Well said.

Abramovich to more than just an extent DMTP, if the rumour that he's put £400 mill into a trust fund to secure Chelsea's future is true. I heard about 500 or 600 mill was Fred's fortune, a couple of years ago. Maybe Jersey Airlines has done amazingly well since! Doesn't the trust terminate after a set amount of years? I'd promise to buy the club if I get really rich, but I already plan to buy Darwen FC and make them a league club again If I get super rich and can get away with owning the two clubs though, I'd invest in the Rovers too of course. I agree we shouldn't get supremely desperate for somebody to come and buy us though. Like has been pointed out, the majority of these takeovers will see early investment peter out, and then we'll be in as good a position at least as the other clubs try to make regular profit, whilst we continue to get trust money...should balance out our smaller fan base. I don't see the sense in Sparky getting frustrated now- the summer was obviously the time to invest in players. We all knew where we needed bolstering, and we've all been proven right. And most of us anticipated the money soon to come in which meant that effectively you might as well pay up to about 30 percent more for a player now than you thought he was worth, because in a year he would cost 50 percent more. Now, everyone's spotted that the money is due in just over 6 months, and they're buying to anticipate, meaning we'll have to do the same.

I know this is a touch off topic, but I just want to clear this up. Middlesborough are NOT a bigger club than us at all, nevermind 'much'. We outstrip them on pretty much every category except for recent average attendance, where they have a small advantage. And ok, they had one good UEFA cup run. Our trophy cabinet outstrips them substantially, as does our recent history, and our attendances used to be better than theirs. We also finished above them last season. Anyway, with that out of the way... Indeed it was, and here's my answer to it. I'm repeating myself a little, but the main problem I perceive with our academy output is our will to blood players. We should be making overtures to lower league clubs to loan some of our more promising players out- we're finally loaning youngsters out to some degree, but I'm sure more could be done. In some cases this would reduce our wage bill very slightly, but far more importantly would give our youth players the competitive experience they need and let us see what they're about. Those that impress will likely earn loan moves to higher clubs, or even a shot in the first team (If we were more willing to try). Now, if nothing else, this should enable us to extract some fees from players that leave our youth setup. As it is, they all seem to vanish into mediocrity or retirement, having never shown any clubs what they can do. Players who have perhaps shown they can be handy in League One or Two (Like Derbyshire already did) are likely to be able to earn deals. It would also be wise to tag sell-on clauses onto these deals when possible. Although in most cases the fees for these kinds of transfers would be quite minimal (if indeed they were anything more than a sell-on), it would be something, and go part way to making the Academy more self-financing- which of course should be the goal of our whole club. Now, to players who do have a chance of pushing for the first team. Frankly, we've been pretty disgraceful to our youth players in this respect in recent years. A few games of Premiership experience gives somebody a market value to lower league clubs. But of course it also gives them a chance to prove themselves (And I don't mean those pitiful 10 minute cameos they get- seasoned pros can't always deal with that so why should kids be able to?)- a chance we are always more than willing to give other players who have often fallen by the wayside. The most notable example this season is of course Sergio Peter. The kid is GOOD. Pedersen is playing god awful. He is supposedly 'injured' (I think I've said some of this stuff previously but hey). Whatever the case he definitely needs either a rest or a kick up the backside, and Peter could allow for both. Especially with our congested december schedule, I feel it's a must. Peter is only going to get dispirited if he keeps being turned down. And as I said before, more games= more resale value. We should also invest in the best youth coach we can reasonably afford.

Yes, but you were saying that the old youth system picked players up later. I'm quite sure that extra years of that training and coaching makes a player better. I certainly wish I'd gotten into football a good few years earlier, think I might have been able to make it at a lowish level, or at least had a better pop. I think players who played more unsupervised football when they were young are inevitably the ones most likely to get scouted, because they look good at an early age. I would agree with the viewpoint that the lack of restrictions helps though. You can get ticked off for the fancy malarchy when you're under a training regime. I would expect that the majority of the point in creating the Academies was to provide the right kind of training. But any kind of training (except for woefully misguiding or demoralising training) ought to improve a player anyway. Practise makes perfect- the more times you kick a ball the better you get at it.

Well it's impossible to find any evidence for that whether it's the case or not. Nobody has a clue whether a player would have been worse if he wasn't raised through the system. Personally though I feel pretty certain that yes, an extra 7 years of football training WILL make them better players. I can't see any evidence it doesn't . But I have a strong personal conviction that training more makes you a better player. If it didn't we wouldn't bother training- it isn't just for fitness, it's for refining your skill. I've certainly found training made me a better player.

The manager fails to play youngsters that are talented enough. That's the real problem. But Den, I don't think that is actually what LDrover is getting at, no. He didn't say anything about the old youth set up. I think his point is (and by think I mean, this is what he said), we spend millions a year on bringing players through the youth system, and over the last few years have seen very little reward for it. I personally feel the main reason is managerial unwillingness to risk a youth player. I remember Duff's first game and wondering why the hell we hadn't played him before. And I remember plenty of Peter games which make me astonished he isn't getting the nod before the severely underperforming and supposedly 'injured' Pedersen.

Like, what is the meaning of life?

I don't see how that'd make it too easy, since most people will just presume Reid is Irish, and think of him as a midfielder. Seems to me just as likely to be a set up for a trick question as the Gray thing. However, I think it must be around the Broomes period on reflection. Because the most obvious answer, if it was quite a bit after Broomes, would just be to say 'later than that', rather than discount him for not being a regular.

I don't think you read what I just put. The question said 'is ENGLISH', it didn't say anything about who they play for. Reid plays for Ireland, but nonetheless, he IS English.

I'm a little confused- how is it not Reid? He's English- your nationality isn't decided by what country you play for, or most of the country wouldn't have a nationality. And he's played at RB for us. Can someone tell me how that's wrong?

Except a) Calm down and don't be so self righteous, and markatkinsbaldpatch reckons you're wrong, and I've an alternative slant on it which so far I don't see a fault with.

Which doesn't really matter. Anyway the question doesn't say 'regular', so Broomes. Or with some fact fiddling, Reid might be 'Irish', but he's obviously English (Born in greater london, only qualifies for Ireland through grandparents, even represented England at junior levels). And he has played at full back for us, right?

£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.