[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[thenodrog]

We have proved for 10 years that with very little money it is possible to sustain a top club club in this town with good people running the club

The infrastructure was in place and had been for years only cos of the Walker involvement for the decade previous to that. The rest was down to shrewd management and the financial clout to be able to write off and draw a line under the occasional mistake. Without the Walker involvement I seriously doubt that we would ever have been promoted to the Prem and if we had we'd still have been in a ground that boasted the Riverside as it's showpiece stand!

[jim mk2]

And your point is ?

[Stuart]

That it's unnatural?

[Mike E]

And your point is ?

Without Jack Walker, the last 20years wouldn't have happened. It's really quite simple. I'm shocked anyone thinks any different.

[jim mk2]

Without Jack Walker, the last 20years wouldn't have happened. It's really quite simple. I'm shocked anyone thinks any different.

No one's disputing it, but is missing the point. He died a long time ago and the club thrived until 2 years ago with very little investment in the latter years because of the quality of the people in charge. I'm saying that Rovers have shown how clubs like ours have shown how it is possible to sustain top-flight football and that to say we should now pack up and go home is defeatist and pathetic.

[Mike E]

No one's disputing it, but is missing the point. He died a long time ago and the club thrived until 2 years ago with very little investment in the latter years because of the quality of the people in charge. I'm saying that Rovers have shown how clubs like ours have shown how it is possible to sustain top-flight football and that to say we should now pack up and go home is defeatist and pathetic.

I would argue the point is that a small club can only do that (without investment) if they are already in that league. By and large that is the case, anyway.

[M-K]

He died a long time ago and the club thrived until 2 years ago with very little investment

Over £100m from the Trust after Jack Walker died, wasn't it?

[Majiball]

But there's far more money in the prem now, far more. It could be done again but you'd need shrewd people and processes and that's as likely as me winning the lotto with all the numskulls investing Ewood.

[chris_h]

Over £100m from the Trust after Jack Walker died, wasn't it?

Really? I'm sure you post that in good faith but I'd like to see the breakdown of that. I seriously doubt that figure.

[DE.]

The Trust spent a fair wedge in the earlier years on the likes of Cole, Grabbi, Ferguson, etc. With wages included they probably invested a fair amount, though it all dried up around 2006/2007, just when we were on the verge of building a real quality team with Sparky at the helm.

[Sparky Marky]

The Trust spent a fair wedge in the earlier years on the likes of Cole, Grabbi, Ferguson, etc. With wages included they probably invested a fair amount, though it all dried up around 2006/2007, just when we were on the verge of building a real quality team with Sparky at the helm.

So, who got the 17m for duff, 17m for Roque, Bentley, etc......would that not go back to the trust?

[CapeTownRover]

like Jim said, we know what Jack did for the club, but its not just down to that. Jack died before we got promoted, so the 11 consecutive years in the pl was some achievement, done through a management structure that was the best we could have dreamt about. in those 11 years, we basically made some shrewed signings when there was very little money to spend.

[Amo]

Your post implies that when Jack died, his legacy died with him. Without the foundations that he put in place, we wouldn't have had the current Ewood Park, nor the modern training facilities, nor the top class players, basically everything that established Rovers as a PL-standard club. There's no dispute that those who inherited this empire managed it successfully for a number of years before selling us out, but that doesn't change the fact that without his arrival there would not have been a Blackburn Rovers as we know (knew?) it. I really don't see how people can't get their heads around that little detail.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

No one's disputing it, but is missing the point. He died a long time ago and the club thrived until 2 years ago with very little investment in the latter years because of the quality of the people in charge. I'm saying that Rovers have shown how clubs like ours have shown how it is possible to sustain top-flight football and that to say we should now pack up and go home is defeatist and pathetic.

Yes its certainly possible, but the point most people are making is it isn't natural. Natural means average, as you say the high quality of the people in charge contributed to us staying in the PL, high quality by its very definition is above average, above whats natural.

Its the other stuff that contributed which is the real obstacle though. Firstly, once you're there for more than a year its easier to stay there because as I mentioned in an earlier post, you have a serious TV money advantage over newly promoted clubs. But getting to that second season point in the first place is phenomenally difficult and we'd have had a miniscule chance of achieving it without Jack Walker. Burnley needed their best manager in decades to even come close, and I have a feeling even he knew it wouldn't be enough when he jumped ship for Bolton.

The second thing which isn't natural is the Walker Trust's input. There's no hard data I know of that says how much they contributed in that 11 years, but as a low estimate it must have been at least £3m a season on average. Which is 15,000 adult season ticket holders at our prices under Allardyce, or about 6,000 at the PL average. In money terms, were we even a town club when that was happening? Either way its another unnatural factor.

To me it isn't defeatist to give an honest evaluation of where your club should be, its realistic. You can still constantly strive to be above your station and confound the "rule book" and I hope we continue to do that. The main thing it should do is make us appreciate when we are overachieving. There was still grumbling from fans during that 11 year spell in the PL (about Souness, Allardyce, Pedersen, Roberts, Andrews, Kuqi etc etc). If there'd been more recognition of how superbly we were overachieving the whole time then that might not have been there as much as it was. I certainly saw it as a magnificent time to be a Rovers fan and a true golden age. I think its a positive thing to be realistic.

[Amo]

Yes its certainly possible, but the point most people are making is it isn't natural. Natural means average, as you say the high quality of the people in charge contributed to us staying in the PL, high quality by its very definition is above average, above whats natural.

Its the other stuff that contributed which is the real obstacle though. Firstly, once you're there for more than a year its easier to stay there because as I mentioned in an earlier post, you have a serious TV money advantage over newly promoted clubs. But getting to that second season point in the first place is phenomenally difficult and we'd have had a miniscule chance of achieving it without Jack Walker. Burnley needed their best manager in decades to even come close, and I have a feeling even he knew it wouldn't be enough when he jumped ship for Bolton.

The second thing which isn't natural is the Walker Trust's input. There's no hard data I know of that says how much they contributed in that 11 years, but as a low estimate it must have been at least £3m a season on average. Which is 15,000 adult season ticket holders at our prices under Allardyce, or about 6,000 at the PL average. In money terms, were we even a town club when that was happening? Either way its another unnatural factor.

To me it isn't defeatist to give an honest evaluation of where your club should be, its realistic. You can still constantly strive to be above your station and confound the "rule book" and I hope we continue to do that. The main thing it should do is make us appreciate when we are overachieving. There was still grumbling from fans during that 11 year spell in the PL (about Souness, Allardyce, Pedersen, Roberts, Andrews, Kuqi etc etc). If there'd been more recognition of how superbly we were overachieving the whole time then that might not have been there as much as it was. I certainly saw it as a magnificent time to be a Rovers fan and a true golden age. I think its a positive thing to be realistic.

Plus one and stuff.

[CapeTownRover]

Your post implies that when Jack died, his legacy died with him. Without the foundations that he put in place, we wouldn't have had the current Ewood Park, nor the modern training facilities, nor the top class players, basically everything that established Rovers as a PL-standard club. There's no dispute that those who inherited this empire managed it successfully for a number of years before selling us out, but that doesn't change the fact that without his arrival there would not have been a Blackburn Rovers as we know (knew?) it. I really don't see how people can't get their heads around that little detail.

come on Toppers, i wasnt implying that his legacy died when he died. Basically the issue at hand was, could a club sustain its position in the PL without much money, but rather through some good structures being in place. I know what jack did, and his legacy and all those things will remain in place for now(Venkys alert). However, my response was merely in relation to the 11 consecutive years that followed in the PL, that we managed to sustain our position in the top division without much funds, but through a structure that knew what was necessary to keep the club up.

If we get new oners who dont have much money, but are very smart in how they will run the club, who they bring in to manage the club etc, are we just going to give up and say, "well, this is now our level" because we dont have the money to compete? I think at the moment Venkys have basically made our fans become of the opinion that we had our good times, and its now back to where we should have been had Jack not spent all that money back then. We are greatful to Jack for where we were, how we managed to hold our own etc etc. However, while the infrastructure are still in place and the legacy will always be there, the past is the past, and we need to realise that and move on. Maybe im just not getting it, but i do not believe that we are a championship club, but that we are more than capable of being in the PL again if things somehow miraculously changed. Or, maybe im just being a fool and should accept that things will never be the way it use to be.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Plus one and stuff.

Thanks, aren't we getting on these days

[CapeTownRover]

Thanks, aren't we getting on these days

so sweet hey..

[jim mk2]

Ye

To me it isn't defeatist to give an honest evaluation of where your club should be, its realistic. You can still constantly strive to be above your station and confound the "rule book" and I hope we continue to do that. The main thing it should do is make us appreciate when we are overachieving. There was still grumbling from fans during that 11 year spell in the PL (about Souness, Allardyce, Pedersen, Roberts, Andrews, Kuqi etc etc). If there'd been more recognition of how superbly we were overachieving the whole time then that might not have been there as much as it was. I certainly saw it as a magnificent time to be a Rovers fan and a true golden age. I think its a positive thing to be realistic.

Honesty and realism is fine but I'm talking about the abject defeatism as displayed by some who talk about "natural levels" for a club when we have shown that with ambition and managerial talent it is possible for a club like Rovers to be successful. I also dispute the "overachieving" tag which suggests there is again a natural order which says smaller clubs should not have success while larger clubs are entitled to be successful. It all smacks of the little man should know his place famous Ronnie Barker - John Cleese comedy sketch of the 1960s, a parody of the class structure in Britain but which applies to football as well if you talk about small clubs "overachieving". People are the key and until we get good people in the boardroom (or Gary Bowyer turns out be another Ferguson) I fear we will be treading water in this division or lower for years. If I could wave a magic wand I would have the Swansea chairman running Rovers - anyone can get lucky with appointing one good manager but hitting the jackpot with managers 3 or 4 times in succession takes some doing.

[Stuart]

Honesty and realism is fine but I'm talking about the abject defeatism as displayed by some who talk about "natural levels" for a club when we have shown that with ambition and managerial talent it is possible for a club like Rovers to be successful.

Yes, provided they have a huge (unnatural) amount of money to get them started.

It all smacks of the little man should know his place famous Ronnie Barker - John Cleese comedy sketch of the 1960s, a parody of the class structure in Britain but which applies to football as well if you talk about small clubs "overachieving".

Ronnie Corbett.

[M-K]

Really? I'm sure you post that in good faith but I'd like to see the breakdown of that. I seriously doubt that figure.

It was discussed somewhere on this forum - I think the bulk of it was £14m of loans converted into shares in 2006 and £80m in 2007. I don't know whether that represents the post-Jack funding alone or the entire Walker investment, but that money is the only thing that made Rovers equipped to stay in the Premier League. Within two seasons of the cash drying up, the vultures had descended and the club was @#/?.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Honesty and realism is fine but I'm talking about the abject defeatism as displayed by some who talk about "natural levels" for a club when we have shown that with ambition and managerial talent it is possible for a club like Rovers to be successful. I also dispute the "overachieving" tag which suggests there is again a natural order which says smaller clubs should not have success while larger clubs are entitled to be successful. It all smacks of the little man should know his place famous Ronnie Barker - John Cleese comedy sketch of the 1960s, a parody of the class structure in Britain but which applies to football as well if you talk about small clubs "overachieving". People are the key and until we get good people in the boardroom (or Gary Bowyer turns out be another Ferguson) I fear we will be treading water in this division or lower for years. If I could wave a magic wand I would have the Swansea chairman running Rovers - anyone can get lucky with appointing one good manager but hitting the jackpot with managers 3 or 4 times in succession takes some doing.

Well a lot of it is how you choose your terminology. I describe my position as realistic, you describe it as defeatist. You describe your position as ambitious, I describe it as delusional.

Your analogy is misleading in my opinion. The natural order of football is defined by a simple numbers game. Those clubs with a bigger proportion of the overall football fanbase will be higher up the ladder on average than the clubs with smaller proportions of it. Its democracy at work if you will. Your comparison is a fairly outdated class issue based around unfair starting points (e.g. inherited wealth) and underhanded ways of keeping people down. Everton aren't above us because they started above us and do things to keep us in our place, they're above us because their fanbase is about 4 times the size of ours.

[Guest Norbert]

Yes, provided they have a huge (unnatural) amount of money to get them started.

Ronnie Corbett.

Ronnie Barker was also in that sketch.

[jim mk2]

Well a lot of it is how you choose your terminology. I describe my position as realistic, you describe it as defeatist. You describe your position as ambitious, I describe it as delusional.

Your analogy is misleading in my opinion. The natural order of football is defined by a simple numbers game. Those clubs with a bigger proportion of the overall football fanbase will be higher up the ladder on average than the clubs with smaller proportions of it. Its democracy at work if you will. Your comparison is a fairly outdated class issue based around unfair starting points (e.g. inherited wealth) and underhanded ways of keeping people down. Everton aren't above us because they started above us and do things to keep us in our place, they're above us because their fanbase is about 4 times the size of ours.

I describe my position as ambitious and optimistic, I would describe yours as unambitious, pessimistic and lacking in confidence; the position the Lancashire town clubs adopted post the abolition of the maximum wage in the 1960s while southern towns with clubs of lesser standing were playing in the old first division.

If it were a pure numbers game then Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield United, Birmingham City, Wolves, Hull, Forest et al were be permanently dining at the top table while so-called small clubs like us would be stuck in the lower leagues. Everton have managed to stay up because they have a top manager for heaven's sake, not because they 4 times the fan base. Your argument is too simplistic and is wrong.

[CapeTownRover]

Yes, provided they have a huge (unnatural) amount of money to get them started.

Ronnie Corbett.

why Stuart, why not just a good manager, who uses good tactics and who knows what he is doing? I once remember we had one in Mark Hughes before, and he basically had to scrape the barrel. Allardyce also had to scrape around for a few players, and that worked out alright.