Really? What makes you say that? I've supported this club for 35 years, bleed Blue and White, and am counting the seconds to Sunday's game. I happen to think that the Chief Exec is over-paid. For 6 years I sat on the Board of a company with $450million turnover and 2,000 employees, and my boss - the CEO - got paid around what Williams earns. Rovers are a $42m t/o business, of which $30m turns up automatically and also goes out automatically to players on x year fixed contracts. Getting paid a quarter of a million to influence +/-$12m I think is ludicrous, as is getting a double digit pay increase when performance slumped - in my opinion. No "hidden agenda" - and what that might be in your fevered imagination I have no idea.

The academy success is "fair" Along with the majority of your post that is tripe. Find another academy that has earned the club as much money as it has cost over 10 years, not to mention the fact those players produced also spent good periods of time in the first team here, helping the club earn more income. Fair my arse. I was referring to it's contribution during the financial year, not over it's life. Did any players break through into the team last year? If you are inferring that Williams should be given credit for the discovery and nuturing of Duff and Dunn, then that would be tripe. Actually, I did miss out the role that Williams and Finn play in the spending of the capital budget, almost all of which goes on transfers. And again, I would not be giving them high marks in their annual appraisal on that front. We have a habit of both paying high and then assuming that the productive lifespan of the players will be quite long. When those players leave the club, more often than not there is a write down of the asset value, which I think will be quite large this year: Cole, Yorke, Ferguson, and hopefully Amo will all result in write-downs. If Williams/Finn are truley accountable for the total financial performance of the club, then there is only one factor they absolutely must get right - ensuring we have the best manager for the job at all times, since so much of the income is dependant on league position. And in this they failed.

I found several things to be of interest in the accounts. Firstly, I was actually very surprised at how attendances were such a small percentage of our turnover (c15%). The notion constantly peddled by the club that its future hangs on whether 21,000 or 24,000 turn up is patently not the case. And of the $1.7m drop in matchday income, probably two thirds of that is due to the Man U semi-final and the Celtic games being in the previous year, so the impact of the decline in prem league fixtures is actually quite negligible in the scheme of things. As to the salaries of Messrs Williams and Finn, I think the argument relating their income to total turnover is spurious. The vast majority of that income turns up automatically: - the 17,000 diehards - whatever the league placing is - number of games on TV - cup runs Williams and Finn have zero impact on that income. The only things I think they are really accountable for are: - appointing a manager every three years (N/A) - firing a manager at the right time (failed) - Commercial income (moderate success - say $2m better than it could have been) - Success of the Academy (fair at best) Against that background, they are over-paid and did not do enough in the year to justify their large increases.

Interesting contribution. I think you've been a bit generous putting Emerton against McAteer. Jason had done it at the top level for Bolton and to some extent Liverpool, and did it on the day for us. Emerton has done nothing yet at the top level and I fear will do nothing on Sunday. Also, if you had gone into the subs, we have no-one of Jansen's calibre to step up if we need something more upfront. So for me, the 2000 Rovers wins. But I do buy Gav's point about the toughness of the '05 side and also their fitness. We should be fitter than them, and will not tire on their pudding of a pitch, and we certainly won't be intimidated by them, which really negates the only two weapons that a lower division side can bring to the party. Rovers to win 1-0 MGP

On a more positive note, I always used to enjoy the banter between Rovers fans and Steve Kindon. One match at Ewood (i forget the year) when he had scored to put them 1-0 up, in response to the usual chant of "Kindon's wife is on the game again" he took great delight in making a 1-0 sign, pointing to himself and miming side-footing it in. A few minutes later after one of his usual dribbles into touch, an empty half whiskey bottle sailed in a high, graceful arc from the Riverside and missed his head by a fraction of an inch. A very respectable looking guy in a sheepskin coat was hoiked onto the cinder track by the police, and we all applauded him as he was frogmarched past.

it must have been 82/83. The next nearest Rovers win at the Turf was 77/78 but that was the 2-3 mentioned earlier on this post. As for been back ever time you've played us since - well that would be once then. Now you talk about the somewhat muddled memory of Burnley fans for the gates - now you are trying to say half the home stands were filled with Rovers as well? Do me a favour I can vouch for the short-trousered Scotty's recollection. I watched that game from the Bee Hole End (along with a sizeable number of fellow Blues who also had stopped too long in the pub and couldn't get in the Longside visitors section), and was amazed at how many people in the Cricket Field Stand jumped up when Garns tucked it away at that end. But fair do's, the Blues around me who were wearing their colours all seemed to get a good tonking for their trouble.

CLayton, Its hard to be sure as the memory now fades but As I recall the away end AND no mans land were not half the longside. Hmmmm, I think CLB is broadly right. On that glorious day I was about 5 yards from the no mans land fence and I was a lot closer to the half way line than the edge of the penalty area - perfectly placed to see that Noel was onside as he burst through for his 1 on 1 waltz round Stephenson for orgasmic goal #3. It was a hell of a crush, impossible to move away from the barrage of missiles that came over, so got hit on the back of the head by a chunk of brick. However, a kindly gentleman in front of me responded by sh!tting into his plastic beer glas and lobbing that over. I'm mega-excitied that it's live on TV over here. Normally I would go down the pub to watch it hoping for a bit of banter with the opposing fans, but I can't imagine that Immigration Canada will have let anyone with webbed feet into the country.

I agree. Much as I love him, I would also put him behind Gallacher and even Tony Field, who did after all step up to the big time. While it seems inevitable he will win for a host of good emotional reasons, I struggle to think of him as a truly great player. He was never a 20+ goal a season player, 10-15 was his average. In our two promotions while he was at the club, he was not the lead goalscorer in either campaign (Crawford and Speedie take the honours), and he didn't do a fat lot in the Full Members Cup Final. Sorry to diss the great man, he is a hero of mine and without doubt our #1 cult player, but a great player he was not.

Rome wasn't built in a day. This team is now unrecgnisable from the shambles of the latter Souness era when it comes to defence, effort, tackling and so on. I enjoyed watching the game - they are the best team ever to come to Ewood and we gave them a good fright. I really liked Nelson, no way should he be dropped after that. I also liked Mokeona in front of the back four, I thought his first time passing was excellent. Savage was at the heart of everything we did going forwards, MGP is looking better and better. Dickov is, well Dickov. There are still some weaknesses Hughes has to address, most notably up front, Emerton and the fullbacks, but I really feel optimistic about the future. One last word to stir the nest - when will everyone stop living in the past about Brad. Maybe it's just on the televised games, but I thought he was yet again crap tonight. The goal was very soft, he didn't come out for anything (vs Cech's fine catch near the 'D' right at the end), he was too slow off his line in the 2nd half to a punt from Cech that could easily have been goal no 2, and so on. How many games has he earned us points this season with an above and beyond performance? Man U back in early Sept. I don't know how good Enks is, but I think Brad is playing like a bottom 5 goalie.

Ferguson hasn't made a big impression in the televised games since he came - maybe he was better when I didn't see him. This may sound a bit odd, but I wouldn't mind seeing what a midfield of Savage and Tugay can do. Our utter hopelesness at creating chances means for me that we really need Tugay to do what he does well, and someone else to cover for what he does badly, which I don't think we have ever really had.

What a load of sanctimonious twaddle about Diouf in this thread. I wasn't too happy to see it either; but many of the "Outraged of Eanam's" spouting off will have cast their votes in the no 11 slot of our all-time team for another proven penalty-winning diver - his swallow-dive at the Hawthorns 2 years ago was just as bad. Plus, am I alone in being unimpressed with several aspects of our play in the penalty incident? - Matteo being hopelessly left for dead - Friedal either being too slow to come out or starting from too far back - Friedal palming the ball back where it came from - not bad luck, bad goalkeeping - No-one following up the penalty Would any of those have stopped the goal? Who knows- but we certainly made it easy for him.

Lee Carsley Damian Johnson (or did he go beofre Souness arrived?)

Best summary of Dickov I've seen to date. Though to be fair I would add that, on a sample of two, he takes a good penalty. Yesterday was only his second goal from open play in the last 14 games, and the one before that was a completely mis-timed header, so I'm not sure I buy the "irreplaceable" tag given to him by other posters. I still think that if he's still our #1 choice going into the spring, it's touch and go if we stay up.

I wasn't there today and didn't see the goals, but would be interested to hear the views of those who did. 2 shots - 2 goals, one of which being a 30 yard free kick, sounds a lot like the Brad of last season rather than the season before.

Look at the number of goals where he made no viable effort to close down the shooter. Most premiership goalies would have saved both the Liverpool goals as an example. Having said that, I don't think he is as bad as he was last season when he was stood staring at all those free kicks go in. Anyhoo, I don't think we're going to agree on this. Though I'd be interested to see what Opta has to say about him. But back to the thrust of the thread, I do find the notion that Arsenal are going to stump up squillions for a 30 goals against keeper somewhat ludicrous.

Twaddle. Two years ago Friedel was simply sensational and did more or less everything faultlessly. Now, there's no doubt he's slipped a little from those heights since, but you make out he's completely passed it and useless. He's still easily one of the best keepers in the league, he regularly keeps us in games with world class saves (Fulham and Palace both come to mind recently), and rarely makes a mistake. Yet every mistake he does make, you leap on like a scalded cat and seem to take great delight in announcing to everyone how you thought he was rubbish all along. You frequently accuse Jim of having a vendetta against Souness, what's your vendetta against Friedel all about? He's our best player ffs! Have to side with my American buddy. Fact is Brad had one great season. Before that he was stuck in Liverpool reserves - presumably for a reason - and since then he has been as much a liability as an asset, especially now everyone else seems to have figured out his weaknesses. I get to see 4 EPL games a week thanks to R. Murdoch, and I would definitely put Brad in the bottom third of Prem keepers based on the last season and a half.

No quality up front. It's true what Lawrenson and March have been saying. Despite all our possession, Spuds out-shot us 5-1 in the first half, and 4 of those were created by the forwards for themselves. Dickov, for all his good points, just doesn't have the quality to worry defenders. Annoy them, yes, but he's not going to make something out of nothing. The other disappointment for me is Ferguson. In fact, I don't get him. Lots of poster come on here saying how good he is, but I just don't see it. And his just looking at the ball that was his that led to the goal was absolutely criminal. I really think we'll be lucky to stay up unless Hughes is able to buy another Andy Cole in Jan - i.e. a proven striker

He came to us from Wolves where he spent most of his career - including a European final - and I have no doubt he would walk into their all-time team. Jim Smith signed him for next to nothing as Wolves clearly thought he was shot, but that proved to be far from true. He alone kept us from dropping back down to the third in our first season up. He could dribble at least as well as Duffer, but he wasn't really a get to the bye-line and cross it kind of winger. More often than not he would release John Bailey to do that. His forte was to get the ball on the left wing just inside his own half. Then, seemingly without even looking, he would unleash a 60-70 yard crossfield pass over their left back which had so much backspin on it that it would almost stop dead for the onrushing Kevin Hird to latch onto. His god-like status at the time was cemented by his opening goal in the historic 3-2 Boxing Day victory at the Turd. The arrival of Jim Iley as manager spelt the end, both for Waggy and for Iley, when he sold him to Blackpool and replaced him with the European cup winning but usless John Aston. After Iley was sacked, the caretaker manager John Pickering brought Waggy back, but as 92-er reported earlier, Waggy was injured after 2 games and never appeared again. Only Speedie has achieved a similar level of fan favouritism in such a short period with the club. But despite all that, I will be going with the herd and voting for Duffer, although I have to say that I think some of the portrails of him in this thread suffer from the usual Short Term Memory Syndrome. The world class tag only applied to the latter days of his Ewood stay. In the several seasons before Souness arrived, Duffer was more often than not an enigmatic, slightly overweight, hunch-shouldered, rather folorn figure out on the left touchline, who would mostly just play the ball back to Stig. He was completely ineffectual in our relegation team and the first season in Div 1. Where was the Dickov-like stampede for his services when we went down? I think Souness's greatest achievement as a manager of players was the reinvention of Duffer. Another factor which slightly taints the Irish wizard for me was his national and global exposure as a diver i.e. a cheat. The penalty he won for Ireland in the World Cup was clearly a dive; but for me the worst one was at the Hawthorns in West Brom's first season up. They were a crap team, but he still felt he needed to dive, and was clearly exposed on TV as doing so. Also his trademark cutting across the defender after coming inside, which won him many free kicks, was usually a tumble at the slightest of contacts. But hey, he was our diver, so that's OK. Please spare me the torrent of abuse for not slavishly worshipping young Damien - I'm still voting for him as the best left winger - but I think he is a tier below the true greats like Shearer, Crompton etc.

If you are disappointed that a 5' 6" tall player aint winning at least 20% in the air against big 6' 2" centre backs, then I put a serious questionmark to your footballing knowledge! Are you serious? Should we lower our demands just because we have crappy players? Should we be happy just because he's trying hard and say: - Oh, he missed again, but that's okey, at least little Paul is working hard. This is not some school boy club. This is Premier League!! Strikers are there to win headers and score goals. Dickov is not doing that. He's simply not good enough. How hard is that to understand? I would be happy with him if we were in a lower division, but this is Premier League where 5'6'' players aren't players you build your team around. But he is scoring goals! Sod the headers! Goals are what matter at the end of the day. Not headers. You would be far from happy if we signed Peter Crouch. Seems obvious to me that in this argument both viewpoints are right. 5 goals by the end of Nov from a $150k buy is excellent. He runs around like a butchers dog not letting defenders get composed on the ball, and I have been very impressed with some of his assists: the step over for Matt, the reverse pass to Emo foy Jay's goal. And his goal against Manure - brilliant. However, there have to be some reasons he only cost that much, and they are plain to see. Lack of bulk and height is the reason he is always going down complaining rather than shrugging players off - he should have held off the Brum challenge and put in Gally's goal himself; way too many hopeless shots into defenders from hopeless positions; and an unreliable finishers technique: 2 pathetic one on ones, the "header" against Norwich even though it went in, the should-have-been-winner at City, and so on. So I am glad he's here, we'd be in worse shape without him; but I also agree with the concerns about him leading the line. If he's our #1 striker, we're never going to get out of the bottom 1/3rd of the table.

If I can second that from the point of view of the Old Giffers. If we had had Egil when we were bottom of the 3rd, there would have been a stand named after him. In fact I don't even think Egil was the worst forward we had in the team when he was here. To me it's no contest that O'Mara was the worst. He came with a bit of a reputation from Brentford for the (then) not inconsiderable sum of $30,000, so we had Davies/Grabbi level of expectations at the time. He turned out to be quite simply the least talented footballer ever to get paid for it. He wasn't good at anything: couldn't shoot, head, trap, dribble or pass a ball. The biggest cheer of the afternoon came when he was substituted. Quite simply, he was our worst player in when we were at our worst ever position. He also made Amoruso look graceful and svelte. It was incomprehensible that the manager who signed him (Furphy) was the same guy who signed Sir Roger and Tony Field. But then a close runner up to O'Mara would be Barry Endean, who Furphy again scandalously swapped for the incomaparble Eamonn Rogers.

I'm obviously working to a different interpretation of "greatest" than many people on this board. I totaly buy the Clayton thing, but without a doubt, the most gifted midfielder to grace our club in modern times has to be Ozzie Ardilles. However, having only played a handful of games probably rules him out in most people's minds. Of the players who stayed a season or more, the criteria I am using is as follows: if we had them all on our books today and they were all at their peak, then who would get into the team? For me, it would have to be Howard Kendall, even though we were in the 3rd when he played for us. A member of one of the best midfields in living memory at Everton, and far more cultured and classy than Sherwood ever was. A little past his best when with us maybe. I think we won the league primarily because we had a near infallible system to get the ball to Shearer in the box. Sherwood's role was to get it and give it to Rippers or Jase the Ace - and he was very good at it - but I do not fell that he was therefore a great player. Either way, I find it incredulous that some posters are of the view that, when we get to the strikers, Garner is a shoe-in alongside Shearer. Cult hero - definitely; favourite player - maybe; but best striker - not even in my top 10.

I also think that if this vote is going to pick two centre backs, then we should have had two votes. Personally I voted for Mike England, and if I'd had a second vote I would have broken MacNamee's duck. Not that he was remotely close to being the best; but because, but for him, we would have gone down to the 4th and maybe never come back. Pivotal in his time.

I would agree with that, though I would give Flitcroft some credit for getting in the box and on the end of chances twice, even if he isn't much of a finisher. Overall there just isn't enough quality in that team to bother most other teams in the division.

and you call me predictable Which attitude of Souness' cup teams - the one which made him the most successful manager in English cup competitions bar Fergie Wenger and Houllier in his time at Ewood ??! All I'm saying is that Hughes - in the circumstances - should have taken more time to learn about fringe players in training and in reserve games, rather than spending 5 days with them and dropping them into a cup game he claimed he was treating as important it's not bloody rocket science, and it's not like we have a game on Saturday to worry about. The team which beat Portsmouth would have had an extra 2 days to rest before Charlton and as for "you couldn't bloody wait to post that" comment, well Scott you're clearly an abysmal judge of people as well as football. For once I agree with you Tris - a very reasonable post. My only slight quibble is that the players who played tonight were not callow youths; they all had Prem experience, and are no doubt telling the new regime that they ought to be in the team. So it's not unreasonable for Hughes to think that on an individual basis they should be up to beating Bournmouth. But 9 changes is too many. Also agree with you on Souness's record in this competition - I used to dream of seeing Rovers do well in a cup, so to win one and push Manure in a semi should be good enough for anyone.

Whenever I come back to Blackburn, I am always struck by how there is an underlying level of racism in normal people that is considered to be perfectly acceptable; and many of the posts on this thread just reinforce that impression. I live near and work in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world - Toronto - where nearly half of the population are visible minorities, and you will see that diversity reflected in both the players and the crowds for Baseball and Football. Even in hockey, where there are hardly any non-white players at any of the teams, the crowd at the Toronto Maple Leafs is surprisingly diverse. I think the big difference is that multi-culturalism is accepted and largely embraced here, whereas as Blackburn is clearly two seperate towns within one. Asians feel no more comfortable going to Ewood than whites do getting their shopping on Whalley Range. It's also a bit of an unfortunate coincidence now that Cole and Yorke have left, we must have been the only club in the league with 11 white faces in the starting line up last Saturday. Obviously I'm not saying this is club policy, but it's hardly indicative of a progressive, multi-cultural attitude.