Back from breakfast and I see the appropriate changes have been made. Good job Grooby.

Hey Lee - No wonder your damn voting results are screwed up. When I move my arrow over shirt 1 the little white box appears with "Home shirt 2" in it. Move it over 2 & it says "Home shirt 1". At least you have 3 in the right place. No wonder you got hired down at Ewood, you fit right in. For those wondering, the other 3 are listed by color. Just another fun day dealing with the non-football operations at Rovers.

3 & 3 No yellow. No centered badges.

If the first-half was any indicator, the 2nd-half will not be for the feint of heart. The pitch is in crummy shape and Mr. Poll isn't much better tonight I'm afraid. The penalty was weak, but Brad was there when we really needed him. Sav & Rio in the tunnel going off the pitch. I hope everyone in the US can see this one. Setanta USA Channel 615 on DirecTV. Hey blue/white; did you take a laptop to the pub with you?

Hey guys. How's everybody making out so far? My buddy & I have 2 seats for each US match through to the semis. (cat-3) And no; I'm not interested in any opinions about whether or not we'll get that far.

Spot on.

Yes Lee; that could be seen in the highlights as well. I'm just looking on the bright side of a mistake, and defending Sav a little bit. What do you want? A cookie?

Absolutely; although Zura's allowed the occasional mistake, especially when we win. Hell, look at it this way: If he doesn't make that pass the table is never set for that great comeback. Way to go Zura!

FANTASTIC! STUPENDOUS! SENSATIONAL! UNBELIEVABLE! AWESOME! INCREDIBLE! When Thommo's shot went in my heart stopped.

Mickey today on Radio Rovers: "I thought it hit the side netting." Oh well. Flopsy & thenodrog, you guys were right and I was wrong. Let's hope we have something silly like that to discuss every week.

You 2 are nuts. I just took another few looks at it. He's reacting the same way we all did when Morty put the winner in against Burnley. It was a great shot into a tight spot from a tough angle. Under those circumstances, in that stadium; we'd all be reacting the same way. Funny side note; I was screaming so loud (basically a large amount of expletives directed towards ManU players and supporters in the stands) yesterday morning (it was morning here in the US of course) after Morty's second goal that I didn't notice the ManU leaning idiot in the summarizer's chair suggest that it might have been offside. What a joke. Pound sand ManU.

I honestly think he was going: "Oh my God! What a shot!" Wow. The best $20 I ever spent on a pay-per-view. Followed by the craziest Penn State game in at least 5 years. And the result that matters most tomorrow people is Steelers over Patriots.

I would've put Tugs back at 3. Yeah, I know it's unusual for a midfielder to be wearing it, but we did well the years he was there. Souey messed with a good thing when he switched him to 8.

Very weak stuff Bostonian. I'm surprised that you didn't bring up Wrigley. Not enough lattes yet? For those who think he is serious, General Charles Henry Taylor named the park after the Fenway section of Boston. Anyway the point of your post was.......? For? Against? There is a huge difference between an advertisement on the front of the kit and changing the name of 114 years of history. Let's see; the Red Sox with their uniforms intact but in a new stadium or a little ad patch placed on the uniform's shoulder with the games still played at Fenway, with the name Fenway? So what would you choose smart ass?

There's a huge difference between selling the name to stands or gates and screwing around with 114 years of club history and tradition. And no, we don't have to do it.

It's all nonsense. What if the board announced a deal that sold Ewood to developers because of some outlandish offer and saw Rovers build a new, smaller stadium up at Brockhall. And let's say that this deal would, in the short term (say the next ten years), allow Rovers to buy a "Benni" comfortably every 3 years or so. Would you support that?!? Would any Rovers supporter be for that? Choosing a club to support in any sport is done with the heart. It is an irrational decision. No one makes a rational decision to spend the amounts of money we spend to worry about whether or not a bunch of guys most of us have never met win a football match. It's all about emotional connection. No connection = no care = no support for the club. Ewood is the soul and "ancestral ground" of Blackburn Rovers. It is a BIG part of the attachment that every supporter feels towards the club. This attachment equates to what I would describe as a form of free, permanent advertising that is handed down by supporters from generation to generation. As in "my daddy took me and his daddy took him and his daddy took him, etc..." This attachment is permanently damaged when you go selling names and destroying structures (are you listening Arsenal) that are touchstones of people's lives. Call me old-fashioned, but to me it's short sighted, short term thinking.

.......there are times when the Premier League really seems to be following the "Big 4" sports in the US (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB) right down the toilet. Click

Boardroom Restructure At Ewood Park John Williams - Personal Statement

Entering season number 10.

Wow - Just looked at the numbers released by UEFA regarding CL payments for 2004-2005 and if those numbers tell the whole story, it means UEFA has seen a drop in total revenue for the CL of at least €140m in 5 years. Not a single club on the list made it to the old £25m mark. Liverpool was closest with just over 20. What a bummer for the big boys, huh? Good Luck Malcolm

Yo Phil - make some space in your inbox so I can send you something.

That's part of it Phil , but not the whole story. Now I understand why there's confusion between us on this. The "coefficient share applied to the number of teams competing UP TO a maximum of four" is actually just 1/4 of the equation. To make this as short as humanly possible: 75% of the first £400m(or something like that - the number keeps growing and it starts as Swiss Francs) in total revenue goes into the CL pools and 82% of everything after that. That CL pool is then split into 2: The Fixed Amount This pays a base guarantee that totals around £8m + performance bonus (something like £300,000 per win, £150,000 per draw) in The Group Phase. There are additional performance bonuses for qualifying for the knockout rounds and for each additional round you progress. There is a total cap on what you can receive from The Fixed Amount pool that I believe is around £20m(but only the finalists would get anywhere close to it). The Market Pool This is where the number you're referring to, the "coefficient share applied to the number of teams competing" comes from. When I saw Everton & £5m the math made me think you were referring to the fixed amount. Half of the market pool is split exactly as you have stated. Each of the member associations get a share of this half of The Market Pool based on coefficient ranking. That money is then split amongst the clubs as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------- # of clubs:~~~ 4~~~~3~~~~~2~~~~1~~~ --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Champions~~ 40%~~45%~~~55%~~100% Runners-up~~30%~~35%~~~45% No. 3~~~~~~15%~~20% No. 4~~~~~~15% ------------------------------------------------------------------- How that would work with 5 clubs is anyone's guess. The other half is based on "the amount representing the value of each market in proportion to the number of matches played." Which to me translates as: The biggest clubs that attract most fans & PPV receipts(and the clubs lucky enough to draw them) get the biggest share of this. And neither number includes gate receipts. In other words, I've never heard of anybody, not even a small association club that lucked through and then lost all 6 group matches, that only made £10m out of all that(at least not since the turn of the century). But I could be wrong.

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE 1st Qualifying Round July 24 champions from countries ranked 26 or lower 2nd Qualifying Round Jul-Aug involving 28 teams: 12 winners from 1st qualifying round 10 champions from countries ranked 16-25 6 second-placed teams from countries ranked 10-15 3rd Qualifying Round August involving 32 teams: 14 winners from 2nd qualifying round 6 champions from countries ranked 10-15 3 second-placed teams from countries ranked 7-9 6 third-placed teams from countries ranked 1-6 3 fourth-placed teams from countries ranked 1-3 Group Stage Sep-Dec involving 8 groups of 4 teams each: 16 winners from 3rd qualifying round 9 champions from countries ranked 1-9 6 second-placed teams from countries ranked 1-6 1 defending cup holder No country can have more than 4 representatives in the Champions League. This implies that, if the defending cup holder comes from one of the top three ranked countries, and did not qualify directly for the Champions League, the fourth- placed team of that country has to participate in the UEFA Cup (e.g. Real Zaragoza in 2000). If the defending cup holder already qualified directly for the group stage of the Champions League, the champion of the 10th country on the country ranking list will gain direct access to the group stage, the champion of the 16th country on the country ranking list will gain direct access to the 3rd qualifying round, and the champions of the 26th and 27th country on the country ranking list will gain direct access to the 2nd qualifying round. Similar changes are made if the cup holder already qualified directly for one of the qualification rounds, or if the cup holder did not qualify directly but is from one of the top three ranked countries.