When the Board were dipping into their pockets to pay the lecky bill, I did actually feel that one had some kind of duty to show up - we were all doing our bit to keep the club afloat. Conversely, these days not only does Williams not pay the bills, we need 600 on the gate all season just to pay for him! But it's not the supporters who decreed that the game is entertainment, it was the clubs that did that with the sell-out to Sky and the prune-juice mismanagement of the bounty that flowed in, so they cannot complain if supporters judge it as the entertainment it's positioned as and decide to watch in the pub or just stay at home. The live product offers few if any benefits over the packaged product these days. It used to be that, as well as contributing to the milk bill, there was the atmosphere - even with 6,000 in the ground - and the chance of a "Did you see that..." factor. Not any more. The atmosphere is better in the pub. I came over last season for the Arsenal game and hired a box for the extended Exiled family ; I thought the volume control on the outside noise was broken it was that quiet. Against Arsenal - in the Blackburn End! Everyone over here thinks I was just stupid to pay fifteen hundred for one game, and they were right. Not least because you can see the best bits of every game we play even if you never set foot in the ground. I've seen four full games so far this season plus Saturday's goals, The Man U game is on live on next Saturday and it cost me $3 a month. I can do that for the rest of my life and it'll cost me less than the Arsenal game did. I'm 3,500 miles away and I see more games now than I did when I lived in Tockholes. And it's getting worse. The club used to change it's shirt every two years, now that has been changed to every year. Is that for our benefit?? Do they think we're stupid??? Clearly they do. Everything is being outsourced to companies intent on screwing us for yet more money, and if you are not happy with the service , Lee just says, "Ah, that's Greedicorp who run that; nothing to do with us, Guv." The shop is worse than when it was somone's front room on Nuttall street. And we are supposed to show some kind of masochistic loyalty to this kind of set up. What a load of @#/?.

Actually, I was fully expecting him to sign up a couple of players from the lower leagues. As international manager of a team that draws a lot of its squad from outside the Prem, plus he was free on Saturdays, I thought he must have seen more lower league games than the rest of the Prem managers put together. Apparently not - or there's no Keegan's at Scunthorpe these days.

You do keep saying this, but I'm not sure I see it as being as such a good thing as you do. All these ageing players (8 is it?) are going to leave for nothing. If we are to replace them numerically in the squad so we have some real competiton for places, where are we going to get eight players for free who are good enough for a mid-table prem league outfit? History would suggest 1 or 2 at the most from the academy - call it 3 to look on the bright side. My guess is one from the four out on loan (Derbyshire, - Gallagher has already turned out for us 50 times so a few games at Stoke won't make much difference), leaving at least 4 players needing to be bought. Add to that the need to replace certain crap mambers of the squad still under contract, who will then turn into the next lot of overpaid reserves (Emerton, @#/? etc), and we'll be looking at having to buy maybe six players to haver a decent squad. Add to that one trophy purchase up front, say Benni. Granted the wages ought to be lower, but by how much? $1 million, $2 million tops? While the transfer budget is going to shoot up. I hope Chairman John is budgeting for this.

Back to topic, I find it interesting that when Kuqi plays as the lone striker, he's clearly a complete carthorse whereas when Matty plays the role, we can't possibly judge him on that as he was isolated and got crap service. I don't see why Kuqi deserves less forebearance when he did score 20-odd goals last season, without Duffer on the wing and Cole playing alongside him.

I too quite enjoyed it, but then again I did pay nothing to see it. I liked that we were clearly a match for them and that we tried to win it in the last 20 mins. As to Friedal, his dropped catch and coming and missing the corner that Campo should have put in made him a 4 for me. The two saves at the end were bread and butter - every other keeper in the prem would have easily saved them.

When old lags like Revidge and CLB don't want to go to Bolton, then football definitely is on the slide. Both, and me, wouldn't have missed a trip to Burnden for anything. But then football has made it very clear that it caters for the TV audience first and last, so it shouldn't come as any surprise. Any consumer product or service today lives or dies by how it meets the three needs of quality, value and convenience. You can do well by scoring very high on one of those attributes and being OK on the other two: TV dinners are extremely convenient while being not quite as good quality or value as home cooked. Shopping at Walmart is extremely good value while being OK quality and not so convenient. Live football as was before Sky was very good value - when I went as a lad I could pay to get in from my weekly spending money; the quality was iffy - both players and facilities, but it was very convenient: 3pm Sat and 7.30 weds didn't clash with mealtimes or anything else really. Nowadays, for the fan, it is very expensive compared to a trip to the cinema or whatever, the quality is better but increasingly iffy - as we saw today; and it is highly inconvenient - best personified by the 5.30 Sat kick off, when do they expect everyone to eat FFS? However, for the television fan, it has never been better. The old MOTD used to be very good value, OK at best quality, and very inconvenient. Nowadays, if you watch it in a pub, it's unbeatable: the quality of coverage is terrific, the value is good and what could be more convenient that a stroll down you local for a few beers while you watch (that you can't get in the ground), some good pub grub, and a decent atmosphere. What amazes me is that the clubs didn't realise that, as the TV offer got more attractive, that they would have to readjust the Quality/Value/Convenience equation for the live game if they still expected people to come. A combination of holding the line of kick-off times and days to enable the paying fan to have some regular structure to their lives, a recognition that pricing for the family would have to stay accessible, plus putting teams out who would try to win rather than try to avoid losing. Would it have helped? I have no idea, but I do know that offering the worst value in tha game's history at the most inconvenient times would inevitably result in decline when the TV option got so attractive. Football is dead as an accessible people's event.

And Kuqi did way more than Jansen because....? I couldn't understand Bert staying on and MGP going off - I feel that cost us the win as we still only had 10 playing. The new boys looked good and well done Neill - He's looking th real deal this season.

Not bad first half for us - considering we're playing with 9 men. I don't think Jansen and Emerton had yet had possession of the ball. Get Bentley on for Bert and either Kuqi or @#/? for Matt and we can win this....provided Brad doesn't drop a howler - he's making me nervous.

Bad for England, but good for football. Good for Northern Ireland and their fans. Money and vast salaries can actually be humbled by teamwork, effort, belief and good coaching. No reason why Rovers can't hope to tweak the noses of the top three in a similar fashion.

And the loyalty thing hardly works both ways. Who on this board doesn't want to see Flitcroft got rid of?

Maybe Owen will keep him in the job a while longer. But the thought of Deano coaching Owen brings a smile....

Quite a few empty seats visible at the Hawthorns today. A crowd only marginally above our Spuds one, and that for a local derby against a "big" club.

I agree, but for me this issue isn't the 50,000, it's the fact that apparently Savage is incapable of being effective once booked. His game therefore depends upon the need not only to foul (5 on Saturday) but that the fouls need to be serious and unwarranted. What kind of player is that? I wouldn't mind his bookings if he could play on afterwards, but the fact is that a booking for Savage has the effect of a sending off - he disappears.

Williams? Accountable? That would be a first. I thought everything was the supporters' or the manager's fault.

Should have been done when the signs were there ages ago, but don't hold your breath. Expect a quote in Pravda soon along the lines of "We don't understand it. We've been investing in the playing side and we need to people of Blackburn to come and match that support." i.e. the usual @#/?. In my opinion, this "investing in the playing side" is a complete red herring. Paying ridiculous wages to a bloated squad, several of whom are on contracts so long and so generous that we can't get a single other club to take them off our hands, is a reason for people to stay away, not to turn up like oafs and keep funding it.

Sounds like we played well, can't wait to see the goals on Monday. But am I the only person wondering why we need to commit 26 fouls, at home, against a team like Fulham?

Excellent article. I too have been wondering what's the point of it all. I take Revidge's point that the main benefit of "stopping up" are the three games a year at home to the top three, but even that is losing its lustre. We are less and less likely to get a result as their playing staff gets better and ours gets worse, and the other feature of getting to see top players in action is negated by being able to see on TV every game they play, in full, for next to nothing. Personally, the prune juice effect is the biggest turn-off. Do I get more pleasure from watching Bellamy and Dickov than I did watching Garner, Sellars, Field etc.? No. Bellamy is not a great player, he's just an obscenely paid one. Over here, I can get in to watch the Toronto Blue Jays play the New York Yankees for well under a tenner - TV money gets shared around much better. The Blue Jays are doing better and playing to bigger crowds since they got rid of the mega-high wage earners and started putting young players into the team. Fans identify with them much more. But suggest putting youth into our team and some of the very same people posting on here immediately start screaming about the lost revenue from a couple of league places - revenue that we will only continue to ###### away lining the pockets of average players who couldn't give a stuff. I bet Crewe's fans enjoy going to their games more than we do to ours.

I wonder what Hughes is going to do to deliver on his comment, "This won't happen again." Personally, I am of the opinion that while Hughes accepts players having bad days, he is particulalry intolerant of a lack of effort, be it physical or mental. I thought Gray got sent to Siberia, not for having a couple of bad games, but for clearly dozing off for a couple of goals in the 0-4 at Chelsea. So it would not surprise me if Emerton was also despatched to the Gulag for a while. I think a message has to be sent about the manager's expectations for the new season. Dickov will not suffer a similar fate as Hughes himself used to do that regularly, and I have no doubt he just sees it as a misplaced response to an appropriate leve of desire. Lazy passes into trouble, on top of an ineffective performance, however are a different matter...

Over-estimated it?

I think the point was made a while ago that the entity which owns us also owns a company that chooses to sponsor Birmingham instead. Personally I find the argument that Blackburn doesn't have an airport a bit weak. The majority of JJB's sales aren't in Wigan or Reebok's in Bolton. Shirt sponsorship is about national coverage, and we have had at least as much of that as have Brum in the last 4 years.

Interesting concept: comment is only allowed if one can do something better, as opposed to see that something could be done better. Since Amo is probably a better centre half than you, you'll be refraining from any opinions should he play then?

Fair enough. I'm not saying he was crap, as the figures show. But weren't at least 25 of those 44 goals scored in our brief sojourn to the lower reaches? How many of the remaining 20 goals were scored against good teams? Despite the many thrilling touches and turns which I too enjoyed at the time, I can't recall a single instance of him doing it against the big teams. To put him ahead of Sutton and Gallacher is ridiculous. Great goal against first div Notlob when we were three up, but can't be compared with Kevin Gallachers dribble and chip over Schmeichel at OT or the first time volley over Seaman at the Library. Great players rise to the heights in the big games. 20 top flight goals against lower/mid table teams doesn't qualify for legend status in my books. Very good, but not great.

Shirt deals are nothing to do with the size of home crowd, it's all about appearances on TV and in press pictures. We finished 15th, not 20th; yet we have the salary bill of a top 10 team and the shirt deal of the bottom team. If he was as good as everyone thinks, then those two statistics would be reversed.

As usual, an opinion differing from the prevailing "wisdom" of the regulars gets trashed and mangled in the process. I believe the initial point was that Matty's Rovers heyday was in the promotion season and that he didn't have many impactful games in the Prem. The Bolton goal mentioned three times above as proof positive of Matt's Prem credentials was in fact during our 4-1 win when we were chasing Bolton for promotion. No-one has countered the man's point yet with a factual argument. Firstly, he did nothing to stop us being relegated when he came. He was crap in our first season down - Souness benched him on numerous occasions. He was brilliant in the promotion season. After we went up the fact is that, before Cole came, we were rooted to the bottom of the table with Matty's failings being blamed on having Grabbi for a strike partner. Getting called up into a Sven squad once (then bringing in a note from his mum about a poorly tummy) puts him at the level of half the Charlton squad. Being English and left footed with a Prem team was enough for Sven to have a look. Don't get me wrong, I was not a fan of Matty's during his head down phase and I think one of Souness's greatest achievements was the subsequent improvement, but I for one do not think that Jansen was a significant force against the top teams. He was a scorer of great goals rather than a great goal scorer. And no, I'm not a new poster aiming for the Mr Notorious tag, so hit me with some cold hard facts as to Matty's premiership credentials.

But of course no blame can be attached to our recently promoted Chief Exec, who apparently single-handedly keeps us from oblivion. Maybe whoever negotiated Flitcroft's or Amo's contracts should be sent into bat for us next time the deal comes round.