[Archived] Transfer Budget Over the Past 10 Years

[Speedie Dived]

what you on about.

I said as soon as they became great players we sold them.

e.g. Bentley came stuggling in confidence sold 17 million, he wanted out to fulfil his ambition.

Duff sign a boy brillant 2003 sold.

Santa signed a Munich sub, great season sold.

In all cased only around half was re-invested.

We didn't choose to sell them, they wanted out. They wanted to go to bigger clubs. As happens to 99% of clubs in the land.

[Mattyblue]

what you on about.

I said as soon as they became great players we sold them.

e.g. Bentley came stuggling in confidence sold 17 million, he wanted out to fulfil his ambition.

Duff sign a boy brillant 2003 sold.

Santa signed a Munich sub, great season sold.

In all cased only around half was re-invested.

That happens everywhere.

Just recently Villa built a good side, all sold. Everton are losing players every window.

Even Arsenal have lost their top players.

For clubs without a billionaire bankrolling trophy wins that's how it is.

[chris]

i dont disagree with anything you have said chris, i wanted new investors, i wanted money spent, that hasnt really happene, i also wanted a good manager brought in, when they foolishly sacked big sam but to say we dont deserve to be in the premierleague because of what we have spent, if you are saying that, is wrong.

I'm more saying that if a time came in or 2009 for example that we got relegated I would accept that a lack of investment was a major contribution.

If you are 20th on the spending ladder, not only that you a dead dead bottom, you must feel a little lack of ambition???

Come the end of the season can you honestly say that a lack of investment is not a massive contribution to relegation for most clubs?

In this situation we also have the wrose manager in the league so we are doubly screwed.

[Speedie Dived]

Other owners threw their money about, ours wouldn't. Were any managers or chairmen more ambitious than ours? no way.

A football club is about much more than the owner.

Exactly. Ambition is not directly correlated to levels of investment either.

It's well known that we paid more in wages and less in transfer fee's, to try and attract players.

[chris]

We didn't choose to sell them, they wanted out. They wanted to go to bigger clubs. As happens to 99% of clubs in the land.

Hughes got Bentley for 2 million maybe or was it free. 2-3 years later he is worth 17 million.

He sells him and only gets to re-invest 6 or 7 million thus making us weaker.

Thats ambition?

This is Blackburns life since 2003.

That is who we were under The Walkers Trust.

[Mattyblue]

Hughes got Bentley for 2 million maybe or was it free. 2-3 years later he is worth 17 million.

He sells him and only gets to re-invest 6 or 7 million thus making us weaker.

Thats ambition?

This is Blackburns life since 2003.

That is who we were under The Walkers Trust.

No it's not ambition from the Walkers as they didn't have any, however JW ensured we had the biggest possible wage budget we could and gave Hughes and Sam free reign with it.

Ambitious club, unambitous owners.

Why can't you see that chris?

[Speedie Dived]

Hughes got Bentley for 2 million maybe or was it free. 2-3 years later he is worth 17 million.

He sells him and only gets to re-invest 6 or 7 million thus making us weaker.

Thats ambition?

This is Blackburns life since 2003.

That is who we were under The Walkers Trust.

No it's good management. Since 2003 we have had 5 top 10 finishes, what more do you want? Leeds/Sheff Wed who spent a lot more than us went down twice. Right now, we are going the way of Leeds and fast.

[tony gale's mic]

Chris you're talking nonsense. People who throw money at football clubs can't really be termed as investors generally, especially the large amount who make a huge loss on it.

They're called benefactors, and they pop up once in a blue moon. It happened to us with Jack but the chances of it happening again in our lifetimes is very slim.

The money that we didnt spend was reinvested in wages, since we were a club with one of the lowest revenues in the league paying mid table wages.

To some extent I do feel the Trust could have provided us with a bit more money since they did, as I'm not sure Jack would have wanted them to shut the tap off completely, and since it was his money in the first place this is obviously a key factor. But not to the extent of Sunderland, or even close.

[roverandout]

yes chris, lack of ambition and money spent will be one of our major downfalls as well as an inept clown as 'manager' but we have survived this long with no investment but then we had proper people in charge at the club who knew what they were doing and an astute manager, now we have none of those things, that can only lead to one thing this season and we all know what that is.

[chris]

yes chris, lack of ambition and money spent will be one of our major downfalls as well as an inept clown as 'manager' but we have survived this long with no investment but then we had proper people in charge at the club who knew what they were doing and an astute manager, now we have none of those things, that can only lead to one thing this season and we all know what that is.

Them proper people in charge said themselves that we can't survive forever as were, with the lack of investment.

You are all going on about how great Williams was but I am certain he said that our club needed investment long term to survive.

And I could feel that particularly from 2009.

Hindsight is an beautiful thing.

[Mattyblue]

Them proper people in charge said themselves that we can't survive forever as were, with the lack of investment.

You are all going on about how great Williams was but I am certain he said that our club needed investment long term to survive.

And I could feel that particularly from 2009.

Hindsight is an beautiful thing.

In the last couple of years the clubs outside the top 6 have become more and more evenly matched. We could have held out for a good while under the previous owners as long as top people maintained their roles in the boardroom and dugout.

But, the Trust wanted out at any cost, so we'll never know.

[chris]

Chris you're talking nonsense. People who throw money at football clubs can't really be termed as investors generally, especially the large amount who make a huge loss on it.

They're called benefactors, and they pop up once in a blue moon. It happened to us with Jack but the chances of it happening again in our lifetimes is very slim.

The money that we didnt spend was reinvested in wages, since we were a club with one of the lowest revenues in the league paying mid table wages.

thats nonsense is the reality of football.

To be a good PL side that has to happen.

If you think clubs are going to survive long term without making a loss, I think your wrong and I don't think Williams though it could last.

[BRST]

Chris - looking at that table should make you proud to be a Rovers fan. Look at some of the clubs who have dropped out of the top flight in the last decade and see where they are now.

We were run sensibly during the days of the Walker Trust. Without doubt the best run club in the country. Which makes it all the more distressing to see it being ruined in a few short months by Venkys. We were the only club running in a way that was sustainable in the long term.

The reinvestment comes in other forms. We bought unknown players like Nelsen, Samba, Warnock etc. Once they proved themselves what happens? Their wages increased! Try to get a grip of just how massive a proportion of our income went on wages. How many times did John Williams frankly and honestly explain this to us fans? So many people still need to understand the difference between investment and subsidy as well.

[tony gale's mic]

thats nonsense is the reality of football.

To be a good PL side that has to happen.

If you think clubs are going to survive long term without making a loss, I think your wrong and I don't think Williams though it could last.

In Jones and Hoilett alone (provided a new contract was signed) alone we had £30 millions worth of sales that could have been raised at least. Even if £20 million of that was reinvested for transfers, given how good the club had been under successive managers at finding bargain players, several good players could have been bought.

Everton have thrived over a while now thanks to their fantastic youth system and their ability to find bargains. We had been thriving on bargains but only recently has our youth system started to throw up some real gems. That for me meant our situation was potentially better than it had been for some time. I can't remember the last time we had so much Rovers produced young talent as we did when Hoilett, Olsson and Jones were all starting regularly.

[chris]

In Jones and Hoilett alone (provided a new contract was signed) alone we had £30 millions worth of sales that could have been raised at least. Even if £20 million of that was reinvested for transfers, given how good the club had been under successive managers at finding bargain players, several good players could have been bought.

Everton have thrived over a while now thanks to their fantastic youth system and their ability to find bargains. We had been thriving on bargains but only recently has our youth system started to throw up some real gems. That for me meant our situation was potentially better than it had been for some time. I can't remember the last time we had so much Rovers produced young talent as we did when Hoilett, Olsson and Jones were all starting regularly.

The dream was/is to have all this and investment, that what John Williams was probably looking for.

that dream is fading.

As good as Holliet and Jones and Olsson would be, we all sat at the end of the summer 2010 with signing Ben-bloody-jani on a free or Andrews and grealla in 2009.

Blackburn have had so many chances to keep building only to fall down again.

Maybe because I was born 1983 I'm of a era of success where investment and the right team won the league, I didn't see a game beofre 1990.

Sam didn't need much money but I didn't want to see him build a team and have the foundations removed with under 50% reinvested.

[Mattyblue]

The dream was/is to have all this and investment, that what John Williams was probably looking for.

that dream is fading.

As good as Holliet and Jones and Olsson would be, we all sat at the end of the summer 2010 with signing Ben-bloody-jani on a free or Andrews and grealla in 2009.

Blackburn have had so many chances to keep building only to fall down again.

Maybe because I was born 1983 I'm of a era of success where investment and the right team won the league, I didn't see a game beofre 1990.

Sam didn't need much money but I didn't want to see him build a team and have the foundations removed with under 50% reinvested.

But chris, it is like that for 95% of clubs in England.

[chris]

Chris - looking at that table should make you proud to be a Rovers fan. Look at some of the clubs who have dropped out of the top flight in the last decade and see where they are now.

I never said JW and TF were not great.

Simply that if we had gone down in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 I would have considered years of underinvestment a massive contribution.

I couldn't say we deserved to stay up hen we are bottom of the investment ladder.

[OJRovers]

Someone should send that to all the journalists currently saying how brilliant Everton have done with no money, they have spent £80m more than us and have bigger crowds, commercial revenues etc. Yes they have finished a bit higher, but shouldn't John Williams and Rovers be getting as much of a mention.

[chris]

But chris, it is like that for 95% of clubs in England.

then why are we bottom of the investment ladder by 50 million.

We needed investment.

Blackburn have a lot to thank Hughes for, he's a massive reason we are (well were) so secure, many rabbits nad hats there.

[Mattyblue]

then why are we bottom of the investment ladder by 50 million.

Because we had owners that stopped funding the club in 2006. We all know this. However, we consitently paid wages that were top 10. That's how JW kept us competitive.

I'm really struggling to see your point chris.

We had owners that did not fund the club, yet we kept on out perfomring much wealthier clubs, sounds pretty bloody good to me.

[chris]

Because we had owners that stopped funding the club in 2006. We all know this. However, we consitently paid wages that were top 10. That's how JW kept us competitive.

I'm really struggling to see your point chris.

We had owners that did not fund the club, yet we kept on out perfomring much wealthier clubs, sounds pretty bloody good to me.

I think there is a line between how good Hughes and Sam were, and how good JW and TF were.

Getting Hughes and Sam was brilliant, but had we gone down in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 (had the manager stayed) I would have not blamed the manager but investment.

[Mattyblue]

Yes so would I, every season was a risk, JW said as much.

But great administrators and managers pulled it off year in year out.

[chris]

Yes so would I, every season was a risk, JW said as much.

But great administrators and managers pulled it off year in year out.

then why did we go down in 1999?

Right admin but wrong manager.

It was more Hughes and Sam that were the key.

I wish they had better backing.

The lack of investment bothered me.

[Mattyblue]

then why did we go down in 1999?

Right admin but wrong manager.

It was more Hughes and Sam that were the key.

I wish they had better backing.

The lack of investment bothered me.

Jack backed Roy Hodgson, he then backed Kidd, even when we got relegated. He had a right go at the players after Kidd (finally) went.

Even a hardnosed businessman like Jack made mistakes, football is an emotional business.

[Speedie Dived]

then why did we go down in 1999?

Right admin but wrong manager.

It was more Hughes and Sam that were the key.

I wish they had better backing.

The lack of investment bothered me.

Because the year before we blew 30 million on dross. So our biggest budget for 15 years and we went down.