After two results where reality was better than we could have dreamt of (shades of 94/5?), here is a game which we can and should win.

Just a matter of the Rovers wanting it as much as the Bhoys.

I fully expected us to beat Newcastle comfortably but the Arsenal result was of course a complete bonus on the balance of play. Neither of those games will have too much bearing on the Celtic tie.

If we rise to rather than be intimidated by, the occasion I expect us to prove superior in every area of the pitch.

A 2-1 victory both legs.

The main imponderable will be how we handle the atmosphere in the first leg.

In pure footballing terms we should win both legs IMO.

Season ticket holders should ALWAYS have priority over non ST holders.

Otherwise there's hardly any point in purchasing one.

The problem with having too many people on the phone is that hardly anyone who had been queueing for hours would have been able to get a ticket.

Many in the queue were of the view the Club shouldn't be accepting telephone applications at all.

Rovers held all the aces in the fact we were in a position to offer such a massive allocation for the second leg!

How would tickets have ended up in Celtic hands if sales were restricted to people on the database?

We all know there will be a certain amount of infiltration anyway through tickets being sold on, though I doubt this will be anything like the level for the City game as it's a massive game for Rovers fans.

Can anybody explain to me in simple terms why Celtic would feel the need to give us anymore than the minimum 5%allocation.

Because Celtic were reliant on our co-operation in giving them more than the minimum 5% for the second leg.

Celtic fans on the official club mb say that the Scottish papers had quoted Rovers being offered an allocation of between 6,000-2,800.

Quote taken from Celtic fan on mb........

''Admin the fact is Blackburn could have had 6000 seats for Celtic had they had faith in thier own fans, but too worried about footing the bill for unsold tickets they took the easy option and plumped for 2800.

The reason there was no offer between 2800 and 6000 is because away fans have to be in policable sections not just pockets, seems to me Blackburn could have sold at the very least 6000 pity they have such short-sighted suits in the boardroom

ENOUGH SAID!!??

Tom Finn has just been on Radio Lancs claiming that Rovers were never offered the so called 'Rangers allocation' ie 7500. He also stated that initially Celtic did not even want to give Rovers the minimum 5%! Apparently when Rovers asked if there was a possability of more than 3,000, Celtic claimed they had already sold a number of the 'Rangers allocation' to their own fans, so it was never a possability that Rovers would be offered any more. Finally he stated that the club was going to review it's ticketing policy for future 'big away games' and hoped to introduce a scheme whereby loyal away fans were rewarded. Unfortunatly, in this case, it looks as if 'the stable door has been shut after the horse has bolted!'

I could accept that explanation were it not for the fact that  the Club stated their belief the 2,800 allocation would be more than sufficient when the ticket details were made Public.

We know about Jordan so far, anyone else?

After much progress in recent years I find it very dispiriting how far out of touch the Club have been with the mood of the fans in relation to this tie.

Never better typified by the assertion that the 2800 allocation requested would prove to be sufficient given the tie was on TV etc.

Behind me in the queue was an employee of the Club who works at the ground on matchdays in Jack Walker lower. Not sure if he's a steward or matchday sales.

He told me and several others in the queue that Rovers were offered either 7,200 or 3,200 tickets (including 400 for players and directors). It was either one or the other due to segregation, no inbetween. He said we refused the 7,200 because we didn't want to take the risk of not selling them.

Saw John Newsome outside the ground who again reiterated the official line that we were only ever offered 5%.

Got mine, I got down about 4.35 AM and was about 55th in the queue.

The stewards said there were 310 there by 6.30 and I would say there would have been 8-900 there by 9AM.

Bearing in mind most people were getting 2,3,or 4 tickets for others I would say the merde will hit the fan a little later when many of the people there can't get a ticket.

Out of interest, has anyone been able to get through on the phone.

Got mine, I got down about 4.35 AM and was about 55th in the queue.

The stewards said there were 310 there by 6.30 and I would say there would have been 8-900 there by 9AM.

Bearing in mind most people were getting 2,3,or 4 tickets for others I would say the merde will hit the fan a little later when many of the people there can't get a ticket.

Hi Tris, just chewing the fat until I go to queue for celtic tickets at 4 am.

We've covered point 1) umpteen times before but if you took it to it's logical conclusion we'd still have the same 6 or 7,000 fans who watched us in the 70's.

It's human nature, a lot of people will naturally want to see the bigger games. I see no reason to exclude them for that.

We have 16,000 season ticket holders and they're hardly "part timers" are they?

The "intelligence" is simply the comment emanating from the Scottish press and numerous Celtic Fans who posted on the official message board. Not exactly gospel but the Rovers fans I overheard going into the ground believed that was the case and if that is the perceived wisdom generally the Club will inevitably receive flak.  

Personally I feel it is stretching the bounds of credulity to maintain we couldn't negotiate twice our minimum allocation for Parkhead in exchange for giving them five times the minimum allocation for Ewood.

If we don't sell out the away leg and/or the vast majority are happy I'll be the first hold my hands up and say the Club got it right.

Reading Ewood Spark's post is making me feel guilty for not driving to Ewood from London and joining in the queue.  I'm relying on BT to get me through to the TO in the morning.

But I still feel the point has to be made again, especially in reply to Rev's point here

(quote)

The comment I heard going into the ground from a couple of people yesterday was that Rovers have **** on the fans with the allocation for the away leg.

I still think this will be a PR disaster for the Club and would be surprised if there are any tickets left by lunchtime tomorrow.

(unquote)

How can it be a PR disaster when there's no way Celtic would release any more tickets for their leg ?  I'll tell you what would be a PR disaster - giving them 1,500 for Ewood and getting loads of empty seats on the night and 000's of mad Scotsmen locked out.  (Which will prob happen anyway but at least Rovers have done the best they can).

I'll repeat the comparison (hopefully for the last time) ... had the draw been Paris St Germain, if we'd have got 2,800 seats no-one would have whimpered.  Because Celtic's accessible, because it's easy, people want tickets to see Rovers in Europe away.  Why should the ticket rules be changed just because it's the closest club we could have drawn ?

Because in comparative terms no-one is interested in watching us play PSG whereas the world and his dog wants to watch us play Celtic.

It's like drawing a comparison between playing Wimbledon and ManUre. Only this game has far more appeal because whilst we should enjoy several European campaigns with the current squad we may never draw Celtic again in Europe whereas we play ManUre twice a season.

You've heard of the compulsive gambler who would bet on the proverbial two flies crawling up the wall. For many on this board watching Rovers play anywhere is just as addictive but for the greater majority it just isn't like that.

Most of the intelligence emanating from Glasgow is to the effect that we could have had 6,000 tickets but that Rovers didn't take it up because they didn't want to pay for any unsold allocation.

I can only repeat what I heard which was that the people I overheard going into the ground were of the firm view that the latter was the case which was why presumably they were miffed off.

Even if we were offered only the minimum allocation the way the Club have sorted allocation criteria means many regular away travellers will miss out in favour of season ticket holders who haven't been away for years who just fancy this one.

Which is why I think the Club will get a lot of flak over the away leg.

The home leg arrangements I take no major issue with but still think it would have been better to at least TRY to sell more of the ground out to Blackburn folk.

The comment I heard going into the ground from a couple of people yesterday was that Rovers have **** on the fans with the allocation for the away leg.

I still think this will be a PR disaster for the Club and would be surprised if there are any tickets left by lunchtime tomorrow.

Waggy, we sold out OT quite quickly for last season's game as I recall.

Nobody seems to be stating a time for queing for tickets why is this?

04:00 hrs how's that for a start ?

Everyone wants to con everyone else into thinking they're going at five to nine.  

It was 500 tickets in a tiny stadium where the regular crowd is 5,000.  

That at least is a very reasonable 10% of capacity which I'm sure the Chelsea Board fought very hard for!!  

P.S. See you at Highbury.

What SHOULD have happened.

Celtic: "You're getting the mandatory 5%, we want the Darwen End."

Rovers: "We will need 5-6000 tickets for the first leg. If we're only getting 5% you get 5% ie 1500 for Ewood."

Celtic: "1500 for Ewood is no good for us, tell you what if you give us the Darwen End we'll give you 3k with an option for another 3k."

Everyone happy.

Instead Celtic have given us NOTHING for the first leg, only what they HAD to give us and we've given them FIVE TIMES what we had to for the second.

Rovers have misjudged the first leg arrangements extremely badly.

Simon ... why the 'eck should Rovers shoot themselves in the foot by only selling 25,000 tickets when they can benefit from this draw and sell 30,000 plus ?

No-one's misjudged anything - how the hell can John Williams go into a meeting with his Celtic counterparts and argue we need more than 2,800 tickets there ?  They'd say ha ha Mr Williams, you took 1,400 to Manchester, 800 to West Brom ... and you want us to alienate our own fans by going beyond the UEFA stipulation in order to allow your fair-weather brigade a ticket to Glasgow ...

Their fans would be up in arms as we are now - as it is everyone's within the rules, Rovers are ensuring revenue is maximised (the opposite was true agsinst CSKA), and most importantly every measure is in place to stop Celtic fans watching from the JW and CIS.  Again I say it, the fury and indignation from home fans surrounded by invaders goes far beyond the annoyance at a perceived shortage of tickets.

Hi Tris,

Not living in Blackburn I think you're misjudging the level of interest in this tie as it seems have the Rovers Board.

No-one would suggest restricting away sales for the second leg to a level that wouldn't ensure a capacity crowd.

It's just that by offering them five times what we were obliged to do for the second leg should have put us in a position to ensure a sufficient away allocation for the first leg.

I predict many unhappy campers on here by Monday night, many of them regular fans.

Without wanting to be abusive towards individuals you make many good points Magnificent 17.

As far as the database is concerned it was mentioned at one of the Fans Forums that there are 50 - 60,000 names on there.

A large proportion won't be able to attend every game certainly but the potential is there to sell out the ground from the database alone for big games.

What SHOULD have happened.

Celtic: "You're getting the mandatory 5%, we want the Darwen End."

Rovers: "We will need 5-6000 tickets for the first leg. If we're only getting 5% you get 5% ie 1500 for Ewood."

Celtic: "1500 for Ewood is no good for us, tell you what if you give us the Darwen End we'll give you 3k with an option for another 3k."

Everyone happy.

Instead Celtic have given us NOTHING for the first leg, only what they HAD to give us and we've given them FIVE TIMES what we had to for the second.

Rovers have misjudged the first leg arrangements extremely badly.

OOPS Sorry, disregard points 1 and 2 it's seven days before first leg, 21  days before second.

After all the guff in recent seasons though about giving up the entire Darwen End for segregation purposes I trust there's no question of Celtic having an additional option.

Season ticket holders who go to AWAY games! There's about 500 who go to all games!

And you all couldn't be further from the truth about the 'phone calls' between Rovers and Celtic  

Lee if you're still on the board what is the procedure for the home leg?

Tickets do not go on sale until just seven days before the game apparently.

1) Is there any priority for season ticket holders?

2) Do they then go on open sale to Rovers Fans.

3) Are the rumours about Celtic having  an extra option in addition to the Darwen End true?

Well that was a hard week to ten days of negotiation then.

"We're giving you the minimum 5%. Now bugger off."

"Sounds great to us. Would you like over 25% of our ground?"

Agree with everything Paul says.

The Club have allowed themselves to be stitched up big time by Celtic.

IF Celtic were being awkward and only offering the minimum 5% then we should have offered them the same amount.  

And unless my maths has gone to cock 2,800 is most definitely not 5% of 60,000 anyway.

Yet again a lazy short term "let's maximise income on the night" outlook from the Club. If we want to expand the fan base for the long term you have to give Blackburn people the opportunity to see the big games. Unfortunately these are the ones people want to see, not Southampton and Charlton.

Being there to see Rovers beat Celtic would be worth fifty "hearts and minds campaigns"

As someone else said we have to TRY and start selling to Rovers fans for big games. Otherwise if we just automatically assume we won't the fan base will never grow much beyond it's current level.

As far as criteria are concerned there should also have been something to reward the regular traveller. A person who hasn't been away for 20 years now has as much chance as the person who hardly ever misses an away match.