I am surprised this thread hasn't been more lively given that the Liverpool crowd provided us with a real outlyer of a data point, one that contradicted all the accepted 'wisdom' to date. Biggest crowd for three years for a game that had top dollar pricing, was on TV, and we got tonked 6-2 three days earlier. No-one would have predicted a three year high for any game this season, as we have supposedly lost a couple of thousand of ungrateful wretches in each of the last 2 seasons. A++++ pricing was supposed to be out of reach for all but a miniscule band of bloated plutocrats. And of course, TV could alwasy be counted on to knock 110% off the gate. But there has to be a rational explanation. My theory is that there is still latent demand when many of the traditions of the game are maintained. A 3pm Boxing Day home fixture against Liverpool is about as good as it gets in terms of stirring the couch potatoes. But don't expect too many of them to be 'converted' by the result - I think many went for the occasion; just like those who crammed the cinemas to see the new Bond movie won't be back the next week to watch Rocky - The Epitaph, even if it was half the price. One thing North American sports do well is in maintaining traditions - even though they have had less time to develop them in the first place.

Agreed. I stopped counting after 6 passes had gone straight to a red shirt, as I was getting so annoyed. I've had enough of the Lucas mini-drama, I hope we get rid on Jan 1st and move on.

I think the proud dad a few posts up points out that we don't. Jack was far-sighted in seeing that a productive academy was critical to our long term future, so I think the strategy is correct. What is lacking is the execution. To my mind, there needs to be a whole sequence of things in place of it to work: Scouting - since Darracott toddled off into what seemed like a not entirely desired retirement, has our scouting improved? Who is chief scout? Facilities - see above Coaching - no evidence to my mind that the Downes regime, which has been in place for yonks now, is even average, let alone better. Jim Furnell did a better job in my book with a fraction of the resources. Opportunity - Man Yoo, who least need an academy, give good runs in the team to a host of players, not many of whom ultimately stake a first team place. If I was a dad looking to place a talented son, I would be impressed that Man Yoo had Brown, Fletcher, O'Shea featuring. Would Rossi have got more starts at Ewood compared to OT? I doubt it. Accountability has never seemed to be a big feature at Ewood since Jack, so I am not optimistic that anything will be done to execute properly the only possible strategy that will ensure a prolonged stay in the top flight.

It's no news that Johhny Foreigner can take time to adapt to the PL, which to my mind puts a big question mark over Hughes's decision to fill the front places with two of them at the same time. Roberts wasn't first choice when fit and Jeffers clearly isn't seen as good enough to get a start even now, so in my book Hughes is in the dock for this one.

Seems to me that the booing is having a positive effect. He clearly hears it, and his response after the goal suggests to me that his reaction is to show the boo-boys what they will soon be missing - which works to our benefit. Someone give him a boo from me at Reading

Isn't 1) an element of 2)? Difficult or not, Downes is being paid to recruit talent and bring players through - if it ain't happening, he is accountable.

Not often we agree, but I'm with you on this one. Another season finishing 13th will be forgotten come the end of August, whereas winning in Glasgow will be the pinnacle of our supporting lives

Limited or not, he came off the bench and changed quite a few games in our favour; something none of this year's subs have managed. And at 700k a place, I think we might well wish we had had his seven goals come May

Ticking off your most loyal customers is a win-win? Any business can make money in the short run by lowering its standards - in this case by contracting out and not caring a jot about the subsequent offering to the fans - but that doesn't mean it's going to pay in the long run. If local entrepreneurs are stepping into the breach then I hope all fans stop patronising the "Branch of Sportsworld That's Not a Club Shop But Situated Right Next to the Ticket Office" and reward the street merchants who are listening to what the customer wants. Meanwhile, our There Purely on Merit Sales and Marketing Manager can continue devoting his attentions to the strength of glue being used on the Darwen St Railway Bridge poster site, where at least he can do no harm.

...on Blackburn Rovers premises and linked on Blackburn Rovers website, targeting Blackburn Rovers fans. Fair do's for Rovers to contract stuff out, but that does not absolve them of overall responsibility for the impression and quality served up. 'Nothin' to do with us guv' is an insult to fans and just another small reason for fans to think that turning up at Ewood is nothin' to do with them.

It would have been unimaginable if before the kick-off someone had told you that in 6 years time Rovers would be 4th from bottom of the 3rd division. Maybe that was the turning point. For me, the Dalglish team should have won a cup, so losing 4-2 at home to Sheff Weds in the league cup semis would be one I would like to reverse.

If these were proposed new wrappers for a chocolate bar, I'd sack the brand manager as having no idea as to the brand identity. To me Rovers is about distinctiveness and heritage. The home kits get progessively lighter, so on that basis, I'd have to vote for 1. The away kits are completely random, but 3 at least mirrors the home kit distinctiveness. They should run with this as a basis for all away kits in future, and if they must incorporate squiggly bits to appeal to the yoof market, they could at least have the same style home and away. And that is the worst sponsor's logo I've seen on any shirt, anywhere, at any level.

While I don't think we will go down, we cannot say we are too good to go down. Scoring only 11 goals in 13 games, with 4 of those coming in a game where we should have been 4-0 down by halftime, does not bode well. Hughes has bought 4 strikers, so he owns this statistic unfortunately. We also have a central midfield, Reid included, who will be lucky to bag 5 goals between them all season. I cannot see the goals flowing given the personnel we have, and we will be kept up by a defence that IMO is good enough for a top half side. If the Admiral doesn't come back in tip top form and something happens to Oo-err/Bert, I think we'll be in deep doo-doo.

Wish I was going, so I hope everyone really has a blast. Personally, I couldn't give a toss where we finish in the league as long as we stop up. This season is our year for conquering Europe. I am highly optimistic we will have more trips after this one, hopefully to even more glamourous places

He's definitely in that folk hero category, though I would respectfully substitute Speedy for Wegerle and add in Noel Brotherston, Dave Wagstaffe and Scott Sellars. But who was the other guy in the video who kept getting through 1 on 1 with the keeper???

I tried and failed miserably to cut'n'paste a google earth snapshot of Upton Park - it sure don't look much like your picture. It's smack in the middle of one of the poorest areas in the entire country - a gigantic Audley Range. But obviously I do accept property prices even in crappy parts of London are extreme Google Earth Ewood vs Upton Park and I'd say we had 50-100% more land. Don't know if the 'Ammers own a spiffy training ground, but Brockhall must be worth a tidy sum, since houses in Brockhall Village are going for half a million each (I looked at buying one earlier this year.) You can't dimiss turnover of 40 million, soon to Sky-rocket, in a 100 million deal. A useful rule of thumb in buying a business is double the turnover. I am not saying we are worth 85-100 million, but many on here seem to think we are worth absolutely nothing and are unsellable to an investor. I think in the books Rovers quote an asset value of around 40 million, though of course a buyer wouldn't want to pay that much. These successful entrepreneurs are not plagued with self-doubt, and many must assume that to be sat on an appreciating real estate asset and have a guaranteed substantial increase in income kicking in next year, all they have to do is not resort to the prune juice economics of the past and fuel player salary hyper-inflation to have quite a reasonable business case, plus of course the ego massaging that comes with the territory. Since we were told that investors simply aren't out there, Villa, Pompey and West Ham have both found theirs. Just how hard are we looking? You crack me up. The Trust's input of 3-6 million is substantial, West Ham's 10 million is a lollipop. Well, Hughes not only won't be getting a lollipop, but he'll be stuck outside the sweetshop with his nose pressed against the window.

Maybe your right. But I assume you have been there - do you really think city types will stump up 200 million to live or work in the middle of one of the most blighted areas of the country? I thought I was in a 3rd world country when I first went. Maybe its changed since '95. Anyhoo - irrespective of the real estate angle, I refuse to accept the view that Rovers are a basket case for external investment

So I see that West Ham, that footballing superpower, have been sold for 85 million while we are worth bobbins, since we are punching above our weight. WHU attract crowds of 35,000 and, let's be generous here, assume they rake in double per seat than we do from our skint supporters, that gives them an extra 6 million in gate money over a season. Since we have finished above them in 10 out of the last 14 seasons, our extra Sky money should make up, say, half of that difference. So it would appear that WHU make, give or take, 3 million more than us, not counting our Trust Fund money. Hmmmm....I hope the Icelandic biscuit baron knows that it'll take him 28 years to get his money back versus taking over our over-achieving small club for nowt, which is what most on here seem to think we're worth. Because we're punching above our weight. Or maybe he's planning to knock down the Boleyn Ground to build a meag-shopping centre or a new biscuit factory. But since it's located in the East London equivalent of Audley Range, perhaps not. And the hard-up locals are being attacked by a wealthy expat, typing his condemnations as he watches the blood-red sun sink slowly over the distant hills of Gozo...

If I posted that we're doing an unbelievable job punching above our weight, with a bunch of ungrateful wretches for a fanbase, who are driven away to the by the drummers down to the heniously illegal pubs where they watch a cartel of bent refs blatantly fix Rovers games, then I'd fit right in here!

Can't anyone post anything on this board that goes against the received wisdom without being accused of being Vinjay, a clarrot or both? This is getting worse than 1930's Russia. While Blakey might have expressed the point better, I think he is saying what many are thinking: BRISA did a much better job publicising their launch and lofty goals than in following through. I appreciate that I have contributed dick to BRISA, so I am not criticising anyone's efforts; but running around garnering all the publicity about what BRISA was going to do without having the infrastructure in place to follow up on was an error. Scotty's reply, apart from the dismissive Vinjay reference at the end, is encouraging, and I don't doubt for a second the intent of the individuals concerned, but the reality is that an impression has been created that BRISA is all mouth and trousers. Such an impression, fair or not, has to be dealt with if BRISA is to engage the support of Rovers fans going forwards. Unfortunately, there are few 2nd chances to create a first impression. Personally, I think the way forwards is for BRISA to get their heads down, forget any PR announcements, and focus 100% on achieving ANYTHING tangible that fans would see as a) being of significance, and would not have happened without BRISA. Resurrecting the Fans Forum might be a start, but then that seemed to suffer from much the same perception.

Not sure I totally agree with that. By my very rough reckoning, since Jack came in we've had $50m from him on players, $50m on infrastructure, at least $100m from Sky, probably $60m on corporate (thanks to the infrastructure), $50m in gate money and, using your rule of thumb, $35m from the Trust. (excuse my $ signs, I mean pounds but don't have the key) A cumulative income of at least $350 million spread over 14 years. In that time, Bumley would have had not even a quarter of that, so I don't see that excellent financial management is the sole reason we are where we are. Feel free to correct my estimates if you think they are out of whack. Agreed. I think Rev's point is that a summer investment of minus $1m is unnecessarily threatening our status That's one way of looking at it. The counter argument is Lancashire is a football hotbed where a much greater % of the population have the bug as opposed to, say, Cheltenham or Milton Keynes. Overall though, it seems that we have two very different perspectives on Rovers underlying status after 14 years of Sky-dominated footy. I think it is out-dated to see us as barely deserving of our lofty position when so much of our income is not gate related and we have been gifted a fantastic infrastructure. I don't think Green Bay Packer fans see themselves as being one bad season away from the Winsconsin and District Sunday League. Size doesn't really matter much outside the top 4, and with Liverpool imploding and Arsenal in transition, 4th or even 3rd are up for grabs this year. Pompey are third, and good for them, but I don't see why that couldn't have been us.

Leaving aside the dodgy decisions, two thing struck me from the game. We were very poor going forwards prior to the sending off; not one decent ball into the front two, and their keeper could have been sat reading the paper for the first hour. Spuds passed their way easily through our midfiled only for our very good defense to win it somewhere near our box and then hoof it forwards. After the sending off was a revelation. With both Savage and the Axe in the middle, we were winning the ball much further up the pitch and passing it forwards into Benni. Our full backs were bombing forwards and I though it was a different class of play from us. It made me think that maybe there is a better formation at the moment. A sort of 4-3-2-1, with the Axe and Savage holding the middle, Tugay with a free role, Bentley and MGP tucking in behind Benni (neither of them are wingers in the accepted sense of the word anyway), and the fullbacks providing the width. Full marks to Gray today, I thought he was our MoM.

I was going to add this to the Vinjay thread, but decided to try airing it on its own Leaving the Walkers stuff aside, Vinjay's point that fans have been brainwashed into having low expectations is well argued and has some validity. I like Vinjay's asserion that there have been three Blackburn Rovers's in the last 25 years: Old (no-hope) Rovers, Jack (expect everything) Rovers, and Post-Jack (???) Rovers, and that they are all very different. I would add 'Very Old Rovers' pre aboliiton of maximum wage. What remains from Very Old Rovers is most of the trophy room and the reconstructed Boardroom. The only tangible element of Old Rovers that remains is the Riverside (and even that is an embarrassment), so I think it is worthy of debate why some of the mindset of Old Rovers seems to live on today, and how valid or significant that is as a part of our DNA going forwards. The world has changed since Jack was funding our dreams, and I don't see why we should expect to drift slowly back to Old Rovers. Small town does not mean small club any more. Hardly any of our revenue comes from the town, and none of the players live in it, so one of the many changes has been the divorcing of club location and performance. If we are 'punching above our weight', then how come 'Boro, Pompey, Wigan, Fulham, Reading and Notlob are all above us? While European football has created a gulf between the top four and everyone else, the fact is that the Sky money, and the influx of monied owners seems to have greatly democratised positions 5-20. That there are many clubs located in bigger places below us in the league does not mean we are punching above our weight, it means that punching power now has much less to do with weight and more to do with cash influxes fro Sky/Owners. We have had 16 years of Sky money and been gifted a magnificent infrastructure denied to clubs who stayed where Old Rovers were. We could not have had a better time to spend 14 years in the top flight. Poor old Coventry spent 30 years in it, but at the wrong time. I for one would like to hear from our real owners how they see the strategy for Post-Jack Rovers, because 'but for us you'll be back to Old Rovers' is both unaspirational and patently untrue.

Really? I counted 10 posts above yours that, in various forms, reckoned there were some valid points being raised. But since none of the heavy posters agreed with him, on that basis he is guilty as charged. It sometimes needs an extremist PoV to challenge accepted wisdoms, even if listening isn't easy. William Wilberforce stood up in the House of Commons 20 years in a row to raise the issue of abolishing slavery, only to get hoots of derision. Easy to say now he was right, but at the time other members would have gladly banned him.

Since any new owner would most likely want to put their own man in to run things, I'm sure JW is working night and day to find one...