[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[tony gale's mic]

Why do people keep talking about the players as though they are assets to potential new owners? There's no point going through each of them one by one, valuing them and acting as though they are a positive to potential buyers. The reality is that any buyer of the club would be buying in to a commitment to pay each and every player the amount that their contract states, for the period it says they are entitled to it. The are, first and foremost, expenses. A new owner may be able to sell a few on and make some money, but its far from guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that they will have to pay the wage bill in the meantime.

Surely if we're talking about wages as expenses then we'd have to talk about TV money/matchday revenue/prize money as assets?

I don't think we do either as in theory at least theyre meant to balance each other out.

[den]

What I am talking about is what Rovers did years ago.They did not go out and Buy star, big name players, but they tuned them into stars and enhanced their names, that won the prem. Even though they had money to spend on the top, already made it players. They bought players that, some would say,were not experienced at the top level. They turned these players into premiership players. Chelsea, man City all bought players who were already big names. I believe it can be done again.

That is the buzz of real football. When you can get a bunch of young players, build them up and train them up to take on and beat the top teams. To beat teams that everybody expects you to lose against. That is what is missing in the prem today. The belief that it can be done. A young player making their debut needs to believe that they can be, and are capable of playing as well as a £30 million player. It is what happens on the pitch that matters, not how much it cost to get the player there. A good trainer and coach, in any team sport can give that to a player.

when Rovers first came into the prem, nobody, including the club expected rovers to do as well as they did - even though they had money. But, 4th in the first season, then 2nd and then they won it. Even the club at the time said it was too early to acheive that success, even when they had done it. What did Rovers pay for Shearer, Sutton, Le Saux, Sherwood, these players were not big names when they came to Rovers. Then look at what they were sold for. Were Riply, Wilcox, Batty, Flowers big names when they came to Rovers?

I suggest that such a thing can be done again, small name players made to play beyond their own expectations, that is football. That is what is missing today. Missing because neither the clubs, players or supporters believe that little clubs like Rovers can take on the so called big clubs.

I like the fact that compared to other clubs, Rovers are a small, in a small, maybe run down town, club, because nobody expects the unexpected from Rovers, apart from us. That is football. Let the big clubs go and spend their money, increase their debts. But at Rovers we will just plod along, do what we do and give the big boys one hell of a fight at Ewood Park etc.

Rovers broke the British transfer record for firstly Shearer, then again for Sutton. Didn't Flowers cost a world record fee when he signed for us? - If not a world record fee, it was a British record fee for a Keeper.

Sorry Pafell, you're dreaming if you thought we brought the PL title by buying cheap youngsters.

[jim mk2]

What did Rovers pay for Shearer, Sutton, Le Saux, Sherwood, these players were not big names when they came to Rovers. Were Riply, Wilcox, Batty, Flowers big names when they came to Rovers?

.

Shearer scored a hat-trick on his Soton debut at 17 and made his England debut a few years later. He was regarded as the best young striker in the country. Sutton was seen as equally promising. Le Saux and Sherwood were regarded as big talents who had lost their way their resepctive clubs. All were BIG names in the game at the time they signed for Rovers. Ditto Ripley, Batty and Flowers. Wilcox was home produced.

[booth]

Shearer scored a hat-trick on his Soton debut at 17 and made his England debut a few years later. He was regarded as the best young striker in the country. Sutton was seen as equally promising. Le Saux and Sherwood were regarded as big talents who had lost their way their resepctive clubs. All were BIG names in the game at the time they signed for Rovers. Ditto Ripley, Batty and Flowers. Wilcox was home produced.

I can't agree with the likes of Le Saux, Sherwood and Ripley (or Gallacher). I remember when Le Saux was signed on the cheap, there was a collective cry of "he's crap". Chelsea fans who I knew were laughing at that signing. Course he turned out brilliant! Kevin Gallacher, a half decent player at Coventry (at least so I thought). Stuart Ripley was once called in 90 minutes magazine... "A dodgy winger purchased from Middlesbrough."

That's what was good about Dalglish. For every Chris Sutton he signed, he'd bring in a Tony Gale or Henning Berg just as important players when we won the league, even though not as high profile at the time. He mixed it up.

For the record though, Flowers was a big name signing at the time. As was Batty, who was a star at Leeds. Shearer was a huge signing, and relatively speaking Sutton was bigger. Don't forget the big money signing of Paul Warhurst as well.

[den]

I remember when Le Saux was signed on the cheap, there was a collective cry of "he's crap". Chelsea fans who I knew were laughing at that signing. Course he turned out brilliant!

Well they were all wrong. Le Saux was an undoubted talent, but had fallen out with the Chelsea management, that's how we were able to step in and buy him.

[unluckymorton]

Shearer scored a hat-trick on his Soton debut at 17 and made his England debut a few years later. He was regarded as the best young striker in the country. Sutton was seen as equally promising. Le Saux and Sherwood were regarded as big talents who had lost their way their resepctive clubs. All were BIG names in the game at the time they signed for Rovers. Ditto Ripley, Batty and Flowers. Wilcox was home produced.

The point being made is that they were all up and coming players and not already superstars, none of them had major trophies to their name and they were not bought from leading clubs. We gave them the chance to make it in the big time and they took it. Ripley from Boro, Shearer & Flowers from S'oton, Batty from Leeds, Le Sox from the real Chelsea, Wilcox home grown talent, Hendry signed by Mackay) from Dundee, Berg from Lillestrom, Gally from Coventry, we even tried to sign a certain Roy Keane from Forest but Man Utd beat us to him. They were all promising players who build a great side.

[Amo]

That's what was good about Dalglish. For every Chris Sutton he signed, he'd bring in a Tony Gale or Henning Berg just as important players when we won the league, even though not as high profile at the time. He mixed it up.

Sounds like another manager we had not so long ago.

[DE.]

Things have changed too much from the 94/95 season to really compare them in any way. The entire structure of the Premiership has been altered, 90% of promising youngsters are whisked away at an early age to one of the big 4/5, the other 10% are normally snapped up by said big clubs from another premiership club once they start to look like a real threat. I can't see, in the current climate, a way we could even hope to build a team to challenge for the top 4, let alone anything higher.

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but even with new owners and a healthier transfer budget I don't see us pushing anywhere above 7th. What we did in 94/95 will never be repeated in the existing model of the Premier League. It would take an implosion of Man Utd/Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs and for Chelsea/City's owners to abandon them before it even became remotely possible.

[den]

The point being made is that they were all up and coming players and not already superstars, none of them had major trophies to their name and they were not bought from leading clubs.

The point is that Pafell is arguing that these players were unknown and cheap and that we can do that again. He says :-

"What did Rovers pay for Shearer, Sutton, Le Saux, Sherwood, these players were not big names when they came to Rovers."

Well that really is totally wrong. There's no way Rovers will be able to go down that route again.

[Ricky]

Shearer and Sutton were very big names at the time, we wouldn't have broken the transfer record to sign them otherwise.

[Billy Castell]

Should football finances implode, I think we'd be well placed to become a team with a chance of Europe. The teams like Liverpool and Man Utd would soon fall apart, and the billionaire owners would probably get bored of owning such a tarnished product.

Anyway, this talk of a takeover is interesting, and should anything come about, I hope we get decent investors and not a blagger or a loon.

[LeChuck]

The point is that Pafell is arguing that these players were unknown and cheap and that we can do that again. He says :-

"What did Rovers pay for Shearer, Sutton, Le Saux, Sherwood, these players were not big names when they came to Rovers."

Well that really is totally wrong. There's no way Rovers will be able to go down that route again.

Got to agree with Den here.

If you try and make some modern day equivalents of those players, there is no way we'd be able to sign them:

Chelsea reserve left back = Wayne Bridge (£8m)

Goalscoring English strikers = Bent/Defoe/Crouch (£10+m)

Promising midfielder = Johnson? (£8 million) [struggled with that one]

Even though we weren't signing established top players like Man City and Chelsea recently, the calibre of players we could attract is miles away from what we can do now.

The only championship team players we'd be able to sign now were the likes of Tony Gale, Mark Atkins, Robbie Slater etc.

Edit: Just realised what a mess of a post that is. Hopefully the point I was trying to make can be understood!

[Balwer]

I personally worry about maintaining our current position. Apparently Stoke are readying an £11m big for Pavluychenko. It's going to be hard to compete with them, Fulham and Sunderland if they all keep spending more than us.

[Fife Rover]

Not when you compare it to what PAFELL is talking about. He's talking about real football not the current PL procession which holds little real interest for me. What is the difference? He's talking about hopes and dreams. Last Saturday I was sat in a Chorley cafe having a late breakfast and idly picked up the Chorley Guardian to read about Flittcroft and Jansen at Victory Park. This was the first I'd heard of it and I'm pleased to say I felt a tinge of the old gut wrenching feeling football used to give me. Nothing in the PL does that for me anymore and I think this is what PAFELL is talking about, and what, for me, is missing at Ewood.

At last someone has shown signs of actully understanding what I have been banging on about in countless past posts for several years now! Sorry Paul ; I am not getting at you (far from it), but I have been trying (utterly without any sign of understanding or recognition prior to your post) to get people to recognise just what this whole PL experience has done to Football as a form of cheap and deeply satisfying form of entertainment. The plain unvarnished truth is that the PL concept was invented PURELY to make money and lots of it for the media and for the PL's themselves with no regard for the eventual consequences to the clubs (all but the chosen few), and the fans (all but the wealthiest).

I have always followed Rovers and always will (still a S/T holder), but on the weeks when I cannot get down to Blackburn, or when Rovers are away, I often go and watch a local game. And as I have said on here many times: when I watch the likes of Dunfermline or Cowdenbeath, or East Fife I see every time two teams of committed players getting stuck in with a passion that is completely missing from the PL games. OK, I admit the "skill factor" is noticeably lower, but the enthusiasm of both players and spectators alike is palpably stronger, and consequently for me the experience is so much more exciting and interesting. In other words the whole experience is both cheap and ENJOYABLE, which is more than can be said for many of the PL matches I have watched both in England and in Scotland.

Anyway that is just my view of it all; you must all make up your own minds. Mine stays as it is; which is that I am and will remain a true Blackburn Rovers fan and will continue to attend matches at Ewood for as long as I possibly can, but I will continue to hope that sooner rather than later the whole PL idea implodes and disappears never to return. Then (hopefully)common sense will return and Football will get back to the old way of the Football Leagues and acceptable wages and prices for all. I will probably not live to see it unfotunately but hopefully most of you will.

[Paul]

At last someone has shown signs of actully understanding.....................etc

You're not alone Fife. I have been saying this myself for a very long time, years in fact, in one form or another.

I shall be going to Chorley to watch Jansen next season and I am already looking forward to it. I am not looking forward to the PL season though I will be at Ewood for every game. Personally I think it's a sad reflection that so many younger fans cannot see what is missing and are prepared to accept football for the business it has become. The media in all its forms, and in many different ways, has destroyed the game I loved.....................but then according to some I just whine.

I grew up watching Guildford City play in the old Southern League (Wimbledon was the local derby when both teams were in the division). I find it interesting I shall be going back to the roots next season to watch Chorley and Matt Jansen. Not sure what I'll find but I intend to give it a go.

[booth]

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but even with new owners and a healthier transfer budget I don't see us pushing anywhere above 7th. What we did in 94/95 will never be repeated in the existing model of the Premier League. It would take an implosion of Man Utd/Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs and for Chelsea/City's owners to abandon them before it even became remotely possible.

That sounds pretty optimistic. Wouldn't it be great if those clubs did implode levelling out the (quite literally) playing field.

[OscarRaven]

You're not alone Fife. I have been saying this myself for a very long time, years in fact, in one form or another.

It's not right to question the almighty PL! Its in the season ticket terms and conditions you know! You must show, unfaltering, sickening "Hughsey" like, unquestioning devotion to your "incredibly lucky to be in the league" club who in turn are bound by a covenant never to question the actions of the PL.

The other question you prophets of doom should now expect is "why do you bother going then?" or worse still "F... off to club x then"

But no your not alone, just a minority who have the common sense to remember what competitive football was like before the celebrity 'virus' infected the nation. After all it must be good if there are sports cars and good looking women involved?

[47er]

I personally worry about maintaining our current position. Apparently Stoke are readying an £11m big for Pavluychenko. It's going to be hard to compete with them, Fulham and Sunderland if they all keep spending more than us.

And thats why I've been responding negatively to those who say "stick with the Trust". That's only any good if they invested in the club which clearly they have ceased to do.Continue down that road and we WILL be relegated. Common-sense not "scare-mongering" Tris.

[PAFELL]

The point being made is that they were all up and coming players and not already superstars, none of them had major trophies to their name and they were not bought from leading clubs. We gave them the chance to make it in the big time and they took it. Ripley from Boro, Shearer & Flowers from S'oton, Batty from Leeds, Le Sox from the real Chelsea, Wilcox home grown talent, Hendry signed by Mackay) from Dundee, Berg from Lillestrom, Gally from Coventry, we even tried to sign a certain Roy Keane from Forest but Man Utd beat us to him. They were all promising players who build a great side.

At last, somebody with understanding. I believe it can be done again. I believe it still is possible to buy up and coming players and turn them into very good players.

Look at the prices Rovers got for the ewood park superstars that won the prem, when they were sold on. The players that won the prem, were up and coming players, who made their names at ewood park.

[PAFELL]

Rovers broke the British transfer record for firstly Shearer, then again for Sutton. Didn't Flowers cost a world record fee when he signed for us? - If not a world record fee, it was a British record fee for a Keeper.

Sorry Pafell, you're dreaming if you thought we brought the PL title by buying cheap youngsters.

Sorry Den, I did not say cheap youngsters. But players who had not yet reached the big name stage. Rovers paid the money for them yes,they paid it because they could do. Others afterwards paid a lot more for those same players. Why, because they were maded into proper, players at Rovers. They were doing ok in the teams they came from, they had the potential, Rovers saw it and developed it. Basically they took a chance on them - which paid off.

[unluckymorton]

At last, somebody with understanding. I believe it can be done again. I believe it still is possible to buy up and coming players and turn them into very good players.

Look at the prices Rovers got for the ewood park superstars that won the prem, when they were sold on. The players that won the prem, were up and coming players, who made their names at ewood park.

It could well be done again and if Rovers carry on the way we have under Sam then why the hell not? It would just take a lot longer to do so with so much talent in the league now compared to the early '90s.

A top ten finish this season was fantastic for Rovers and there is no reason why we cant build on that.

[den]

Sorry Den, I did not say cheap youngsters. But players who had not yet reached the big name stage. Rovers paid the money for them yes,they paid it because they could do. Others afterwards paid a lot more for those same players. Why, because they were maded into proper, players at Rovers. They were doing ok in the teams they came from, they had the potential, Rovers saw it and developed it. Basically they took a chance on them - which paid off.

Ok Pafell, we would disagree about this forever and a day I think. Shearer was 21 and had already played for England. He was hotly tipped to be the next regular CF and was being chased by Man Utd - who were desperately trying to get him in their squad before Rovers got him. He was doing a bit more than "OK for Southampton". He was the most sought after young striker of the time and cost a British transfer record fee. We don't have a cat in hells chance of building a young squad to the quality of that one you're talking about.

Sorry for going off topic mods.

[1864roverite]

Paul, I like your sentiments but that all it is. You are not going to Victory Park because of the lure of the Magpies you are going simply because of the pull of Jansen and Flitcroft, a direct link to Ewood Park.

I really think the speculation is playing with peoples minds here.

The only thing to consider is this. The club will do whats right for the club.

JW, the Trustees and everyone concerned in the decision making process will do whats right for Blackburn Rovers.

[PAFELL]

Ok Pafell, we would disagree about this forever and a day I think. Shearer was 21 and had already played for England. He was hotly tipped to be the next regular CF and was being chased by Man Utd - who were desperately trying to get him in their squad before Rovers got him. He was doing a bit more than "OK for Southampton". He was the most sought after young striker of the time and cost a British transfer record fee. We don't have a cat in hells chance of building a young squad to the quality of that one you're talking about.

Sorry for going off topic mods.

Ok Den, good debate all the same. but Rovers do need investment (bringing it back on topic)

But something I do wonder about is the new rules coming with regards what owners can and cannot finance. If I understand properly, owners will not be able to pay for player transfers or wages. If that is the case - how would that help Rovers progress on the field? Other clubs with larger debts than Rovers would also have to pay off those debts with what money they have coming in - which would restrict their moves in the transfer market. Unless I have misunderstood these new rules coming in.

[Paul]

Paul, I like your sentiments but that all it is. You are not going to Victory Park because of the lure of the Magpies you are going simply because of the pull of Jansen and Flitcroft, a direct link to Ewood Park.

Quite right it's the lure of Jansen. Trouble is we don't have an exciting footballer at Ewood to lure folk down there.