I definitely have never said that the manager should be in control of everything. I do however think it should be solely down to the manager/head coach to decide what bloody tactics he uses. Rather than some head in the skies suit wearer behind the scenes deciding what the "philosophy" is or the "right way of playing." Its all drivel. Its hardly an outdated, antiquated outlook to management. Obviously, at our club this is particularly relevant as we are so terribly run. People in jobs they shouldnt be in, constantly changing staff, constant disagreements, constantly changing what "style" we should be playing in. And now we have a dreadful head coach to top it all off because we scared off the decent ones.

Your point seems to be, thats whats happening. Do you think the head coach should have sole autocracy to decide on tactics or should the director stick his beak in and decide? I dont think it makes sense to have a (novice) director of football deciding which tactics to employ. I dont think its in the best interests of the team to have demands set regarding minutes given to academy players. I dont think it makes sense to employ a shit manager. I dont think it makes sense to employ manager whose only successful spell in this country came playing tactics which are the opposite of what Gestede wants to play. Little makes sense at this club. I dont know why you are believing anything that the snake that is Suhail says.

Yes, he probably did agree to play this "style" before. But again, it comes back to this point where you seem to think that any decision that is pre communicated and made must be logical and make sense. We have a novice of a director of football overseeing and instructing a poor manager (whose success in the past came playing a totally different style) on what style to play. Im still none the wiser as to why that makes any sense. It will be loans, frees and if we are lucky the avoidance of our remaining few decent players leaving and a couple of sub par randomers from abroad.

I presume he was told beforehand, still doesnt make it logical. Their "reasons" were clearly flawed.

They wont sack him sadly. They wont back him either, not reasonably, another summer of scraping the barrel scrambling around for loans and cheap deals. And it isnt "his style," he has to play the style that Gestede has decided is "the right way." So all in all, crap manager, insuffucient quality and depth on the playing side. Not something to look forward to. The social media keeps saying be part of the story. That story is a horror.

The centre backs got injured again because he rushed them back. But even allowing for the injuries. To be 14th with only 37 points from 31 games with that squad is inexcusable.

He was crap at Watford. No idea if he played that way at Beskitas but wasnt there long either. So as I said, in English football his only successful spell was playing long ball. So why was he appointed here anyway but especially if they "want" to play possession football. Its one thing appointing someone who tends to play a way that suits the type of player you have. And another thing telling him he has to play in a certain way. Thats what is backwards.

You seem to think that anything a football club does must be right. Well no, you probably wouldnt. You also wouldnt employ a crap manager whose only successful stint in this country relied on long ball and tell him to play possession based football. But thats modern day Rovers for you. A manager/head coach should be allowed to play whatever style wants and feels is most suited to what he has at his disposal and be then judged on the results that follow. Im yet to see why it makes sense not to do that with your only attempted counter argument being that "well football clubs do it."

The Premier League has been crap this season. An average Liverpool side miles ahead and the promoted sides massively cut adrift.

Yeah because Ange is doing a great job.

My point is that its a backwards way of working.

The manager should decide how he wants to play and shouldnt have any stupid instructions or demands.

Sorry, I thought you meant that Ismael deserves respect for doing good jobs at other clubs. Means what it says. Fair play for saying that Ismael needs to go rather than potentially sticking to your guns as you have in the past.

We do not need David Dunn.

He hasnt and doesnt. You just convinced yourself that he did to justify the appointment. But fair play for at least admitting that he needs to go.

To be fair, stuff like touchline demeanour im not arsed about. But hes doing incredible to make poor players look far worse than they actually are. No wonder West Brom and Watford got shut. Here, he will be here for a long time being "helped" by the idiot Gestede telling him how to play. Under these owners neglecting us. League 1 here we come.

Go on chaddy.

Embarassing appointment. Useless tosser.

Embarassing yet again. Shit players. Terrible manager. Run by a dismal board. But all symptoms of the absolute scum we have as owners.

Common, yes. Sensible? Not necessarily.

Gestede is the one picking the style of play and saying he has to play youngsters for x minutes.

That has to be the end for Ange. A manager with an opinion of himself that is well beyond his ability.

Another higher up telling the manager which players he should and shouldnt play. Its a conflict of interest to supposedly want to win games and also to give youngsters x number of minutes if those players arent ready to play in the Championship.

Big questions need to be asked about what Ismael's training as injuries have multiplied since he came in.

Yasir Sufi comes across terribly on twitter. He is keen to push the merits of the Ewood Express in any conversation, to which I cant see any criticism and indeed people seem to acknowledge that its good but either ask questions about how its reported or be more criticial about other failings. To which he seems to take as criticism of the ewood express and seems aggrieved.