Speaking of vendettas...why you got it in for Andy Cole so much? You'll stick up for Dwight Yorke until the cows come home but for Cole...nope. This despite Cole continually putting in better performances than Yorke all throughout last season. Yet whenever there is any hint of a problem with Cole you come down on him like a ton of bricks. Oh and lazy? Sorry, just not true. So what if he stands with his hands on his hips? Maybe the fella just likes mincing...

I'd suggest what he has done for the club is similar to what Kenny did if we take into account the lesser resources available. Also, Kenny took over when the club was on the up as under Parkes they were shooting up the league. In fact, the game when he came to the ground and confirmed he was taking over was Plymouth, who we thrashed 5-2. When Souness came the club were having probably the worst season (other than maybe the relegation season) in about thirty years Unlike Dalglish he couldn't outbid almost every team in the land. The main difference between them is that Souness remained after reaching a peak. A league cup win then sixth place in successive seasons; it's hard for us to go much further without substantial investment as the teams we are hoping to overtake (Liverpool and Chelsea finished directly above us that season) have spent millions since. As a manger Souness is in the same bracket as Dalglish for his achievements until 2003. If he can turn it around and improve on last season, he will remain in that kind of exalted company...

Actually name one manager we have had since Kenny- none! We had three coaches who were superb when it came to tactics and training but couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag. Harford and Kidd were great assistants but not manager material. Hodgson should never be allowed near another cheque book in his life although to be fair all the contemporary sources suggest that Kevin Davies was slightly forced upon him although he can't have that excuse for spending over five million on Christian Dailly and over four million of Nathan Blake. Regardless of whether or not you like Souness, you can't say he isn't a leader or the type of man who gets things done. We needed him at the time desperately as Tony Parkes may be a great servant but isn't long-term manager material (actually his last caretaker stint was little short of disastrous, although before then he had turned the club around in 1991/92) and what was required was a warrior-type, if I'm not being too daft here..someone to kick some up the bum and get some out the door. I'm hoping he'll still be the man for us for some years to come. Last season may have been a blip, we shall wait and see but Souness deserves our full support. Or, I should say, as it is football, he deserves our full suppport for as long as earns his wage...to earn his wage again we cannot be treated to ten home league defeats and humiliatingly immediate cup exits once again...

I'd suggest that quite a few people would be a little bit intimdated at posting. It may seem daft but some people may actually nervous about putting their thoughts online, especially those who haven't been messing about on computers all their life. There's a little bit too much of a bent towards either young or middle age posters. This isn't the fault of this message board but the internet as a whole. It'd be intersting to have a few more contributors old enough to remember when we in the top flight in the fifties and sixties without wall-to-wall Sky TV coverage. I'd say this site has a better mix than any other football message board I'd seen. Still...it'd be good to hear more from the more mature Rovers fan. It'd also hopefully put a stop to the 'Rovers All Time XI' threads in which not one player goes back further than the last decade or so. There is a slight cliquey element to the board as well. Sometimes the new posters tend to have it little too tough. I'm no doubt as guilty as others in sometimes having little patience but it's interesting to hear from tcj_jones that he found it a little difficult at first but stuck at it and improved to become a regular contributor to the board. While I don't care if idiots get put off and leave I'd be disappinted if some posters who original and worthwhile things to say are put off the board by the initial reaction they receive. I'm not too sure how that can be changed though in the future or if it should. There are some posters who no longer contribute who were of benefit to the board and I'd hope they just felt they had other things to do rather than actually being put off the place.

Certainly getting rid of the 'ratings' would be a good idea, Other than new posters wishing to rapidly move up a few levels there is no need for them. The number of posts would still be by the name of the poster but again that says little, You can only find out about a person by hearing what they have to say and both agreeing and disagreeing with them (if you ALWAYS agree with someone - anyone - then there is something wrong with you, life is about conflict as much as agreement. Yin and Yang and all that lot....). The board is in a healthier position now than it was. There was an influx at the end of last year by official site contributors in desperate need of a home. They have now either left or improved their contributions to suit that of this board. Personally I think people are being too harsh...regardless of whether I disagree with other posters or not (and I cannot think of one single major poster who I haven't disagreed with at least a few times and I'm including myself in that last of people I have disagreed with what they have posted!) yet most have points to make and make it well. The board is in a bit of a trough now because it is summer but to answer the oringial question...no, the quality of the board is not declining. Just wait till we actually have good things to talk about and you will see. Oh..and that's a promise.

FLB not nit picking but tend to disagree on this point to the extent only a small number of clubs are healthy and the rest are living on scraps or in deep trouble as the amount going into administration would suggest. Quite true Mr Kayos- however, it really has ALWAYS been like that. Look up any year since the football league began and I guarantee you will find clubs in that kind of financial situation. Go back fifty years and the likes of Accrington Stanley, Gateshead, Bradford Park Avenue, Southport, new Brighton, Barrow, Workington, Aldershot etc etc were all league clubs. They all went the way of either obscurity or extinction. Small clubs have always struggled. Mainly because they are, well...so small. The Leeds United situation is nothing new, their predecessors Leeds City got in trouble and were booted out the league. Yet football carried on, it always does... That England sustains far more clubs than any other country and has far more fans watching them than any other does not suggest a national game in crisis. Look - I don't particularly like the extortionate amounts charged to watch live football, or for that matter televised football. I don't like players getting eighty grand a week. I don't think...wow! Sunday lunchtime, what a great time to go the football. The most worrying modern trend in football is the reluctance to buy lower division players but instead go after cheap foreign signings. That could be worrying for the long-term future of lower division clubs. But..you know...what can you do? It's the way it is now. Money talks in football. Then again...to a greater or lesser extent, it always has.

This discussion does happen every now and then. In fact Scotty started a similar thread in January which can be read here...Board Standards, Slipping It's cyclical, the board has ups and downs. Sometimes the quality is excellent and other times (especially in the close season) it's a case of sifting through the smugglers turds to find the diamond they swallowed. Er...if you know what I mean..ahem... There is no possible way this can be changed unless you dramatically alter the very nature of this board. This is open for Blackburn Rovers fans (or even pleasant enough fans of other teams) it isn't a literary society. There will always be different types of posters and different styles of portraying content. In my mind, it's this mixture of the eclectic elements with the democratic nature of the message board which allows people to put across their own opinion as long as they do so by showing others respect that is the strength of this board. If I wanted to agree with everything someone else said I'd join a political party and worship the leader. The board will be a more interesting place come the autumn....as will all things Rovers. Don't let it get you down, it's still the best message board around.

What financial problem? We don't have one! That's because the board has been careful to look after the best interests of the club. If the club spends within their budget then there is no financial problem. If the club overspends like Leeds then deservedly things will go pear-shaped. None of this is the fault of Sky. It is totally the responsibility of the club to look after themselves and make sure they do not overspend. Just like in any other business. The last time Rovers had major financial problems was in the pre-Sky days of the 1980s when Bill Fox had to send out cheques to his creditors unsigned...meaning he'd have a few more days to find the funds. On one occasion a match was postponed and those present were treated to the sight of the chairman of Blackburn Rovers fretting about what he was going to do without the revenues from pie sales that day. Paul - you mention "The bulk of Sky money ends up in the pockets of those with the least interest in the club". Wait a minute...we go to watch top quality players perform and that's what we spend the money on. Of course most should go to them. It's just like watching a Brad Pitt or a Julia Roberts movie solely because they are in it and then complaining that the movie studio ain't getting enough of the takings. Players are a special commodity. Hired for their special talent. They ain't ten a penny like solicitors, accountants, teachers, nurses whatever. It's a case of supply and demand. It's the way it is. As for fans complaining about the money they get...well, you pay them. If it's football you are a fan of then stop watching Sky or going to Ewood and watch a non-league side. Except that isn't quite it...we all want to watch the most talented footballers. For that we have to pay.

waggy is... ....The Rebel Without a Cause. Cheer up will you...we don't even kick off for six weeks!

You really need to get out more....

If I was being envious of the Greeks I'd suggest that a solitary World Cup win on home soil is a poor return for one of the great footballing nations on earth. Although a wonderful achievement it's going to be forty years since by the next World Cup. Besides...i'm only in my twenties so wasn't even alive when we won it. The point is...regarding the players we have had and the financial resources at our command (the FA remains the richest national association on earth)...to not even have reached the final is a poor return. Well done to the Greeks...but you know...it's a poor do that England has not even come close to that in the European Championships.

And for your next trick? Even the most optimistic Greek did not think they would win the title. Arsene Wenger was astute enough to say in print that they would be dark horses and maybe suprise some people but even he had no idea that they would close to winning it. If anyone tells you they thought that Greece had a chance of winning the thing before tournament (or even before the semi finals for that matter) they are a damn liar. The greatest upset in the history of major international tournaments, other teams have pulled off shock wins but to do it for a tournament and beat the holders, the dark horses (Czechs) and the hosts twice...well, you can't say they didn't desereve it far more than any other team in the competition. On a sadder note- the likes of Czechoslavakia, Denmark, Netherlands and Greece have all won the tournament. Add all their populations together and they are still nowhere near that of England. It's a sad statistic that we are the only large country in Europe not to have won the European Championship. Even serial underachievers such as Spain and the Soviet Union have had their moments. It's about time we had our turn in the limelight...

How about having to start work at 7.00pm in Leyland? Which may well be the case for one ST holder in our house, not me though I did pay for the ticket. We all know people who have work commitments that mean they miss some games each season while furiously trying to swap shifts so they can see others. It's not nice when the game has to be missed but what do you suggest? That all games are played at 3pm on a Saturday and we have no live league football to watch? No thanks, I don't want miss being able to watch games on television and I don't think many people do. Yes it's irritating and it's always a shame when someone has to miss a game because they are at work or college or whatever (as has happened a number of times to me) but I can hardly expect the game to positioned around my life. It's just one of these things...playing the game at that time means hundreds of thousands get to see the game. I for one think that's a good thing and I'm sure those who otherwise wouldn't be able to see the game do as well. roversismylife- it's only 5.15pm, not midnight! It'll finish at seven...so you'll still have the night in front of you.

Why do you need a car, use a train... hell of a lot cheaper! Too many peasants around.. Surely the peasants would be too busy tilling the land so they can pay their liege lord the rent for small plot of land for them to havethe time to be getting a train to Blackburn? Don't think they had trains in feudal times mind... Besides, if you mean that people who use the train are peasants, well, better to be a peasant than a beggar eh?? " Give me the money for a car, petrol from Portsmouth to Blackburn plus money for a ticket and I'll go.."

Yes but you have also just said you have never heard of Joaquin, Reyes, Vicente or Exteberria. If that is true it makes your comments look ridiculous really doesn't it. right i have got my euro 2004 fansbook in hand,etxeberria plays for bilbao has 50 caps and scored 12 goals. joaquin sanchez? plays for real betis played 19 times and scored 2. these were before euro 2004 and the other 2 are not named unless they go under other names. so i now know a little about these spics,still no nothing about goped One of the best arguments I've heard on here that one...essentially it boils down to this... ...this Spanish international winger De Pedro can't be much good if I ain't heard of him. I've just looked in my Panini stickerbook thingymyjjig and found out about the other three but where the hell is Goped? waggy...good attempt at a wind up though

Excellent post Rev and it sums up the issue perfectly. It is annoying when people have to change their schedules but to be honest the 'babysitter' argument doesn't really wash; there's advance warning given months before the game. In return Sky give the club loads of money which allows us to play the likes of Man United and Arsenal. Without Sky we'd have plenty of 3pm kick offs against the likes of Stockport or Crewe. It isn't really the fault of Sky so much...just the way it is, it's progress. If Sky didn't exist we'd have to invent them. If you want a real example of a TV monopoly of football you have to go back to the eighties when he BBC and ITV teamed up to offer as low a price as possible for football, far below what it was worth. Only when Sky first bid in 1988 did the league and the clubs begin to get a fraction of what their product is worth. If Sky wasn't wround other companies would have been set up to broadcast this product As for people thinking it is killing itself with its greed....does anyone know when this accusation was first laid at football's door? The early 1880s. It's continued to be said ever since and yet today football is about as healthy as it'd ever been. Colin - you mention "I have a life to live and I would like to co-ordinate it with doing my 60 mile round trip to see Rovers. Maybe the 60 mile round trip counts for nothing." If you didn't want to make the trip you wouldn't, we all have lives and all supporters make sacrifices for their team. It's a bugger that everything isn't set up perfectly for each and every one of us but as there are millions of fans to cater for then I'm sorry but we just have to get on with it . Oh and as for the 5.15 kick off time, unless you live a long distance away then I still haven't heard any good reason against it.

Leeds were ambitious. So too Bradford.

Well you can't keep a good man down. Big Sam may have lost out in signing Rivaldo but he's making up for it by going for another superstar in...er....Les Ferdinand. 37 years young. Ferdinand in Bolton talks

Yes but that has nothing to with television, that happens every time we play United at home anyway.

I give up

Even by your standards waggy that is unbelieveable. After going on about how good a signing Hasselbaink would be, a striker not considered good enough for "poooooooooortuuuugal", your response to De Pedro ( 'goped' eh? You joker you...) is because he isn't good enough for "poooooooooortuuuugal"?!? There's no point answering your points- wait a few minutes and you contradict yourself anyway. Oh and you put forward Mark Hughes as a possible replacement for Souness...a manager who also was not good enough for "poooooooooortuuuugal". waggy- we are all Rovers fans here and if you have a good reason to have a go at Souness we will agree. You seem to think that there are Souness lovers who will defend him whatever, I don't think so, they just won't agree with crap arguments. However, some of your attempts to have a go at him don't merely border on the desperate...they are desperate... krislu- tell us what you mean by an "exciting signing". Name what kind of player you mean. or do you not actually know yourself? If you tell us what would excite you that I might understand where you are coming from.

What exactly do you mean by "an exciting signing"? Obviously a Spanish interntional winger who played in the Champions League last year does not excite you, so can you tell us what will? Some names to illustrate your point would be a good idea.

Fair enough about Hasselbaink, a fantastic player who would be brilliant for us, even if to does contradict looking for youth. Just like Henrik Larsson; also a cracking experienced player and also available on a free. Of course, Souness wouldn't go after them would he? Of course he would; Larsson turned Blackburn down in preference for Barcelona. Fair enough, who can blame him? Hasselbaink will end up at a big club I'm sure and probably one in the Champions League. If however you think Souness wouldn't be interested in him...well, think on. It'd very much surprise me if Souness has not at least monitored the situation.

So first you wanted to give youth a chance but now you want to sign a mercenary thirtysomething who'll be after at least 50 grand a week?

Hmmm...two different opinions and it is hard to know who to believe. Jim mentioned that England fans had been "terrorising half of Portugal" whereas Uefa has just graded the behaviour of the England fans in Portugal as being 9/10, the only black mark being the booing of the Croatian national anthem. Uefa back up their opinion by citing the tiny figures of arrests whereas Jim's emotive claptrap remains unverified. England fans have suffered enough bad press in the past to last a lifetime so it is good to see their behavious earning some praise for a change. Let's drink to fair-minded fans