I think Sunderland are of sufficient size that even if they don't go up they'll still be a force in that League regardless. But yeah with parachute cash dropping and the squad they have they'll probably have a huge job on their hands this summer. Seems their problem is drawing too many as they don't lose games. It seems that with the exceptions of Bradford and Coventry the 'biggest' clubs i.e. those with the biggest crowds and Premier League history are gathering towards the top of that league - Sunderland, Pompey, Charlton, Barnsley - then Luton who have the momentum from last season and get decent gates themselves - then Doncaster and Peterborough who are regular top 6 pushing teams having been in the Championship recently. Definitely more competitive than last season when we were streets ahead of the other top 6 sides other than Wigan.

They've also signed a raft of experienced players to be able to have an immediate impact rather than an assortment who aren't ready to play.

If the owners really decide on their backing for the club on who the manager is then I'd suggest we give up now, because we'll never get anywhere if that is the way of doing things. Likewise the fact that you're concerned they'll get another Coyle - you'll remember they preferred Coyle to Warnock and only got rid of him and brought in Mowbray when it was too late - at no normal or successful club do managers get retained out of concern about who will follow them - only at Venkys Rovers. Hurst did a brilliant job with Shrewsbury with no money, there's no argument there, and as such was touted for bigger things. What he did at Ipswich this season clearly wasn't very good. What Mick McCarthy did at Ipswich was very good yet you seem to have an intense dislike for him. What knee jerk reactions are you referring to? Knee jerk to me implies people are suggesting Mowbray should go on the back of one or two results. I've seen a very small number suggest Mowbray should go and they have all been based on what they have seen all season with our regular away day collapses.

Harrison Reed is exactly the type we should be after, but he's just one piece of the jigsaw. We could really do with retaining him and I really hope we find a way to do it, but whatever we do there are 3 or 4 other areas that need improvement. It seems Mowbray isn't going to start Reed in CM, so with that in mind we need to come up with another alternative to the Evans/Smallwood axis. I think Evans has been good this season, and I'll never question Smallwood's commitment or effort, but a combination of the two starting every game is a problem. Luckily we have surplus budget left over from last summer (Waggott) plus money available in January that we elected not to spend (Mowbray) plus whatever Venkys make available for the summer window. Rolled into one that should be a nice healthy kitty to dip into and with our new scouting/recruitment network getting up to speed we should be seeing the fruits of that by more imaginative and better value signings rather than seemingly pursuing from a very short list. I won't hold my breath though.

Quite the shopping list developing here for this multi-year slow build adding one or two a window we keep being told about. Lets assume that Dack is sold in the summer, and Reed is out of reach for us (or possibly doesn't fancy hanging around being played out wide every week), and we can't strike a deal with Rodwell to stay on. Then we'd need probably 2 CBs, a new LB, replacements for Reed and Dack, ideally an improvement on Smallwood, at least 1 quality CF to complement Graham (assuming Brereton improves and starts chipping in). We've also got a lengthy list of players that need to move on. Gladwin will go, Conway will probably go, question marks around Samuel's capability at this level, Downing will be off, for me Williams can go if we can find a buyer. A huge, huge amount of work. Even if we get lucky and keep Dack. To have any chance of keeping Reed he is likely to use up the majority of our budget, but will probably be beyond it. Either way we'll still need 4-5 others of decent quality to come in.

Not as bad as the referee against Bristol City. Minimum of 1 minute in the first half, yet only 40 seconds played. Minimum of 4 minutes in the second half, yellow card issued for their keeper during that time, yet the whistle blown bang on 4 minutes.

Time and time again we get to 70 minutes having made all 3 substitutions. I think Mowbray loses the plot in games when we're struggling or losing, throwing on players in the hope they change the direction of the game but it very rarely works out for us. Partly because our squad isn't good enough and we don't have any game changers but even when we bring on the likes of Graham and Dack it rarely seems to pay dividends. So many times we end up throwing people on and it seems to be a gung-ho approach with little thought given to keeping the back door shut at the other end of the pitch. Too many people playing in too many different positions or being asked to do too many jobs. I'd love to have a clear starting XI where everyone is in their best position and knows their jobs inside out and for that team to play 3,4,5 games in a row without the need for numerous changes, formation alterations, positional changes etc.

I don't agree. We had 2 maybe 3 chances to score. The likelihood of scoring all 3 is remote, if we'd have got 1 we'd have sat back like we've done countless times. As I said, at WORST last night we should have come out with a draw. Either 0-0 or 1-1 having done the hardest part and finally got the equaliser late on. Unfortunately once again we manage to find a way to drop points from a good position. Having equalised at that stage away from home you should not lose, certainly not against a side like Reading. I can perhaps excuse late collapses against the likes of Leeds and Sheffield United but not against a side as limited as they are with such a blunt attack. We were 2-0 up at Brentford and look how that one ended up. Nothing to do with failing to take our chances. Failing to keep a clean sheet is the problem.

I must have missed safety being achieved in February. We've 14 games to go, 42 points to play for, some of our rivals have 45 to play for and the way we're shaping we won't be getting very many. Bolton and Reading have come up with wins this week, PNE have overtaken us having been well behind in January, and Wigan and Brentford demolished us not long ago. The only saving grace is our home form where we are dull but quite hard to beat. That should be enough to scrape the couple of wins needed to rubber stamp survival. But I'm not cracking open the bubbly in mid-Feb with a 3rd of the season left as we plummet.

There's no such thing as a game being 'dead and buried' with us. Even if we'd have been 2-0 up I'd have had no confidence in our ability to hold on. See Brentford as an example. We can't defend and can't grind out results away from home. Nothing really to do with not taking our chances. At worst the game should have been 0-0 or 1-1 yet we conspired to concede 2 goals against the 2nd worst team in the league who couldn't score before last night.

The Championship is unpredictable by nature. Sadly we are the opposite - very predictable, certainly in our performances if not our results, and it is quite boring in my opinion. The way we play is predictable, slow and easy to stop. Bucket loads of possession and yet very little penetration, urgency or end product. Our only decent chances yesterday were on the counter attack with pace, mainly through Armstrong. Other than that we have Mulgrew, Rodwell or Smallwood with the ball at their feet stood still on the half way line taking an age to decide what to do with it, before it ends up going nowhere. Our game 'management' comes in the form of chucking on 3 attacking players between 50 and 70 minutes and hoping they can get us a goal. Trouble is whether it works or not we reach 80 minutes knackered, have lost the balance to our team as we have too many players on the pitch chasing a goal and not enough able to defend ours, and we can't make any more changes, whilst usually fitter opposition keep subs back. Same old mistakes and it happens too often. Bristol City, Swansea, Brentford, Sheffield United, Preston, Wigan, Reading - each and every one has followed a very similar pattern and each has ended with us conceding late on. On the whole happy with the season so far but last night was an atrocious result but sadly a predictable one. Reading battling for a win in their survival push, 1 win since November, can't score - along come Rovers and they score 2 and get the win - despite us equalising at a good time to at least take a point or if not all 3. We haven't a clue how to approach the game having got the goal we chased for so long. It's embarrassing. Almost as though scoring takes us by surprise and we don't know what to do next. Same story at Leeds, Brentford, Middlesbrough. Garbage.

Reading only won one game since the start of November, yet only a couple of points from safety. Looks like being a much lower tally needed for survival than when we went down on 51 points!

We should finish above them. We were miles ahead at the end of January and they've had a month without a manager and been under Ffp sanctions all season.

We drew 2-2 with Reading and 0-0 with Millwall at home, we play Reading tonight and Millwall away was one of the worst games of football ever seen, though granted we got a very good win there. He'll make them very difficult to beat and I'd expect them to be up there next season.

Let's see how many times they concede 3,4 or 5 in a game between now and the end of the season.

Steve Bruce wasted no time in sorting Sheffield Wednesday out. 4 clean sheets on the bounce for them having been a defensive shambles not long ago. Another manager who understands that to get anywhere in this league you need to sort out the defence first and build from that. Criticism from those who think that constitutes negative football yet it will get them up the table whilst 'exciting' Villa ship goals galore.

Yeah, but they axed Warburton after he got them to the Championship play-offs. Most thought that to be an insane decision yet they managed, then they appointed that Dutch bloke who was a disaster but quickly got shut as it wasn't working and put Carsley in charge, Brentford are very good at coping with departures and change. They've been picked off for their best players for years, had to make managerial changes and yet have still punched above their weight through shrewd management behind the scenes, not because all their managerial appointments have been good.

I suspect a tight game, probably determined by a single goal (if there is a winner). 0-0 was my tip last week although to be honest it could go either way. They've tightened up defensively under the Portuguese bloke, though he comes with a reputation for being defensive and their goals have dried up. Obviously a win is essential for us if we've any hope of getting back into the top 6 picture, but I've resigned myself to that not happening, so I'd be content with a point to edge closer to the magic 50 which 'should' see us safe.

I'd argue that Derby, Brentford and Chelsea have done quite well out of managerial instability. Not necessarily that they set out to do it, but that in doing so it hasn't prevented them progressing and developing as clubs. Brentford even now are massively overachieving for the size of their club and financial power, despite making some eyebrow-raising managerial decisions. Southampton have managed to stay in the Premier League for years despite going through more than a manager a year on average. Huddersfield are another lot who made a bold decision to fire off Powell when they were floating towards the bottom of the Championship, brought in an unknown coach and within 18 months were in the Premier League. They didn't stick with Powell out of loyalty or stability, they had a vision and got their man to deliver on it. Wolves - could have stuck with Jackett or Lambert but wanted to go to the next level so fired them both off despite decent results to appoint Zenga (failure) and Santo (big success). Wolves could have done what Villa and Forest have which is spend obscene money and drift into mid-table but they made a positive change rather than stand still. I'm not saying I'm a fan of hiring and firing but some clubs have structures in place to cope with it without it de-railing the club. I'm not convinced we do, as I think the manager at this club, ever since Kean rocked up, has had too much power over the operation. It's ok as long as a positive trajectory is maintained, but when things go sour then it becomes a problem as the changing of manager affects more areas here than it would at e.g. Brentford.

3 Bs Brewery a mile up the road. I'm sure someone at Rovers could drive up every other Thursday, buy a few barrels for Blues Bar and the Fan Zone and put them on. If you wanted to make a bit more effort get them to produce a 'Rovers Ale' like Bowland do with Stanley and Burnley. All comes down to effort, which is sadly in short supply at Ewood, and is the main reason I have no sympathy when Waggott and the rest plead poverty and bemoan income streams. Show me some imagination and I'll appreciate it.

If Rovers want more people to drink at the ground pre and post match then they have to make the product better. Plastic cups, awful beer and expensive prices or walk across the road and get proper beer in a glass for less money? If they're happy to carry on charging those prices that's up to them but I won't be buying anything, and I'm sure the same applies to a lot of others. If they put decent ale on, let me drink from a glass and charge me a reasonable price then I'd be there before every home game. Not having the mick taken out of me though. When I've been to Brighton they try to get away fans to drink in the ground rather than elsewhere and to try and do that they bring in a barrel of local ale from whichever club they are playing. In our case it was Wainwrights from Thwaites. There's irony for you - I could get a pint of Thwaites cask beer in the ground at Brighton but can't do at Ewood. Any reason for that other than one club makes an effort and the other doesn't?

You CAN chop and change managers regularly if you have a structure that allows it. If you have a stable board, expertise at the club, a recruitment structure that the head coach fits into - then you can seamlessly change head coach whenever you feel like it - Watford are the experts at it but others like Chelsea and Brentford have it down to a fine art, and also Southampton, previously Swansea, probably now Wolves and Derby - high turnover in manager yet the clubs continue on a positive trajectory regardless - because they have the backroom structure to handle it regardless of which man is in the dugout on matchday. When you are dominated by a manager who controls most aspects of the club it is lovely whilst that manager is doing well and can hold it all together - Wenger at Arsenal, Fergie at United - but when that manager moves on or has to be sacked after a poor run then you hit problems as there is more pressure on getting the replacement right - Stoke in this category - dominated by Pulis then Hughes during the good times and then when things turn sour they don't know which way to turn - hence Lambert, Rowett and Jones who can't hack it. Villa another lot in that boat.

Again I think it depends on which way you look at it. How much ability did Lambert have issue new contracts? How much freedom did he have in January to sign new players and not loans? Did he get rid of Rhodes because he really wanted to or because he was led to believe by someone that if he did he would get the cash to reinvest? As far as I can recall the only contract issue around that time was Ben Marshall, and he still had 12 months to go after Lambert departed so plenty of time to get that sorted. His departure was followed by those of Duffy and Hanley to rivals - that suggests to me one of two things - either those players wanted out after Lambert's departure and the path the club was taking became clear or alternatively the plan from above had been to sell them and that was why Lambert packed his bags. I think his record with signings with no money was better than Mowbray's has been. He only had a January window yet delivered us Graham, Bennett with a 10 million profit. The rest were mainly loans that left the following summer. Meanwhile Mowbray tells us it isn't possible to strengthen the squad in January as it is too expensive despite the owners making money available. Didn't pull up any trees but realistically what position would have been? Promotion or play offs? Never going to happen with that squad given our start to the season. His record was better than Jokanovic at Fulham who took over at a similar time yet with backing and a proper structure did ok.

I think some people want to re-write history with Lambert or pin all the blame for what happened on his shoulders rather than the owners. The very same owners who responded to his departure by bringing in Coyle. If ever you needed evidence that the people running this club weren't fit for purpose that was it. Let's blame it all on Lambert. Nothing at all to do with the owners who sold all our decent players and put us into the 3rd division through a lack of investment, neglect and appalling decisions. Quite clear he was brought in on the basis of doing a certain job and at some stage or other the goalposts moved. Is Lambert a saint? No, he's an odd bloke whose career is in danger of falling by the wayside after taking poor jobs and not sticking around, but Venkys take the blame in my book. They appointed him, God knows what they promised him, or what they expected of him, but quite clear that the budget wasn't and still isn't good enough to demand promotion and yet they appear to still seek it or claim to do. Lambert didn't spend anything on players and only brought in frees and loans. We are back at square one though - supposedly the owners are ambitious and want promotion, supposedly they have made a good budget available for players to achieve that, yet lo and behold money doesn't actually get spent. Where have we heard that one before?

The U23s were invited into that competition the season before last when they started with this ridiculous scheme of bringing academy sides into it, because many of the Premier League clubs declined the opportunity. Then when we were relegated to League One we had to enter our 'senior' team and swiftly exited the competition at the group stage. This season we could have been invited into it as an academy again but it seems we were either overlooked or declined the opportunity. I'm not sure what merit there would be in declining to take part as most of the biggest clubs are now participating, so it seems we were overlooked whilst inferior academy sides like Stoke and West Brom (also Championship clubs) were invited in ahead of us.