There's hardly a poster on here, me included, who doesn't have fixed views abouts something or other. Personally I can't stand the ganging up that goes on sometimes against individuals, whether I agree with them or not. The whole point of the internet is open source, and Vinjay had just as much right to post as anyone else. If he bugs you, don't read and don't respond. His line of argument may be flawed and repetitive, but I respect his right to think it and express it in the face of hostility. I also feel that many of the "shut up Vinjay" brigade in many cases harp on a single point which I find equally ridiculous, which I can paraphrase as, "We're a ###### little club who no-one would invest a penny in." Today I read that Charlton have signed a $6.4 million sponsorship deal - CHARLTON - yet we are supposedly lucky to get seven and sixpence from Lonsdale. Back to the BRISA thread - I worry that BRISA are a little too in awe of the great job supposedly being done by Batman and Robin in the BRFC corner office. Great to go in with constructive ideas, but should be tempered with a bit of "Support for Our Club, Mr. Paid Employees, appears to have gone down the drain on your watch. We'll still be here when you have f*cked off, so convince us, as paying customers, that you know what your doing." No more than normal chairmen of company's whose sales have declined 25% in a couple of years get asked at AGM's

Thanks Colin, a nice eclectic tour round one of the least enthralling fixtures. Excellent stats site, never seen that before. Only Sunderland have fewer clean sheets than us, and a nice 12 goals conceded in the last 6 league games tells me that we might have to score to get something at the cottage. Fulham 2 (Hill, Haynes) Rovers 2 (Emerton 2) 16,127 (No prizes for guessing which of those scorers lists is the more likely)

I really think we misjudged Dickov last season, me included.

I was relying on Lee's Pravda-style upbeat reporting. I assume that in reality the WHU goalie is still in his deckchair but is in fact doing a crossword puzzle.

A depressingly familiar ring to the match report so far. Rovers slick passing play is admired by all, including the watching opposition goalkeeper from his deckchair, only for the first opposition strike on goal to inevitably go in.

Interesting and coincidental comment by Henry Winter in todays Daily Telegraph. Sorry I can't do the link thingy, but in an article highly critical of the Rupert show, he lists four chairman - Gibson at 'boro, Moores at L'pool, Gartside at Horwich and Wardle at City - singing their praises as being real fans who love their clubs, appoint well, and stay out of the limelight. Is our secrecy so tight that the game's best journalist can't see how well we are run, or maybe his criteria, which we patently don't fully meet, are actually important. Abramovich doesn't make the list either, for obvious reasons, and I'm surprised he makes Philip's; he's as likely to pull the plug as Romanov.

Hearts fans are having the time of their lives, but Aberdeen are heading for death by boredom. Since football is bankrupt up there they are both doomed anyway. Which ride would you rather be on?

Couldn't agree more, it'd be like Colin Hendry coming home.

Good, thoughtful response there Philip, but you must admit to 20-20 hindsight on Hearts. Was it that obvious beforehand that someone would come in and push them 20 points above Rangers? Also, a reasonable set of suppositions on the Trust, but all based on if's, but's and maybe's. The fact is neither of us knows squat about the intentions of our owners. They might sell us tomorrow, or be lavishly funding us in the super-galactic league of 2145AD. Hmmm, some people I wouldn't want to be trapped in a lift with for sure, but let's see.... Rupert - agreed, ruined a sound club. Mandaric - Pompey in the top flight for the first time in living memory Hammers - despite an undeserved relegation and selling all their best players, nicely updated ground and doing better than us right now. Deadly Doug - Agreed, sort of. Fantastic ground update with no Uncle Jack to fund it. Porn Boys: Brum 2 divisions higher than when they arrived, crowds three times bigger. Madjeski - Reading runaway leaders of Championship, spanking ground, highest position ever. Fat Freddie - Bad choice in managers, but just bought England's centre forward Ken Bates - took a club on its uppers, built a new ground, sold them to a brazillionaire who has made them the best club in the country. Rovers under Jack - new everything, massive injection of transfer funds, won league, 25,000 regulars Rovers under the Trust: Phase 1 - Continuing Jacks support level, promotion, Worthy Cup, $50m to Souness to p*ss away Rovers under the Trust: Phase 2 - Sell 3 players for $30m, zero net transfer funds since (as you have pointed out before, Bellers came from funds received from selling players, plus you have to add in the $1.6m we now know we got for Sourness) 17,000 regulars. I think the issue is that the Trust of today seem to have a very different strategy toward the club than in the immediate post-Jack era. While the motley crew you mention may be a despicable bunch, I'm not sure I agree that they are all disasters for their clubs whose fans would beg to be owned by the faceless Trust of today who would tip in $3m a year - period. I don't expect to reach agreement with many on this issue, but at least we seem to have shut Vinjay up.

The same could have been said of Hearts; but someone turned up, bought a loss-making and decrepit set-up, and then proceded to plough millions in. Prior to the Rix fiasco, I didn't hear too many of the subsequently packed Tynecastle complaining. Even post-Rix, they are one point off the top and playing to full houses. Makes even less sense than somone buying Rovers.

I think that ownership and attendances have some correlation. Look at Wimbledon after Sam Hamman left and sold to some disinterested Icelandics. They didn't get big crowds under Sam, but they got a lot smaller after he'd gone. At ManYoo 2,000 dyed in the wool Mancs would now rather watch a pub team because of ownership. Our own crowds went up 50% as soon as Jack took the helm; as opposed to the previous year when he had been providing the dosh but from behind the scenes. Obviously no-one is staying away because of the Trust, but I don't think we have recruited many new ones to replace the churn since Jack passed away, because there hasn't been an emotional cause to become attached to. While survival might be a realistic goal, it's not much of a spectator sport.

I don't understand why everyone seems convinced that no-one else would want to own us. Of course it doesn't make logical sense to pump money into a club, but since when were rich, vain men logical? Why does Whelan want to throw money at Wigan? Why does someone want to buy the Villa for $40m. Why does the Reading owner throw his dosh at them, he'll never get it back. Why does Kilby endure having to work at the Turd every day and pay for the priviledge? How do we know some vain Malaysian plutocrat wouldn't want to buy us? Will it be better than being owned by a deceased fan's trust? I don't know. But I do know that an ownership who aren't involved and who aren't in it for either the love or the glory makes no sense, because that's the only point of owning a club. If football were a real business, all but four clubs would be closed down immediately. Vinjay is foolhardy in assuming that being bequeathed ownership also implies the attendant responsibilities assumed by more willing owners, i.e. pumping in more and more money in pursuit of glory. The Walkers should not and will not put a penny of their money into the club. They didn't ask to be related to the man who bought it. But there are enough illogical, rich owners already in the game to suggest that one more might be tempted by the premiership status and the bought and paid for superb infrastructure of post-Jack BRFC. Personally, I am convinced we will be sold within the next 2 or 3 years. The Trust would want it (assuming the terms allow for such an eventuality) and if I were Williams, I would want it. The potential loss of $3 million a year would not sink the ship - just not replacing Amo and Flitty should save that - but the opportunity of having a purposeful, driven (and maybe more money than brains) owner is a prize worth seeking. Fans will start to come back when there is something to believe in. If it's just about the quality of the footy, it makes more sense to subscribe to Sky.

I was going to make the same point but referencing Emerton.

...which makes our defending 29.6% worse than average

I don't think there is anything anti-Rovers about the coverage of Savage, it's entirely anti-Savage and rightly so. While I agree with the last 2 posts, it doesn't change the fact that he is a panto villain who came to national prominence via a blatant dive in a cup final, taking a dump in the ref's bog and collecting a booking per game. That means that further transgressions will be reported on somewhat negatively, whether he played for us, Arsenal or the Girl Guides. Personally, I find it embarrassing that a player for a gritty northern team like us should adopt the feigning injury tactics of Johnny Foreigner. I expect it from a ponce like Reyes but hate to see it in the famous Blua and White halves. At least the pony tail has gone, so I suppose that's a start.

Good point, but I don't think many on this board would have been happy with the prospect of conceding 8 goals in those four games had that eventuality been floated beforehand. Not many teams will concede 7 or more on their visits to Stamford Bridge and Highbury this season. Losing attractively is a lot better than being tubbed and even in my view better than winning boringly, if only for the hope it offers of good times around the corner; but we consistently fail to score in too many games and leak too many at the back. Still, Rome wasn't built in a day, and we've come a long way under Mr Hughes.

All very admirable, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working, does it? Maybe the club have mis-diagnosed the problems and the initiatives are irrelevant. Maybe the club have correctly diagnosed the issues but the initiatives are inappropriate. Maybe they are appropriate but have not been communicated effectively. Maybe, maybe, maybe. At the end of the day, management are paid, and paid hansomely, to solve these issues. We don't need to be spending $400,000 a year on a management team to not solve the problems, they can be not solved for a lot less than that. Those salaries are supposedly paying for a combination of ability, experience and most crucially, accountability. We have the fastest declining support in the PL as a % of the gate and among the fastest as an absolute number of bodies. If management aren't accountable for customer numbers, then why are they there?

It seems that everyone who meets with the guy comes away with a very positive impression, he's very open, committed etc., yet his broader public persona, if one exists at all, reflects none of that (in my humble opinion.) Maybe he just needs a good PR advisor. Obviously at this stage its all a bit lovey-dovey, but it'll be interesting to gauge their long-term commitment to BRISA when you start giving them a hard time on something. I wouldn't be surprised if he suddenly has to cancel an odd meeting should the process get choppy. I also agree with Oscar on the ownership thing. I don't actually care who they are, but I would like to know their motivations and intentions. Chelski get that from a Mafia-avoiding, Billionaire reclusive Siberian mayor who manages attends every game, so why we can't get it mystifies me.

Didn't know you still lived in Blackburn jim. Or is pontification from leafy non-Blackburn climes a la Parkinson and Barnsley somehow different? Anyway, I do agree with the first part of your pontification and I also have no intention of parting with my hard-earned pension when the likes of Flitcroft and Amo sit around on the bloated contracts given to them by our excessively paid leader.

Which of course is the problem communicating via e-mail/messageboard - misconceptions are rife. I've been trying to be helpful in these posts yet come over as being critical from the sidelines. In the same vein, I would respectfully suggest that BRISA needs to pay extra special attention to how its communications come over in its early days, and that the goal of signing up members for critical mass and credibility with Topsy and Tim doesn't conflict with the goal of encouraging an apathetic mass of supporters to believe that BRISA will in fact be working on all their behalfs, members or not. This is the last post from this apathetic fan on the subject

Den, I want BRISA to succeed and I don't think I can do a better job, but let me have one last go at this then I'll shut up. Almost every post on this thread that isn't of the "Great, I've already sent my fiver" kind has generated a response from a committee member - mainly politely but sometimes a bit touchy - suggesting that the poster either put themselves up for the committee, sign up for membership or e-mail BRISA, which are all fair enough in the early days of trying to boost membership. The trouble is that this is also the time when many people will be making up their minds about BRISA, and it is easy to interpret those recruitment messages as also being indicative as to BRISA's remit. The point I am trying and struggling to make is that the vast majority of current fans and stay aways will remain the silent majority who will never e-mail BRISA anything. I think a group taking on the mantle that BRISA has set itself will need to be extremely proactive in reaching out and soliciting views from the silent types. If it doesn't, then I think it will struggle to meet the objectives that the founders have set for it. The reason that politicians get out knocking on doors come election time is that they can't rely on there postbag for keeping the finger on the pulse. I have no specific suggestions, just some feedback on the message that I think is coming across, intended or not. Maybe it's just me and it's crystal clear to everyone else.

Den, not everyone wants to get involved with committees, I spend far too much of my professional life doing so. I was merely trying to offer a generic piece of advice on some of the pitfalls of taking on the burden of representing the views of others. I am still not clear if BRISA is serious about representing the veiws of the vast majority who haven't and never will sign up. The posts of some of the committee lead me to believe it will be inclusive, the posts of others definitely send out signals of being exclusively for its members or even the tiny minority who would willingly consider being on the committee. If becoming an activist is a pre-requisite for any opinion being considered, then BRISA will inevitably represent the views of people either committed enough or of a certain personality type to do so. I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that clarity now will prevent a lot of frustration all round down the line. If you don't want unsolicited views from committee-averse fans, delete this thread and have it on the BRISA site with a members-only password.

I think it is crucial that you do. It is no coincidence that union committees become unrepresentative of union members, who become unrepresentative of the total workforce. Berating the workforce to join the union committee does not solve that problem. One wonders why Williams and Finn haven't made such views known to the greater public. But more important is what the dynamic duo learn from the fans, especially the thousands that have been lost during their watch. Frankly, they do not need to know the views of the highly committed, you guys would still turn up if we were in the Unibond league.

Not sure I buy your logic there. You cannot assume that a self-selecting group, i.e. paid up members, will be representative of the entire Rovers fan base. That would only be the case if BRISA members were randomly selected. I would think it fair to say that paid up members will NOT be representative of the entire fan base as they are much more likely to be the keener, more committed fans. As countless threads on this board have shown, the keener fans simply cannot comprehend why everyone else isn't like them and turns up to ewood rain or shine, "Cheaper prices, what more can the club do?" For BRISA to be fully repreentative, it will need to make great efforts to reach out to the less committed and at least ascertain their views. Otherwise, the meetings with the club will be in danger of just being a collective head-shaking session as to the uselessness of the Blackburn public. The oft-quoted response of, "Well, if you think you can do better then sign up and get on t'committee" misses the point that most people either hate putting themselves in the limelight, and that many of our fans aren't committed enough to put themselves through such an ordeal. By definition, such a response is "normal" as is applies to the vast majority.

One thing that has puzzled me in the genesis of BRISA is why the club shut down or withdrew recognition or whatever of the previous supporters groups and why subsequently they think BRISA is a good idea. Were the previous groups not deemed as representative, or were they moribund, or did the club just not like them?? Any clues been given out to BRISA on this?