There were, as far as I could tell several reasons for letting Garner go: (a) He wanted immediate involvement in first team football and Hughes couldn't offer him that. (B.) His attitude was not very positive (alledgedly) ©. His temperament was suspect. He was involved in a few 'confrontations' in Rovers pre-season that could've seen him sent off and he has continued in that vein with Carlisle. Their manager recently publicly admonished Garner's yellow-card count. (d) He did not recapture his U18 form for the reserves. And whilst he has scored prolifically for Carlisle, many of his goals have been tap-ins. So, I don't think the management considered him a great talent. (e) Carlisle were prepared to break their transfer record for him. All in all, I think Hughes made the right decision. No-one would be regretting his departure if the club was producing a fair amount of talent. Whilst some ex-Rovers of several years (Walters, Burgess, Richards) have resurfaced in the Championship, most of released junior (no or fleeting senior appearances) players sink without trace - which makes Garner something of a rarity. However, whether we should have replaced Garner with Rigters is a different matter.

I think you're mistaken here. McEveley never accepted Hughes' contract renewal offer. We did not extract the money we did from Derby on the basis that he was contracted long-term to us. He turned down an offer in January and to avoid him leaving on a Bosman in the summer, the club cashed in. By offering McEveley a new deal, I don't believe that Hughes was predominantly concerned with how much money we could earn from him (because Championship clubs were sniffing around) - rather, he believed that McEveley was deserving of a place in our squad. I certainly think that Hughes, if he did think McEveley was good enough for Rovers, was wrong. I have been a defender of Gallagher but all the evidence urges me to cease because the guy failed as a striker at Stoke and may do so again at Preston.

Sure we do, I mean, he has just helped us defeat the mighty Derby County,

I'm not getting that... Is it important? BTW I definitely agree with Den that Petrov is one of those wingers who, if shown in-field, ceases to be half as troublesome. (Although, if he goes in-field he can pass to Elano or Johnson, which is a problem for any opposition manager).

You can't compare Petrov and Gamst. Petrov is an orthodox winger and Gamst is just confused. He made his name as Ljungberg type who would make his presence felt in the box but now I just do not know what he is doing. However, he has Hughes' unconditional love.

Lol. Who's leg did McEveley break recently? I'm sure it was a Villa or Sunderland player. And in the past he's broken the legs of Cisse, Delaney and Hakan Sukur (in training whilst at Rovers). Although, admittedly, all have been accidental and the Cisse one was even less than accidental - but the lad is clumsy. I still cannot believe that Mark Hughes offered him a new contract. It just goes to show that Hughes has a far from infallible judgment.

I suspect he is still with us because Hughes admires his physical attributes (not like that you innuendo obsessed fool ) - such as his brawn, pace and height... and probably hopes his technical game will improve. Which begs the question, why didn't we keep Jon Douglas. He was a clog-footed workaholic who could kick the opposition and theoretically, could develop his technical game.

All the fans are bemoaning the lack of technical prowess and passing acumen from Steven Reid and Robbie Savage against Wigan, and you think that Mokoena's absence was a deciding factor in us conceding so many?

Den, in that post, I am querying WHETHER the club's policy contributed to Donnelly's decline. I am not saying they definitely did, although my suspicion is that it did, in however small a way. Hence, I ask the question 'why did it happen?' without attempting to answer with any certainty. And when I ask, 'why did it happen?' - I don't mean why didn't he become a Blackburn superstar. I mean, why is he a Fleetwood reject. Why isn't he in League Two at least? For someone who was once comparably talented to Danns and Douglas - it is a ignominious collapse. It's not like Donnelly was Clark Walsh or Darren Hockenhull...

Exactly. All I want to see is a meritocracy. If a reserve player is playing very well and his seniors who play in his position are playing very poorly - does not all logic and sensibility point to giving that reserve player a chance? I cannot see an argument against it barring the claim that Gamst's immense experience means that he is essential to the defensive formidability of our team.... Den, you know that's not true. I've said plenty of silly stuff in my time, so if you feel like jibing me it should not be hard to find something accurate.

Imo, Hughes' biggest mistake this season was not to bring in a holding midfielder who could play anchor to the free spirits of Savage or Reid. We had Jorge Acuna on trial but he didn't impress. But then Hughes seemed to decide that Aaron Mokoena and Tugay provided ample reserve - which was a bad call because of talent and age respectively. However, I believe that Hughes has belatedly realised this, hence the midfield trialists turning up on a regular basis.

Hughes has admitted, as no doubt mentioned elsewhere, that Mokoena has handed in a transfer request. Allegedly, he was 'furious' after being subbed at half-time against West Ham. This man has some gumption! Fair play to him if he wants to play regular football (Peter Enckelman hang your head) but there is no way that Mokoena will ever return to the heights of being a sub for a upper Premier League club, if he leaves.

When he initially went out on loan to Blackpool, their fans rated him as a better prospect than Danns and Douglas - who also had meaningful stints there. Donnelly had talent on a par, at least, with Douglas/Danns. Whether it was Prem/Champ quality is a different matter. Somewhere it went wrong. It could've been a personal thing and nothing anyone did could've stopped it. I accept that. However, the academies in England are not producing enough players and all avenues of investigation have to be considered in trying to solve the problem. I would like Trevor Brooking (as he will be very interested to know, of course...) to investigate objectively and thoroughly whether the restrictions placed upon youngsters, in terms of first team opportunities, at football clubs is contributing to the paucity of talent coming through at many clubs. I'd actually challenge that, Den, as ludicrous as it sounds. If you look at the way that the unexceptional Matt Derbyshire has contributed to the first team, the way Jay McEveley (worse than unexceptional, more plain mediocre) made a useful, if at times erroneous, contribution - you can see that players going straight from reserve level to first team have not been totally out of their depth. Jon Douglas did a job too. Yes - the gap between Roque Santa Cruz and Raffaelle De Vita is humungous. Nolan - Nelsen, likewise, massive. However, us critics of the recalcitrant attitude towards youth players in English football repeatedly point at the fringe element in Prem squads - the Enckelman, Rigters, Berner, Henchoz and so on and question whether these players are so superior to the players graduating from the academies. And in the past Jeffers, Nils Eric Johansson, Nonda. It is a risk playing a youngster, of course, because most probably he'll be more nervous than someone with games under his belt. But if you can give him the playing time to overcome those fears and can fully express himself then that risk diminishes. The problem is when can you give them meaningful games if you are held in constant terror that they will botch up. And finally - on Treacy. If Gamst is playing something horrible. If Bentley is needed on the right and Dunn struggling to make an impression as a left midfielder - is it not fair, sensible and meritocratic to give a chance to an in-form left winger from the reserves who is by no means the finished article but looking an exciting prospect.

I don't know what Trevor Brooking is doing but if he was earning his money he would be investigating cases like Donnelly - and maybe Watt. How does a midfielder (Donnelly) rated as the best midfield prospect at a Premier League club go from reserve success and England youth recognition to Fleetwood reject. If he was a terrible player from day one (which I don't believe), what were the club doing keeping them for so long? And if he did have promise but lost his direction and talent, why did this happen. (I have heard that Donnelly had some personal problems but note, this is totally unsubstantiated and simply hearsay.)

He got sent off in a recent reserve game for kicking out. He then, according to the official news, was sent on a trip with a hybrid team of reserves and academy players to play a Jersey XI. (A form of punishment, I wonder). However, it would seem that he, for some reason, having made the journey wasn't picked to play. Could be injured or could have thrown a strop. Neither would be surprising with peter. I'm sure Lee will clarify things if Peter is injured. An ominous silence would probably tell you all you need to know.

Last week, I turned the radio on to hear commentary on a Millwall game. So I thought, I wonder if Hodge is playing, but having listened to most of the first half in which his name hadn't been mentioned, I assumed not. However, there was a twist - the commentator reading out the line-ups for the second half mentioned Bryan Hodge as playing CM. So, intrigued as I was, I listened to the second half of the match - and again, I swear, Hodge was not mentioned once. Maybe he should get the call from England...

I was expecting a really strong showing from Keane's Sunderland (and Chopra...) but it is not materialising. Keane's transfers must cast doubt upon his managerial acumen - and certainly do make it evidently clear how inexperienced he is. Snapping up former team-mates for inflated fees (Ian Harte included) shows a lack of insight in the transfer market, in my opinion. He seems to have a thing against foreign players but they may be his only hope because you don't get English defenders as good as Chimbonda and Samba available for 100,000s.

If Martin Jol wants it, I would seriously consider him for the job. Commands respect and was good for Spurs until this season. His propensity to want to buy everyone and his dog would not be a problem - although Jermaine Jenas might start playing every game. Apparently, his record in Holland is very good - but don't know much about it. Seriously, though, with so few candidates, Jol should at least be asked if he has any interest. He wouldn't be my number one candidate but everyone England could go for seem to have plush jobs - apart from Capello.

This quite funny, courtesy of that irrepressible comic, Hindsight (or should that be Foresight?!):

No point starting a new thread, I thought, so here would be a good place to discuss the footy player nationality-based protectionist proposals that are being bandied about by plenty, and will become even more of a talking point after England's latest failure. (A discussion has already started on "nicko's thread"). I for one, you will not be surprised to hear, am in favour of making it mandatory to have academy-developed players in the squad. Now, I believe that they don't have to be British - they simply have to have been at the club for a certain length of time and be considered a 'product' of the academy. Whilst many clubs are packing their junior sides with foreigners - I do not see this as the problem. English talent, generally, is inferior and competition for places will be good for them. However, at the moment it is too easy for managers to bow to their entrenched insecurity and opt for experience over youth. If managers won't have the guts to takes risks and field youngsters - then the system has to force them into it. Classic example, which I will repeat for effect. Had Shabani Nonda, Francis Jeffers and Jason Roberts not all got injured contemporaneously, Matt Derbyshire would not have got his chance when he did - and would, imo, not be playing for the England U21s now. However, if the academy/youth quota rule was in place, Derbyshire would've had to be in the squad and that would've forced out, theoretically, one of the others and would have not placed his prospects completely on the chance of a glut of injuries. The current problems may still persist to an extent because managers will not be obligated to play these youngsters. However, it's a start. Whilst out of sight is out of mind, having to have certain guys on the bench/squad will keep them in the reckoning and knocking on the door. Manager insecurity is currently stymieing the meritocracy that should exist in Prem squads and ensure that the cream rises to the top.

Fair enough. Let's just say: Souey NOT for England. The FA must look at why the production of English talent is drying up with every season that goes by. Look at our U21 team. It is weaker than previous years (although doing well under Pearce). Michael Mancienne?!! Within 10 years, will most of our U21 players come from Prem reserves, without an appearance to their name, and Championship clubs? Yup, imo.

Flopsy, take a step back. Forget you are a Rovers fan for a few minutes, if possible- and look at it objectively. Look at Souness' career holistically - his failures at everywhere bar Rangers/Rovers. Consider the resources he had at his disposal in getting us up, compared to Allardyce, eg, at Bolton. Consider how many other managers have got their teams quite high up the league (George Burley/Peter Reid/Glenn Roeder). Consider the fortunate draws in our Worthy Cup run. I do not deny that Souness did some good for us. But you cannot tell me that he is a 'good' manager. If he is a good manager, so is McClaren. Souness benefited from the circumstances and then got found out when his talents were truly put to the test. The same applies to McClaren.

For those who are condemning McClaren as a rubbish manager - I hope you are not the same people who argue that Souness is a good manager. McClaren was one of, if not the most, successful Boro bosses in recent history. Something similar has been said about Souness and Rovers. Which just goes to show that "everyone has his day and some days last longer than others." Managers like Sven, McClaren and Souness reaped the fortune of their circumstances - but got found out in the end.

It's about a Taylor of ours came good - after Martin and Michael... Also, after the turbulent spell at Huddersfield, joining a settled team who look to be on the up can only benefit Andy Taylor.

Tommo was indeed a class player. Very sad to see him making nomadic attempts to restart his career. But then again, he's made his millions, so our concerns shouldn't' go overboard.