Details of the Liverpool take over. So another bunch of Americans march in and dump the interest burden of the debt on the club and wrack up a half billion balance sheet debt over time. The difference is, the Liverpool purchasers have backed the borrowings with personal guarrantees and are no where near so shaky as the Glazers. The interest Liverpool are paying is a relative paltry £21m a year. I still do not see how Arsenal, Liverpool and Man U are going to get UEFA licenses when the indebtedness rules come in two years from now. Obviously, UEFA are going to have to drop that idea and Michel Platinin will be very accommodating.

Read Foxx's link above and wince- he bust his scar against Citeh

Sorry for being silly enough to back the Mokoena extension. PS I did despair of the Axe in one or two games but the lad is now very solid. Well done Aaron for coming good.

The RSA report is very sensible on the subject of drugs. End this stupid prohibition now!

Strange how this has all gone quiet- not. Big Sam has the Daily Mail on his tail.

Big Sam lines himself up. Sam is right on every count here. Hopefully, England will lose in Tel Aviv and we will be rid of the dreadful McLaren sooner rather than later.

Well thankfully we don't have to watch many English players in the Premiership. Even by the standards of a poor manager, that was rank bad from England.

Is that the visual equivalent of the drummers' drumming (in quality of content and impact)?

What is the confusion? Its a squad game- every top Prem team has 5 international or near international CBs on its books. Rovers have just sent two youngsters out on loan, parted with Matteo (and McEveley and Neill who can play CB at a push) and have Ooijer out for the season. Our centre back list now is Nelsen, Samba, Henchoz, Zura and Todd. Ipso facto Todd stays. If Ooijer were fit, Rovers would probably have taken the dosh.

Things getting a bit hysterical here. Lucas did a damned good job for us whilst a Rover and built us a following down under. Was absolutely straight with the club about his contract and has gone where the money is. We were all happy about players coming to take Jack's wadge in the early '90s before we became a major footballing power so we have no grounds for complaint. We should just be happy that we not only got about three times as much for him in transfer fee than I would have forecast us getting, we have also got a replacement who on first appearances makes us a stronger better balanced team all round. It was also reassuring to see Liverpool get their transfer tactics all wrong and not for the first time either. If Rovers had handled the transfer market as badly as Liverpool have in recent seasons, the highlight of our season would be the derby with Accy Stanley. Sickeningly, the Bellamy deal was just about the only thing they got spectacularly right in the market and that was more by mishap (Cisse breaking his leg) than planning.

Agreed and also echo John's comments. It is not the complete deal until we see whether Warnock is capable of full concentration and awareness throughout the season in the way that Neill was not. Based on yesterday's showing, if Warnock keeps that up (and Chelsea will be a massive test compared with playing Luton reserves) and doesn't cause five or so silly goals to be conceded in the next twelve months we have got the better of the deal. When you add that he doesn't look as cynical as Neill always did so the card count should drop and that he is three years younger, then Warnock for Neill could be a massively good piece of business.

Man U's financial results. Profit after tax tripled to £32m but operating profits scarcely budged so the Glazers had spotted some tax efficient wheeze the old board was not using. That said, the £12m profit on the Obi settlement has saved a lot of red faces at the Mancs. The refinancing upped debt from £580m to £660m and cut interest costs from £92m to £60m per year. Most of last year's interest bill has effectively been rolled up into increased borrowings. No doubt the lending structure is now optimised for the next few years as opposed to being structured to be sure of securing control. However, 9% average interest says the lenders still see this as a more than averagely risky deal.

Not a good sign. There would have been doubts about Hughes/Neville after Sparky told him to shut up in no uncertain terms. Given Neville's spokesman-like status at OT, this is probably more than just a gobby player having his say. As the Glazers are cash strapped, Sparky will come a darn sight cheaper than most alternatives as well.

Did you or did you not read my second sentence? The announcement of re-financing six months ago was meaningless- the first tranche of debt matured then and had to be repaid. Interesting it was re-financed so they weren't able to repay without borrowing again. My guess is that they did a deal similar to the ARSENAL one. But whereas Arsenal were mortgaging future income from a brand new stadium which boosts their matchday earning power by 100%, the Glazers were mortgaging their own purchase. £600m of debt is still £600m of debt and the Glazers will have done incredibly well if they reduced the interest burden from £60m to under £50m a year. Out of interest, which part of any of my posts (never mind "most" of them) was definitively wrong?

My questioning of the Glazer take-over of the Mancs has been raised on another thread so here is a quick appraisal: The Glazers had a game plan which undoubtedly involved conversion of high priced debt and manoevring the hedge funds but at the end of the day, nobody pays the rates of interest they were doing on an investment regarded as anything as other than highly risky. Their high risk strategy seems to be working as they have had a series of lucky breaks: - Ferguson's transfer funds have been extremely limited but with the exception of Carrick, his recent buying seems to have come off spectacularly well. Vidic and Evra look fabulous value for a combined £11m. - Getting £10m for Jon Obi Mikel wouldn't have been in anybody's business plan. - Chelsea seem to be "crumbling" remarkably easily under the title pressure the Mancs are exerting this season. This is a fabulous result for Ferguson who has spent a net £10m or less over the past two seasons. Had Ferguson's drinking gone to Clough proportions (as it could easily have done), the prognosis for Manc success on the field would have been dramatically different. - The size of the rise in Prem TV rights was definitely not in the Glazer business plan. At the time of the purchase, a modest decrease in value was on the cards. - The increase in global TV moneys has come through the Premiership's brand strength (of which the Mancs are historically a significant component) rather than any spectacular success of the Glazers' much-heralded international marketing of the Manc brand. - That said, the Glazers have again struck lucky with old Manc Beckham turning up in LA. Manc TV will be showing plenty of old coverage of Becks no doubt. However, it is still premature to say mission accomplished for the Glazers. If Man U win the Prem in 2007/8 and pocket £50m, it still does not cover the £60m in interest payments (factually reported in their offer document) BEFORE repayment of capital borrowed. The UEFA rules on club licensing in respect of debts still need to be changed for the Mancs to be entirely comfortable about their future in European competition. The ordinary Manc supporter is helping pay for the Glazers as by the time the 2008/9 season starts, they will be paying close to double the ticket prices before the Glazers appeared. We may delight in the Mancs being hit that way but there are plenty of threads moaning about the price of tickets so the Glazers are no heroes in this regard. The Glazers are winning in their sporting chance but it was and probably still is a hell of a gamble.

The confidence of the last few posts will look misplaced if we complete a bottom three run of defeats by losing at Watford tonight. At the moment it certainly looks like Watford and any two from Wigan, West Ham, Charlton and Sheff U. For any other club to fall through the 9 point gap between them and 18th, they will have to go on a Wigan-esque long run of straight defeats. I'd be OK with the three southern clubs currently at the bottom going down but I can see no way Wigan will be good enough to survive. Paul Jewell has a track record of second season up relegation and having no idea how to stop the rot. The only hope for sending West Ham down is for Charlton and Sheff U to have more guts and enough quality than the WHammers and whilst Sheff U have the guts, Charlton don't have the quality. So Watford, Wigan and Charlton (on the basis Sheff U are starting with the points advantage) will be visiting what's left of t'Turf next season.

The good thing about the Prem being the richest league in the world is that if Chelski/Mancs/Arse/Lpool call, any Manager in the World will go running. On that basis, even though Rafa clearly still hasn't worked out what the Prem is about, I guess Champs League achievements and spending big budgets well are going to be more important on the CV than what Sparky is doing at Ewood. I agree with jonesy- Sparky is doing a fantastic job at Ewoodand the immediate prospects are extremely exciting.

Hughes blamed himself for Ooijer's poor start by rushing him into the team too quickly. My guess he is not making the same mistake with Dunny who is coming from an inferior team of an inferior club with inferior coaching in an inferior league. Bench at Watford probably.

I just don't get you guys. WHam is the perfect place for Lucash to go- he's not going to do any damage to Rovers' ambitions there. Anyway, thanks Lucas. The posts by RB over the past 3.5 years about you have made your sojourn at Ewood an entertaining one. And you are a very good if rather inattentive footballer. Lots of great moments and some horrible howlers along the way. You'll get booed when you come back to Ewood but it will not be deserved.

Player availability of acceptable quality is the critical factor in my opinion. We'd look absolute loons if Neill went then suddenly all our full back replacements (all two of them) were snapped up elsewhere. I'd say this season more than most recently, the Walker Trust would open the purse strings to buy. But buy what? Look at Davenport for £3m , Young for almost £10m. There is hardly a raging howling mob outside the JW main entrance demanding to know why we weren't in the bidding...

Because he wants more cash or perhaps a different player WHam are unwilling to part with. Anyway, if the Icelanders can pay Lucash £70K a week they can certainly pay Rovers more useless transfer cash. This is a transfer made in hell for the Hammers. Watch Lucash go AWOL at key moments, get sent off, and conceed and miss penalties in key relegation games whilst being an "ultra professional" hard working pro. Curbishley is buying relegation with this one and Lucash will be delighted to comply. PS Perhaps premature but it looks like a second transfer "told you so" from your's truly in one week. All I need to do is start posting quotations of myself and I'll be halfway to being a 'drog- perish the thought!

Is this the first time a Rovers player has been featured without a Rovers shirt in sight? Harrison is quoted on a WHam web site that Lucas has signed a 2.5 year deal. Callum Davidson or is it Davenport is on his way to WHam for £3m from Spuds. Bit of a step down from playing with Ryan Nelsen for Neill.

Good move for Lucas. Trouser £50k per week, relegate West Ham and walk away as a free agent in the summer.

I am so happy about this!!! Welcome home David. Great to see the Notlobbers upset and even better that Bernard Cribbins is distraught. Permit me a 'drog type note but it has all happened as I told you. Note Rovers saying undisclosed fee and BRUM saying £2.2m. Chesh is right- we got him for next to nowt. BIG CLUB probably get the final £2m instalment of the £2.2m when Dunn lifts the World Cup as England Captain... or something equally improbable (OK I exagerate but not by much in all likelihood) Its great to be

Independent and Guardian are both carrying the steve Bruce story from yesterday saying Dunn is joining Bolton for £2.2m but adding nothing to what has already been on here. One thing is for sure- the Bolton intervention will have scuppered any hope of pay for play type deals. The crunch comes down to what sort of permanent contract BFS and Sparky think Dunn is worth. Whoever comes up with the best answer for Dunn's pocket (give or take a few K for sentiment on the Rovers' side), gets him. Brum can try to be arseholes about it but it is one thing playing hardball when you don't want to part company (Rovers with Lucas), quite another when you've agreed to sell and the question is who to? Bruce's comments yesterday look more and more like Rovers are in for Dunn and playing very hard ball.