Big Val and the players continue to apply pressure to the owners and upper management by repeatedly putting in the most turgid performances imaginable. Cheers lads.

Honestly, based on our history over the past five years or so, I'd have fully believed it.

We'd be going down on about 5 points if Ismael had started the season with us. Still, we aren't getting playoffs at this point anyway, so bad results just keep the pressure rising.

A statement so pointless that it should literally have just read "As part of their professional duties and commitments to the club, Blackburn Rovers’ senior leadership group will continue to attend games". Everything else is just waffle and bullshit. I'm sure the groups involved fully expected this response, so hopefully it just means phase two, whatever that is, proceeds immediately.

Great work by all involved. The club statement will be interesting. I only urge two things: 1) Anti-owner sentiment should not change due to a temporary uplift in results, if that happens between now and the end of the season. The last 15 years have proved time and time again that, with the exception of the L1 season, good results are temporary but the root cause of our failures remain permnanent for as long as these owners remain. By all means 'get behind the lads ffs', but not at the expense of protesting against the owners. 2) All communications from the club should be rebuffed unless they involve discussing the removal of the owners. We're long past the point of mending fences and working together. They must go and nothing else should be acknowledged. The club have become adept at nipping these movements in the bud by bringing group leaders into the fold with false promises of change. It has to be understood they aren't to be trusted and will never be a friend of the supporters- critical or otherwise. I trust Glen completely when it comes to doing things the right way. I hope his expertise and guidance will be given the importance it deserves.

Wasn't much different from watching us under Southgate. However, that's what many of the players have been used to for years now. It'll take a few camps before Tuchel can significantly change things, if he does.

The decision to part with Mowbray is a curious one as well. It seemed to be a relationship that was working for all parties, but then Venky's/Suhail decided to just ghost TM towards the end and let his contract run out. I wonder why? Did Mowbray end up asking for something that they felt was too much? Did he do or say something to sour that relationship? Was JDT just a cheaper option than renewing TM? It's difficult to imagine the answer is "ambition", considering how Tomasson was treated (as you noted, the usual lies and broken promises), so why get rid of a manager in TM who, on the surface at least, was doing the minimum required and unlikely to rock the boat in future? Can't help but wonder, considering how things have gone since, whether Suhail or Venky's regret not extending TM's deal, regardless of why they chose not to renew him originally.

Technically they did with Coyle, but they left it too late because everything at the club moves at glacial speed. Even if a miracle did happen and Ismael was removed from position due to us being in peril, you can guarantee they'd leave it until salvaging the situation was virtually impossible. Bowyer was also sacked, which is actually quite weird in retrospect. We weren't doing particularly well (15th I think?) but nor were we in dire straits. Also under a transfer embargo which was always going to make things difficult. I'd heard communication between GB and Venky's had broken down around this time, but one imagines if GB had been manager in a similar situation from 2018 onwards he would not have been sacked. I suppose those days in 2015 were the dying embers of the owners having any sort of remote ambition for the club before settling into the current model of just letting the club exist, like a mothballed toy at the bottom of a cupboard somewhere. Difficult to compare further back than that due to the Kentaro/Shebby/The Rogue/Agnew nonsense which the owners allowed to spiral out of control due to their inability to run the club in a professional manner. Over a decade later and we've just seen another manager walk after another "power struggle" that should never have been allowed to happen. The rudderless ship sails on.

Spot on. The reason I welcomed Eustace joining initially was because I felt his style of football was exactly what we needed. Build from the back, defensively solid, playing to the strengths of the team - which is not technical ability, even from our supposedly technical players. It was a relief to finally have a manager who understood what we needed to do to compete. Not always pleasing on the eye, but if it gets results then so be it. Ismael is deluded if he thinks he's going to make us successful with possession based football on our budget, and it really does suggest he's the wrong man for the job.

He'll be in for a big disappointment when he gets the budget in the summer then. Unless he's planning to build a squad for League 1.

It won't be. File it under the same category as when someone says "heard a rumour Venky's are selling" or "heard a rumour Waggott is retiring".

If they were being paid by performance they'd owe the club money.

Well, we know they didn't sort it out because Park left. If it had been sorted in favour of either side then you would have expected one of Eustace or Park to leave, not both. The fact they both decided they wanted out suggests the situation was just left to deteriorate.

No need to apologise mate, I think we all felt the same. I think with Gestede being a rookie at the job he may not have had the confidence to say that to Eustace. Even so, the fact remains he simply shouldn't have had to say it. The only reason would be if Eustace somehow had the power to delay transfers, and that's the part I'm questioning. It goes back to the same question - if he was able to disrupt transfer dealings, who was giving him the authority to do so? You could argue an inexperienced Gestede allowed Eustace more power than he should have had - but as you say, at that point Suhail and Waggott should have stepped in to clarify the situation. Evidently they didn't, and so we got stuck in a loop of infighting and division between Eustace and the recruitment team. Unleaded specifically said Eustace had gained influence, so I suppose it depends on whether you trust that part of his story or not. I agree that it's strange, for the reasons I outlined in my last post, and I'd like to know more about exactly how Eustace gained influence and why. The only way would realistically be through Suhail or Waggott giving him that influence, but it would have been grossly incompetent to allow this to happen and continue indefinitely when it was clearly causing serious rifts and hampering our ability to actively recruit. I don't know Paul personally so I can't go off his word alone, but putting the pieces together it makes sense to me, and so I am inclined to believe it. We again arrive back at the inescapable conclusion that leadership was absent and negligent. That is indeed the question, why didn't they step in to sort the problem out? I imagine both Park and Eustace were asking themselves the same question and ultimately decided that it wasn't worth their time to continue working under such weak leadership. This is where I have a bit of a problem with the initial suggestion that Park walked because of Eustace. I'd argue that's not seeing the bigger picture. The reason he walked was because Suhail and Waggott could not control the situation and he wasn't prepared to continue working in such a chaotic environment. Eustace supposedly causing issues, if this was happening, was a direct result of leadership failing to take responsibility for the situation. Anyway, thanks for answering my question directly - appreciated.

You have to wonder if some of the players out of contract thought "ayo, hold up, we've got the club into 5th place and they're refusing to extend our contracts - and this bloke who's achieved nothing comes in on a 3.5 year deal?"

Summer 2027 😞

First time I'd listened to one of his post match interviews tbf. Probably also the last time.

Just made me bored tbh. Turned it off after two minutes as his monotone voice was doing my head in and it was nothing but excuses. Thought Dolan was onside (wrong), thought it was our most 'complete' game whatever that means. Wanted the penalty to stand even though it was the correct decision not to give it. Stopped watching when he started blaming injuries as well. That was only two minutes in and the interview went on for over five minutes. Can't imagine it got any better.

Listened to Ismael's post match interview but gave up after 2 minutes. Excuse after excuse. Seems to think we played well.

Venky's don't let managers resign, lol. He's either stuck here for 3 and a half years or not working for 3 and a half years.

Looks like Ismael is where Waggott and Suhail's luck runs out when it comes to bringing in unemployed cheap managers expected to keep the titanic afloat. And believe me, it's been nothing but a ridiculous streak of luck for the pair of them.

Shameful from the lot of them, from our incompetent boardroom to our pathetic management to the bottle jobs on the pitch. Burn it all down and start again.

Looking forward to another "rallying call" next week Trav.

Read my next post and please answer this question directly: What I'm asking you Chaddy is whether you believe that our club's leadership are responsible for allowing a severely dysfunctional setup to continue, and ultimately lead to the season becoming yet another mess? We can make educated guesses as to what happened, roughly, but looking at the bigger picture, do you think Waggott and Suhail hold ultimate accountability for what occurred? If not, why not?

It's also possible the club negotiated a cheap break clause in the contract which allows them to terminate without any major financial penalty at a certain point. This would suggest a degree of competence which seems unlikely based on past history, but nonetheless.