The one tactical choice that Tomasson has managed to get the players to follow is to try and play it out from the back. This has and will continue to cause us problems and will bore everyone rigid doing so. Results hage been reasonable and IMO are better than the level of performance but I think if we lose a few on the bounce, that the passing it out stuff will really frustrate Ewood.

The Watford game we played well in, QPR was a drab game settled by a wonder goal and Blackpool was ok. Do you have answers to my questions on style of play, notably passing it out slowly from the back? Venkys have history of not sacking managers under contract despite results. Obviously not saying they should sack Tomasson.

Tomasson clearly wants them to play like that so worryingly, stuff like that will likely continue regardless of who plays.

Because we lack experience and physicality in there, and for me have regularly struggled this season to control the midfield battle. Buckley has really regressed playing deeper, Morton has underwhelmed and Wharton has dropped back out of the squad. Just because we have 4 players doesnt mean that we are suitably equipped there. And maybe Hirst and Szmodics were first choices, my point was more that they have started poorly in a Rovers shirt. For balance and to avoid you going mad about patience and projects again, Hyam and Brittain have started well.

I get that you are very much in the honeymoon period with Tomasson and seem reluctant to even question him, trotting out the word "project" repeatedly. But results aside, what do you make to the way Tomasson is trying to get us to play? Do you agree with it or have any concerns with it? What do you make to the signings and do you think we are lacking anywhere? Would you agree that our results show more points than perhaps our performances have warranted?

There are huge genuine worries that he is trying to instill a philosophy that quite simply is not fit for purpose considering the players available. He seems desperate to have us playing it out from the back but it doesnt suit us. All this talk of high intensity pressing etc but we have been a painfully dull watch all season and I suspect should we continue in the same vein, results will go downhill rather than improve. There has been a lot of talk about us being inconsistent but I would say that the level of performance has been consistently poor. A big re-think is needed. He will be regardless of results. Venkys dont care enough either way.

The transfer window is not looking like the successful one that many praised Broughton and Tomasson for as it came to a close. Hyam and Brittain improve the side but as I have said before, we were desperate for some experience in central midfield and Morton does not tick that box, we look really short there. Szmodics looks like a player who doesnt come close to improving our first 11 which he has to considering the fee, Hirst surely was not anyones first choice and Mola doesnt make matchday squads.

Signing a lorry loads of players in the crazy way that Forest have doesnt scream everyone being in it together and reading off the same page.

Just because he "knows how it works" doesnt mean that the goal posts cant move and things will change, nor that it will be efficient/effective.

Dyche is the obvious appointment for either Forest if they sack Cooper or Bournemouth to give them the best chance of staying up. Strangely, warped perception means that he will be too unfashionable to even be considered and both sides will likely be relegated.

Dyche is the obvious appointment for either Forest if they sack Cooper or Bournemouth to give them the best chance of staying up. Strangely, warped perception means that he will be too unfashionable to even be considered and both sides will likely be relegated.

The big risk that comes with the currently fashionable setup of having head coaches. It can often lead to playere signed that the "head coach" doesnt want and/or can lead to internal conflict.

I dont get why Hull (established Championship club with a good core of quality) need experience yet Rotherham (historical yo-yo club) should be taking a risk on someone young.

Rothwell was the only player in Mowbrays reign - I have been pretty consistent in saying that it is not an issue just in Mowbray's tenure, it is a Venkys thing. Ties in to my point that once Mowbray says anything, regardless of accuracy it causes rage and an inability for some to stop then going into an in depth analysis of why he shouldn't be here anymore The pandemic isn't an excuse it's a fact - I never really argued otherwise. It can be a valid excuse AND a somewhat justification for that lack of backing that I have mentioned You don't give your players away - Venkys seemingly did not have any interest in negotiating, in which case I would imagine we could have got higher than 10 million euros. But is 10 million euros giving him away, or is it indeed a considerable chunk of money for a Championship club bemoaning FFP, and well in excess of what we spent? Again this summer money was spent - The first summer in 3, but yes, again you clearly have not read my posts in which I have repeatedly stated that it isn't the amount of spending that necessarily frustrates me, its the lack of underlying, consistent plan.

Still a lot for a player who didn't make the 18 when we had players back.

You are so keen to defend the owners at the moment for some reason, I have repeated that my main criticisms are not necessarily the money spent but the underlying inefficiencies in how it is spent and how it doesn't conform to a plan. I never said that there wasn't a reason mid-pandemic not to splash big money but equally there wasn't backing at that time. There might be a reason for it if we take the pandemic as a reason, but that still doesn't defy the idea that there wasn't backing at that time. Same with last summer, again even if you take FFP as the reason despite any mention of it in public and I do not want to waste time having that debate, so lets assume the reason last summer was FFP. Again, there was no backing. You could perhaps constructively argue that there was no backing in either summer for valid reasons, but there was still no backing. FFP is the constant excuse, but the owners have shown total disregard towards trying to be as efficient as possible within FFP rules in the last 6-12 months anyway. Because Mowbray has said it, again people jump to the defence of the owners presumably so that they can get angry at Mowbray again. I have always championed a system of profiting on assets when you can cash in on them and reinvesting part of that, its the best way a club like ours can sustainably flourish, we NEVER have shown signs of doing it because it is undermined by the owners regardless of each new member of staff coming in and comparing us to Brentford when quite clearly the owners have no interest in a similar model. Jack's Walker's ownership was before my time and it was a totally different era. And the example you give is of a choice that was detrimental.

The problem with going 3 at the back on the assumption that no 2 man pairing isn't good enough is that you are just playing an extra player in an area that you are weak in, and adding an extra player who is likely prone to make a big mistake. It also affects the attacking balance of the team leaving us naturally more prone to sitting in to begin with. Maguire and Dier shouldn't be taken to Qatar.

You can choose to do a thorough post mortem over years worth of tactics, ultimately I am not really interested. But either way, I wanted Mowbray out too, for longer than you. My points were more about the crazy reactions any time he speaks, but mainly as to Venkys who sadly remain. He never said that he had money to spend in January. He did say that he could sign a striker in January and didn't, but he specifically said a young striker on loan from the Premier League. There hasn't been backing in every window either, that is bullshit and has nothing to do with defending Mowbray, to whom I refer you to paragraph 2. They didn't back the manager last summer, when none of the money was allowed to be reinvested. Cry foul of FFP all you like, the speculated reason for the lack of spending doesn't make it any less of a valid point even if it is true, but you can't then go on to still defend examples of turning money down for assets running their contracts down. They didn't back the manager in January, when we spent £700k, I don't want you to go off on a tangent about how a loanee was wasted, I know, I agree, but again I am separating this from Mowbray. The season before, we didn't spend anything really, and the season before that, we did buy Gallagher but he sacrificed Raya to fund most of that. There is a big expectation over the academy plugging gaps too. So what he said about the owners and the implications about their ambition or lack of tallies up. He made a valid point even if he is probably doing it to try and save face and it doesn't change that I am glad that he has gone.

Very much in the honeymoon period, whereby he won't even consider tangible evidence of anything but perfection within the club.

They were all reported as muscular injuries.

Like it or lump it is not a valid point, obviously neither of us can impact anything but my opinion is that allowing assets to run their contracts down and chucking £12m+ plus down the drain by overruling the manager is not an efficient way to run a football club and removes the validity of the FFP line that is constantly used. It also undermines the supposed journey idea to think so short term. You say that they didnt trust him which is a baseless theory but in such a case, anything other than sacking him once that trust is lost is typically idiotic. Until the owners stop overruling decisions then no matter how proactive the employees below are, there will be cases when players get to the final year of their deal at which point a sale has to be made. The whole point of becoming even slightly more sustainable is to buy assets, profit, pocket some, reinvest some and continue, thats how you do a "journey" and Venkys have totally failed since day 1.

The ticket prices have absolutely nothing to do with it. Our higher ticket prices dont necessarily lead to more revenue because quantity goes down as a result. My issue with Venkys has never primarily been about how much. Its about them overruling and having an all or nothing policy, hence why we will never be efficient under them. I wont swallow the FFP excuses when the owners have demonstrated more than once a lack of willingess to stick to a plan and a short term mentality.

He could have loaned one who would now be no longer at the club and I have said as much in the past. It has no relevance though to my point about moaning about FFP yet throwing so much down the drain at the same time. Nor my point about Mowbray saying anything leading to people frothing at the mouth.

I dont get this argument that people would go mad at the owners, that shouldnt affect decisions. And for one, they shouldnt overrule the manager, meaning that the owners wouldnt be judged on individual signings and sales, only if they didnt invest enough. The point was though that FFP is being used as a big limitation which in isolation it could be. But we cant use it as an excuse when we have turned away over £12m in fees in 6 months for players that are otherwise running their contracts down. On Brereton, it isnt just one of those things. The situation should not be determined by potential fan reaction, there is an investment to protect. But even then, initially a new deal should have been pushed after that decent season when he scored 7. But even factoring that in, we could have still sold this summer having made that mistake and made a profit on investment.

You are falling into the chaddy trap of withholding opinion because of what the manager said.