As a life long Manc hater, this down turn in fortunes is mildly entertaining. It will only get to rib tickling proportions if they slip to 5th or below in the Prem- Rovers and Boro apart, Prem clubs have made a poor fist of exposing a rather vulnerable Manc team. Shilito is correct except for the reasons jim and Flopsy pointed out. They have a seriously under-powered squad (even by comparisson with most Prem clubs- I'd take Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Newcastle when fit, Boro subs benches unhesitatingly ahead of the Mancs and rate their subs no better than most other Prem clubs except Fulham and Sunderland) although Rossi is a gem coming through. I suspect the Glazers didn't sanction any transfer spending of note this last summer in order to save for a rainy day- well its raining. The Glazer plan is heavilly dependent on pushing season ticket prices up. Unlike the Chelsea supporters, numerically the majority of the 67,000 deluded fools are no better off than folks living in Blackburn so I suspect there will be resistance to price hikes. Another 7,500 seats to fill in the corners next season remember. Interesting times. Anyway the Glazer softies haven't fired Ferguson yet and today is the ideal time to do it. With Ferguson talking about three more years etc., he will have to be got rid of because he won't walk so they might not have a better time to get rid than now. Oops, just seen shillito's most recent post and hadn't realised jan was right. Shillito, haven't you noticed that the Mancs are now "owned" by the Glazers? The Mancs are £500m in debt having been used to achieve all the forms of borrowing known to man and then some more besides. The hedge fund contracts specify exactly how much the Mancs can spend on transfers, wages and sure as penguins is penguins won't allow for any more borrowing unless the sugar daddy Glazers reach into their own far from voluminous (relative to the Manc problem that is) pockets and put the cash in personally. As I wrote at the time, the Manc adventure by the Glazers is a big gamble for them as they simply don't have the financial clout to be sure of protecting themselves. The guys who I expect will own/control the Mancs will be the hedge funds who have actually structured a very nice deal for grabbing Man U for themselves in the rather likely prospect of the Glazers failing.

Zura simply under hit a 20 yard pass directed at Savage who stood and waited for it not knowing that Murphy was running towards him and marginally got ahead and collected the ball. Murphy then ran diagnoally at the Rovers' defence riding two tackles (including Zura) before beating Friedel. It was not the sort of horror mistake Amo made in one or two games for us nor was he as hopelessly out of position as Todd was for two out of the three goals at West Ham (nobody except Emo gets the blame for the third at Upton Park with his fancy back heel dink to Sherringham). Todd good, Zura better and Zura has a one game start on Saturday to prove it. If he funks it, Todd will be back at Fulham although I'd far rather have the more mobile Zura playing at the Cottage as Fulham's threat comes from the speed of breaking players like Malbranque.

The Press is unanimous in saying that Ferguson will go this summer. If the Glazers are hard nosed, they will retire him in Manchester today. Put Queroz in charge for the pre-Christmas programme. If he produces stunning results keep him but prepare selection of a top dog coach with a bit of pocket money for January. Of course, the United finances might be stretched so tight the Glazers might have to dip into their own pockets to do it. Now this is going to be an interesting moment to find out the colour (color?) of the Glazers' interest in soccer.

I wonder if other Prem clubs are going to follow the lead of Rovers and Boro and start playing a very ordinary Manc side (with 2 and a half exceptional individuals- Rooney, Roonaldo and Ruud) with no fear and no respect. If they do, the Manc slide back down the Prem could be precipitate.

Mancs bottom of their Champs League Group. This morning, the financial damage of being knocked out was being minimised by the Manc spokesmen but it must hurt. Still, if the Mancs want to see European football in Greater Manchester, they can pop along to watch Bolton.

A timely contribution given the BRISA meeting on attendance tomorrow evening. There is a Managers' list. Mourinho tops at £20m. Our own Mark Hughes appears at number 6 with about £5m. Of course this is a list of declared/visible worth. Seems strange with most Prem Managers being former footballers at the top of their profession and earning £1m+ per year that the numbers are so relatively low.

Steve Bruce: a model of clarity and motivation. The Torquay United Chairman has said today: "We would have preferred to play a big club away but this will do." They have drawn you know who from St Andrews in the FA Cup.

Vinjay, do you know how much Doug Ellis has put into Villa during the last five years? Here's a helpful hint- take the amount the Walker Trust has invested in Blackburn Rovers over the same period and divide by five. You are a complete tosser, aren't you?

Rangers are guarranteed about £1.5m for the two games in the last 16. They are also guarranteed getting knocked out if you look at the line-up of Group Winners (unless Benfica beat Man U tonight and top Group D).

jim makes a very valid point- Rovers' support south and south west of the club must have taken a battering from the rise of Bolton and Wigan. When I lived in Darwen, there was negligible support for Bolton in the town- even when they were in the first division (proper). But I bet Rovers' support in places like Belmont and Horwich is close to non-existant now. Back to the QPR debate. Lee has made two valid points on the official board- Rovers are probably proposing £10 and £1 pricing but don't hold your breath because, QPR ticket prices for their game against the dingles this week-end are appreciably higher than Rovers are charging for the visit of West Ham.

After a couple of cracking draws against Croatia and Bulgaria, Malta is looking forwards to the European Nations draw with the hope of not coming bottom of whatever group they get drawn in. Anyway, England. Not getting carried away as Brasil are so good. Little question of whether it will be the Belfast version of SGE coaching us or the Geneva one.

I read thast Telegraph article- it was more about which rich football chairmen have been successful in hands on running a football club and which hands on guys fail disastrously. On that basis neither Rovers nor the corporate structure Abramovich has put in place at Chelsea come within the scope of the article. If you follow Lee's posts on here, that pricing idea is precisely the sort of in itiative Rovers take with visiting clubs. BUT, if I were QPR, I would have none of it. They get 25% of the gate money and a guarranteed small five figure sum for getting knocked out of the FA Cup. All the recent Rovers pricing experiments in Cup competitions have shown a very low price elasticity of demand (in other words, terrible gates irrespective of fantastic pricing incentives). So QPR should demand category B status and have done with it- they cannot give a damn about Rovers' problems and the hoops fans who travel will come irrespective of Rovers' pricing unless we push it well north of £40. However, there might be a fairy godmother at Loftus Road or JW might bring his negotiating skills to bear successfully. As for the suggestion that Abramovich is as likely to pull out as Romanov- that is a joke. 1) As an oligarch he's far safer in London. 2) As the Chelsea boss he knows that Putin is unlikely to risk the public reaction which would be stirred if anything happens to him. 3) On paper, Abramovich is probably 50% up on his cash investment in Chelsea already. (Property value x3 the price he paid for the whole club and what price on Mourinho, Kenyon and all those players' contracts now?- AC, Inter, Barca, Real et al are still around to pay megabucks). 4) Roll forwards to 2013 and Abramovich will probably have paid another £250m out but if Kenyon has made Chelski the number one football brand as per his plan, Abramovich could probably cash sell out of Chelsea for £2bn+. A cool 300% return on investment.

Let BIG CLUB get him fit then steal him in the summer when he refuses to extend his contract. Petrov is back in love with Celtic by the way but no sign of him signing anything. Even so, Bring Back Dunn!!! PS BRISA could let it be known that a local favourite like Dunny returning is very likely to put a boost into attendances- the loss of Duff/Dunn lost the magic of Rovers for a lot of people. PPS Bruce is a rubbish manager and sitting four points adrift of safety with some interesting fixtures coming up could well see the porn boys not wielding the cheque book in January to dig him out of a hole. The obvious solution is BIG CLUB to go down and picking Dunn up from the debris when it happens.

It is a good response from EiT. To a business person/banker, Hearts would have a similar look to Chelsea when Romanov was sniffing for a football club. Therefore with hindsight, I would say definitely what has been achieved was intended. He walked into a league with two bankrupt big clubs and eight bankrupt little clubs. He simply took a bankrupt little club with valuable real estate in a city of half a million which was struggling to put 10,000 people through the turnstiles of each of its two pro clubs. That looks like a dead easy task to turn around which he has proven despite the numerous mistakes he has made along the way. In contrast, Abramovich at Chelsea has scarcely put a toe wrong in his management of that asset. If the Blackburn public were as enthusiastic about Rovers as the Edinburgh public were about Hibs and Hearts, we would be getting 5,000 gates in the Prem rising to 8,000 if we got to the top of the league. My other response is that looking for the positive in the meglomaniacs, you have concertinaed the time lines. Madjeski has been at Reading for fifteen years- he had a period of six years when he didn't want to put a penny into them and I think they slipped back a division. The same goes for the rest of them. Yet the Trustees are being criticised for a Phase 1 when they invested and a Phase 2 when they didn't- all within a five year period! Come on, I've explained why the Trust is doing very well in terms of asset values on paper but why cash is not sloshing around just at the moment. You don't buy a fleet of 110 new passenger jets with fresh air! If you are willing to look at the one man shows (and I picked the more successful ones, not the Oystons, the Kilbys, the Haywards etc etc) over extended periods, you have to look at the Trust on the same basis. Then you will see that on five year track record to date, Rovers are doing a darn sight better under the Trust than practically all the one man shows except Chelsea/Abramovich.

Todd played exceptionally well for two seasons. This season he's not been as good and had a nightmare game at Upton Park. Plus, whilst the Everton handball comes into the professional category and very unlucky that there was a linesman who was willing/wanted to make a fuss, the headbut against Spurs was just plain stupid. As modes98 has said, play the incident in slomo and it looks bad- the guys at Soho Square will tend towards supporting the ref (especially when its a player with Todd's previous)- and that slomo is all they need to uphold the decision. Todd has made himself into a very decent old fashioned centre half. Zurab, when he is on his game offers more just as Todd, when he's on his game, offers more than Amo and The Axe at centre half.

Its very simple- if Todd deliberately handled the ball, it was a sending off offence. As someone else has pointed out, there is a camera angle which shows Todd flicked his hand towards the ball. You could argue that was the ultimate in cynical foul play as he tried to disguise his real intent and almost got away with it. In an appeal to the FA, you have to show that the decision by the referee was wrong- not that there is a basis for doubt. The considerable basis of doubt is where the neutrals saying it was harsh are coming from- that is comforting but not going to get Todd off the red card. The Rovers have a good track record in appeals (Todd when cited against van Persie, Zura's sending off) but twice this season have decided against challenging decisions against Todd- when he nutted Reid and now this hand ball. With a hefty fine hanging over the club if we are in disciplinary trouble at the season end, it is very much in the interest of the club to challenge every red card but I guess Hughes has decided that he prefers to go to Soho Square with a reputation of doing so when he has strong cases and winning them rather than risk his track record when there is a camera shot which has caught Todd bang to rights.

Come on EiT, get real. Hearts have a ground location which whilst not prime Edinburgh is worth quite a few bob- that's why there was the broohaha up there about flogging Tynecastle and moving to Murrayfield, remember? Then, Romanov would have bought the SPL title this season for sure if he and the kid didn't think they were playing Champions Manager Jocks Edition and hadn't got shot of Burley. How much has Romanov spent? Well he's managed a few debts, sunk about £3m investment into transfers and has a wage bill that is less than 50% of the Rovers' (perhaps much less). He is probably not far short of washing his face with Hearts as crowds are averaging 16,000 or so, the Sultana TV deal whilst a pittance compared with the EPL is one the Coca Cola boys would willingly take and.... here's the rub, as expected, UEFA have changed the Champs League rules so that it is highly likely the SPL champs will walk straight into the Group Stage and £10m guarranteed. That looks like smart business if Romanov can keep his hands off the playing side and homo-erotic fun or whatever turns those guys on if he cannot resist the urge to play with the players. Quite honestly, all these calls for the Walker Trust to sell out of Rovers are sheer barking madness. The Rovers are highly professionally run under the wing of the Trust, are guarranteed £3m gift money a year plus have averaged another £3m a year written off each year since Jack died plus the Trust facilitates extraordinarilly generous borrowing enabling the club to go out and buy the likes of Cole and Bellamy (yes, that oik who turned up this summer). One other factor. Taking the Trust at face value (and why would they lie?)- when interviewed after Jack's death, the Chairman of the Trustees (who is not a Rovers Director I believe- another Trust person, one of their top business guys sits on the board following the reorganisation which saw JW become executive chairman) said: Blackburn Rovers are one of the beneficiaries of the Trust and that the annual surplusses of the other businesses are split between the beneficiaries. Of course surplusses can be book profits or actual cash. Large book profits and capital gains do not equal cash available for handing out to the beneficiaries so as the Trustees primary aim is good husbandry of the Trust assets for the benefit of all the beneficiaries, they aren't going to go rushing out with a cheque book to keep a dwindling bunch of fans at Ewood happy. However, (and I don't want to build up hopes unrealistically) the Trustees have indicated that Flybe is so successful that it has become a disproportionately large element of the Trust's portfolio and they are looking for a buyer accordingly. IF they sell Flybe well and IF they sell for cash, there MIGHT be a windfall for Rovers as a beneficiary qualifying for a handout- if things work as simply as the Chairman of the Trustees indicated. So I hardly think that now is the time to be wishing our way out of the Jack Walker Trust. Now I don't know how long the Jack Walker Trust is envisaged to last but large trusts such as JWT which have a very varied set of beneficiaries (eg family and charities), some of which are themselves long lasting (such as BRFC) tend to have correspondingly long term existances. I know of one trust funding a group of churches which is well over 200 years old. A final point, rich successful people tend to be pretty unpleasant SoBs. Vinjay might need a paternalistic figure to whom he can relate to as the owner of the Rovers but VERY few of these guys are angels- look at Rupert Bear at Soton, Mandaric at Pompey, Brown at West Ham, Deadly Doug, Porn boys at Brum, Publicity Pete at Leeds, Reading fans hate Madjeski, Fat Freddie, Ken Bates etc etc. OK Steve Gibson at Boro might be a shining knight amongst the dross but what has he achieved which the Walker Trust hasn't? Whom is there who would buy Rovers and would have the club and supporters' best interests at heart? If you are thinking about somebody buying Rovers, just imagine if Chesh owned the club....

Hmm, I read that somewhere else... Not surprised- there's certainly one camera angle which looks rather incriminating for Toddy. Saves Hughes the difficult task of dropping Todd. Just hope that Nelsen and Zurab put the hours in to make sure they get back to best form together- it is quite a while since they had a run of games playing together as central defenders.

November 1995. Jack opened the Jack Walker stand and Rovers celebrated the club's 120th birthday in style.

Great preview tcj. One error- we pasted Nottingham Forest 7-0 to record our biggest win in the Prem. Totally agree with your selection. Who knows which Rovers side turns up this Saturday- the lucky one or the unlucky one (alternatively the one which can convert easy chances or the other one). What is highly likely is that it will be an entertaining game, particularly if both Tugay and Benayoun get playing. After Saturday, this is in the must win category if a top half placing by Christmas is to be achieved. I think the score draw is the most realistic forecast though: 2-2.

I think it was harsh but there is one camera angle which is a problem. Having been sent off, isn't the onus on Todd to prove his innocence? (Rather than the van Persie case where he was not punished during the game but had a case to answer afterwards). I have read one report that Rovers aren't going to challenge the sending off. Does anyone know what the situation is? Incidentally, I do think we are being reffed according to reputation and not reality. If you look at the BBC's scores for refs we seem to have disproportionately more poor performances in our games.

Back down to earth with a grinding bump! Have to say that Bentley isn't a forward so playing 4-4-1-1 was effectively inviting a repeat of the Newcastle result which Everton were only too happy to oblige. From what I've seen, we played gorgeous football for 30 minutes and still kept at it until heads went down as the second half went on. MGP's horror misses from inside the six yard box are undoubtedly what cost us three points today aided by a very dubious sending off (which resulted in Bellamy gobbing off and getting booked as well). Palsey is rubbish when he refs our games. To be honest I am not sure Todd will get off this one- there must be a camera angle which shows he was a bit cynical the way he let the ball hit his arm. But no way should the officials have red carded him in the first place. Well, we were just getting to the point of Hughes super-hero for having the balls to bench Savage and Emerton when Toogs turns in a very poor performance, Todd continues the crap form he's been showing all season, Friedel has another iffy one, Neill and Nelsen have a relative off day and MGP cannot hit the proverbial whilst continuing his dismal run of crossing and corner taking.... West Ham becomes a buttock clencher next week if we are not to rejoin the troubled souls at the bottom.

Cannot say that Hughes isn't his own man. Here's hoping Sav and Emo respond positively but this sends a very clear message to all the squad. Dickov still not fit? We will need to take our chances with a 4-4-1-1 formation.

A friendly otter? You mean one of these eight foot long weasles?

That is a very open-hearted post USA but I think you are too hard on yourself. Souness has got football management ability. The Rovers under Kidd were the biggest disgrace in football- I remember watching us lose 2-1 at Swindon producing the most inept disjointed performance I have ever witnessed from a Blackburn team (and that is after watching some horror shows like the 0-4 at Reading, the 0-5 at Coventry and the 0-6 at Citeh). Souness came to Rovers from the football scrap heap- he was just about unemployable but Jack saw that he could get results and boy did Souness turn us round faster than any of us expected- Promotion, League Cup then UEFA qualification through coming sixth. The problem with Souness is his ego and nasty brutish character and with Jack dead and his managerial career rescued by three good seasons, then all the rubbish USA described above cut in. I was slow to change sides into the anti-Souness camp but by the spring of 2004 I badly wanted Souness out of Ewood and was elated by the "humilation" of Newcastle pinching off us again. It wasn't pay back in equal measure for taking Gordon Lee, cheating us on Roger Jones, all the garbage we got from Lord westwood, Keegan's romancing of Shearer etc. but let's say that taking Souness and his garbage backroom staff plus giving us £1.65m compensation felt like it was at least the equivalent of admission of guilt. I hated losing 0-3 to Newcastle but in a way we got a laugh on them because they didn't fire Souness. With him in charge they will occasionally flatter but will achieve nothing. Long may it continue and Fat Freddie be too scared of the cost of getting rid. Here's to the Newcastle training ground brawls and the injury list extending- hard training pitches indeed!