den

Disappointed with rovers deals this summer. Too many gambles - Ooijer, Jeffers and Henchoz. Even McCarthy to an extent. We needed to build on last seasons squad with 2/3 real quality players. Can't see that we have done that.

SU 2 - 2 rovers.

BRFCS are pleased to confirm that Rovers have announced that Dutch International defender Andre Ooijer has signed from PSV Eindhoven on a two year contract. For all the latest news on all Blackburn Rovers related chat, read the BRFCS messageboard Here

Rovers 1 Everton 3

Don't need to go back at all, now Eh?

Andy Todd's red card, given during Saturdays' depressing defeat at Portsmouth has been overturned. He will now be available to take his place in a back four desperately needing reinforcements because of injuries to key players, although rovers are still hopeful that Zurab Kishinashvilli will be fit to partner Andy Todd. Current press stories also indicate that Andre Ooijer will sign for Blackburn Rovers within the next 24 hours. Keep up to date with all the breaking news on BRFCS.Biz

Yeah, it said that as well.

Nah Stu. Official text.

Hughes is hopeful that Zura will be fit for the Everton game.

You REALLY think they weren't bothered? Could it not be that they weren't good enough on the day?

I don't think so. It is something he's going to be charged with by his detractors though. As well, or as bad as he plays.

Todd's challenge was perfectly timed. He put the ball out for a corner. Neill's was probably fair at two yellows, although the second one was a push, on the half way line, out on the touchline. Pompey were committing fouls all afternoon on Roberts and Benni, with little punishment. Johnson was guilty of a terrible two footed foul on Pedersen. Ref gave no foul, hence no booking. Having said that, the difference between the two sides, was that Pompey defended far better than rovers.

It would only cause more to lapse if it carriees on though. Don't you think? The club have been asked by some people to take that route. they would have no credibility at all if they only wanted home games banned. Also, how many landlords would oblige? Not many I don't think.

The club are well aware of that SG. They had to make a decision - allow more and more fans to watch in the pub, or take the publicans to task. They are doing the right thing IMO.

The problem seems to be only in the Bolton/Blackburn area. Pubs have been taken to court, but magistrates have cleared them. It seems to be a misruling by local magistrates.

Insist that Pubs don't break the law. There really is no defence for pubs showing rovers games illegally. The landlords know what they are doing and if they are taken to court, that's their problem.

Sorry FLB, I was being sarcastic. The guys who watch regularly in the pubs, will simply blame the club for relegation. It will be nothing to do with the falling gates and lack of supporters money - in their view. Nothing anyone else says will cahnge that.

Nelsen back sooner than expected

It'll be rovers fault Mum.

The recent discussion about Brett is being misinterpreted by those who don't like him. It stems from Stevens post here: Not many deny that he hasn't been great, but the point is that for some people, he NEVER does anything good. Patently not true is it? A bit like some people who said Neill was totally useless. He patently isn't useless either. Don't hide behind the "I don't think he's played well since he's been here" argument. We all know that, but he does have some qualities. Any of his distractors care to name some of his qualities? Or can you see none whatsoever?

Pompey 4-1 Rovers.

Rovers don't have a choice with sky. They DO have a choice with illegal TV broadcasts though. Simply because they are illegal.

Strange post Des.

This was printed in the Bolton Evening News, back in March. There has been something of a "black hole" around the Bolton/Blackburn areas, whereby pubs showing "illegal TV" haven't been prosecuted. Bolton News. Pub bosses win TV soccer legal battle Pub bosses win TV soccer legal battle By Paul Keaveny TWO landlords have won the right to show live Premiership football in their pubs on Saturday afternoons. The Bolton licensees were taken to court after Sky accused them of infringing the Copyright Act. It followed a ruling by European football's governing body, UEFA, that outlawed showing Saturday afternoon football, in line with wishes of the Premier League and broadcaster BSkyB. The licensees argued that they had not broken any laws, saying they legitimately subscribed to a broadcaster in another country which shows live Premiership football as games are beamed across the world. The first victory came in February at Bolton Magistrates Court and involved pub manager Ian Moss of The Saddle in Farnworth. Earlier this month, Enterprise Inns tenant Eileen Flint also appeared in court for showing a match at the Original Bay Horse in Horwich using a decoder and foreign subscription card. Both denied dishonesty and were cleared of a breach of copyright. Sky and the Premier League fear fans will stop watching matches live at football stadiums if they could watch the game in the comfort of their local pub. A "closed period" had been set up, barring pubs from showing live 3pm Saturday matches. Now, following the court rulings, Westhoughton brewery Anchor Inns Northern Ltd says pubs which buy a satellite signal legitimately from abroad are not breaking any law if they choose to show the games. And it is calling on other licensees to fight any prosecutions brought against them by the Media Protection Services (MPS), which investigates illegal screenings. Jim Powell, managing director of Anchor Inns, said: "We feel MPS, which is acting on behalf of Sky, is just using bullying tactics. "In my view hundreds of licensees have been frightened by the thought of facing huge legal costs. We just feel that their ruling is not relevant to us because we buy the signal from another source who have paid Sky for it. Licensees need to know they no longer have to lie down and accept it, they can fight it." MPS takes licensees to court for infringing the Copyright Act. But Bolton solicitor Joe Egan, who represented both licensees, said a second defeat for the Premier League brought the whole issue of screening Saturday foreign TV transmissions into doubt. He said: "I don't think these decisions are aberrations, I think the magistrates have got it spot on. In order to be guilty of this offence, you have to intend to avoid the applicable payment." He said pubs are paying for the signal legitimately and so cannot be found guilty of dishonesty. "It's just nonsense, you cannot be found guilty of avoiding a fee you cannot even pay in the first place," he added. Dan Johnson, a spokesman for the Premier League, said: "There are no rights for the general bar trade to show football games at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. It's illegal and if people transgress we will take them to court." He said the two court rulings in Bolton were "rogue decisions" and just because a licensees had paid a foreign broadcaster for a signal it did not give them the copyright to the games. "It's a breach of copyright. If those rights have been sold abroad then they are only for use in that region." Mr Johnson added that there was lots of anecdotal evidence which showed attendeces at football games fell when the matches were being shown in pubs and that it also led to a fall in the number of people playing football on a Saturday.

You could have been writing a book. Chapter one. "Blackburn Rovers legend Ronnie Clayton wore the number 4 shirt." Chapter two. "Blackburn Rovers legend Bryan Douglas wore the number 7 and number 10 shirts" Chapter three. "Don Revies' dirty Leeds and their deep lieing centre forward adopt change in tactics" Chapter four. "Alf Ramsey claims credit for wingless wonders, when it was Revies idea all along" Chapter five. "How Blackburn rovers fell from grace because they changed to 4-4-2" How much material did you need? You can't kid me Mr Fleming. Anyway, back to the topic. I already got told off for railroading your review.