[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[CapeTownRover]

Clubs like ours???? Jim, there aren't any. There has been some massive personal investment in bigger clubs e.g Chelsea and City but how many 'clubs like ours' have benefitted from an investment of £60m+ over 20 years ago (and which would prob be double today)?

Tell you what Jim name me some 'clubs like ours' that have sustained 20 years at the top table would you?

forget 'clubs like ours', there have been many teams bigger than us, who have spent crap loads over the last 20 years and have been sent into the Wilderness for years now. Our achievement along with Wigan and Bolton have been well deserved over the last decade, and this where we are just purely seen as making up the numbers. We have scraped the barrel this decade, or at least the last 5 or so years, but despite that, we have ruffled a few of the big hitters feathers. so its hard enough to sustain your position in the PL spending loads of money(QPR), but if you mess around with a proper structure behind the scenes, then you are setting yourself up for failure sooner rather than later.

Jack knew what he wanted, he went out and got it, and behind the scenes things started to click in place. From there, again as you said, the rest is history. If Venkys had done similar, i will categorically say that we would still be in the PL now if the management structure which were in place, were still around today.

[BRFC1995]

Everton. Had no money for donkey's years yet have managed to stay at the top through brilliant management. Point is, we have shown what is possible - the failure of other clubs to follow our example is an idictment of their poor management.

By the way, I'm very flattered by your apparent need to reply to all my posts. Some people would accuse you of stalking.

everton generally finish 6th/7th...the 6 or 7 above spend huge sums but Everton must be about the 7th biggest spenders surely so finishing where they do every season can't be a suprise can it. Baffles me how easily people seem to forget the money they've spent and not always spent well.

Mirallas £6m 2012

Jelavic £5m 2012

Pienaar £4.5m 2012

Gibson £2m 2012

Oviedo £5m 2012

Stones £3m 2013

and thats just the last 18 months or so on pienaar aside some poor non regular 1st team players £25m spunked away, albeit they mugged city for Rodwell in that time.....maybe some clubs like stoke qpr go mental now and then and throw money down the drain but on money spent transfer wise alone let alone wages which i imagine are massive i think Everton finish where they should most seasons not exactly over achieving.

[jim mk2]

Haven't Everton been in the top division throughout their history? I'm sure they've had money at plenty of points during it, and even when they haven't there's not having money Everton-style and not having money say Burnley-style. You know for sure who's still gonna attract the better players even if they're both in the same division.

Had pretty much given up on this argument as its obvious you aren't gonna budge, but you can't start using my own examples against me! I'm quite surprised at how little you seem to question this belief that there is no natural order in football considering the overwhelming statistical evidence, vastly unequal distribution of money and large majority of public opinion that support there being one.

What you say does not make sense. What I am trying to say is that "a natural order" based on money and fan base and perceived size of a club is not inevitable because we have shown that it is possible, and I will continue to rail against the small-town gloomsters and defeatists who say we are in some sort of pre-determined decline.

[Stuart]

What you say does not make sense. What I am trying to say is that "a natural order" based on money and fan base and perceived size of a club is not inevitable because we have shown that it is possible, and I will continue to rail against the small-town gloomsters and defeatists who say we are in some sort of pre-determined decline.

Yes, Jim. It's possible (or at least it was possible) by having shedloads of money injected, outside of the 'natural' income streams.

Surely you can see that the 'natural' income through Ewood's turnstiles and 'reasonable' (likely) sponsorship would see us 'naturally' in the bottom half of the Championship - or lower? Even with John Williams in charge - now that we have alighted the gravy train - we wouldn't be able to compete due to the losses we are sustaining and the wagebill we could afford - based on said gate and sponsorship income.

We showed it was possible to get up there because one of our biggest fans pumped in his own cash to put the club up their with the big boys.

Can you tell me what you believe we can do (or even hope to do) to return to the top division - using natural resouces? I'll give you a chance: even with further large sums of cash being provided (somehow circumnavigating FFP rules, e.g. by donation), WHO is going to do this - especially at the types of sums required to compete in 2013, rather than 1993?

[Mike E]

Yes, Jim. It's possible (or at least it was possible) by having shedloads of money injected, outside of the 'natural' income streams.

Surely you can see that the 'natural' income through Ewood's turnstiles and 'reasonable' (likely) sponsorship would see us 'naturally' in the bottom half of the Championship - or lower? Even with John Williams in charge - now that we have alighted the gravy train - we wouldn't be able to compete due to the losses we are sustaining and the wagebill we could afford - based on said gate and sponsorship income.

We showed it was possible to get up there because one of our biggest fans pumped in his own cash to put the club up their with the big boys.

Can you tell me what you believe we can do (or even hope to do) to return to the top division - using natural resouces? I'll give you a chance: even with further large sums of cash being provided (somehow circumnavigating FFP rules, e.g. by donation), WHO is going to do this - especially at the types of sums required to compete in 2013, rather than 1993?

Getting @#/? lucky with a manager who can develop youth players (ie: be a stable selling club, as we always were). But even that only MIGHT get us in the PL and staying there is another matter altogether.

[CapeTownRover]

repeat again Stuart, good management at all levels will get us promoted. no need for big spending, but rather smart and sensible spending on capable championship players. we can worry again, about getting quality pl players in when we are there.

[Stuart]

repeat again Stuart, good management at all levels will get us promoted. no need for big spending, but rather smart and sensible spending on capable championship players. we can worry again, about getting quality pl players in when we are there.

I'm actually looking for any answer from Jim but...

Do you think that good management at all levels will get Bury into the Premier League? Are they just "good management" away from getting into the Premier League? Of course not, they don't have the infrastructure.

What you call 'sensible spending' is well out of reach of the likes of Bury and potentially us very shortly - even sooner if Venkys turn off the tap/overdraft.

I use Bury as an extreme example of course, but the point has not been about making the PL by hook, crook or luck. Burnley and Blackpool have both proved that 'ordinary town clubs' can flirt with the big time, and come straight back down.

No, the point we are debating is that the PL is a 'natural' position for a club of our size and resources. The point is that without Jack Walker's money and love for his home town club, we would not have had the last 20 years - not under the club's own steam.

That point is one being denied and I don't understand the justification that we would / could have been in the PL without Jack and his legacy.

[jim mk2]

Yes, Jim. It's possible (or at least it was possible) by having shedloads of money injected, outside of the 'natural' income streams.

This isn't about money; it's about people. You've not read any of my previous posts.

[Stuart]

This isn't about money; it's about people. You've not read any of my previous posts.

Yes I have.

And it is about money whether we like it or not. You need money to get the best players, managers, boardroom team - in whatever division you are in.

But once again, the issue has changed. I don't deny it is possible to get into the PL but the only way to establish a 'natural' position as a PL team is to have the money to do so. Jack pumped the money in, Sky topped it up - and even that was short by about £3m per season which we had to make up by selling our best players.

For a club of our size/resources, that money is not natural.

If you are going to change the discussion onto something else then that's fine. I'll pretend you never said it.

[jim mk2]

It's you who have changed the discussion back to money. I've stated my case.

[Stuart]

What you say does not make sense. What I am trying to say is that "a natural order" based on money and fan base and perceived size of a club is not inevitable because we have shown that it is possible, and I will continue to rail against the small-town gloomsters and defeatists who say we are in some sort of pre-determined decline.

From that post, Jim, I conclude that you believe Rovers have "shown that it is possible" to defy its "natural order" [as a lower league team] by playing in the Premier League for reasons "not based on money, fan base, size of club".

What I am saying is that we only defied it because WE DID have money. Throughout the 90s, we had an infrastructure, playing staff and the personnel of a club which was funded by unnatural income (Jack's money).

EVERYTHING that happened in the last 10 years happened because of Jacks's legacy.

Without the money, you don't get the people.

To be honest, Jim, it really the definition of the word 'normal' in a football context that is the problem. You can't count having a rich benefactor as 'normal'. Just look at Chelsea and Man City both now regular Champions League teams because of unnatural advantages from their owners. At least Man City have the fan base I suppose, without Abramovic (or similar) Chelsea would be another Pompey.

[jim mk2]

From that post, Jim, I conclude that you believe Rovers have "shown that it is possible" to defy its "natural order" [as a lower league team] by playing in the Premier League for reasons "not based on money, fan base, size of club".

What I am saying is that we only defied it because WE DID have money. Throughout the 90s, we had an infrastructure, playing staff and the personnel of a club which was funded by unnatural income (Jack's money).

EVERYTHING that happened in the last 10 years happened because of Jacks's legacy.

We needed money to get there (as has been acknowledged many times) but for the past 5 - 10 years we've been largely starved of funds and stayed at the top because of the quality of the people (as I have stated many times). Venky's have money but have squandered it on poor people which has led us into our present predicament. Until they sort out the management of the club we will continue to struggle and all the money in the world won't get us back up. This is going round in circles and there is only so many different ways I can say the same thing over and over again.

[Stuart]

We needed money to get there (as has been acknowledged many times) but for the past 5 - 10 years we've been largely starved of funds and stayed at the top because of the quality of the people (as I have stated many times). Venky's have money but have squandered it on poor people which has led us into our present predicament. Until they sort out the management of the club we will continue to struggle and all the money in the world won't get us back up. This is going round in circles and there is only so many different ways I can say the same thing over and over again.

There are only so many ways you can ignore the point over and over again.

The last 5-10 years would have been spent in the League One (or worse) had it not been for Jack's money. It's a moot and speculative point, obviously, and I credit you for choosing a glass-half-full perspective but I feel it's more realistic given where we were before Jack came along. Had we been boxed out of the Premier League instead of boxed in then things would have been a heck of a lot different.

The work John Williams, Tom Finn and co did was marvellous and, yes, we were starved of money but (and it's a key point) we had already been elevated beyond our natural position by this point and were hanging on by our fingernails.

While we were waiting for the ground to rise up and meet us (the Sky-inflated bubble to burst) Venkys strapped a large rock to our backs (Kean) and jumped on our fingers (alienating and/or selling all our best players).

[Mike E]

We needed money to get there (as has been acknowledged many times) but for the past 5 - 10 years we've been largely starved of funds and stayed at the top because of the quality of the people (as I have stated many times). Venky's have money but have squandered it on poor people which has led us into our present predicament. Until they sort out the management of the club we will continue to struggle and all the money in the world won't get us back up. This is going round in circles and there is only so many different ways I can say the same thing over and over again.

Yes Jim, but natural level implies that if you started again, with no club having any kind of rich benefactor, you think we'd be in the PL after 5 years. We wouldn't. The wealthier clubs (bigger fanbase and better players) will be above us and we'll be little old Blackburn.

[thenodrog]

Getting @#/? lucky with a manager who can develop youth players (ie: be a stable selling club, as we always were). But even that only MIGHT get us in the PL and staying there is another matter altogether.

Aren't changes to youth / apprentices on their way which will make even that option less luctrative for smaller clubs?

[CapeTownRover]

stuart i enjoy your posts, but you are going in circles now. we admit jack did his bit, but you also cant deny that the people who were tasked to run the club after his death were superb. jack said he wanted the club to sustain itself or something to that extent, and not be dependent on him. over a period of a decade, the club had to function on the bare minimum, and did so amazingly well, by maintaining its status as a pl team. that was done with a good structure and organisational team in place. so it can be done, but if you believe otherwise still, then il leave you to that. you gave me bury as an example, and il put leeds down as my example. big club, big fan base, money to spend, poor off field people running the show. is this their natural position to be in? we could look at sheffield wed, forest, boro, coventry etc as clubs that have fallen by the way side due to poor management.

[Stuart]

stuart i enjoy your posts, but you are going in circles now. we admit jack did his bit, but you also cant deny that the people who were tasked to run the club after his death were superb. jack said he wanted the club to sustain itself or something to that extent, and not be dependent on him. over a period of a decade, the club had to function on the bare minimum, and did so amazingly well, by maintaining its status as a pl team. that was done with a good structure and organisational team in place. so it can be done, but if you believe otherwise still, then il leave you to that. you gave me bury as an example, and il put leeds down as my example. big club, big fan base, money to spend, poor off field people running the show. is this their natural position to be in? we could look at sheffield wed, forest, boro, coventry etc as clubs that have fallen by the way side due to poor management.

M.O.N.E.Y.

There's no getting away from it.

We didn't have the bare minimum for a decade. We had Sky TV money and player sales in the millions. Yes, we had brilliant people but they had an unnatural platform (something fans of other clubs would call "an unfair advantage").

Sheff Weds, Forest, Boro, Coventry all lacked the green stuff.

The circle only continues because of a simple fact. People think that the money Jack put in to get us into the Premier League meant we had found our natural position. We are now finding out that we hadn't.

This missing trick here is that under the Walker Trust we were going the same way only more slowly.

[jim mk2]

There are only so many ways you can ignore the point over and over again.

The last 5-10 years would have been spent in the League One (or worse) had it not been for Jack's money. It's a moot and speculative point, obviously, and I credit you for choosing a glass-half-full perspective but I feel it's more realistic given where we were before Jack came along. Had we been boxed out of the Premier League instead of boxed in then things would have been a heck of a lot different.

The work John Williams, Tom Finn and co did was marvellous and, yes, we were starved of money but (and it's a key point) we had already been elevated beyond our natural position by this point and were hanging on by our fingernails.

While we were waiting for the ground to rise up and meet us (the Sky-inflated bubble to burst) Venkys strapped a large rock to our backs (Kean) and jumped on our fingers (alienating and/or selling all our best players).

Walker's money was a a big help (obviously) but the biggest factor in our success was he went out and got a top manager.

How have Norwich and Swansea enjoyed so much success in recent years ? - certainly not with money by with excellent management from the top of the club downwards. Whelan has put money into Wigan but he's got a damn fine manager in charge.

Some people would say we are lucky to have Venky's as owners because they are wealthy and have thrown alot of money at us - albeit they've wasted most of it on poor managers and idiots in the boardroom.

There's no such thing as a "natural order" - only well-run clubs and badly-run clubs.

[Stuart]

Walker's money was a a big help (obviously) but the biggest factor in our success was he went out and got a top manager.

How have Norwich and Swansea enjoyed so much success in recent years ? - certainly not with money by with excellent management from the top of the club downwards. Whelan has put money into Wigan but he's got a damn fine manager in charge.

Some people would say we are lucky to have Venky's as owners because they are wealthy and have thrown alot of money at us - albeit they've wasted most of it on poor managers and idiots in the boardroom.

There's no such thing as a "natural order" - only well-run clubs and badly-run clubs.

If we talk about PL clubs in isolation then I can agree with that last part. Possibly at a stretch, even if we were to divide the Football League into two halves: PL and Champ (the "haves") and Leagues One and Twos (the "have nots") then I can see your point, at a stretch.

But there are many well run clubs who will never move up from group 2 to group 1. At least not without a massive cash injection. Well, unless FFP levels things but the PL will never properly dance to that tune.

Without Jack's money (I know, I know) I still reckon we'd be a plucky group 2 team.

[Mike E]

In terms of being well-run, do Crewe and Accy Stanley not fit into that category, Jim? They should be PL then, clearly!

[Joar]

Are Wigan going to do it again this season?

I'd be very worried if I was a Sunderland, Newcastle or Norwich supporter at this stage

[CapeTownRover]

i hope wigan stay up, because they are showing again tremendous heart and determination. under martinez they have a quality manager, and a good owner.

[chris_h]

Who is their game in hand against? I would seriously p1ss myself if the barcodes went down.

[Guest Norbert]

Chelsea I think. I'd love them to win, just to keep it exciting for the neutral on the last weekend.

[Joar]

They've got Swansea and Villa at home I think, which are winnable. And then Arsenal away, where they've gotten results before. If they win 2, even Soton should look over their shoulder