost us a lot of points. Meanwhile we swapped out a keeper with potential who's done pretty well, had a lot of potential and was ours. I genuinely don't think we could have handled this any worse. Tosin - 9 Brilliant signing. Links into the style we like to play, has looked super solid with Lenihen, and has been excellent for us. It's a shame he was only on loan. A few errors as a young defender, but few calamitous and given his overall talent, had he no errors in him he'd have been playing for City. Great signing marred only slightly by the fact he was one of three of a back line that was temporary. Hopefully (but unlikely) we can get him back next season. Johnson - 3.5 You don't buy someone of his wages to be a squad player. On his day he can be very, very good and there were some good spells from him. However, these 45 minute spells were often let down by fitness, his legs weren't up to sustaining that level of performance even when performing well. And if his good performances were strong, his poor performances were terrible, bordering on cardboard cut out. So 50:50 whether we get a good or bad game, and even the good won't last for more than 60 minutes. There have been spells when he has been out of the team (for a big chunk of the first half of the season I think) and his age means that his fitness problems aren't going to get any better. Also given he's behind Evans in the pecking order, and we haven't got better than Evans in 6 transfer windows, you really feel he's failed to do what he has been brought in to do. I guess he's better than Smallwood, but meh, that's a low bar indeed. Given he was envisaged as a first team regular and clearly isn't capable of that either on a performance or consistency basis, then he can only really be classed as a poor signing to me. Cunningham - N/A Unfair to rate, but looked promising in the few games he played. However, as Armstrong and Walton have shown in different respects (one good, one bad) this season, using a handful of games as a snap shot isn't really enough to judge a player on. He could have been excellent, but equally could have tailed off. Unfair to judge or praise TM off the back of so few performances from this guy. Downing - 9 Great free transfer, adding versatility, width and creativity. He also, sad incitement of our defence as it is, is the best left back we have with Cunningham injured too. All in all an excellent signing, who has performed consistently well in a variety of roles. Ina small squad with a mediocre budget this quality in versatility cannot be underplayed. Personally would have liked to see him more wide left in a 4-2-3-1 supplying crosses to our strikers, but wherever he has played (bar the false 9) he has looked solid and consistent. The only negative is his age, but a very astute free transfer who I think could have been the final piece of the jigsaw had other transfers worked out. Very clever move. Holtby - 8 Really liked the look of Holtby and thought he was a clever signing. Bags of talent and looks rather good whenever I have seen him plau. I've limited him to an 8 (maybe 7.5) though as in terms of actual end product, there doesn't seem to have been as much as I had hoped/expected for the level of his talent. Happy to be corrected on this, but for an excellent talent,it doesn't seem to end in much. That said I think some of his link up play with Armstrong and Dack at times has been fantastic, and unlike some of other players there's plenty of time for him to develop in this. Gally - 2 At least there's been a few goals. But like Bereton he cost a ton of money, leaving us short elsewhere. The money could have been invested in a much needed strengthening of defence or a keeper. He doesn't fit the wide right role that he is often shoved into. And whilst not his fault he's being played out of position, it makes his transfer all the more baffling. He doesn't look like having a strikers instincts either, and I don't like his attitude. Apart from that, he's been a great buy. So on paper 6 signings, 3 excellent, 3 very poor. with an average score (rounding up) of 5.6.That seems decent on the face of it. But when the omission of not buying anyone when blatantly needed in January is factored in, the fact the majority of the budget was blown on a failure, and the longevity of many of the signings, good and bad, was 1 season - the likelihood is that 4 of this year's signings need replacing - you really think that this had been a bad year in the transfer market. Given that's included the successes of Tosin and Downing, it's pretty shocking when looking at the overall picture to see how badly this year's recruitment has been handled. It doesn't give me much confidence for the future.

Agreed. Especially since we had a better team in league 1, and generally have a better team and have spent way more than them. To be on level pegging pretty much despite all that is a very poor do.

This false 9 stuff has to go. It's not helping our strikers or whichever midfielder takes the role of the false 9. Given we have a strong midfield (attacking wise) it's a formation that nullifies one of our biggest threats. The other issue I have with it is that more often than not it doesn't work. Our points tally since the restart indicates that it isnt a great formation for us, and has a limited scope of teams it seems to be successful against. Once you factor out the surprise factor as we regularly play it too, it really has little going for it.

Lol. I appreciate there are very few consequences at our club. But I could be wrong in thinking that the Millwall game did for Appleton under Venkys watch, albeit in more turbulent times. Appreciate that probably a lot worse has to happen before Venkys act but they act and with his mate in charge the chances of change are minimal. If I'm honest it's more the game seemed deja vu then what happens to the manager.