Incorrect. Or as you would describe it, "waffle."

Appleton like Lambert was a much better talker than a doer. Duff has already got a promotion on his CV.

Hes shit. Really disliked his spell here and was delighted when he was sacked so soon. Michael Duff did a very good job at Cheltenham so unsure why your mate thinks that.

Well of course, but ultimately those players appreciated in value through scoring plenty of goals for us.

The Championship table suggests that Boro did slightly better than us.

But he has never been captain or even vice captain, if that has even been decided and communicated in one meeting.

I think this video has been analysed a little too much! Maybe Dack had just chatted to Tomasson before that snippet was filmed.

Fair enough, yeah I understand what you mean. I also don't see Gallagher ever proving to be a success, he isn't a total failure like many big money strikers in the past and he does tend to get close to double figures every season but even if we take him as a failure, the outlay of £15m on those 3 has overall proved to be a very good investment that will likely cause us to double our money.

I don't really understand this constant gripe that people have with using the loan market, factoring in the very limited resources that our managers operate under. Don't get me wrong, it isn't ideal and I (and indeed any manager) would prefer permanent players if given the resources. But you give examples of successful loans here, criticising them after they made us a better team whilst they were here. If we had adopted the attitude that we didn't want Elliott, Adarabioyo, Van Hecke etc because we want to just play our own players based on this principle that we may aswell finish mid table with our own players, then we are essentially forgoing any ambition and intention to challenge before we kick a ball. We also do more than most blood so many youngsters on a regular basis, and they get game time if they are good enough, take Buckley, we loaned Clarkson but he couldn't get a kick, dampening the myth that loan players get preferential treatment. You mention our play off chances but if anything you could argue that the one thing we were missing was experience. Wharton is the perfect example of a player who did progress being loaned out to a lower division whilst we had a considerable improvement for that season at the same time, his progression wasn't stunted, same with Carter and Van Hecke. Many clubs have been quite reliant on loans that have had success at the top end of this league, getting players of a standard that they couldn't otherwise afford. Forest have just gone up with Spence, Lowe, Davis, Zinkernagel and Garner all on loan. Norwich got promoted the other year with Skipp playing a key part, Swansea made the play offs twice in two seasons with lots of loans, there are so mnay examples. It isn't ideal but this idea that we may aswell just use our own players goes hand in hand with not trying to challenge and improve the team.

I find the idea that Venkys didn't trust Mowbray in the transfer market so just didn't back him yet kept him in general to be an illogical way of thinking even for Venkys, it seems like a big logic leap to me. His record in the transfer market wasn't bad, we are about to generate a second major profit on one of his signings. Bradley Johnson certainly wasn't "awful" by any means, inconsistent perhaps but had plenty of good games. But either way, even if he was deemed to be a poor signing which I would consider harsh, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't look for experience.

Appleton is a terrible appointment by Blackpool. A very poor manager and a season of struggle may unfold off the back of such a managerial downgrade.

Warburton is bang average but an upgrade on Bowyer.

The excitement is palpable in that we 100% needed a new figure and a change of direction. That being said, in his first couple of years, many were eating out of Mowbray's hand, how honest and passionate he came across, when he was behind the pictures around the training ground, the soldiers and artists rhetoric, the open meeting and his growing up on the terraces at Boro narrative. It is good though to see a change of face and it adds some excitement ahead of the new season.

If all goes well which fingers crossed will happen here. Although its coming to a joint decision that can provoke that conflict.

There are pros and cons to each system I suppose. A traditional manager has less time to focus on coaching with all the other things that fall under his remit but the lack of that second figurehead removes that potential conflict. Ultimately, success or failure can be achieved via both methods. To refuse to acknowledge that down the line that there can be conflict as chaddy did armed with the usual standard quotes post appointment seems very naive to me. My comments were very generalised and I certainly can not sit here and say now that there will (or wont be) conflict at Rovers between the 2, but that risk exists. Did I read that there were rumours that the director of football had a bad relationship with the last manager that worked under him?

Ah yes, your standard argument, "stop being negative." I never said it will happen here, I can't make that clear enough.

You clearly didnt understand my point. I was saying in general and not specific to Rovers, that this type of structure creates a risk of players being put upon the manager that he doesnt particularly want. Just because that agreement is in place now doesnt mean that there isnt potential for it to cause conflict down the line, I am sure that everytime a director of football is appointed that he and the manager discuss how the arrangement will work but that doesnt always get maintained. There still is a chance whether its in this window or perhaps down the line that they will disagree on players and even that a player will be given to Tomasson without prior consultation. Im not saying that it will happen by any means, my point was that this structure carries this particular risk, irrespective of initial meetings. That point still stands.

I can't imagine that 4-4-2 would suit our best player in Dack so I would be surprised if he goes down that route, but it seems like Tomasson likes to change between various formations. On Nyambe, I don't think he would be as difficult to replace as Lenihan, but it would be a huge benefit if we can get him signed up for the long term, especially considering that he is only 24. If he was on a free from elsewhere, we would consider Nyambe to be an incredibly shrewd signing if we signed him. I just hope that the gap to appointing the Broughton/Tomasson and also seemingly the days since with no contact aren't critical in his future.

I think this sort of attitude is not only rife but its potentially dangerous as its justification for the powers that be to keep season ticket prices stupidly high. Clearly someone financially stable (and perhaps not fully in touch with the economic situation of Blackburn whilst living in California in this instance) showing a lack of empathy and understanding. People with a superfan mentality implying that its down to backing the club or the manager. Also, a bit premature with the "unbelievable change" and "modern club" narrative.

Wasn't he pictured 2 days ago with Tomasson?

We have a 20 odd goal striker from last season still employed but on international duty and the one before was sold without any allowance for reinvestment, so he may be worrying about history repeating itself.

Totally unnecessary and untrue. "Stink" and utter rubbish?" Behave, it was 5 years of mediocrity rather than rubbish, it was steady and we are left in a better state. If Tomasson got us into the top 6, it would reflect only on one manager and that is not Mowbray, it would show Tomasson to have done an excellent job. Broughton said in his interview that to get promoted we have to overachieve and with the resources available, that is 100% true. Lets hope we finally have the right man to achieve that. Those who called for Mowbray out the loudest (I think everyone wanted him out really in general) seem to be the ones who constantly keep referring back to him even when we have a fresh start.

It is good to see such a wave of enthusiasm to greet the appointment of Tomasson at a point when a fresh start was needed. Ultimately the litmus test will come on the pitch and indeed what Tomasson does rather than what he says but it is difficult not to feel excited. Lots of talk about Tomasson greeting Gallagher with people calling for him to be our number 9. I am sure that a striker with such a track record as Tomasson has will see more than most the many flaws and limitations in Gallagher's game, lets hope he brings in a proper goalscorer! You are not alone in never being able to grasp that football fans (not specific to Rovers) come in different types and not everyone shares the same level of desire to watch Rovers every week as you or I do, it's not a "responsibility" to attend simply if you can afford it. You say people can't be arsed but that doesn't need justifying. Supporting a football team week in week out is a huge commitment, money aside. People have differing levels of interest, to those who go to every single game home and away to those who can take or leave it and everywhere in between. Some who lean towards the latter category might want to see the best players in the best league to persuade them to attend. Some may be able to afford it but may not see the value and some will not go out of principle until Venkys leave. I don't see how anyone has the right to question whatever reasons people have to attend or indeed not attend, it doesn't require justification. The onus is 100% on the club, 0% for people to have to justify attendance or lack of.

Hopefully Butterworth will be let go. How many managers did you bet on in the end?

Tomasson's assistant had a short and unsuccesful spell at Sheffield Wednesday, hardly a major difference between the 2 situations. You seem to have an obsession over "Championship experience" regardless of the success of it.