[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[thenodrog]

That's not true at all.

Try creating a list of 20 clubs to be in the PL without using any successful town clubs.

Are you counting the likes of Chelsea, Fulham and Tottenham as towns?

btw what is your definition of successful?

[LeChuck]

Are you counting the likes of Chelsea, Fulham and Tottenham as towns?

btw what is your definition of successful?

Those three can count as city clubs.

Maybe remove the qualifier "successful" to make it easier. Actually just remove anything I said there, just go with what you think the 20 clubs would look like based on your earlier theory.

I'm only asking because I did it in another topic where somebody asked who the 20 PL clubs could be if the PL was a closed shop. I've also argued in the past that our natural level is mid-lower Championship, but it was surprisingly easy to include Rovers in the PL. I'm wondering what you'll come up with if you do the same thing. I'm hoping you might be pleasantly surprised. Give it a shot!

[jim mk2]

Pathetic? Head in the sand opinion like yours is what really is pathetic.

I believe what I said was very accurate sadly. Town clubs have no future at the top level of English football. Without Jack Walker how many years do you think we would have had in the Prem? How do you think Ewood would look? How many trophies would we have to show? The players would still be training down Pleasi ffs and we'd never have seen the likes of Shearer, Tugay, Hendry, Sherwood etc etc. There are no more Jack Walker's Jim and if there were they would not be allowed to fund us as he did.

Jim you provide only continual criticism and never forward a valid argument to the alternative. You will not help your case byusing vapid comment in an attempt to shoot the messenger.

It's been said many times before but you have always ignored it. "Town" clubs can be very successful in the top flight if they are managed properly with good people. Rovers did it under the Trust with very little money over the past 10 years, the likes of Bolton, Southampton, Derby, Forest and Coventry have done it in the past and Norwich and Swansea are doing it now. And I know they are "cities" but their football clubs are no bigger in size than Rovers.

As I said, your defeatist small-town attitude is one reason Rovers were stuck in the doldrums for nearly 30 years post the 1966 relegation.

look at that house? makes you mad when normal hard working people have to graft like hell and these keans are doing sod all for their money

Big, soulless, horrible place, totally lacking in class and style but perfect for the sort of people who live in Essex.

[K-Hod]

It's been said many times before but you have always ignored it. "Town" clubs can be very successful in the top flight if they are managed properly with good people. Rovers did it under the Trust with very little money over the past 10 years, the likes of Bolton, Southampton, Derby, Forest and Coventry have done it in the past and Norwich and Swansea are doing it now. And I know they are "cities" but their football clubs are no bigger in size than Rovers.

As I said, your defeatist small-town attitude is one reason Rovers were stuck in the doldrums for nearly 30 years post the 1966 relegation.

Big, soulless, horrible place, totally lacking in class and style but perfect for the sort of people who live in Essex.

It's a bit daft to compare Rovers with Forest- they've won the European Cup twice, and have a much bigger fan base than ours....

[Hanks]

That's not true at all.

Try creating a list of 20 clubs to be in the PL without using any successful town clubs.

Arsenal, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Chelsea,Man U, Man C, Liverpool, Everton, Sunderland, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Leeds, Sheff W, Sheff U, Leicester, Nottingham Forest, Birmingham West Brom, Wolves, Spurs, West Ham, Swansea. Cardiff, Norwich, Derby, Coventry, Southampton. All these clubs have far bigger populations to draw on than we have and I would not describe Any of them as Towns.

[jim mk2]

It's a bit daft to compare Rovers with Forest- they've won the European Cup twice, and have a much bigger fan base than ours....

Showing what a good "town" club can do with good management. Fan base does not mean the club is "big" - Forest has a small-club mentality believe me.

[LeChuck]

Arsenal, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Chelsea,Man U, Man C, Liverpool, Everton, Sunderland, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Leeds, Sheff W, Sheff U, Leicester, Nottingham Forest, Birmingham West Brom, Wolves, Spurs, West Ham, Swansea. Cardiff, Norwich, Derby, Coventry, Southampton. All these clubs have far bigger populations to draw on than we have and I would not describe Any of them as Towns.

I think the population thing can be misleading though. I don't think anyone would argue Bradford and Wakefield have a better chance at establishing themselves as a PL club than we do, even though the populations are several times the size of Blackburn.

I honestly don't think Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Leicester, West Brom, Wolves, Swansea, Norwich, Derby, Coventry or Southampton are any better suited to surviving in the PL than Rovers without significant outside investment (i.e. on their current "natural" resources). Rovers have the stadium, training facilities and average attendance (in the top flight at least) to compete with all of them. They would all rely on astute management and selling the odd star now and again and spending the money wisely to compete, just as we used to.

I think even some of those clubs who could get significantly more bums on seats (both Sheffield clubs for example) wouldn't have the facilities and youth set-up that Rovers have. So whilst they might get a few extra million from attendences, they won't be able to bring as many players through the academy, which can ultimately cover that short fall. So again, it's not purely down to population/attendence. Except for Southampton, none of the above clubs have brought through the likes of Duff, Dunn, Phil Jones. That's ~£30 million of players through the academy in ~10 years.

[M-K]

Arsenal, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Chelsea,Man U, Man C, Liverpool, Everton, Sunderland, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Leeds, Sheff W, Sheff U, Leicester, Nottingham Forest, Birmingham West Brom, Wolves, Spurs, West Ham, Swansea. Cardiff, Norwich, Derby, Coventry, Southampton. All these clubs have far bigger populations to draw on than we have and I would not describe Any of them as Towns.

West Brom and Middlesbrough.

[Hanks]

West Brom and Middlesbrough.

Middlesbrough not a city on reflection but they still have a bigger catchment area and larger fan base than we have. WBA are in the Sandwell Borough which has a population of 300,000.

[Hanks]

I think the population thing can be misleading though. I don't think anyone would argue Bradford and Wakefield have a better chance at establishing themselves as a PL club than we do, even though the populations are several times the size of Blackburn.

I honestly don't think Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Leicester, West Brom, Wolves, Swansea, Norwich, Derby, Coventry or Southampton are any better suited to surviving in the PL than Rovers without significant outside investment (i.e. on their current "natural" resources). Rovers have the stadium, training facilities and average attendance (in the top flight at least) to compete with all of them. They would all rely on astute management and selling the odd star now and again and spending the money wisely to compete, just as we used to.

I think even some of those clubs who could get significantly more bums on seats (both Sheffield clubs for example) wouldn't have the facilities and youth set-up that Rovers have. So whilst they might get a few extra million from attendences, they won't be able to bring as many players through the academy, which can ultimately cover that short fall. So again, it's not purely down to population/attendence. Except for Southampton, none of the above clubs have brought through the likes of Duff, Dunn, Phil Jones. That's ~£30 million of players through the academy in ~10 years.

I was just compiling a list of possible premier clubs that are not towns. (In response to your suggestion to create a list of clubs without using Town Clubs)

[Mike E]

So if our level ISN'T in the Championship, why have we always been proud of 'punching above our weight'?

I'm not saying we don't ever deserve to be up there (if we do it'll be on merit). But I do believe that with the resources available to us, the Championship is about our level.

[LeChuck]

I was just compiling a list of possible premier clubs that are not towns. (In response to your suggestion to create a list of clubs without using Town Clubs)

Ah ok. I meant really to create a list of 20 clubs that are better suited to stay in the PL than Rovers. It still made pretty much the same point as that though.

So if our level ISN'T in the Championship, why have we always been proud of 'punching above our weight'?

I'm not saying we don't ever deserve to be up there (if we do it'll be on merit). But I do believe that with the resources available to us, the Championship is about our level.

Our level probably is Championship/lower PL along with the some of the clubs hanks listed earlier.

Whilst we were pushing the top six/ten we were definitely punching above our weight. I wouldn't say battling against relegation with the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Wigan, Stoke etc. would be punching above our weight.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I'm of the opinion that population is the main core factor for success. Well, catchment area actually rather than population, the Dingles for example always brag about their support for the town's population, but their catchment area is actually bigger than ours.

If you've got the catchment area then sooner or later success will bring them to games en masse and help you sustain that success. We could well see Cardiff, and Brighton if they manage to go up, transform into long-term big clubs now. The same has started to happen with Hull, Reading and Swansea in recent years. I'd argue these places aren't traditional football hotbeds but enough success starts to grow the fanbase. The problem towns have is they generally can't grow the fanbase, they're usually already maxed out if they're sniffing around PL level. So I'm with the opinion that its population that matters most. If you're a small club but get a very good manager, you can swim against the current for a while. And if you get a rich benefactor you can build bridges over it which last longer, but in the PL its just prolonging the inevitable.

The other problem town clubs have is that cities generate more wealth, and having richer fans is like having more fans. When Rovers were in the PL the average ST price was about £500. We were selling ours at £200 for a while, and had about 20,000 ST holders when we were doing it. But in monetary terms it was as if we had 8,000. When you look at it like that, I think anything above the bottom half of the Championship is punching above Rovers weight.

The one kind of loophole to all this for town clubs is if you can stay up for a season, then next time round you've had a season of Premiership TV money that the next set of promoted clubs haven't. You've basically got a £60m headstart. So if you're a town club and you're there, then to maintain the advantage over some city clubs you have to stay there by all means necessary. Which is why the Allardyce-haters among our support were short-sighted dolts IMO. Probably said that once or twice before though

[Salgado Is A Hero]

So if our level ISN'T in the Championship, why have we always been proud of 'punching above our weight'?

I'm not saying we don't ever deserve to be up there (if we do it'll be on merit). But I do believe that with the resources available to us, the Championship is about our level.

For me, only 10 teams have spent more time in the top flight than us so that's our level.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I'm of the opinion that population is the main core factor for success. Well, catchment area actually rather than population, the Dingles for example always brag about their support for the town's population, but their catchment area is actually bigger than ours.

If you've got the catchment area then sooner or later success will bring them to games en masse and help you sustain that success. We could well see Cardiff, and Brighton if they manage to go up, transform into long-term big clubs now. The same has started to happen with Hull, Reading and Swansea in recent years. I'd argue these places aren't traditional football hotbeds but enough success starts to grow the fanbase. The problem towns have is they generally can't grow the fanbase, they're usually already maxed out if they're sniffing around PL level. So I'm with the opinion that its population that matters most. If you're a small club but get a very good manager, you can swim against the current for a while. And if you get a rich benefactor you can build bridges over it which last longer, but in the PL its just prolonging the inevitable.

The other problem town clubs have is that cities generate more wealth, and having richer fans is like having more fans. When Rovers were in the PL the average ST price was about £500. We were selling ours at £200 for a while, and had about 20,000 ST holders when we were doing it. But in monetary terms it was as if we had 8,000. When you look at it like that, I think anything above the bottom half of the Championship is punching above Rovers weight.

The one kind of loophole to all this for town clubs is if you can stay up for a season, then next time round you've had a season of Premiership TV money that the next set of promoted clubs haven't. You've basically got a £60m headstart. So if you're a town club and you're there, then to maintain the advantage over some city clubs you have to stay there by all means necessary. Which is why the Allardyce-haters among our support were short-sighted dolts IMO. Probably said that once or twice before though

I agree with most of that. In spite of previous recent history in my opinion we're not a natural Top Flight team. If it's true that we are as some people seem to think we'll be back within a year or two at the most won't we ?

[DE.]

I agree with most of that. In spite of previous recent history in my opinion we're not a natural Top Flight team. If it's true that we are as some people seem to think we'll be back within a year or two at the most won't we ?

Most clubs, regardless of catchment area or size, would go into freefall under Venky ownership.

I wouldn't say there's a "natural" place for any football club to be, and am a bit baffled by what seems to be a fairly pointless discussion. If you're in the top division it's because at that point in time you're there on merit, whether that's through being rich or being run in a decent manner. If you're not, then it's because you aren't quite good enough. It's not really any more complicated than that.

[Stuart]

Most clubs, regardless of catchment area or size, would go into freefall under Venky ownership.

Agree with that.

Can you imagine if Venkys had bought United, sacked Ferguson, alienated the board, promoted Phelan to manager, sold Ferdinand, Vidic, Rooney. Had 'injuries' to Giggs and Scholes. Told the world they were going to re-sign Ronaldo and sign Messi and win the Champions League on £10m per season. Then went and signed Myles Anderson, Bruno Ribeiro and 6 unknown Portuguese unlikely lads.

I wonder if anything would have been done about them then?

Steve Phelan takes the positives after 5-0 defeat at Turf Moor. "We've had monumental results this season, including back-to-back clean sheets".

[ABBEY]

Haha so true

[jim mk2]

Reaching and staying in the top flight depends on the quality of the people in charge. Money is important but it's not everything. QPR are loaded and have gone down while ManU chucked money at it for 26 years before landing the title in 1993 when of course they had the right manager in charge.

Football clubs, like businesses and governments, are only as good as the people who work for them. Show me a failing business and it is likley the management have made a series of mistakes. Football club are no different, as our failing owners have demonstrated.

[Mike E]

For me, only 10 teams have spent more time in the top flight than us so that's our level.

Found it slightly staggering that we've actually spent 75 out of 110 seasons played (111 after the current season) in the top division. Not sure I'm prepared to do the research to refute or confirm your claim, though haha.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Everton 108, Aston Villa 100, Liverpool 96, Arsenal 94, Manchester United 86, Manchester City 82, Sunderland 80, Newcastle United 80, Tottenham Hotspur 76, Chelsea 76, West Bromwich Albion 73, Bolton Wanderers 72, Blackburn Rovers 71, Sheffield Wednesday 66, Wolverhampton Wanderers 62

Well there's actually 12 then.

I was originally going by the table based on points gained. But others have spent longer than us in the top division, just gaining less points.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I find it equally staggering that we've only ever spent 4 seasons outside the top 2 divisions. I know its said a lot but we've a hell of a lot to be proud of as Rovers fans. A few years back a dingle said to me that we weren't a proper football town like Burnley, I just laughed in his face. Over the history of football we're the best town club in England by a considerable distance.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I find it equally staggering that we've only ever spent 4 seasons outside the top 2 divisions. I know its said a lot but we've a hell of a lot to be proud of as Rovers fans. A few years back a dingle said to me that we weren't a proper football town like Burnley, I just laughed in his face. Over the history of football we're the best town club in England by a considerable distance.

Four seasons ? It felt a lot longer at the time.

[Mike E]

Everton 108, Aston Villa 100, Liverpool 96, Arsenal 94, Manchester United 86, Manchester City 82, Sunderland 80, Newcastle United 80, Tottenham Hotspur 76, Chelsea 76, West Bromwich Albion 73, Bolton Wanderers 72, Blackburn Rovers 71, Sheffield Wednesday 66, Wolverhampton Wanderers 62

Well there's actually 12 then.

I was originally going by the table based on points gained. But others have spent longer than us in the top division, just gaining less points.

75 if you include when there was only 1 league. We're allowed to cheat a bit

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Four seasons ? It felt a lot longer at the time.

Oops 5 sorry, can't read. 71-75 and 79-80 apparently. Bit before my time I'll have to admit.