American, look two posts up. The guy pleaded guilty.

Perryman has been fined £1000 and banned from attending football matches for 5 years. Ashcroft's case will be heard at a later date.

Perryman has pleaded guilty to the charge of racial abuse. Ashcroft denies the same charge.

There's no guarantee that we'll get that many, and who's going to hang around here waiting for the magic 180, so they can close the poll? There will have to be a deadline put on it some where along the way - let's see how it goes.

It's all about timing tris. [like when to close the poll]. BTW, I've just realised, we should have had the two of them in the side. There can't be another team with Sherwood Forrest in their midfield!

Maybe there's an argument for compulsive voting.

Does that follow comments made on this board?

Den, why would it be nice??? Wouldn't it be even better to have a number of players that we were simply unable to seperate? Don't you think having 2 clear winners shows that maybe we haven't had that many "greats"? I would rather have 8 different players all challenging for the mantle of 'Rovers Greatest ...'. At least this really would show the sort of talent we have had at Ewood and should be priveleged (as Rovers fans) to be associated with. That's only my personal opinion. If we'd have taken that last result, where Forrest beat Sherwood by the single vote, it could have been argued forever, and with some justification, that another hour of voting could have overturned that result.

Graeme Le Saux 73 votes [48%] Bill Eckersley 56 votes[36%] Keith Newton 11 votes[7%] So the answer is - NO!

Agree with you to some extent but history can always be distorted. Plus football was totally different in those days but that's another debate. Hence my decision to go with Sherwood as opposed to some historical figure. BTW I have taken into account everything and Ive chosen to diasagree with it. Is that okay? I wasn't really having a go at anyone S.A.R. nor do I have any problem with anyone voting for any player. I was simply trying to point out the two different ways we could have gone about this team selection.

One other thing it proves, is that the representations for the players, by many of you people, certainly make a BIG difference.

As an aside - there was two ways we could have gone about selecting this team. One is the way we're doing it now. i.e. looking for all time rovers greats. The other way was to look for the best ever team-i.e. the best ever footballers. If we had gone for the best ever team, then surely people could only vote for players they had seen. That would have meant having a very narrow time frame to select from. Doing it this way, people like Forrest, whether he wins or not, would never have been brought into the discussion. Nor would Latheron, Healess, and dozens of other players who have indeed been brought into the fray. Hence, even though some people still say that they can only vote for players they have seen, this has proved to me, that this was the right way to go and also that the vast majority of members are well prepared to take everything into account before voting. Well done people.

Great link, Duff's minder.

All we ask is that you vote for the player who will, in the future, truly be called a "great" .

One of the problems Sam, is when do we stop the vote, if it's so close. We could say just declare the winner whatever the margin, but that wouldn't necessarily give us the real winner - that lead could have changed within an hour of closing. Every other position has shown a clear winner, it would be nice if we could finish up with a team of clear winners. We'll find out soon if we can get a clear winner on this one.

and I think, so do most of the fans.

I can bring the whole thread back, if you don't believe me.

Let's not go down that route guys. Longsiders - I suspect neither Mrs Jansen or Jim really think he was a Burnley fan. You've got to understand how the minds of these people work. You might be surprised.

I think we'll know the facts, after all the relevant bodies have concluded their investigations. Can't resist this Den but what world do you live in? It won't be the full truth as it will have been spinned,doctored etc. akin to an earlier edited argument on this thread It seems pretty plain that up to two or three fans were ejected for inappropriate behaviour but 24 hours later some of the media,predominantly the gutter press aka Murdoch owned style,has implicated the rest of the crowd. Yeah, fair enough SAR, maybe we wont know the facts after the investigations, but we sure as hell don't know now.

I think we'll know the facts, after all the relevant bodies have concluded their investigations. Sky are saying that lancs police say that a supporter was ejected for an incident of a racist nature, but the earlier reports say he was ejected for "hand gestures". Which one is right?

It's a shame that sky are now reporting the allegations, as fact. It's also a shame that the only person to have made these allegations to the press - Steve Bruce, didn't take his time and report the incident through the proper channels, not through the post-match media conference.

Sky news [as opposed to Sky sports news] is being very naughty about this incident. The camera's point to the Blackburn end and the commentator says "however, there's no need for racist abuse like this". The commentary is suspended and the crowd noise amplified to enhance the "one lazy @#/?" chant. Now that's completely out of order. David O'Sullivan is saying that it's been blown up out of all proportion. He reckons yorke could have warmed up at the other end of the ground.

Yep!

This is the result when the poll was closed yesterday. No of votes, followed by percentage of the vote: Jimmy forrest.............[ 59 ].....[32.78%] Tim Sherwood...........[ 58 ]......[32.22%] Eddie Latheron..........[ 15 ].....[8.33%] Mark Atkins................[ 14 ].....[7.78%] David Batty................[ 11 ].....[6.11%] Tony Parkes...............[ 8 ].......[4.44%] Stuart Metcalfe..........[ 5 ]........[2.78%] Simon Barker.............[ 4 ]........[2.22%] Howard Kendal.........[ 3 ]........[1.67%] Eddie Quigley............[ 2 ]........[1.11%] Harry Healess............[ 1 ]........[0.56%] Total Votes: 180 However, following some of your suggestions for having a shoot out if there was no CLEAR winner, I had a word, in the middle of last week, with FLB who put the case forward for Jimmy Forrest and with Brownie who put the case forward for Tim Sherwood. Have to say they both agreed to a shoot out, even though, at the time I asked them, their man was losing! Great spirit guys. We had decided that if the difference was 5 votes or less we would have this shoot out. So pretty soon I'll put the poll up for a winner takes all shoot out between Sherwood and Forrest only. In the meantime, FLB and Brownie are going to put forward good reasons why their man should win. Well done guys. Your comments are very welcome.

Final result: Tim Sherwood [ 58 ] [32.22%] David Batty [ 11 ] [6.11%] Mark Atkins [ 14 ] [7.78%] Tony Parkes [ 8 ] [4.44%] Howard Kendal [ 3 ] [1.67%] Stuart Metcalfe [ 5 ] [2.78%] Jimmy forrest [ 59 ] [32.78%] Simon Barker [ 4 ] [2.22%] Eddie Latheron [ 15 ] [8.33%] Harry Healess [ 1 ] [0.56%] Eddie Quigley [ 2 ] [1.11%] Total Votes: 180