[Archived] Other PL happenings 2010-2011

[joey_big_nose]

You mean like when Jack Walker bankrolled you lot to the title ? Only difference between City and Rovers is inflation.

The major difference being Man Utd spent as much as Rovers did, so at best we were on level pegging but we won out. Sure Jack gaves us money to compete with Utd and Arsenal, but we weren't actually outstripping them financially.

To compare the Xis

-----------------------Shearer (3.75m)-----Sutton (5m)

Wilcox(free)---------Atkins (400k)--------Sherwood(325k)-------Ripley(1.3m)

-----Le Saux (700k)-----Hendry(700k)----Pierce(300k)---------Berg(400k)-

----------------------------------Flowers(2.4m)

Rovers total:- 15.275

-----------------A Cole(7m)--------Cantona (1.2m)

Giggs (free)------McClair(850k)---------Ince (1m)-----------Kanchelskis (650k)

Irwin (625k)---------Pallister (2,3m)-----Bruce (800k)-----May (1.2m)

--------------------------------------Schmiecal (530k)

Man Utd total:- 16.155

So Man Utd actually spent more than us, although admittedly Cole only came to Old Trafford in Jan. Still you can see there was no real financial outgunning by Rovers. Indeed of the team that won the Premier League only Shearer, Le Saux, Flowers, Sherwood, Sutton, Berg and Hendry could be considered 'top class' players. It was a special team that was more than the sum of its parts.

[mickbrown]

Nothing like being a bit selective with the players you bought. What about Warhurst, Batty, Anderson, Gallacher and Kenna. I think they were all bought !?

I dare say in the 12 month period to winning the league you outspent all of your rivals.

Feel free to correct me......

What as making a profit on the players got to do with anything? It just shows how fantastic the partnership of Harford and Kenny were for signing players and improving them.

[joey_big_nose]

Nothing like being a bit selective with the players you bought. What about Warhurst, Batty, Anderson, Gallacher and Kenna. I think they were all bought !?

I dare say in the 12 month period to winning the league you outspent all of your rivals.

Feel free to correct me......

What as making a profit on the players got to do with anything? It just shows how fantastic the partnership of Harford and Kenny were for signing players and improving them.

Okay, challenge accepted!

Batty (2.75m) - I left him out of the team listed as he was injured for the vast majority of the 1994/1995 Prem season

Warhurst (2.5m)

Gallacher (1.5m)

Kenna (1.5m) - only singed in March 1995

Anderson - who? Do you mean Anders Andersson? He was signed in 1997....

Total:- 8.25

However, what rather topedoes your point, is if if you look at who I missed out on the Man U side there is not a lot of difference:-

R Keane (3.75m)

P Parker (2m)

M Hughes (1.8m)

Total:-7.55m

[mickbrown]

Patrick Andersson was the player I mentioned. He was sh*te I seem to remember......

Which team spent more in the 12 months prior to you winning the premiership ?

[joey_big_nose]

Which team spent more in the 12 months prior to you winning the premiership ?

Why does that matter?!

Chelsea spent very little on players in the last twelve months. Does that mean if they win it this year they did it for nothing?!

Patrick Andersson was the player I mentioned. He was sh*te I seem to remember......

He left in 1993...

[Amo]

Patrick Andersson was the player I mentioned. He was sh*te I seem to remember......

Which team spent more in the 12 months prior to you winning the premiership ?

Nice try, mate. You're just trying to take the topic through a hamster maze. Anyone with any sense knows there is little comparison between Rovers (of old) and sell-out City.

[mickbrown]

Why does that matter?!

Chelsea spent very little on players in the last twelve months. Does that mean if they win it this year they did it for nothing?!

He left in 1993...

Okay I take your point. But by the same token your squad was around the most expensive squad in the league you won the title.

Jack Walkers was the major influence and most of your spending was in the 2 years to winning the title when you out spent all your rivals.

Its like saying if Man City won the title they didn't buy it as Man Utd's/Chelsea's squad has cost something similar(maybe?!). Yet all rovers fans seem to distance themselves from the fact they bought the title. I just don't get it, why does it matter ? You won the premiership enjoy the fact.

If you get taken over tomorrow and spend £500 Million in January and won the league you won't all be on here whinging about the fact would you ?

[joey_big_nose]

Okay I take your point. But by the same token your squad was around the most expensive squad in the league you won the title.

Jack Walkers was the major influence and most of your spending was in the 2 years to winning the title when you out spent all your rivals.

Its like saying if Man City won the title they didn't buy it as Man Utd's/Chelsea's squad has cost something similar(maybe?!). Yet all rovers fans seem to distance themselves from the fact they bought the title. I just don't get it, why does it matter ? You won the premiership enjoy the fact.

If you get taken over tomorrow and spend £500 Million in January and won the league you won't all be on here whinging about the fact would you ?

I wouldn't say there is much difference between City and Chelsea personally in financial outlay, just City have done it in a shorter time span. The only real difference is that City haven't managed to win anything yet. Not sure why anyone who would have a problem with Citys spending would not have a similarly negative view of Chelsea.

I view both clubs negatively for making the league so uncompetitive for other teams (Rovers never did that, within a year many clubs in the league were spending twice what we bought Shearer for on players), plus - as I have pointed out - we were only spending similar amounts to the existing top teams. City and Chelsea are spending many times what Villa or Everton can afford, let alone Rovers.

[92er]

The major difference being Man Utd spent as much as Rovers did, so at best we were on level pegging but we won out. Sure Jack gaves us money to compete with Utd and Arsenal, but we weren't actually outstripping them financially.

To compare the Xis

-----------------------Shearer (3.75m)-----Sutton (5m)

Wilcox(free)---------Atkins (400k)--------Sherwood(325k)-------Ripley(1.3m)

-----Le Saux (700k)-----Hendry(700k)----Pierce(300k)---------Berg(400k)-

----------------------------------Flowers(2.4m)

Rovers total:- 15.275

Mark Atkins cost £40,000 as far as I can remember.

You might want to remind MickBrown we got a centre half at the beginning of the winning season from some prosperous team down south.

[gumboots]

Okay I take your point. But by the same token your squad was around the most expensive squad in the league you won the title.

Jack Walkers was the major influence and most of your spending was in the 2 years to winning the title when you out spent all your rivals.

Its like saying if Man City won the title they didn't buy it as Man Utd's/Chelsea's squad has cost something similar(maybe?!). Yet all rovers fans seem to distance themselves from the fact they bought the title. I just don't get it, why does it matter ? You won the premiership enjoy the fact.

If you get taken over tomorrow and spend £500 Million in January and won the league you won't all be on here whinging about the fact would you ?

that isn't going to happen and you don't know Rovers fans - of course we'd whinge.

[BuckyRover]

that isn't going to happen and you don't know Rovers fans - of course we'd whinge.

Imagine if this messageboard was here in 1995.

People would have been complaining after losing 2-1 at Anfield!

[DanLad]

that isn't going to happen and you don't know Rovers fans - of course we'd whinge.

We'd miss the good old days.

[Smithy]

The major difference being Man Utd spent as much as Rovers did, so at best we were on level pegging but we won out. Sure Jack gaves us money to compete with Utd and Arsenal, but we weren't actually outstripping them financially.

To compare the Xis

-----------------------Shearer (3.75m)-----Sutton (5m)

Wilcox(free)---------Atkins (400k)--------Sherwood(325k)-------Ripley(1.3m)

-----Le Saux (700k)-----Hendry(700k)----Pierce(300k)---------Berg(400k)-

----------------------------------Flowers(2.4m)

Rovers total:- 15.275

-----------------A Cole(7m)--------Cantona (1.2m)

Giggs (free)------McClair(850k)---------Ince (1m)-----------Kanchelskis (650k)

Irwin (625k)---------Pallister (2,3m)-----Bruce (800k)-----May (1.2m)

--------------------------------------Schmiecal (530k)

Man Utd total:- 16.155

So Man Utd actually spent more than us, although admittedly Cole only came to Old Trafford in Jan. Still you can see there was no real financial outgunning by Rovers. Indeed of the team that won the Premier League only Shearer, Le Saux, Flowers, Sherwood, Sutton, Berg and Hendry could be considered 'top class' players. It was a special team that was more than the sum of its parts.

Okay, challenge accepted!

Batty (2.75m) - I left him out of the team listed as he was injured for the vast majority of the 1994/1995 Prem season

Warhurst (2.5m)

Gallacher (1.5m)

Kenna (1.5m) - only singed in March 1995

Anderson - who? Do you mean Anders Andersson? He was signed in 1997....

Total:- 8.25

However, what rather topedoes your point, is if if you look at who I missed out on the Man U side there is not a lot of difference:-

R Keane (3.75m)

P Parker (2m)

M Hughes (1.8m)

Total:-7.55m

Plagiarism.

[DE.]

I don't think many Rovers fans deny that Jack's money was the reason we won the Premiership title, but to compare it to City in any way is just silly.

We brought in players who were able to work with each other and who had specific roles in the team. We didn't throw obscene wages at them, they wanted to come to Blackburn because of Kenny Dalglish and the vision Jack had for us.

City meanwhile mainly use dreadully obscene wages to attract players, and they seem to stock up on players just for the hell of it, which has been wrecking team morale as players get restless.

Many of our players from that time have said the team spirit in the camp was the best they've ever played in - can you say the same for City? I think not. Jack was no fool and spent his money wisely during that time, City have never spent their money wisely and continue to toss it around without any direction or aim.

[Hughesy]

Did we buy the league cup too??

[Smithy]

Did we buy the league cup too??

It shouldn't be mickbrown, it should be mickgreen.

[nicko]

I don't know why people are ashamed about the money that was spent.

A superfan decided he wanted to buy success and did it.

So what?

Some of the money was wasted...again, so what?

There is NO comparison with Man City. That is the worst-ever example of blind over-spending and foolishness that the Premier League has ever seen.

The signings were great in the main way back then, the wages and bonuses got the best available players.

And the key appointments at management level were also massive.

Man City have never got anywhere near that.

Dalglish and Harford v Mancini and Platt?

Are you having a laugh?

[LeChuck]

Mancini is a disgrace. All that money spent and he constantly plays with three defensive midfielders. Plus he's wasting James Milner, who was progressing towards being one of the best box-to-box midfielders in the league. Now he's gone back to the average wide man we saw at Newcastle etc.

[Smithy]

Colonic Irrigation?

Carlos Tevez searches for his car keys.

ROFLMAO, what a photo.

[joey_big_nose]

Plagiarism.

Uh what?! I just put together our main team and got the fees off wikipedia. What is plagiarised about that? Am I supposed to invent my own fees for how much Rovers and Utd paid for players, or invent new names for those in the 1995 teams? Bizarre.

[Ozz]

I don't care too much for money, 'cos money can't buy me love.

[47er]

Anyone read the Ian Holloway press conference rant in the Sun? Wasn't able to copy it but its as good a read (well almost) as Kinnear's press conference at Newcastle a while back.

Always thought Holloway was a nice bloke with a good line in humour but he's gone completely mental!

[savage8]

Anyone read the Ian Holloway press conference rant in the Sun? Wasn't able to copy it but its as good a read (well almost) as Kinnear's press conference at Newcastle a while back.

Always thought Holloway was a nice bloke with a good line in humour but he's gone completely mental!

He's really starting to annoy me !

[Hughesy]

Holloway - 'if they fine me il quit my job'

Stop believing your more important than you are!! Its only fair that the FA look at it, after all they rested 10 players ahead of a game against a relegation rival...its clear they had kind of given up on that game, in choice for the weekend fixture.

[Steve Moss]

Holloway - 'if they fine me il quit my job'

Stop believing your more important than you are!! Its only fair that the FA look at it, after all they rested 10 players ahead of a game against a relegation rival...its clear they had kind of given up on that game, in choice for the weekend fixture.

Halloway is right though. Even his chairman/owner doesn't tell him to pick. And no one investigated SAF when he rested 10 against Hull in view of a bigger match following.