Some good debate on team selection. Think I'm in the middle of all these opinions. For me the key issue is that this will be a battle, a real scrap and therefore we need to match them at this. With this in mind, I think the team would be influenced to the following selections Downing has to be left back as 99 suggests as Bennett really struggles there. Not sure there are too many other alternatives with injuries, but Bennett's liabilities at full back hugely increase when he is played on the wrong side. In the middle I'd bring in Johnson. He has poor fitness but is a canny battler and I think that is what will be needed. Knowing he will need to be replaced has less of a negative impact when 5 subs are allowed. Bennett could be a good like for like (ish) replacement later on. Up top we have to have our best player playing so Armstrong starts. After that it's a form Vs tactics issue really. Bereton had one of his best showings at the weekend however given it will be a scrap I wonder if tactically a more physically robust striker, either Graham or Gally would be better starting. With the games crammed into a short period I can't see many players starting them all so perhaps not a bad one for Bereton to be benched for. Also i'm not convinced he can make it 2 in a row! Much harder game imo as Wigan are in great form and we generally don't like a scrap or being favourites in a game. Hard game and probably a draw but a win is really needed to keep momentum going.

The fact that we have £12 million of strikers who have half a dozen good games between them and as many goals suggests our recruitment policy hasn't been up to scratch. Don't think either one is good enough to be a key striker next year. If Dack or Armstrong goes I think we will look very vulnerable in terms of scoring next year.

Oh Rovers. There's not that many fans to alienate. A fan can't have a £60 refund but we can help keep Hart in the manner he is accustomed to after contributing nothing. Smart move.

Thing is Chaddy, and I try to say this as respectfully as possible, it's also very different from being a good idea of extending Bell's contract too. I think that's where the issue lay. It seems totally counter to the strategy of waiting to see which league we were in before using up wages.

That makes more sense. Tbh that would be a better way round as it shows the club isn't daft with who it takes on. I can see the point in the clause and hopefully we had enough time prior to this for it to be clear Bell was good enough or if not nowhere near the team that it would be an easy decision for him/the club to make.

There's no guarantee that the keeper would sign either. That's a terrible, terrible non argument. In fact already being here makes it more likely for him to stay. As usual you have been caught out with the double standards. Being at the club and maybe not signing an extension is just as uncertain as the keeper not signing. In fact it's less so as there's the bonus of familiarity and benefit of not moving. You might as well say it's a good move because we play in blue and white, or because I had pizza for dinner. It has just as much credibility. Spot on and well summed up. I mean I wouldn't keep Bell in this division much less the other one. Although given TMs spotted transfer record and not being able to spend money on defenders (and not having any next season) I can see why they did. Still think we should be aiming for better though.

Mental. At least Smallwood has played at this level. Absolute madness. Not that I would have given Smallwood an extension either but I could see the logic in that. Hart never has been good enough, even at league 1 level, so why we have done that is beyond me.

Tell you what Rev, I totally disagree with you on most non-football related stuff but where Rovers are concerned you are bang on the money. I think, like you say, it is scary were he to leave and we don't go up what state the squad would be in. To not even have a decent keeper on the books who is vaguely competent is absolutely criminal. The defence at least has personnel next season but needs at least 2 first team choices and doesn't have any back up whatsoever. As for the striker situation other than Armstrong I can't think of one we would want here if they weren't already. Tbh going into next season that's a pretty shocking state to be in. And yet he still has us on the cusp of playoffs so cannot be totally useless. However I feel things are getting out of control and are going to catch up with us sooner or later. An unbalanced squad is going to tell at some point.

I think the reason I mentioned Coyle is that you are utterly unsympathetic to his situation to the point you say "other managers would take the job in this situation" i.e. there is no room for complaint and it isn't a factor in him being a crap manager. Now that is all well and good if that is your position BUT you mention every excuse and extenuating circumstance for Woodgate! It's total double standards depending on whether you like a guy or not. You can't say the circumstances don't matter for one manager, plenty of managers would have dealt with that situation, for Coyle yet plead mitigating circumstances for Woodgate. It's a totally contradictory stance. As it is if you think Could had a good budget you must be a bit disappointed that TM has not done better given he has a Walker or Abramovich type budget in comparison. Remember Bereton cost what, over twenty times what Coyle spent on transfer fees alone. TM never had to sell his best players. TM was able to recruit on top of the substantial wages of Graham and Mulgrew. I suspect you aren't disappointed with TM which again suggests hugely double standards.

Apart from the first half of the season which was error strewn and next season when he isn't here for us. So really hasn't been as good for us this season whatsoever both from a long term view and the half season of muck ups. Bit harsh imo as there was a lot of improvement within 2020 but the first half of the season was absymal. I'd put Steele and Ferris comfortably below him (or should that be above?) in terms of crapness as neither had a run of a few good games which Walton has at least managed. Think with the improvement of late it's easy to forget how weak the first half of the season was. And people say we should move on from Venkys past and forgive and forget. What they are ignoring is things like this that continue to substantially harm the club. Learned their lessons? Nah they are still shafting us with their negligence.

He spent £250 k on fees. That's 24 times less then Bereton alone. I think that's a fairly untenable view for someone to hold unless TM is held to a much much higher standard of account. Funnily enough this argument never is used the other way to temper praise of a candidate they like.

Well I'm not sure we can't blame him and think hes not a bad manager because he might not have made the signings. That seems to be looking for excuses for Woodgate. Also it'd mean we can't comment on anything as we don't know for sure 100 percent that he did or didn't. In fact it's a daft argument as I can equally use it to say you don't know he didn't make the signings and they are rubbish so he is a bad manager. Being honest mate it's a straw man argument and doesn't have any weight whatsoever. It's especially a poor argument given Gibson has a reputation of being a good chairman and supporting his managers in many ways. Aside from his reputation in the game there's evidence from the Monk saga on record that the manager is in control of who is brought. Add in that he has stuck by managers a long time - including Woodgate in what has been a poor season to now - and your claims that Woodgate hasn't been supported is fanciful. You will reply well that's my opinion, but I again will answer, having an opinion doesn't make it true, especially when the evidence shows otherwise. Add in that lots of managers aren't supported as well as they like (even though it's not true but I am running with it) yet still do a decent job. Thinking of TM for example, he doesn't or hasn't had a great structure around him (albeit he is backed very well in other ways) but has done a solid job. Or look at all the managers who do better without a transfer window and with what they are given. Not being backed doesn't absolve the manager of responsibility or prevent him doing ok or well, it just makes it harder. One last thing on this - I have never once heard you defend Coyle for having his hands tied. (Apologies if wrong on this.) There was a manager who was really shafted in transfer fees. Now I don't dispute he was terrible, but more highlight how this not being backed and supported seems to get somewhat of a selective use!

When the best keeper you are linked with is a Sunderland reject it can only add credence to the theory we aren't allowed to spend money on the defence or keeper.

Yep smart move if one that comes rather later than it should. Even with all the circumstances no way should Boro be where they are. Hang on they might have appointed the wrong man in 2016 but they backed him to the hil... Oh wait they didn't. Interestingly whilst not championing Coyle as a good manager no one talks about the poor circumstances he had like they do with Woodgate. Seems a bit double standards to me.

So true. I honestly think the club's motto is 'every little hinders'...

I think James was terrible too. I know the media had an image of him which didn't help but from what I saw away from the hype he still looked pretty poor to me. England went from having a raft of great keepers of the Seaman, Martyn and Flowers era to a long period of absolute duffers. Not sure why this is really.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/24/joe-hart-all-i-want-is-to-be-a-big-part-of-a-club-hope-burns-through-me Good he's doing some charity but the following article perhaps shows why he is out of the picture. He still thinks he should be playing for Burnley even though the team.statistically did so much better overnight when he was dropped! I think he is a tad optimistic thinking he will get a club in la Liga or Germany given he can't get in the Burnely team. Doesn't sound like he is learning or has much self awareness.

I'm not sure how you can base reassurance and everything being fine based on what might happen. Our scouting of keepers last year didn't pay off at all, so I'm not all that optimistic. (Based on the evidence of last year.)

Agree with all this although tbh I don't think he was that good in the first place. Remember watching him play for Birmingham (?) and having all sorts of problems with high balls and Pedersen's inswinging corners. Think his character must be a bit suspect as it cannot be on solely ability - and without any serious injuries either and age isn't a factor - to go from Champions League team to average premier league te reserve. That said in counter I think he hasn't perhaps fallen in ability as much as he has in perception/situation. But even so it's a hell of a fall in perception and situation nonetheless.

I think you are right he will get a heck of a shock. I get the impression (it could be wrong) that he still sees himself as an international class keeper who has had a bit of bad luck and is unfairly treated. As it is he is a bang average keeper who was never as good as he thought he was. This is evidenced by 3 failed spells away from the protection and prowess of a super talented and rich City team. He's now second choice at a very mediocre Premiership club which should give him a clue as to his level. Whether he picks up on that is another story. That said a bang average premier league-ish back up keeper is a hell of a lot better than anything else we have had in a while.

You appreciate them keeping us afloat financially when they caused us to be dependant on them financially? Tbh I don't really follow this logic at all. Also I won't do a third post on it to prevent getting too repetitive but we can't move on with these jokers.

I know it's a radical idea and all but have we ever though of perhaps spending money on getting a good permanent keeper? The last 3 keepers have made clangers that have cost us points, 2 have had potential but one was shipped out and the other isnt ours so his potential is irrelevant. A good keeper can make a huge difference to the team and save you a lot of points (even if in not costing stupid goals.) A good keeper would be my number 1 priority - pardon the pun. I also think whilst defensively we very clearly need reinforcements - a good lb and CB are essential - that the striker situation isn't that great. Sure we have numbers, which we don't in defence which makes it even more of a priority, most of our strikers aren't very good. Armstrong is great and Graham is proven at this level. But Graham is aging and Bereton, Gally and Samuel are at best decent and quite a way off proving to be decent at a consistent level. Wouldn't really want any of them on the books if honest. However at least they are there and in the squad next year - the defenders aren't...

Thanks for a well thought out reply. I get what you are saying. And here for me is the rub I think. I'm not sure that fans who have "forgiven and forgotten" and have moved on, actually have any more than those holding onto their crimes. You see better is a comparative word, and whilst I agree with you they are doing a better job, they can only be seen as doing so by recognising what a horrific job they did.at the start. Venkys are currently beneficiaries of their past as it makes any actions now look like saints in comparison. The thing is, and this is key for me, is that better isn't the same as good. And independent of the past the current job they are doing isn't good. Passing up on Warnock, managers being appointed by an agency, just in a more subtle way, transfer funds not allowed for the defence, TM having too much power - it's a real mess. It is miles better than it was but it cannot be seen asl good or something anyone could be happy with, or even vaguely positive about without a nod to their history. In the cold light of day we are still badly owned. The other thing is that their history, their past running cannot be seperated from the now. The halved crowds, the debt, the division we are in, the squad we have are all because of them and their history and past mistakes. We can talk about forgiving and forgetting but we can't actually do the latter because the implications of what they have done hit us in the face every day. We cannot erase the past and its impact on the present. We are where we are because of the past. The two are not inseperable. So yeah, whilst I agree things are better, that only works in comparative terms. The better is still nowhere near what I want for my club, and the past mistakes cannot be forgotten or relegated to the past as the consequences are lived out daily. As for forgiveness - I would agree that's less important, or is at least only important on a personal level. Whether I forgive them or not will not make them any less shambolic owners or improve our chances of success, or give them justice. It may make me more peaceful and I like the famous quote about unforgiveness being like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies; I don't think it helps us. But either way, even if forgiven, it doesn't change what Venkys have and continue to do to destroy this club and leave us in the position we are in.

I get what you are saying @Admiral Nelsen and in many ways agree - especially on the fact that at present they are necessary - but they are still doing harm. The hands off management is still causing chaos as in no accountability or evaluation of how TM is doing, not least in appointing his own boss, which can only harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the club. There's every indication the dark forces are still here and at work in the club and a transfer policy seemingly where we can't spend on the defence or keeper! There is harm going on, just not on the scale of before. That said I agree that their more backseat approach is causing less damage (not none though) then when they are hands on and is less of a sore reminder to fans of what they have done. I'll also grudgingly say they are necessary for now. Like the metaphors I've used, we need the life support machine, we need someone to not let go and drop us off the cliff. That said a necessity for now doesn't mean we should forget what they have done - and are doing.

It may be because of a conversation where Bereton was compared unfavourably to Bamford for £7 million and Chaddy supported the clubs choice of spending on a striker. Think you sum him up well. A decent player but a bit of a pillock.