[Archived] sugar daddy owners

[Mafioso]

Jack bought Shearer for 3.5m and Sutton for around 5m. Apart from Ripley etc. For him to be ANYTHING close to being the kind of sugar daddy you have to compare our current reality to the one at the time..

While Vialli moved to Juventus for 12m and Lentini to Milan for 13m we bought Shearer for 3.5m. Hardly Abramovichesque. Todays money crazy sheiks/oil tycoons just buy players as if it was a video game.

They LEARN to love the team they take over.

Jack DIED loving the team he took over.

[K-Hod]

Jesus Christ is this thread a joke???

[john.leigh]

I've had this argument before.

The difference with Jack is that he put us on an equal footing with the 'big clubs'.

Jack allowed us to shop in the same market as them, but it still had to be done prudently.

The new wave of owners are smashing the market structure by paying ever inflated wages and fees - nothing prudent about them.

Contrast this with Jack, who gave Rovers temporary 'artificial' buying power. Jack's strategy was to provide a short term capital injection to ensure the club were part of the Premier League gravy train with a medium to long term aim of self sustainability once new revune streams had been accessed

[Majiball]

Jack bought Shearer for 3.5m and Sutton for around 5m. Apart from Ripley etc. For him to be ANYTHING close to being the kind of sugar daddy you have to compare our current reality to the one at the time..

While Vialli moved to Juventus for 12m and Lentini to Milan for 13m we bought Shearer for 3.5m. Hardly Abramovichesque. Todays money crazy sheiks/oil tycoons just buy players as if it was a video game.

They LEARN to love the team they take over.

Jack DIED loving the team he took over.

The team that won the premier league in 1995 actually cost less than the team that finished second that season.

[LeChuck]

Jack bought Shearer for 3.5m and Sutton for around 5m. Apart from Ripley etc. For him to be ANYTHING close to being the kind of sugar daddy you have to compare our current reality to the one at the time..

While Vialli moved to Juventus for 12m and Lentini to Milan for 13m we bought Shearer for 3.5m. Hardly Abramovichesque.

When we signed Shearer it broke the English transfer record. When we bought Sutton it broke the English transfer record.

Let's not try to re-write history here.

[M-K]

Blackburn set new standards in the 90s, spending so much on players that rivals in the transfer market would look elsewhere rather than get in a bidding war. Overspending on the likes of Paul Warhurst, David Batty... the attempts to unsettle Geoff Thomas by waving a vast wad of cash in his face...

Also, splashing big (for the time) money on Duncan Shearer for no obvious reason other than to weaken one of our promotion rivals. As far as I'm aware, Abramovich has never pulled a douchebag move like that.

[Mafioso]

When we signed Shearer it broke the English transfer record. When we bought Sutton it broke the English transfer record.

Let's not try to re-write history here.

i never said we didnt. however we didnt just randomly buy the biggest names on the planet either.

[LeChuck]

i never said we didnt. however we didnt just randomly buy the biggest names on the planet either.

No but the Premier League wasn't really that sort of league at the time. The game as a whole wasn't as global as it is now.

[T4E]

It's not the mega-rich owners that's the problem, it's the lack of controls over what they are allowed to do. Even when Jack Walker took over us it wasn't as if we could go and take players from Chelsea/Arsenal/Man United/Liverpool etc etc. Now the likes of Man City can take whoever they want from whoever they want, with very few exceptions.

Our transfer "system" is the problem here, fix that and it wouldn't matter how many billionaire Russians there are.

[chris_h]

The OP is my favourite ever post on here.

I'm going to ignore the voices of reason which follow, because that spoils the deliciousness of the irony.

To be fair Sam the irony was pointed out by a few posters before you popped up. In fact the only one to argue against the irony is the original poster.

Were you creaming your kecks with your fellow Dingles a few years back when Ray 'New York Big Shot' Ingleby was telling you how he was going to make you bigger than Rovers by the way?

[koi]

Is the OP a wind up? or possible not born at the time?

[M-K]

It's not the mega-rich owners that's the problem, it's the lack of controls over what they are allowed to do. Even when Jack Walker took over us it wasn't as if we could go and take players from Chelsea/Arsenal/Man United/Liverpool etc etc. Now the likes of Man City can take whoever they want from whoever they want, with very few exceptions.

Man City haven't done that to Chelsea, Man U or Liverpool. Plenty of teams do it to Arsenal, though.

As I mentioned before, Rovers did it in a particularly cynical way by taking Swindon's best player halfway through the season and hardly even playing him, just to scupper a rival's chances.

The equivalent would be City taking Van Persie in January and then sending him off on holiday for the rest of the season, just so he couldn't score any more for United.

[roverandout]

yes I was born at the time and I was a regular attendee at ewood, rovers never paid over extortinate prices for players for the sake of bringing in superstars without building a team first, Monaco are full of mediocre players for example and are now bringing in the likes of falcao, moutinho etc for stupid money, they wont be able to challenge for the league for ages, Im not a hypocrite as our situation was completely different, we had a good solid teams first with the likes ripley, Sherwood, Wilcox, Hendry etc, some were extremely cheap players and some came through our youth ranks, nowadays billionaire owners are playing a game of championship manager.

[thenodrog]

Fun whilst it lasted though wasn't it?

Oh and Sam... better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

[McClarky]

Football at the top level is not a sport anymore but just a load of rich men waving their wallets at each other. Thank God for the Germans but apart from them it's not worth watching. Who cares really who wins anymore.

[saxo1man30]

rovers themselves are being financed by a rich family with no real connection to the club(that so far they`ve done it poorly is neither here nor there), strange choice of thread by the op..

[roverandout]

have they even pumped any serious money into the club? no!, in fact they have more than likely made a profit in terms of player deals

[Exiled in Toronto]

have they even pumped any serious money into the club? no!, in fact they have more than likely made a profit in terms of player deals

Which fully explains why the Trust are saying the club will lose 40 million this year, all paid for by errrrmmm......

[saxo1man30]

Which fully explains why the Trust are saying the club will lose 40 million this year, all paid for by errrrmmm......

oh but it`s the bank of indian paying for it all don`t you know, they`ll just recklessly loan money the club could never afford to pay back, y`see? doh..

[PAFELL]

who else is annoyed with all these sugar daddy owners coming into football? especially these Russians and sheiks, Chelsea started it off with abramovich now we have the likes of man city, Malaga and paris st germain, the latest one is Monaco, a club with no real structure or history, throwing money around like confetti at the likes of falcao, who lets be honest has only gone to Monaco for the cash. Now they are offering john terry 150,000 grand tax free, its sickening, what happened to football clubs with proper structuring? are these Russians even legit with their ill-gotten gains? what can fifa or uefa even do to stop this as its making a mockery of what was once an even, fair game.

It could be said Rovers started it off. Even if Rovers didn't, I doubt if many of us would complain about what Jack Walker did for the club.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

who else is annoyed with all these sugar daddy owners coming into football? especially these Russians and sheiks, Chelsea started it off with abramovich now we have the likes of man city, Malaga and paris st germain, the latest one is Monaco, a club with no real structure or history, throwing money around like confetti at the likes of falcao, who lets be honest has only gone to Monaco for the cash. Now they are offering john terry 150,000 grand tax free, its sickening, what happened to football clubs with proper structuring? are these Russians even legit with their ill-gotten gains? what can fifa or uefa even do to stop this as its making a mockery of what was once an even, fair game.

You've made 3 complaints there:

1. Throwing money around like confetti.

2. No proper structuring.

3. Making the game unfair

Jack's impact at Rovers had exactly the same effect as Abramovich, the Sheikh's etc on all 3 things. What does it matter if his background or motivations are different? If you're complaining about the effect on football then Jack has to be a cause for complaint as well.

Personally I welcome sugar daddys. There's another thing ruining football that seems to get surprisingly little coverage. Gloryhunters, and the vast sums of merchandise and sponsorship wealth they bring clubs. They are more responsible for making football unfair in the last 20 years than sugar daddys are. If you get rid of sugar daddys then Man U win 9 titles out of 10 every decade and Arsenal win the other one.