Once again we are in agreement AESF.

£2.7 mill for Savage is a criminal waste of money. We always pay too much for players and sell too cheap. (Possible exception of Dunn) Even Duff has proven himself a bargain at £17 mill. Midfield is not our main weakness. What we really need is a fast, skillful striker to feed off Ferguson etc.

Absolutely right. We may actually already have a midfield partner for him with a fully fit Thompson or maybe even Reid who appears to me to have most of the qualities to play central midfield. What we need most of all is a goalscoring striker with the brains to anticipate Ferguson's passes, much like the understanding we had when we had Duff, Jansen and Dunn operating together. If we still have money left then yes it would be nice to have a new midfielder, preferably left footed (or two footed) if MPG is not going to be good enough. Defence seems to have settled down and with Mokoena and Spector to come we appear to be covered there. Let's spend what bit of money we have where we need it most.

Rovers - Ferguson = Relegation. Rovers + Ferguson + Goalscorer with skill = Safety. Straightforward theorums please take note and refer to in May.

There can be no winner in this discussion. It is a fundemental difference of opinion and if you read this thread and the Hartson thread you will find that there is support for both sides. There will however be a loser if this goes ahead and that will be Blackburn Rovers Football Club. Not in terms of the football on the field because these two are probably about the same quality as the ones we already have but in terms of cash because they are no better. I also have a personal problem with the introduction of Hartson. It will probably result in the big lump forward, a tactic I hate, to the detriment of the only class player we have - Ferguson, who will be missed out with the ball flying over his head all the time. I am passionate about Rovers and have been for years. Please let us get out of this mess by playing football and not by thuggery.

I believe that your opinion of what constitutes a proven premiership player leaves a lot to be desired. I am afraid it is your credibility that is in question not mine. Hartson was never any good in the premiership it is only in the little boys league that he is scoring any goals. He is now even fatter and slower than he was before and Dickov, who he presumably is being bought to replace, is a better player than he is. Savage is only good at winding up the opposition and Flitcroft is probably as good a defensive midfielder as he is. The point I am making is why pay good money for players who are no better than we already have. You obviously want change and do not care wether it is an improvement or not. The alternative is that you are a very poor judge of a player. Chaplow and Blake would not be my choice either but my point is that I would rather have them than the crud that you are advocating at least there is a chance that they may improve given a new challenge Hartson and Savage will only get worse as they age even more.

Neither of these would improve the team so why pay money for them? I do not have the advantage that Sparky has of a scouting network so I don't see everyone but I would prefer Chaplow and Blake to these no hopers.

Compared to paying good money for Hartson it starts to look like a bargain and I don't want Savage either.

Similarly we don't have a better striker at present, something backed up by stats as well as what was on display. If and when we buy one fair enough but until then let's get behind the lads especially when they are working their nuts off. It's going to be a battle to stay up so you'll just have to face up to that. You are correct, we don't have a better striker at the moment. They are all poor and we desparately need at least one in January. We can only get draws because we can't score goals! Do you realise that before yesterday we had played for about five hours without scoring! Great strikers we have.

Totally agree with you re Dickov Alan 75 but I do not have a solution with our current players. I do not rate either Stead or Gally, both lightweights with atrocious first touches, both clumsy and both flattered to deceive last season. Bothroyd provides more questions than answers and cannot control his temper so that leaves us with the reserves, who I have not seen and Jansen. Jansen may still make it with a decent partner but we do not have one for him. It is essential then that we sign at least one striker in January. To me this is more necessary than any other position and if it takes all our availible funds then so be it. May I however add one caviat? Please, please not Hartson. We need someone with a brain and the ability to think as quickly as Ferguson in order to take advantage of his intelligent play and not a donkey. Just to touch on another subject. I blamed Freidel for both of Newcastle's goals yesterday. I hope it was just a bad day because we have come to rely on big Brad as Mr Dependable and need him on form desparately.

Bloody spill chuckers pick nothing up do they?

You cannot win games without scoring goals and none of our so called strikers can do that. We badly need a goal scorer then maybe we can look for a defensive midfielder to shore up the defense and to allow our best player (Ferguson) to get forward and create.

Your joking aren't you? Nice sunny morning? Remember this year?

No, England will be drinking the champagne long before then.

So you'd outlaw war as well on that logic . It seems a bit strange that some ( not saying you , mind ) accept the need to for warfare , where "real" innocents die in their thousands , and yet the same people jump up and down when execution of the worst scum in society is advocated . Tony Blair comes to mind , here . At least Bush is consistent ... Already mentioned war earlier Phil. Killing then is necessary but it is rarely in cold blood, more of a kill or be killed. Targets are then terrorists or soldiers who know the risks when they sign up even then I draw the line at cold blooded excecution. The Geneva convention was drawn up to prevent that sort of thing. There is a world of difference between death in a war than putting a person (particularly an innocent one) in a cell and telling him/her what day and what time they are going to be killed. You are well aware of the difference but are unwilling to admit it for fear of losing an argument. Neither of us can win because there is a fundemental difference in morality between us. I do not criticise your morals because you obviously are sincere about them but I will never agree that there is any justice in excecution.

Firstly , the state is never as bad as the criminal IF the latter is given a fair trial . The victim of a murderer is NEVER given a trial by his peers . To confuse the two and brand them the same is simply ridiculous and an insult to real victims of crime . Your second point has more validity . Quite simply , though , such mistakes are bound to happen . Any legal system has to have the strength and cvourage to accept that this will always be the case and to attempt to minimise such cases . A better way of looking it - and a more logical one - is to balance the tragedy of an innocent man hanging , with the far greater number of innocents who die at the hands of those who kill again after being released for a similar crime . This is especially the case with sex offenders who are notorious for re-offending . To put it bluntly , more innocents would live if execution were introduced . Not a nice choice but then again the law has to be dispassionate if it is to work. Tell that to the families of the innocents who have been hung Phil and imagine the torture of being told when you are going to be killed when you have done nothing wrong - barbaric. If life meant life real murderers could not kill again. Murder by society is unnecessary and usually advocated by persons who feel a need for revenge. An unpleasant but not unnatural feeling, however not one that should be supported by the state.

That's your opinion . There are many who believe it can . One question , Al . What would you have done with the war criminals after the Nuremberg trials ? Don't say you'd have left them to rot in a cell without any comforts . By your standards that would surely constitute "cruel and unusual punishment " and deprive them of their human rights and be just as immoral as killing them . What is this thing called morality anyway - other than the weak conscience on the part of those who are unwilling to grasp the truth that society has to protect its own ? Soft measures for criminals are "immoral" if anything . Violent crime (barbarism) is on the increase and its the vulnerable who suffer . Save your morality for them , not the criminals. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I never said anything about leaving people to rot without comfort. They should not have been killed. Killing in cold blood is always barbaric. It makes the state as bad as the criminal. They should have been jailed for life and I mean for life. There are many people who share my views too Phil. What is your opinion of the ones who were murdered by the state and later found to be innocent. Bit difficult to release them and give them compensation isn't it?

Up to now I have written the praises of some of the great players of yesteryear, Eckersley, Newton, Douglas, England and Clayton, some successfully and some not, however in spite of having seen all of the nominees for left winger play, all of them memorable and most of them great, I have never seen one that exited me as much as our Duffer. I say 'our' because I still consider him ours even though he now plays for another team. The man has everything, super first touch, speed, ball control, finishing and a football brain that tells him when to pass and when to go it alone. I am not so steeped in nostalgia to not appreciate a current player and my vote will definately go to Damien. Come on you fellow old timers, you know deep down that in 20 years time he will still be talked about because he is simply the best left winger in living memory. Vote Duff

The taking of a human life by the state can never be justified. It takes society back to medieval times. Don't accuse me of taking the moral high ground. It is just makes sense. Any form of killing in cold blood (as opposed to self defence and in time of war) is barbaric. It is also irreversible in the light of fresh evidence.

That's not a fact! If he was the best of his era, maybe it's because the 19th century equivalents of Maradona, Pele, Zidane, Van Basten and, erm, Sherwood were doing more popular, more lucrative things. ie, back in ye good olde days, the vast majority of people with any natural footballing talent slipped through the net. If you were halfway decent and managed to survive to the ripe old age of 21, you'd stand out among your typhoid-ridden, one-legged team-mates. Today, you've got to be so phenomenally good just to get a chance, and everyone with natural football talent is playing the game at some level. Old Forresty might barely be good enough for Darwen. ergo, olde association soccerball was rubbish. Look at the size of the doorways in old pubs - olde folks were malnourished midgets who would get muscled off the ball by Tugay. It's probably more factual than your blue sky assumptions. What gives you the authority to make such judgements. Can your time machine give me tomorrows racing results?

Yeah, never see 'em in the same room together do you?

Irrelevant. This is a vote for all-time great players. so your voting for someone on other peoples opinions I do not care about being negative. Sherwood was very lucky to be in a team that won the Premiership. He was captain by defealt. Shearer should have been captain and Sherwood was at best an also ran. If we had had a decent midfielder he would have been in the reserves. A real player would have been a regular in the England team. Sherwood was not because he was not good enough. He is just not good enough to be a Rovers great, just an average journeyman. Vote Forrest.

Good luck as long as it is separate areas for standing. Standing in seated areas can never work.

Everyone has the right to withdraw their support and I would have done had I not already paid for my season ticket. I therefore now am committed to a cooling off period after which I will have to make a decision between Rovers and Stanley. My first reaction is to support Stanley until Hughes is replaced. The sacking of Parkes is disgraceful and is apparently down to Hughes.

It's a shame Duff won't get in because of Dave Wagstaffe or Mike Harrison. Both were better than him. Sorry Jim but this is where we have to disagree. Duff is the best left winger I have ever seen, including Scott Sellars and Mike Harrison. Recent but the best. Let's be fair it is not always the older ones who are the best, don't be drawn into the points scoring experienced v newbies syndrome.