Nuclearsox, Manchester Blue and myself will be there as well - in various states of drunkedness no doubt.

In the same way that I thought Spurs would win their last home game to give their fans something to cheer about after a miserable season I think we'll do the same. Rovers 2 Brum 1. Oh, and for what it's worth I'd play the same team as Blackpool Rover has suggested but I can't see Souness agreeing.

I've read three stories about Blackburn Rovers today in the media. 1) Andy Todd, my player of the season until a month ago, has been told he can leave the club in the summer following a bust-up with Souness. 2) Souness has been arrested and charged following an "altercation" with a relative. He faces a court hearing in July. I assume that if he's found guilty a custodial scentence, although unlikely, isn't out of the question. 3) Souness faces an FA hearing on May 13th following the incident where he asked Graham Poll "I didn't know you were a Spurs fan?". I've no doubt that he'll be found guilty, fined, and banned from the touchline for a series of games. Whatever your opinions of Souness, or whatever opinions you have about the individual stories I've mentioned above, what can't be denied is that none of this is good news for Blackburn Rovers FC.

This site states that The Park opposite Northumberland Park Station may be worth a visit. Anyone know it?

Thanks for the name and location change folks!!

Well, I really can't afford it and I'm going to Chester Races the day before so I'll be totally knackered but, I've just gone and booked my ticket. I must be mad. Looking at the train times the cheapest offers are on the Midland Mainline trains. I'm going to book myself an Apex ticket on the 08:47 from Piccadilly that gets into London at 12:06. Price is £30. Train back is the 19:00 from St Pancras that gets in to Piccadilly at 22:18. I've never been to White Hart Lane before so this will be an experience. Where's everyone meeting before the game?

And you're both wrong. Bolton's Carling Cup Semi Final at home, featuring JJ's last home game before jetting off to Tunisia for 4 weeks - and of course all the other Allardyce heroes - drew a pathetic crowd of 16,302 !! And you think an over the hill Brazilian on wages probably twice the next highest paid player will bring them out to the Reebok week in week out ? Fat Sam can sign who he wants, the interview he gave on SSN today shows what a short term operation he's running - the players he's got don't want to stay (unless basically bribed by huge wage hikes) and he's reduced to producing publicity stunts like Jardel and Rivaldo to keep his club on the map and in the news. We'll see.

Hasn't done them any good this season though, Rovers have been on Sky & PPV many more times than Bolton. Because Sky based their initial schedules on last season's form.

If this goes through it's another fantastic, imaginative signing for Bolton. Whether he turns out to be any good or not, the signing will pay for itself through increased season ticket sales, merchandise sales, and the amount of media interest and publicity it will generate. Expect to see a lot of Bolton on Sky next season - don't expect to see much of us.

Tremendous post Blue Blood - one of the best I've read on here for a while. For what it's worth I don't agree with everything you say, and I think I'm inclined to heap more blame on Souness than you are for this season's woes, but you stated your case superbly.

Oh christ - a Brownie prediction! Get your money on Souness being sacked next season.

I must have missed this post when I first looked on the board today - Philip sums up exactly how I feel. The amount of things that Souness has done wrong this season is incredible. I'm certain we're going down and it's our manager's fault.

Looks like attempts are being made to hold the Leeds board accountable. See Here. Glad that they are trying to punish the real culprits rather than making scapegoats out of the players.

Philip, I enjoy reading your posts on such matters - they are fantastically informative and manage to translate what would otherwise be accountancy mumbo-jumbo into English for me. For that I thank you. But your talking ######## if you think Batty has really killed Leeds. First of all, the Leeds board who created the current mess in the first place, Risdale et al, are the one's who should be held accountable. Secondly, the players have agreed to a deferment. All they said was that they wanted Leeds to explore other options first, something they duely did. None of these other options have especially worsened Leeds' position. Thirdly, you have no idea what Batty's actual opinions on this matter are. You're simply passing judgement on the basis of a few tabloid tittle-tattle rumours. I expect better of you than that. Finally, and this is my main point, why should the players bail Leeds out. Of course players are overpaid, and you can argue that the Leeds players haven't deserved their wages this season considering their current league position, but the players have all signed legally-binding contracts that were agreed by the Leeds board. By making the Leeds players out to be the bad guys in all this you are giving the (old) Leeds board a scapegoat - something they patently don't deserve.

Leeds' next game is Man U away.

Leeds are big club and, as such, they attract a lot of investors. I've no doubt that they will muddle through until the end of the season one way or another. The crunch will come when Leeds' fate is decided at the end of the season. If they go down they're buggered. Administration must surely follow. If they stay up then maybe, just maybe, a rescue package could be put in place to keep them going - at least in the short term.

Hang on a minute Philip. Correct me if I'm wrong here. - Leeds needed £5m or so to survive until the end of the season. - Leeds asked the players for a 35% deferrment. - The players said come back after you've exhausted all other options. - Leeds then raised £1.5m from United for the remaining Ferdinand fee and removed Bridges from their wage bill. - The Leeds players then agreed to a 25% deferrment, allowing Leeds to save the remainder of the £5m. Yet Leeds are still in trouble as their creditors are still not happy. So what difference would it have made if the players had agreed to the 35% deferrment up front? There's something not right here and it seems to me that the players are being used as the scapegoats for further incompetence by the Leeds board.

They aren't and he didn't. In fact Batty, and all the other players have agreed to a 25% pay cut for the rest of the season. I assume you'd be only too happy to take a pay cut then if the company you work for was going down the pan through no fault of your own?

Just read this article . Looks like Gordon Taylor's not happy about it either.

To be fair to Batty (and the other players) I'm not sure I'd be happy about accepting a pay refferal when there was a good chance the players would never see the reffered money again. It's not the players' fault that Leeds are in the mess they are in (at least off the field anyway). What I don't understand about this whole Batty story is why it's been made public. Eddie Gray could have simply not picked Batty for the rest of the games - why drag the whole thing out into the open? I can't see what he's trying to achieve.

I never do pay any attention to him - that's why he won £120 when Ripley scored his first goal for three years and I chose that week to stop betting on him. Now that's funny!

Is it really necessary to turn another interesting, informative thread about football into a free-for-all?

Good link colin, thanks. can anyone explain this extract from The Guardian article: "But when a football club enters administration players, staff, transfer fees and other "football debts" need to be paid before even the Inland Revenue gets its share" I believed the bank, revenue and C&E were always first in line. Why is it different in football. Does anyone know the answer to this? Paul, I read the other day that the Premiership have rules in place stating that if a club goes into administartion all football debts (e.g outstanding transfer fees, players wages etc) must be paid first before anything else. So the answer to your question is that it's because the league rules say so!

The players have agreed to defer their wages - but only after every other fund-raising scheme has been explored. In other words as a last resort. This deferment will allow Leeds to save the £5m they need to pay off their immediate repayments and survive until the summer. Then the whole mess will start again. If Leeds sell anymore players they will almost certainly go down so they are desperately trying to avoid doing that. At the same time, if the players and the PFA think that Leeds haven't done enough to try to sell a player or two then the players may go back on their agreement. Leeds are buggered and it's just a case of when administration will take hold. I suspect they might struggle on until the end of the season only to then get relegated - and that would be that.

Regarding Viduka, hed be a great buy for us but he may be the one player that Leeds don't sell. Because of the wierd hire-purchase scheme that Leeds took out when they bought him, selling him now wouldn't actually bring any extra money into the club - it would go to the insurers who financed the deal! Leeds would obviously save on his wages but that would be about it. Very odd.