Do you honestly think another manager would do better?

[Ultra]

I'm the only one who thinks Jamie Redknapp talks as much balls as he does sense on Sky Sports?

No.

And he probably doesn't watch any football outside the Premiership anyway.

[Ultra]

Anyone who can defend Kelly after the last two performances must either not have witnessed them, or be ridiculously loyal. Don't get me wrong, league position-w**e we are doing a lot better than I expected given our performances since RK took charge, but the bloke's persistence in picking underperforming players is just driving me mad.

Matty Fryatt for instance (I know some people on here think he is class), looks at best a League 2 player, his 1st touch is shocking he doesn't know when or where to release the ball but when Hume is to be brought on, off comes COG (who along with Porter was our only threat) and Fryatt remains to be poor. His decision to bring off Weso (instead of Hughes) for Cadamarteri was equally baffling.

I don't much care about Mandaric's millions, but one good thing will come out of it should it happen, the Kelly supporter can't use the old "we can't get anyone better as we have no money to attract them."

Spot on, but Fryatt actually looked to have potential until RK and his wonderfully gifted coaching team got hold of him..

[The Stig]

Levein came in with a hardman reputation.

true, but he turned out to be as "hard man" as, well Craig Levein!

[Joe.]

Does it matter whether we sack Kelly now or at the end of the season?

Think about this: It's not as if we're going anywhere this season. Promotion is never going to happen and relegation looks unlikely.

Whats the point of sacking Kelly now?

I'd wait to see if Mandaric comes in and what Rob does with any money he has available to him.

If we are around the same position come end of season then Kelly should be gone yes. But at least wait a bit.

The bottom line is we're not going anywhere.

[Strokes]

Does it matter whether we sack Kelly now or at the end of the season?

Think about this: It's not as if we're going anywhere this season. Promotion is never going to happen and relegation looks unlikely.

Whats the point of sacking Kelly now?

I'd wait to see if Mandaric comes in and what Rob does with any money he has available to him.

If we are around the same position come end of season then Kelly should be gone yes. But at least wait a bit.

The bottom line is we're not going anywhere.

Current performances are simply unacceptable, if you can't see that, then you had better go to specsavers.

[Daggers]

If you buy a pair of jeans from Poundstretcher because you're pushed for cash: they may look like jeans, they may be worn like decent jeans...but they will fall apart when put under stress.

We have a Primark manager, we need one from Asda at the very least.

*Best convoluted analogy of 2007 nominee*

[Webbo]

it must be hard to motivate yourself let alone the players when you read in the papers everyday that your going to be sacked the minute MM takes over. as for the players they must see him as a dead man walking and feel that they don't need to impress the boss any more.

[Leicester's 12th Man]

The minute MM takes over could be soon, link <_<

[Thracian]

So you believe in change for changes sake?

I'm not optimistic about Kellys reign at all. I'm fairly confident we would sit pretty much where we are now with him in charge though.

If another year sitting where we are now means some money could be freed up one way or another to get a good proven manager from this division, then i'm willing to do that. Rather than sack him now and have to get some reject that has been sacked elsewhere, or someone so far down the league that they are as inexperienced at this level as Kelly is.

I'm not in charge of our accounts so I can't see if that is viable or not. But it's an option.

At the end of the day you want to get someone who has worse credentials than Kelly, that says it all. You can bleat on about style of play etc. I did some research and found quite a few match reports about Kellys Blackburn youth team a while back. You'd be surprised about the comments made on their style of play in many of the reports.

If you imply by what you say that Kelly used to attack then I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I thought that's what he'd do when he saw what got Levein sacked. But right from his first game, the Southampton cuptie, it was a trench warfare approach.

It rescued our season and I thought we'd move on from there with Kelly's team, but no.

As you say, Kelly was a successful youth team manager. So why the hell should he change his approach just because he was managing seniors?.

How did he expect to play so many negative players and hope to score the necessary goals?.

Look at the weekend. Hughes, Williams, Wesolowski. Not a single goalscorer running from central midfield. Not one player to get in the box.

And that's been the story all season. We had so few potential scorers on the field for Monday's home game it was embarrassing.

With misfiring strikers, no right winger and defensive full-backs where can the goals possibly come from with a midfield like that?.

Is that how he managed the Blackburn youth team?. I've not checked but I doubt it very much. I'm pretty sure he attacked with attitude and with his defenders high up the field. It's Kelly that changed not the requirements for successful football.

I don't think we could have matched the top teams by any means but we could have scored far more goals with a more imaginative and varied approach, with more appropriate summer signings, a better balanced line-up and with better use of what we had.

[Manwell Pablo]

If you imply by what you say that Kelly used to attack then I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I thought that's what he'd do when he saw what got Levein sacked. But right from his first game, the Southampton cuptie, it was a trench warfare approach.

It rescued our season and I thought we'd move on from there with Kelly's team, but no.

As you say, Kelly was a successful youth team manager. So why the hell should he change his approach just because he was managing seniors?.

How did he expect to play so many negative players and hope to score the necessary goals?.

Look at the weekend. Hughes, Williams, Wesolowski. Not a single goalscorer running from central midfield. Not one player to get in the box.

And that's been the story all season. We had so few potential scorers on the field for Monday's home game it was embarrassing.

With misfiring strikers, no right winger and defensive full-backs where can the goals possibly come from with a midfield like that?.

Is that how he managed the Blackburn youth team?. I've not checked but I doubt it very much. I'm pretty sure he attacked with attitude and with his defenders high up the field. It's Kelly that changed not the requirements for successful football.

I don't think we could have matched the top teams by any means but we could have scored far more goals with a more imaginative and varied approach, with more appropriate summer signings, a better balanced line-up and with better use of what we had.

Genious, you absloutley correct, we don't have many good attacking players on the pitch. Now do you want to suggest something doesn't involve your mates lad, a proven Confernece striker, are a Ghaniaian Cockney with the first touch of a Donkey with MS?

As I've told you loads of times, we'll get ripped to shreds playing a high line the back four are to slow.

[coale39]

If you imply by what you say that Kelly used to attack then I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I thought that's what he'd do when he saw what got Levein sacked. But right from his first game, the Southampton cuptie, it was a trench warfare approach.

It rescued our season and I thought we'd move on from there with Kelly's team, but no.

As you say, Kelly was a successful youth team manager. So why the hell should he change his approach just because he was managing seniors?.

How did he expect to play so many negative players and hope to score the necessary goals?.

Look at the weekend. Hughes, Williams, Wesolowski. Not a single goalscorer running from central midfield. Not one player to get in the box.

And that's been the story all season. We had so few potential scorers on the field for Monday's home game it was embarrassing.

With misfiring strikers, no right winger and defensive full-backs where can the goals possibly come from with a midfield like that?.

Is that how he managed the Blackburn youth team?. I've not checked but I doubt it very much. I'm pretty sure he attacked with attitude and with his defenders high up the field. It's Kelly that changed not the requirements for successful football.

I don't think we could have matched the top teams by any means but we could have scored far more goals with a more imaginative and varied approach, with more appropriate summer signings, a better balanced line-up and with better use of what we had.

Hughes and Williams are debatable. Maybe if RK told them to attack the box, they might score a few they are capable. Who would you play in the center (not unproven youths)?

[Thracian]

Hughes and Williams are debatable. Maybe if RK told them to attack the box, they might score a few they are capable. Who would you play in the center (not unproven youths)?

The whole point of suggesting an "unproven youth" is that the person in question, Andy King, has consistently shown he can do that job - and score goals - to the level he's played while the alternatives in our club have consistently shown that they can't.

Hughes is the best "regular" option. He has scored seven times in the last season and a half, compared to Gareth Williams' three. Given that, our best midfield in a 4-3-3 would probably be King, Williams, Hughes.

However I think, if he was fit, a case could be made for King, Wesolowski, Hughes, and for King, Hughes, Porter.

But from everything I've seen King hits the box countless times more than any of the other options. The number of shots he has is extraordinary though he's not so brilliant at converting them. He wins far more headers than any of the alternatives, he's a good passer, quite good on the floor and is genuinely box to box.

As with so many of our youngsters no-one has ever said we couldn't sign better alternatives if we had the money.

All I have ever claimed is that certain people like Porter, Logan (and yes, that's 50/50), Dodds, King and Sheehan (if you want an attacking left-back) are better than anyone else we've got.

[The People's Hero]

People are losing sight of the issue. Kelly should go because he's doing an awful job. You can't just keep hold of someone who isn't good enough out of sentimentality or because there is risk in appointing a new manager, of course there is risk, that is part and parcel of the game.

I never have and never will endorse the continued support of someone who has shown himself to be simply not up to it.

The sooner he goes, the better.

[Mort]

You can't just keep hold of someone who isn't good enough out of sentimentality or because there is risk in appointing a new manager, of course there is risk, that is part and parcel of the game.

Agreed, there's a risk in dropping a manager but there's an even bigger risk in retaining them. To be frank i dont think Rk would be desperate to hang on, to be honest i dont think he was ever dead keen on the job and so long as the take-over goes through it wouldnt be a massive problem to compensate him, let him go and bring in a "decent" manager (which probably means Dowie... not my first choice, but better than RK IMHO).

[Joe.]

Agreed, there's a risk in dropping a manager but there's an even bigger risk in retaining them. To be frank i dont think Rk would be desperate to hang on, to be honest i dont think he was ever dead keen on the job and so long as the take-over goes through it wouldnt be a massive problem to compensate him, let him go and bring in a "decent" manager (which probably means Dowie... not my first choice, but better than RK IMHO).

I reckon he would cling onto it. Who else would take him in?

If he was to be sacked I couldn't see him in another manager's job. Probably a coach or assistant somewhere.

[Ultra]

He shouldn't have any problem finding a job as head of an academy somewhere.

I'd wish him well wherever he went. At least he'd be able to leave with the club in a better position (if only slightly) then when he took over.