His legs were going? What makes you say that? He was 25 when we sold him so something wrong if he was losing his fitness at that age, especially for someone who always appeared professional and looked after himself. He was so successful for us and Huddersfield because he was the main man and in the team every week. He had 20+ a year for 6 years running and none of it was down to his legs. He'd had 11 goals the season before we sold him. At Middlesbrough and Wednesday he hasn't had the run in the team he had with us, as they have plenty of other options to pick from. That's why he isn't scoring.

I just don't understand why Sheffield Wednesday spent so much money on Rhodes to then leave him sat on their bench. Surely they watched videos of him playing for us and Middlesbrough and knew exactly what they were getting. So why shell out £8 million+ and his wages and then not start him? Fair enough if they were going to play him for 90 minutes every week and set up to his strengths because he'll always score 20+ a season if he's given enough time in the team, but as a squad player expected to come off the bench and compete with Fletcher, Hooper, Joao, Winnall etc. for a place in the team, he seems a very expensive and limited option. For a mid table or bottom half side where he is the main man in the team every week he'll do the business, but at a side that needs to get promotion where he's one of 4-5 quality forwards, I don't get the point in spending what they did when they must have seen his limitations at Rovers and Middlesbrough.

Notice that Leon Clarke scored a couple. I seem to remember him being linked with us a couple of years ago when Bowyer was manager. Sheffield United seem to have assembled a side with little money spent. Clarke's one of those who would have ended up useless if he'd come here yet seems to be doing the business elsewhere. A forward line of Clarke, Ched Evans, Clayton Donaldson and Billy Sharp doesn't look like much yet they've had a strong start to the season and could well be up there.

At the end of the day the current product is abysmal. I believe that is because Rovers have chosen to neglect this particular area of the operation and prefer to churn out a programme as cheaply and quickly as possible with scant regard for the quality of the product. We can debate all day whether the club should move towards a digital future. I believe in a mid=way point whereby a quality programme is produced and sold in paper form as it always has been but a scanned version is available to download and save to your computer if you prefer. I could scan all the programmes so far into the scanner at work in 30 minutes and email it out as an attachment to a mailing list if people want it that way. Its not difficult if there's the will to do it. Every week clubs up and down the country prove that it is perfectly viable to produce a comprehensive, quality matchday programme and charge £3 for it and can make it work. The only reason Rovers don't is because they can't be bothered. Anyone spot a pattern emerging here? That's right, we've only one director, he's got enough on his plate to worry about a programme that he probably never reads, and so it falls between the cracks whilst the show rolls on with the minimum done to produce one. Same applies to the matchday 'entertainment' with the same old music played over and over again at a volume so low I struggle to hear what it actually is. It hardly lends itself to building up an atmosphere pre kick off. Some poor soul not able to do the job has probably had the programme job thrown upon him a few weeks before the season began because they suddenly realised nobody else was around to do it. Shoddy operation. Normally a commercial or communications director would hold such responsibility and employ/delegate the programme job to someone capable with requirements attached as to content and quality. This being the same club that pleads poverty yet treats a potential income stream with such disdain!

Carsley had an impressive stint at Brentford a couple of years ago, but I'm sure he said he didn't want that job permanently so unless things have changed he might not fancy front line management. Most managers at Brentford have done well in recent times. Steady club with low expectations and content fanbase. It will be interesting to see how he goes on at a basket case club who think they are bigger and better than they really are and who will get stuck into the manager and players if results don't pick up quickly.

My point is how/why are budget cuts affecting production of a quality programme when Rochdale etc. are able to do it perfectly well on much lower revenues? Each programme sold must make the club some money, so surely it is in the club's interest to sell more by offering a better product? If our programme is a loss maker then is it the case that all league club programmes are a loss maker? If not then what are they doing differently to us? All it takes is to pay someone who is retired/semi retired with an interest in Rovers/football who can spend the fortnight between games compiling some interesting facts and typing up some interviews, ringing opposition fans for their views etc. Everyone else manages it apart from the lazy club who treat such things as an irritant. The 'reports' on recent games are a joke. I could do better over my lunch break.

Whether to offer an interactive service is another issue. To begin with we need to get our house in order and offer a programme that is worth buying/reading. The current 'effort' is the culmination of years of a couldn't care less attitude whereby even the basic things of matchday such as the programme and entertainment are falling well short of what should be expected. Until there is acceptance at management level that the existing programme and content is frankly an embarrassment for a club of this size then efforts to transfer it to digital format will be a waste. Nobody bar those who collect or have a habit of buying programmes will part with £3 every game to read that rubbish. I understand that these days of internet, twitter etc. that a matchday programme no longer offers the breaking news and inside track on club activity as it might have done 20 years ago but it doesn't excuse a complete lack of effort or imagination. I suspect the individual who has been handed this responsibility isn't really up to the job but like with other things at the club its a make do and mend patch-up job rather than going out and finding someone to do the job who will actually be good at it. I've always seen the matchday programme as an opportunity to showcase the club. It is the one thing away supporters will buy and take home with them to read through and learn about this club. I therefore would like to see a professional effort where supporters of other clubs are impressed with the standards we offer. There are clubs I have visited over the years and I buy their programmes and some are packed from front to back with interesting information contained in a smart, professional design. At least we've moved on from the cartoon days where the programme looked like a 'Match' magazine but the content has dropped instead. Visiting supporters will get arguably the worst value for money product in the league, vastly inferior to those seen at most League Two clubs. As our customer base is multiple times larger than clubs in this league I refuse to accept that it cannot be done if the club want it to. It also irritates me when I see our honours as 1x Premier League title and 2x First Division title. It should be 3x Premier League/First Division.

Lets suppose that out of the 3,000 they produce that 2,500 are sold for £3 each with the other 500ish given out to corporates/players or not sold. The club will make something on a programme sale. It won't cost £3 per unit to produce a programme. I'd be surprised/bemused if a programme cost more than £1.50 to print/assemble although I know very little of the printing industry. Lets suppose the club 'only' makes £1 per programme sale. If they sell 2,500 per game that's £2,500 before any sponsorship receipts. Over a season that's £60,000. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the club to employ someone on £10-15,000 a year to take responsibility to produce a proper programme. One a fortnight shouldn't need a full time employee. I'm sure there are some Rovers fans who would enjoy preparing a programme if they were paid to do it. A wild idea I know but maybe if the programme was actually worth reading and contained interesting things then maybe more people would buy them thereby increasing revenues? I know it got mentioned at a Fans Forum meeting the other year that people weren't happy with the standard of the programme so instead of taking steps to improve it they suggested reducing its size and price. Seems they've managed to reduce the size, but have overlooked a price reduction.

To be honest not to dissimilar business to we were doing under Bowyer. Spending relatively small amounts on young players who would develop and become worth more. Apparently under the terms of their embargo they have been limited to one in-one out with arrivals on a maximum of £4,500 per week. With that sort of restriction on arrivals I think anyone would struggle massively, but for Bolton they arguably now have a weaker squad than the one that won promotion last season, or certainly not significantly stronger. Makes our and Mowbray's resources look like PSG. At least their manager had a formula to grind out the results every week in this league even with meagre resources. I'm not yet convinced that Mowbray possesses such a plan.

Tough one to second guess really. If they'd have continued with the policy of the last few seasons then probably where Birmingham are now, however if they'd have 'rewarded' Mowbray with a bit of money to spend and he'd made some astute signings there's no reason we couldn't be higher. Interesting that the current top 6 contains Ipswich, PNE, Sheffield United and Cardiff. None of whom have spent big. Sheff Utd just come up after a long spell in the 3rd division, Ipswich and Preston have spet very little and have been astute in their business, Cardiff not spent much more. Experience and good management reaping rewards rather than the chaos at other clubs. Meanwhile the big spenders like Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and Villa are struggling to get going.

Birmingham's decision to give Rowett the boot as they were just outside the play-offs last season looking like being the poor decision most thought it would be. Zola nearly took them down and now Redknapp has left them 2nd bottom having spent a fair amount in the window. Be nice to see them and Bolton come down.

It really is woeful. Yesterday they did a 'report' on the last 4 games - MK Dons, Stoke, Rochdale and Scunthorpe - each 'report' amounted to one page, 2/3 of which is covered by a photo, with about 10 lines of a 'report' and the team. No fixtures for U23s so clearly they aren't interested in getting more people to Ewood/Leyland to watch. Worst programme in the Football League bar none.

About time Rovers reduce the price on their programmes to £1.50 or £2 rather than £3. Its one thing churning out rubbish but then having the audacity to charge the same as other clubs who put effort into producing their programmes is something else. If Rovers aren't going to take it seriously then nobody can force them to but they should charge a price that reflects the sub-standard quality. As Rochdale and Scunthorpe have shown recently, it is perfectly viable to produce a good quality programme and charge £3 for it even if the customer base is only 3 or 4 thousand. No excuse for Rovers to produce such rubbish with a customer base of 10,000. Just laziness.

Money and league positions work hand in hand. The reason the likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal have maintained their status at the top of English football has been because they have had more money than most over a long long time. We temporarily overcame that thanks to Jack Walker, Chelsea and City are currently doing it and are therefore among the elite and challenging for glory. Leeds, Forest, Villa are things of the past. Living off past glories whilst occupying 2nd and 3rd division slots. Sheffield Wed have even less to go off as they haven't had any period of success other than a League Cup in the modern era. Prior to Abramovich rocking up Chelsea had won 1 league title in their history and a few FA Cups. Less than we had pre-Walker. Since his arrival they have won it all and have been challenging for trophies every season. They might have been big a long time ago, but had since lost that status. Same for City. Were big in the 60s and 70s, then in the 90s and 00s they weren't big, then the Arabs made them big by pouring billions in. If a billionaire took over Derby/Sunderland tomorrow and spent what the Arabs had spent at City I'm sure they would eventually become big clubs too. Its ultimately all relative. Compare Leeds to other Championship clubs and they are 'big'. But I don't think that makes them 'big' in English football, as take away distant glories and above average fanbases and they are miles behind the true big clubs who will be winning trophies and dominating the game. Forest haven't been in the top 20 clubs since 1999, and even then they were a poor, struggling side. Infact you have to go back to the mid-80s to when they were actually a decent top division side. That isn't a big club when you compare to Liverpool/United/Arsenal. If you go to League Two then I'm sure Luton are a 'big club' relatively speaking. They aren't a big club in English football. Same applies to the 2nd division sides mentioned above.

No, because by my definition the big clubs are the ones who are nearly always in the top 6-7 of the top flight and have been for years and years. Ever presents in the top division, regularly challenging for the league, and European qualification. Leicester aren't bigger than Everton by that criteria, because whilst they had one freak league win and CL qualification it was a 'one off'. Nobody expected it, precisely because Leicester aren't a big club and so nobody thought they could compete with those big clubs. Everton have been mainstays in the Premier League and whilst they haven't won owt for a while have almost always been in the higher positions whilst the clubs I referred to earlier have wallowed in the lower divisions. We had a Premier League win, that doesnt make us bigger than Liverpool because it was unfortunately a one off and our period in that club at the top of the Prem only lasted for a few years and we haven't been near since. Whilst Liverpool haven't won the league in a long time they have maintained their status as a big club. They have been regulars in the Champions League, won it not long since, regulars in the knock out and latter stages, several title challenges, numerous other trophies. Not what they once were but haven't done what pretenders like Leeds/Forest have and been in a 20 year exile from the top division, nor have they done what Villa did and ended up making up the numbers in the top division before eventual relegation. Another lot who reckon they are big off past glories/above average crowds but don't have the results to back it up. I agree that Leeds will always be bigger than Bournemouth, but that doesn't mean Leeds are a big club. We will always be bigger than Rochdale, that doesn't make Rovers a 'big club'. We are bigger than most in League One, Leeds are bigger than most in the Championship, but by the standards of English football they are no longer a 'big club'. That distinction lies with the small number who are the mainstays at the top and who hoover up the best players, most money and most trophies. United, Arsenal, Liverpool have been there for a very long time. Everton have been on the edges of that club, as have Spurs. City and Chelsea have broken into it in the last few years due to massive financial backing which has propelled them into it. Chelsea weren't a big club before Abramovich came along. He's made them one. Maybe one day when his money has gone they'll revert back to what they were. Maybe if Leeds get promoted and survive they will eventually start to break into the big club again and become a member. Put simply I refuse to class anyone outside the Premier League into 'big club' category. You wouldn't be in this league if you were big.

As far as my criteria go they aren't. They are 'bigger' than most in the Championship at the moment, have been big in the past, and could be big in the future. At this moment in time they aren't big. They're in the 2nd tier. Forest haven't even played in the top division this century, now 19 years and counting with several seasons in the third division; Sheff Wed haven't been in the top division since about 2001 some 17 years and counting with several seasons in the third division; Leeds haven't been in the top division since 2004 some 14 years and counting with several seasons in the third division. Meanwhile clubs like Swansea, Brighton, Bournemouth, Watford, Palace, QPR, Fulham, Burnley, Rovers, Blackpool, Bolton, Wigan, Huddersfield and Stoke have done what they haven't been able to do. Ignoring the League Cup which has more recently been won by ourselves, Swansea, Birmingham and Middlesbrough, none of those 3 clubs have won a major trophy in generations. Big clubs compete at the top of the game for trophies, win trophies, play in Europe and are regulars in the top division. Therefore United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton and City. Not really any others at this moment in time. If Leeds go up, stay up, and start challenging those above for honours then they'll be big as they once were.

I agree. The referee let all sorts go unpunished in the first half and then in typical textbook fashion started handing out the yellows once the 60 minute mark was passed. Very inconsistent in his handling of the game. Lewis Travis seems to be excelling in his wing back role where he is encouraged to get forward and put crosses into the box. First half in particular last night he had a lot of joy and they struggled to contain him but then second half seemed to get a grip. In the second half Doyle seemed to come to the fore more and more of our chances came down the left hand side through him rather than on the right through Travis. Second half we had bundles of possession and looked dangerous every time we went forward but just didn't get that chance and most of our attempts ended up off target. Middlesbrough defended quite well. One of the most one sided games I've seen at that level for a long time so extremely frustrating to end up with nothing. They were clinical in putting away 3 of the 4 or 5 chances they had all the match and I don't recall them getting into our box more than 3 or 4 times and I think we only had one save to make.

A pleasure to watch them tonight against a strong Wigan side containing numerous first team and experienced pros. Unfortunate not to beat them in normal time so to go through on penalties was the least they deserved. I like Travis at wing back, Grayson had an excellent game, Platt very good, Nuttall a real presence up front which was the downfall of the U23s last season. To be honest there was no weak link. All in all very impressed. Energy and understanding from back to front from start to finish. I find it odd/bizarre that Mowbray decided to recruit the 3 players he did on deadline day given the displays of those in U23s this season. But that's up to him and he will be judged on results. One or two of this lot won't be hanging around if we keep taking other clubs kids instead though.

What do other clubs do to provide commentary services to people who are blind/partially sighted? Genuine question because I'm almost certain every other Championship/League One club doesn't have their own radio station.

So what if you're both? Where's the benefit for a long term season ticket holder who also joined the club? I'm not trying to be a moaner or argumentative, I'm just puzzled as to how this scheme actually works. I was led to believe that as a season ticket holder if I paid the additional £5 to join the 1875 club then I would have advantages over non-members. This would either be by way of priority on ticket purchases or alternatively discounts on ticket purchases. Looks like I'm getting neither over someone who could ring up this morning and become an 1875 member. Likewise why should someone who hasnt bought a season ticket but has paid £5 or £10 for 1875 membership get the same benefits as someone who has paid for both? So it might appear to be 'plain English' but I'm afraid it is anything but plain sensible or logical. The Ts & Cs of 1875 membership on Rovers' website clearly state that members will be entitled to a discount on home match tickets, and yet I'm not getting a discount over non-members because all season ticket holders are seemingly entitled to £18 tickets. I also have it on good authority that a discount will not apply for members for the home game in the Checkatrade Trophy vs Stoke City (on sale from today apparently, try finding that out on Rovers' website and you deserve a medal if you do!) So there's another one where logic is going out of the window, and another home cup game where my 1875 membership has achieved nothing and I wonder what the use was in buying it.

3,000 seats left empty in the Darwen End. Looking at the online planner they've blocked off E04 in the Riverside (1,000+ seats) along with W01 and W07 in the Jack Walker (1500) Blackburn Upper Tier remains closed (3,000 seats) Therefore capacity currently at around 22,000 maximum. Why does this club have to reduce capacity by more than 25% for this fixture? 'Fortunately' for the organisers demand for tickets in the home end is likely to be at an all time low so they won't have to worry about shutting down vast swathes of Ewood. Would they have got away with this if Rovers were still in the Premier League and likely to sell out the home ends? Looking forward to seeing Ibrox capacity reduced by 10,000 the next time Celtic are there, or Old Trafford down to 55,000 when City go there, or the Emirates down to 45,000 when Spurs go there because those nasty supporters can't be controlled otherwise.

On the Rovers website it says that the £18 adult price applies to 'season ticket holders and 1875 members'. Otherwise it is £22 for 'general admission'. A couple of issues. Firstly, how do we interpret 'season ticket holders and 1875 members'? Does that mean if you are EITHER a season ticket holder OR 1875 member that you qualify for the reduced price? Or does it mean that you have to be BOTH a season ticket holder WITH 1875 membership to qualify? I suspect it is likely to be the first option, but the way they have set it out on the website could actually mean either. If it is indeed the case that you only need to be one of either a season ticket holder or 1875 member then where is the reward/incentive for season ticket holders? It seems to me that someone could go out and buy a 1875 membership without being a season ticket holder and then qualify for the same benefits at the same time as a lifelong season ticket holder who has shelled out £300 every year for his seat. Doesn't really seem right to me that. I think the 1875 scheme should either be only open to season ticket holders or in the case of home cup ties it should mean holders of BOTH get an additional discount.

Why are tickets not on sale for this yet? Just over a week until the fixture takes place, 3 days since it was announced the game would be on the Wednesday, 4 days since the draw was made. I envisage a record low crowd for a Rovers v Dingles game which I suspect is exactly what the 'authorities' want too.

Picked up the first edition of the new Rovers programme on Saturday. The new cover design features an old map of Blackburn and this week had a picture of Danny Graham and Blackburn Cathedral. It seems each edition will feature a different player and 'landmark' of the area on the cover. Got me wondering how on earth they are going to manage to find 24-26 landmarks from Blackburn to have on each programme cover this season. Expect to see Darwen Tower, Town Hall, King George's Hall, Railway Station, after that can't think of many other things they could use.

http://accringtonstanley.co.uk/2017/08/west-brom-date-confirmed/ Looks like we're on the Wednesday, unless Sky get it moved again.