RevidgeBlue

Im with chaddy on this one. Thought it was a strange move for Edwards to make. Other than a short term boost to his finances, couldnt really see any upside to it and he might end up making himself unemployable in the long run.

Keep up the good work. The latest abandonment was manna from heaven for you in finally getting the EFL to sit up and take notice Id imagine.

Im not deflecting from the owners. That's all in your head. Everything that happens is ultimately the owners responsibility. Im not sure though why you struggle with the concepts that: a) The owners aren't hands on and half the time probably dont have a clue what's going on down at Ewood. They do allow a degree of latitude to those on the ground and let them get on with running (ruining) the Club. b) Generally they employ incompetent people and/ or willing patsys. Just because they are incompetent or compliant doesn't mean they should be absolved from any or all blame as you seem to think nor that they shouldnt be removed if we've to be any hope of being successful. Once again, just for the avoidance of any doubt as you're struggling to grasp it, it's the owners fault for employing this calibre of person and their fault if they fail to remove them. Said people shouldnt be immune to criticism or stay in situ however.

We won't recover because we're carrying on down the path he created the blue print for and put us on. In fact we seem to be doubling down on it. His previous Clubs recovered because they went in a different direction after he left. The only thing you can say about his tenure was at least he didnt get away with putting houses on part of Brockhall as he similarly tried and failed to do at Coventry.

Not having a go at you, We're pretty much in full agreement on everything overall. The only thing that's changed imo is since Waggott left the veneer has slipped slightly and we see what a husk the Club really is. He sat there in the 3 stooges interview defending everything that had happened and endorsing the lunatic policy of "transition" this season. He supposedly wanted another year on his £500 k plus remuneration package. He was CEO when they failed to back Eustace. etc etc

You're mistakenly assuming Venky's cared enough to micromanage Waggott's every decision. He could have gone down a completely different route and tried to grow the Club long term to meet his financial targets but took the exact opposite strategy of trying to steadily squeeze more and more money out of an ever diminishing fan base. Every Club he's been at temporarily tanked under his stewardship then recovered thereafter. More baffling attempts from you to exonerate anyone other than the owners from any blame whatsoever.

Let's have it right, Waggott was the penny pinching, downsizing architect of our destruction. I never bought a single word of his bullshit personally but just because he was arguably slightly better at putting the thinnest veneer of respectability on things, that doesn't mean that in reality things are any worse now than before. We're just continuing on apace down the road to oblivion he set us on.

Imo there's no way at all they havent already done that on the LT.

Right, thanks. What next, Police knocking on our doors because the powers that be dont like what we say on here or elsewhere on social media a la Two Tier Keir? Edit: Don't agree on Gueye but in my opinion Ismael IS one of the worst managers in the Club's history - the stats prove it.

Hands up, I didn't even recognise the player delivering this nonsense - although to an extent it demonstrates my ignorance, that's what they've reduced us to. Serious question: Is this claptrap in response to a specific incident or is it just a "We dont want to hear any criticism inside the stadium?" type thing?

Thought that was a given. Do you contest that for some reason?

Damn. Was going to come in at £100k. Go for it Coyley!

Does Cantwell's expire at the end of next season?

The main point isnt really whether he'll end up stuck on 49 games or play a handful more, but whether he'll still be here in February. Im erring towards there not being any sort of penalty if he plays 50 games but Id still be surprised if he's here after the January window.

Because Eustace (according to a couple of different reports) threatened to walk out and they managed to placate him with Cantwell (on a free but high wages) and a couple of others relatively late on.

Maybe wishful thinking but I wonder if Suhail has decided he doesn't fancy the limited amount of criticism (or in Club speak "abuse") finally coming his way and has retired hurt back to India? To either direct operations from even further in the background or pursue opportunities elsewhere in the Venky's organisation. Could that explain the renewal of the search for a new "CEO" with no actual authority?

Whatever he does or doesn't get, he obviously doesn't mind. He's been doing it long enough without resigning or speaking out against them at any point.

Yeah, from a Venky's point of view it's a " Look the hierarchy who were here before us approve of us" type thing.

We dont seem to be able to win games when it really matters under VI. Stretching back to his very first game in charge. I don't expect us to win this either. Might just about come away with a point which won't be good enough in hindsight if our home form doesn't improve.

I can't disagree, particularly about Miller.

Id imagine maintaining any status he may hold at the FA is his primary motivation. Any freebies lobbed his way will be a nice little bonus. Might even get paid a relatively tidy sum for signing a few docs every year as well. Luvvly Jubbly!

One of two things is/are happening here: a) All the speculation is/has been complete bollux b) An agreement was reached some time ago between the 2 camps that Cantwell would leave in January and at the moment he's just being given a few minutes on the pitch to regain some semblance of match fitness in advance of a move. Whether or not there is an impending clause requiring a wage increase or payment to Rangers is moot, but if there was it would sharpen the focus of Rovers in wanting to shift him in January. It's ridiculous to be even entertaining such thoughts but nothing surprises me any more with this lot. They'd seemingly sacrifice their granny to save a few quid. You'd have been carted off in white coats for suggesting 24 hours before Hyam was sold that he would be leaving a matter of hours before the deadline with no replacement but it happened.

I was thinking Ismael and Gestede. Not sure Pasha is. As the date of this match wasn't specified I find the story eminently believable other than if the "Back 3" referred to are "Miller/Mclaughin/Pratt I could understand anyone not rating the first two but not Pratt.

Will that situation ever be any different though? Do you not think it's possible we'd let him go on a free or a nominal fee just to get him off the wage bill?

He didnt say when it was tbf.