www.fifaworldcup.com If tickets were available at a reasonable price any time you just thought "I fancy popping along to a world cup game or two" then I think a lot more of us would be going! They've been out for a year, and people have been trying hard for a year. I'm not so sure an e-mail to FIFA will get you tickets.

You'll have to remind me what games they are. Cn174 and I are going to the Australia/Brazil game (the venue I mean, not the actual game) if you're there. Any other Aussies planning to be there?

Aye, I've caught the bug too. As long as the buy-in isn't too much, I'm a poor student...

Surely if we go on to the Intertoto? I was also under the impression that if Boro got the the FA Cup final and won the WAFA then the FA Cup final place would go to 7th. Unlikely, granted.

Well thats exactly my point. We do not have 22,000 hardcore fans. We do not have close to 22,000 hardcore fans. We might have 22,000 people willing to turn up if all the conditions suited them, but that hardly makes them hardcore.

Jarosik~!

That is a great point. I'd be very interested in finding out an answer from the club. They can't stop persistant standing - how will they stop persistant smoking?

My definition of hardcore is season ticket holders who go rain or shine, hell or high water.

If our "hardcore" was 22k then our average gate wouldn't be below that, would it? And does this figure include the "hardcore" away fans who turn up at Ewood every other week? Our "hardcore" base of fans, who would turn up regardless of price or league position, isn't even close to half of that number.

I did mean that one, yeah. I thought it was probably a correct decision, but, like amny others, couldn't understand why it wasn't a yellow. An optimistic case could be made for it being a red (again, said without the benefit of a replay).

I think that would be a very generous analysis. I've seen a few replays now and it looked a foul to me. To put it another way, if somebody had done that to Brad, we'd be absolutely seething. Was the penalty/freekick incident on Bellamy clearly inside the box? Couldn't tell from the BBE. Taking a step back, what a great season we are having. We will lose to sides a lot worse than Wigan. Come the last day of the season, who knows how important that Kuqi goal really will be?

He didn't play that well, but Kuqi changed the game. Suddenly Wigan had problems with long balls. Bellamy may as well have been on his own when Dickov was playing. People mock Kuqi (and it is true that technically he is awful) but the finish was a lot better than I've seen people give him credit for. He did not have a lot of space to squeeze the ball in.

Eddie has already answered for you. Which do you do to away games then? Run, bike, or paraglide?

Public transport and alternative form of transport are certainly better for the environment in terms of air pollution, congestion etc. But, as we've both said now, we aren't here to talk about that. My point is that there is a simple justification for cars in society. It gets people from A to B. There is no simple justification for cigarettes. Sure, they're legal, and if people want to smoke them then that is their choice. But it isn't my choice, and I don't want to be affected by it. If there are alternatives to cars as a mode of transport then there must be alternatives to smoking cigarettes for something to do. If people cannot go three hours without cigarettes then they have a far bigger problem than the government "taking away their rights". I believe there is a logical justification for the smoking ban in public places, and by extension, the smoking ban at Ewood. If a smoking area could be set up then it should be, but there is no possible way of setting one up where smoke will not affect those who do not want it. Things that damage our health are inevitable in our society. But some things are necessary and some things are not. Cigarettes are completely unnecessary in society because they provide us with no benefits. Therefore it is at least logical that they be the target of an initiative taken to actually improve the health of the population.

Maybe if we banned drinking nationwide in all public places then people would come to Rovers...

I agree, however the big difference between cars and cigarettes are that cars significantly improve our lives and make them easier. The best thing to do about cars is make public transport so much better that we don't have to all drive round in petrol-guzzling machines but that's a different debate for a different time. I couldn't do without my car. Not because I'm addicted to it, but because it makes my life easier. I can get places faster at whatever time I want, sometimes at a cheaper price than an alternative (Rovers transport to Sunderland, for example). A car is a social benefit to the individual. Cigarettes are not. There are no benefits to cigarettes. I don't drive my car because I crave to - there is a purpose. Unless the purpose is to increase your tar levels, where is the benefit to cigarettes? In an ideal world, as you say, we'd have a far more envirnmentally-friendly alternative to driving round in cars etc. But we aren't talking about a government taking away all our civil liberties. Cars are not going to be banned because they are a help, if not essential. Cigarettes are only essential to those that are addicted to the drug. Both harm our health, but only one makes a fundamental part of our lives (tranport) easier. And that is why cigarettes are copping it, not cars. American, are we on the first step to communism? How many examples can you give me of legal things that should be banned because they cause harm to people other than the consumer, yet contain no actual benefits to anybody? In my opinion, cigarettes are the exception, not the rule. It is an incredible exaggeration that we are about to decend into the world of 1984.

I can see both sides of the argument, honestly I do. But I just don't see where the smokers are more justified than the non-smokers. First of all, it isn't being banned because of the ill health it causes the user. It directly causes those nearby to inhale, stink, increase chances of cancer bla bla bla. This is not the same as a burger and I think you know it, Don. If I can't see my doctor because somebody has a weight problem then that's my own tough luck. But I'd imagine it would be just as difficult to see a doctor with everybody eventually getting cancer. Cigarettes must be more harmful than burgers, both directly to the consumer and those around. The right of the person to smoke a legal substance is the other strong argument. But I think the exaggeration of the consequences of this have started to overlook the point. The government is not going to ban all fatty foods and cars which produce fumes and alcohol etc. There is a case for getting rid of alcohol, but the consumer benefits from eating a fatty burger that they like and they benefit from being able to travel faster by car etc. There are no benefits whatsoever to smoking. So to compare them to something useful isn't a good comparison.

Why? Does the smell of burger increase the chances of you getting cancer?

Oh but you wont! I do agree. At this point in the season the public shouldn't be told to come down to Ewood, it should be almost automatic. I know more and more people who want to come to matches with me because we're playing good football and important matches. Public perception of us is changing, and I think long-term this will definitely help with the gates. People won't just come back overnight.

Whilst I agree to a certain extent, the TV coverage over here certainly does mention us a lot now. I don't feel like we're being "left out" of the race in the eyes of the experts or anyone else. Like you say though, if anybody underestimates us, they'll have serious problems coping with us. I'm getting more and more confident that 6th is the worst we'll do.

If non-smokers have the free choice of not going to the pub where the fumes are, then smokers have the free choice of not going to the pub where they aren't allowed to smoke. I really don't see the problem. God forbit the government try and pass something which improves the health of the residents of the country. Or should we be trying to kill afew more people to keep the population down before it gets out of control?

1-0 already!!! Bruce doesnt look too happy!

Let's finish 6th then boys...

You'd hope so, but Bellamy was without doubt the difference at Ewood earlier this year. We need him to be there to put away teams that could upset us. He is a bonus agains the big teams because he is a match-winner, but I'd rather he made sure we got a win against Sunderland than forced us a draw against Chelsea, for example.

Last time I remember was when we beat Arsenal away 2-1 with Flitty being sent off. However, we were already in the lead at that point. Are we including games where a late sending off hasn't changed the scoreline, or are we talking about beign 10 men then going on to score a winner?