Burnley would be wise to avoid the lazy appointment of Jackson, how many times have we seen a novice take temporary charge, see a slight initial bounce followed by a struggle once permanently appointed. They would also be wise to avoid the sentimental appointment of a Barton or Duff, fans often have an obsession with former players but you don't pick managers based on what they do as a player. The likes of Farke and Carvalhal are sadly going to be attracted much more to a side recently relegated but they would be the sensible type of appointments. They should have kept Dyche. Hopefully they act irrationally of course because that first season down is crucial and if they mess it up they could become stuck.

You mean you read it here: https://roversfans.com/index.php?threads/the-next-rovers-manager.1316/page-10 Another name I heard mentioned to me yesterday was Michael Beale, Ex Chelsea Liverpool Youth Coach, Now at Villa as First team coach but was also at Rangers as a coach with Gerrard.

The Lancs Live inriably just recycles news and rumours already in the public domain and it doesn't say specifically that those 3 WILL be interviewed, just that the club would "like" to.

It isn't as simple as that, many people (not you as you've previously mentioned working shifts and as ever don't empathise) work 9-5 and that is when the ticket office is open. But point being, they should make it as easy and be as accommodating of everyone as possible rather than work off a "everyone should know how" policy!

Are they only considering former players?

The idea that Venkys never refuse to sign a cheque is blatantly untrue.

Is Waggott to blame for the owners not giving the manager any money?

He said the market was kids on loan from the Premier League so he didnt have money to spend.

Says alot about Venkys that the things some people are grateful for what they havent done rather than what they have done. They havent allowed the club to fold, they havent incurred huge points deductions, they havent dismantled (yet) the academy.

He was playing further forward in the first half when he was far more effective. Im not convinced that he can dictate games but I suppose we wont know either way until he plays there. His best ever run of form came as a false 9 when he regularly pressed as he does very well to win us the ball high up, and it suits him playing further forward because he can play that final pass. Of course his main weakness is his lack of goal threat and that was really evident when he was persisted with as a false 9 for too long. Even when we played 433, he was much further forward than Travis and Rothwell.

And Buckley has only really played as an attacking midfielder. The jury is out on whether he would do well further back or indeed if it will even be tried, certain parts of his game will be suited, others less so. Hopefully Johnson and Davenport leaving will give us room to manoeuvre and bring some players in.

We do still have Travis but definitely particularly threadbare there. Edun is a natural midfielder but isnt very good.

I think its just assumed that the names already mentioned are the ones that will be interviewed and those names come predominantly from what people want. Ainsworth for example has a play off final tomorrow, no way has he got an interview lined up.

If we credit the owners merely for not incurring 21 point deductions or simply because we remain in business, then our expectations of them must be lower than a snakes belly.

Perhaps but I would be amazed personally. The level to which clubs would be interested would surely not be in a position to offer fees and if they did, they would be nominal.

Correct decision to let both Davenport and Chapman go, neither are up to standard and it would have been illogical to keep them thinking that after a combined 8 years full of injuries and occasional cameos that either would suddenly come good. Bizarre to keep Butterworth and Magloire under contract, neither will ever be good enough so it would have made sense to cut them loose and let them find their way in the lower leagues.

I suppose it is to be expected in a league whereby the quality seems to be regressing but the players likely to be available out of contract don't scream excitement or improvement really. John Swift is the stand out but no doubt would be well beyond our wage budget. Tommy Smith has always seemed a good attacking right back at this level, Kristian Pedersen has always seemed a fairly good left back but unsure if he is any better than Pickering, Bela is a quick winger who always looks a threat, and players like Ralls at Cardiff and Laurent, Rinohmoto and Yiadom at Reading are all solid Championship players who have been offered new deals but are seemingly testing the market. Even if a new manager is appointed prior to many of these being snapped up elsewhere, whoever comes in (in tandem with the director of football) will likely have to be a bit more creative, or more realistically, be again very reliant on loanees assuming that Venkys keep the taps off.

But even with the raw teenagers, its not a foregone conclusion that they are out of their depth. Its certainly not an ideal market because its so difficult to know what you are getting but equally its not one that has only given us failures. Branthwaite was out of his depth but we signed Harwood Bellis at the same time who actually had practically no first team experience (Branthwaite played a few games at Carlisle) who did well when he came. Clarkson had played a couple of cup/Champions league games and was out of his depth but Khadra had only played 10 minutes of senior football before he came and again was a raw teenager. Even Elliott had barely played any senior football. Of course we dont want out of their depth raw loanees but ultinately we dont want to sign anyone out of their depth and like any type of signings, those in the category that you describe have come with mixed success.

Good on Vieira for kicking the dickhead to the ground.

Pitch invasions seem to be common place at the moment and many seem to be turning very sour. Its hardly the great escape, Lampard took over in 16th and they are 16th now. I wonder if the owners will shake Lampards hand and go for an upgrade in the summer or just stick with him.

I think the success rate seems to be in line with recruitment in general at the very least. As long as they are an improvement at all then they are successful signings. There is a bit of a myth that they always block the route of our own players but they can allow our own youngsters to play regularly rather than occasionally and improve as a result, as Wharton did and as Carter is doing. Its not as if they necessarily get preferential treatment either which is key. We have had lots of successful loanees and also ones like Palmer and Clarkson who werent and subsequently didnt play and got sent back.

I dont necessarily conform to the idea that PL loanees are unfairly preferred to our own kids in that on average they tend to be better, hence why they are at bigger clubs. Obviously its not a flawless market and there are exceptions such as Clarkson and Brainthwaite. You look at loanees this season, Garner and Davis at Forest, Colwill at Huddersfield, Van Hecke and Khadra here, Van Der Berg, Archer and Iversen at Preston, Phillips at Bournemouth etc, there are so many that are so much better than what any of those clubs already have. It allows our own young players when they arent ready to themselves go out on loan too. Carter has looked very shaky at this level but hopefully a second loan spell will do similar to him to what happened to Wharton. Conversely, some youngsters struggle on loan, Vale hasnt done well and players like McBride who have been called to play for our first team have perhaps shown that they are well off. Under 23s football is not a good way of determining readiness. Phillips may be a very good young talent but we can not sign one less centre back expecting him to be ready to play now. He may seem like a beast against kids but its a whole new ball game.

You would have him as a regular in a Championship side now?

I dont see how anyone can say that specific coachs should stay yet others should go. What I do know is the new manager should be able to have the option to choose who to keep and who to get rid of.

Hes never faced senior strikers though, you cant possibly know at this stage whether he is physical enough to deal with proper men nor if he is clever enough, yet anyway.