£2.023 mill, apparently.

Wow! I really wouldn't have expected those odds! I personally don't see us being relegated, I'm just worried we will fall far short of our potential. We're going to have to strengthen in CM in January- we may as well have done it at the start and we would be in a better position now. Meaning we'd probably end up with a higher overall position and the cash to fund the transfer we're still going to have to make.

Aww, I don't get one

£4m ish?? I shouldn't think so! Okkas is 29 with just over 6 months on his contract, and Gomaa is 31 and from a crap league. I'd be absolutely astonished and highly critical if the pair of them cost more than £2 million.

Four poor performances? We hammered Bolton. Did well against United considering how rampant they've been. Warranted a draw against West Ham in my books (And my west ham fan friend's books).

People who don't want video technology absolutely shock me. PARTICULARLY Rovers fans- we seem to be at or near the top of the league in getting screwed by bad decisions. For a very long time now indeed. Seems the majority of football fans in general are in favour of this technology- methinks some sort of campaign or petition is in order.

I'm starting to think that whoever said it was impossible to debate with this guy because he'll pervert everything nonsensically was right. Most of my points have been ignored and I'm simply having words put in my mouth. I never for one second suggested Vinjay go support Villa or Newcastle, nor would I ever suggest such a thing to anybody. What you're forgetting is that the fans ARE a massive portion of the club. No fans, no club. This, and the fact that you claim you're a fan yourself, make your arguments completely paradoxical when you attack the fans. Moreover, you can't just tar all the fan's with the same brush- or any of them with the brush you're using. For one thing, there are undoubtedly some who share your viewpoints. But more to the point, those who don't simply don't deserve your apparent hatred. They have their own views on the matter- they aren't protesting because they don't see a problem. Do you honestly think that if we all felt there was a serious problem, we wouldn't protest? Of course we would. However, as people have pointed out, we're simply aware of the facts. Hughes is a top manager. Might be Ferguson's successor. He's done a stand up job. We've done exceptionally well for ourselves for quite some time now. Recently, teams have continually spent much more than us and done much worse. We are operating within our budget. Williams isn't maliciously withholding funds we secretly have- we make an operating loss almost every year. However, one thing I'll say is it irritates me too when execs give themselves pay rises whilst the company loses money. What shouldn't be ignored though, is that the pay rise in question was also linked with a promotion, and an overall restructuring of the board. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that, overall, the restructuring exercise had cut costs at the club. Edit- If I can add, I for one do NOT see this club as a small club. We're not a massive club, but we are without a doubt a big club.

Er, except that in that case, Berg was FOULED?

Vinjay. I don't know you, or your 'work'. However, you seem to keep getting embroiled in semantics in your latest rant. What's worse, erroneous semantics. You say that you don't like saying 'Rovers', and yet repeatedly say it. Moreso than the other terms you claim to prefer. Also, I don't see where you get off on attacking the terms 'us' and 'our', and replacing it with 'the club'. You seem to enjoy distancing yourself from BRFC in this way, whilst claiming to be thoroughly concerned about OUR plight. We use the terms 'we' and 'our' because we feel part of the club. Not because of some sheep mentality which simply doesn't exist.

Caption 'Sheringham's aggressive sodomy rudely interrupted Poll's 'Hey Macarena' dance'

I agree we're not really putting enough chances up for the forwards, but this seems like a strange argument about Bellamy. He has better service at Pool, yet scores far less goals than he did at Blackburn, so far.

Previously? In all one of his Arsenal appearances and his subdued season with Norwich?

I think the important thing is that we sign Gally onto a new contract. My understanding is that his current one runs out in the summer. I would say that a fully contracted Gally is worth at least a million to a Championship club, even with the smattering of Prem appearances he has made. His record when he was playing there speaks for itself. However, an out of contract Gally would get us very little- simply a tribunal fee I believe. This is completely aside from how likely we think he is to make it at Rovers.

I remember last season, Hughes commenting that Gally was the most technically gifted player at the club or some such. Early in the season I was watching the lads take volleys put over to them before the game, and Gally was by far the most consistent finisher of the bunch. So saying he's not good enough when he's scored 8 goals in 50 games, most of which were substitute appearances, seems a bit foolhardy. He's also never had a proper run in the team, despite earning one on several occasions.

Might not be doing the board any favours per se, but I can't think of a more accurate way to describe them.

I never understood why we let Danns go. He came in for a few games, did alright in my eyes- looked promising. Then stopped playing, and was shipped out. I've always felt that he is going to play in the Premiership again one day, and I can see him being a regular for some team. The fact he's already gone to Brum for 850,000 shows we made a mistake letting him go for only a lil sell on fee. I have to say I agree with RTM on us not recouping as well as we could on the Academy. I feel confident we could make more money from the ones who aren't good enough to make it in the Prem, and that we should always insist on a sell on clause in the region of 50 percent for those we give away for a pittance.

People keep saying that...and yet it doesn't end...

Do you mean we got berated by the press?

He suggests that.

Not the greatest line of reasoning I'm afraid Bucky. Kluivert was good enough for Dutch world cup squads, and flopped at Newcastle. As just one example.

Knocking a couple thousand off the Riverside would entail demolishing half the stand. And probably wouldn't help with anything. It would look worse than it used to, and would save only negligible amounts on lighting. And mean that a lot of fans who enjoy getting the cheap seats there would probably have to either move into more expensive stands or not be able to afford to do so, and therefore bugger off. And of course there's the loss of money on those rare occasions we do top the 28k mark.

Agree with Sparky

I think his point was that that wouldn't be something we would be better off doing at all. It would cost a lot more than just redeveloping one stand, and all just so that we could have a smaller stadium. Which would also leave us with a big problem if our attendances ever did get to a regular 28k or so. I know it seems highly unlikely now that they would, but it would be foolish to presume they won't. Population booms, success of the club, reduced ticket prices, things like that mean it isn't impossible at all. This club's record attendance is over 60k. The only thing that's been suggested of merit must be the Riverside being re-rigged (as that is what would probably be required) to allow cameras so we look less like the nowhere town we're projected as.

I can think of two good reasons. Firstly, various clubs bring far more supporters than the Riverside holds. This gives us money, which we sorely need given that our own fans won't show up in great enough numbers to fill the place. Secondly, the Riverside of course provides the cheap seats, and having such a working class population, we need cheap seats to ensure people can afford to come. What would be nice is if we could do something about those blasted pillars! Although a positive step, sounds like we've saved about enough money to pay one of our high earners for a month each season.

Yes.