He really didnt have a period of time where we played hoofball to Armstrong. I suspect that such is your bizarre dislike of him where your hatred of him randomly spews out when he hasnt been previously mentioned, his time here has become an absolute disaster in your mind when all in he did a good job. For what its worth, every manager (and player) is here for the packet. In his last season, he publically showed his frustration at not getting funds either that summer or in January when he wasnt able to trade freely. On the topic of player treatment, all the players seemed to love Mowbray. Not the case with Tomasson (who I liked as a manager, again did a good yet flawed job in a different way) who seemed to be tactically ahead but lacking on the man management side. Coming back on topic, Ismael seems to also have history with man management question marks. Lets hope they dont happen here and he can get the players playing to their maximum.

Does your seat at Ewood face the pitch? Mowbray certainly had faults but he didnt play hoof ball to Armstrong. When he was up front, we tried to dominate the ball and it didnt work, so quite the opposite. Im sure Mowbray must have done something to you personally as your hatred isnt normal.

Not the most exciting appointment, and lots of red flags. Doesnt stay at places long, questions about his man management and also his ability to sustain his very direct style of football especially when teams learn how to deal with it. But equally it could have been worse and he did a very good job at Barnsley and although he underperformed in his subsequent 2 jobs, it certainly wasnt disastrous. A big shower of comments about getting behind him, giving him a chance and to stop being negative all on page 1. People do realise that being critical in any way of the appointment or raising any concerns doesnt equate to him coming out to a chorus of boos on Saturday? People will be behind him like they always are. But if they arent totally happy with the appointment, let them say so. Lets hope he has learnt from his mistakes and becomes less predictable in terms of his style of play, and also lets hope he fits our club similar to how he did at Barnsley. The likes of Karanka, Boateng and Boa Morte would have been the ones to avoid. Certainly much more to cling on to with Ismael in a positive way. But ultimately the shit show of how we screwed Eustace over and the underlying mess that remains made this a very difficult appointment, and its hard to just brush off losing a very talented manager in that way.

It seems counterproductive to either dismiss his time at West Brom/Watford or alternatively his time at Barnsley dependant on your overall opinion of the appointment.

Didnt expect to see posters falling over themselves boasting about recruitment that they have done in the past for their companies as a means of justifying/criticising the recruitment of a manager by a (dysfunctional) football club. But there you go.

Recruiting a football manager isnt really comparable to anything else.

To be fair, in his first season he mainly had Carter with him and he got player of the season.

Seems strange considering that he managed to get them into the play offs which was very impressive. Why doesnt he rate him? Purely on style? From what I have seen, its West Brom and Watford fans who dont rate him. He had really strong squads and after a decent start things soon went sour. I think you put up his record cropped from wikipedia. No, just the best players we have.

Am I right i thinking that you was (and may very well still be) very much for the appointment the other day?

Like I said, I am personally underwhelmed but not totally against it to the point that I can acknowledge reasons why he COULD be a good appointment. I personally see more points against than for overall but its a mixed bag. Are there any points against his appointment in your book? Even allowing for the fact that your overall opinion is that you are for Ismael being appointed, and acknowleding potential concerns would not change that overall feeling. For example, you said the other day that we need a manager for the "short, medium and long term." Ismael has NEVER stayed anywhere for very long. Any concern there?

To be fair to Pep, especially last season he had started to do things that moved away from certain principles. He had Haaland up front, he essentially had (and still has) played 4 centre backs and Ederson often goes long to Haaland. Their squad just has really aged and so many key parts are over the hill. De Bruyne is done for, Gundogan was when he left and it was strange that they signed him back, Walker lost his speed and was never the best defender, Stones' body seems to be unable to sustain itself at the top level and Bernardo Silva also is well past his best. The injury to Rodri was a killer too.

As others have said, win percentage stats are not the best barometer. A lot of his games are with dominant 2nd teams in the German lower leagues. PASK are also dominant in their own country. You look at West Brom, they had just come down and he was sacked within the play offs but they expected a top 2 place. Man City have won more games than Bournemouth this season, but youd be hard pushed to say that Guardiola is doing better than Iraola. (Just this season) You seem defiant and adamant that Ismael if appointed WILL 100% do a good job. Is that fair? You dont seem to have considered that he may not or raised any concerns. I am underwhelmed but obviously its not a hopeless, disastrous appointment and it could have been worse. He did a very good job at Barnsley to get into the play offs. And he has never totally bombed, he usually has a strong initial impact. He can be quite proactive in terms of making subs and his teams have to be fit. But there are red flags. He doesnt stay at teams very long. There are reports of issues with his man management and his style can be predictable (and boring) and it has felt from his previous clubs that other teams have soon sussed it out. And I dont think he did a very good job at West Brom or Watford. Do you acknowledge any of the above concerns, or have any of your own? Or are you 100% sure he is the perfect man for the job?

Everyone will give him the benefit of the doubt and judge him here. We dont need people going round suggesting that whoever is appointed will not have support because its untrue. Wagner's best job was a long time ago at Huddersfield. The 2 jobs he had abroad afterwards, he failed. Norwich he didnt "stink out" so I retract that somewhat but he wasnt seen as a big success there either and they got shut not long after full time of the play off battering.

I said with Edwards that even he wouldnt be the best choice and a downgrade on Eustace. He took Luton on in his last job in a not too dissimilar position to what we are in. Ismael did well at Barnsley but you are happy to dismiss the fact that he failed at both West Brom and Watford since then. His most recent track record is poor. His long ball and inflexible football can work initially but once the opposition cottons on and coupled with suggestions of poor man management, he doesnt stay at clubs very long. Does that not concern you? Wagner's football was not popular at Norwich who all think he relied on the sort of individual quality we simply dont have here. They did get into the play offs and surrendered in the semi finals. He did a great job at Huddersfield but it was a long time ago and he has a couple of failures on his CV since. You would probably have to say that Wagner would make more sense out of the 2. Ismael has a very specific, long ball focused style and I think when we dont have much time that it would be very difficult transition. His recent record is also worse than Wagner's considering that even though questions arise over how much credit he warrants for it, Norwich did make the top 6 last season. Ultimately, both are still somewhat living from glories a long time ago in their managerial career. Not comparing them like for like but Coyle did get Burnley promoted once upon a time. https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/24174605.watford-call-time-ismael-amid-bad-run/ Here is an article on Ismael at Watford, there was one similar posted about his time at West Brom.

So we are only just meeting candidates now?

Theres a difference between having an initial opinion and writing someone off to the point where he wont be given a chance to prove his worth.

Has anyone said they wont give him a chance? Being underwhelmed/disappointed by a potential appointment doesnt mean people wont give him a chance. Win ratio isnt a fool proof way of looking at a managers record because it depends on each individual situation.

So the common pattern is that a mixture of falling out with players and his one dimensional hoofball soon being figured out by opposition managers leads to him always leaving the club shortly after joining. Lovely.

I wonder which players will benefit and be put out by Ismael if he joins. You'd think it might suit Gueye. Tactics of lumping the ball in the air. Woodrow was a favourite of Ismael at Barnsley, obviously Brittain was but is a good player anyway. Anyone with flair will struggle. Cantwell, Kargbo, I don't think he was keen on Dennis either last season at Watford.

You said that our structure is where Owen and Gestede choose a shortlist and the head coach gets the final pick. You seen to think our club efficiently runs using that blueprint. Dembele is one example that you have criticised the club for not signing considering that Eustace wanted him but was overruled. There were a number of players in January that Eustace wanted and didnt get. And he left soon after with that seemingly as one of the reasons. My opinion on any players is irrelevant to the point I am making. The structure you suggest is in place here does not run effectively and efficiently as you suggest. More like, any new head coach needs to fit into a structure of owners not reinvesting sales proceeds, disagreements above his head on signings, very little say in signings and staff in recruitment (or an extension of eg director of football) constantly choosing to leave the club.

Ismael did undoubtedly do well to get an unfancied Barnsley into the play offs during the covid season but he really struggled at both West Brom and Watford, ignoring another brief spell at Besiktas. Questions about his man management arose and also his style became predictable. His style is really hard to watch, we don't need to worry much about our terrible pitch as the ball won't be on it much. I remember at Barnsley he used to always make subs on the hour mark but it became quite predictable. I think the assumed thought process was run the starters into the ground and replace with fresh legs. Also, didn't he play 3/5 at the back at Barnsley, and will he try and do that right away here?

Mixed job. Batth good, Beck good. Weimann has been a solid squad player but his legs are going. Cantwell has been poor, ACD poor. McFadzean pointless. Toth crap. Baker, meh. Neither of the 2 strikers have been great, mixed bags really, Ohashi started well and then struggled and vice versa. January signings haven't featured much. All signed for a small amount so it is hard. But point being, you suggested that our current structure is where the higher ups pick a shortlist and a head coach picks from there. As if its a seamless process that is working, despite Eustace being clearly unhappy with a lack of final say.

Coyle's CV has a promotion on it. Is he better than Eustace? Being 6th doesnt mean that the structure of the football club is functional. It doesnt mean that those behind the scenes are doing a good job. Eustace undoubtedly was getting every last drop out of a squad that is limited on ability but also gives its all. You mention that the head coach picks from a shortlist as if that process was perfectly executed under Eustace. Clearly he wasnt happy which suggests it was not always his pick from the shortlist. I thought you would prefer Wagner because of the aforementioned promotion.

"Our club structure." Got to fit within that because it works so well. Seems strange to respond to a post about happiness by saying hes foreign as you expected. Did you specifically want a foreign appointment? Or are you happy because you predicted it? You must rate Wagner considering how much you rated Eustace if you think he is better. The king is dead, long live the king. Do you prefer Wagner or Ismael?

Do they not? Where is that from? Surely they are the only ones that do. Im sure you were all for the appointment the other day?