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.

Surely, a white piece of cloth?

The only thing that still concerns me is: why didn't the match referee do anything about it at the time? Is it permissable within the context of the match to racially abuse players? Is it something that only gets punished retrospectively?

Without evidence? You obviously don't know much about what happened. The referee reported it too. I don't actually know what you're talking about, but you're actually complaining about some random foul right? Pretty sure some of our fouls got ignored too. And frankly, we get screwed by refs on fouls all the time. As for that other guy who said our players are girls- do you care to explain what is girly about combatting racism? Some of the bravest people who ever lived were brave precisely for doing that.

Completely contradicting views on the style of game we can expect from you two. Have either of you watched Nancy this season?

This is pretty ridiculous. Our opponents play in red and blue stripes, so we're not going to wear our blue and white home kit, but our almost purely red away kit?! What's wrong with Basel's own away kit? Doesn't that come into play first?

Because Benni was racially abused. It's nothing to do with him that a section of our fans sing that rubbish. The only argument that could be put forward is that the section of our fans doing it ought to be punished too- which I would agree with. It's like saying we shouldn't punish a murderer, because there are other murderers who don't get punished. Glad to hear the guy has a 5 match ban, I doubt very much that Benni was making it up.

I reckon you'd be happier with a win and losing 20 quid than drawing, getting a mere point, and the lowest cash return (I'm assuming the odds for a draw aren't as good as for a WH win). So a draw it shall be.

That's the final team? Assuming it is. I don't understand for the life of me why Pedersen hasn't been dropped to the bench at the least for Peter. I take it that it's Bentley in the centre and Neill on the right wing. Would seem more sensible to switch Neill and Emo, if not for the fact I'm scared witless of it spoiling Emo's form. Good to see McEveley back, I'd heard he was injured.

Conversely, if you don't want to hear discussions about it, don't read them

You make some valid points Phil. Although I think you've perhaps taken the wrong line in terms of the solution and cause. I don't blame liberalism alone- the poor (largely blacks) weren't exactly aided by the conservative agenda of flooding the ghettos with crack cocaine. In fact they were starting to become very disciplined, spiritually rich people in many ways before that. However, they have certainly been betrayed by politicians- of all kinds though, not simply liberals. Although I agree that national service would be a great way of disciplining the youth in this country, I'd have great objections to them having to go to war for any purpose other than strict self defence of this country. Not the 'pre-emptive' defence of raping another country and killing hundreds of thousands.

I'm the moron but you're the one not using your brain? Hmmm Sorry Pleasure but I've got no faith in your 'inside info' anymore. If you were right about MGP, I consider it coincidental.