[Archived] Best Article I've ever read

[adsfortheblues]

WE DIDN'T BUY THE TITLE. Thank you the guardian.

Blackburn didn't buy the Premier League title in 1995 they earned it

Jack Walker's wealth helped Kenny Dalglish, but Rovers spent less money than Manchester United and their other challengers.

Ask anyone to summarise how Blackburn managed to win their first League title for 81 years and they will undoubtedly recall Jack Walker's wealth, Alan Shearer's goals and his SAS partnership with Chris Sutton probably in that order.

A quick internet search generates season reviews which invariably but frustratingly convey the message that "moneybags" Blackburn "bought their way to the title". While Rovers owe a huge debt of gratitude to their generous benefactor, which their fans continue to vociferously acknowledge, the emphasis on money is unjust and the assertion that they only won the league because of it is ignorant of the facts and holds no weight.

To win a league, a team must invest in playing staff. Rovers admittedly spent a considerable amount on their strike force, twice breaking the British transfer record and parting with £8.3 million, while also signing Tim Flowers in a record deal for a goalkeeper. However, in terms of financial outlay on the first team that won the league, that is just about it.

There is a mistaken assumption that the club also spent heavily on Graeme Le Saux, Colin Hendry and captain Tim Sherwood, perhaps because they became indispensable so quickly and were sold on for big profit. In fact, all three were acquired on the cheap: Hendry for £700,000, the same price the club sold him for two years earlier; Le Saux, who was out of favour at Chelsea, for around the same and Sherwood from Norwich City for a mere £400,000.

However, based on calculations of the reported transfer fees for the roughly first choice starting XIs of both clubs in the 1994-95 season (taking into account injuries and long-term suspension), Rovers spent far less than the incumbent champions, Manchester United. Peter Schmeichel, Denis Irwin, Steve Bruce, Gary Pallister, Andrei Kanchelskis, Paul Ince, Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs, Brian McClair, Mark Hughes and Andy Cole cost £19.33m.

Whereas Flowers, Henning Berg, Hendry, Ian Pearce, Le Saux, Stuart Ripley, Mark Atkins, Sherwood, Jason Wilcox, Shearer and Sutton set Rovers back a comparatively low £14.7m. Given that these squads in particular United's took years to assemble, perhaps a fairer assessment would be to look at the 1994-95 spend in isolation. Even on this basis, United's outlay exceeded their rivals'.

Comparisons with other clubs are also favourable. Blackburn's entire back four cost less than Newcastle paid for Darren Peacock and less than half of the sum required to bring Phil Babb and John Scales to Liverpool. In Carlton Palmer, Leeds United spent more on a single midfielder than Rovers did across their starting midfield four illustrating that Rovers' spending was largely limited to their front two and not wasted unlike so many others.

How Blackburn happened to accidentally hoodwink so many into believing this "bought the league" fallacy is partly because of their wilful blindness to some of Kenny Dalglish's shrewd forays in the transfer market and abundance of unsung heroes. Take Atkins, for example. Signed from Scunthorpe United for £45,000 as a right-back, he filled in for the injured David Batty in central midfield and made 30 league appearances during the title-winning campaign, scoring six times the well timed volley at home to Southampton being the pick of a number of sweet strikes.

Other astute additions to play major roles included Berg, who was a relatively unknown 23-year-old at the time of his move from Lillestrom for under half a million, and the largely forgotten Pearce, who had only made four senior appearances before he joined the club for £300,000 both insignificant sums even then.

Also fundamental to Rovers' success was the organisation and desire instilled in the side and, pivotally, the width provided by Wilcox (who incidentally came through the ranks as a trainee) and Ripley. Despite lacking natural pace, they both had the knack of being able to create the half a yard required to deliver crosses into areas where Shearer and Sutton thrived, scoring 49 of Rovers' 80 league goals.

Rovers' rise was remarkable. Dalglish took over an unfashionable club lying in the bottom half of the old Second Division and won promotion to the new Premier League at his first attempt. The following two seasons saw the club finish fourth and then runners-up, before being crowned Champions of England.

It is not disputed that the club were able to offer substantial wages to attract players, but they bought wisely rather than overly and deserved nothing less than the success they achieved. It is a story that is unlikely to happen again and one that should be celebrated with respect and admiration, rather than viewed as the 1990's version of Roman Abramovich's Chelsea or present day Manchester City.

[ratters]

WE DIDN'T BUY THE TITLE. Thank you the guardian.

Blackburn didn't buy the Premier League title in 1995 they earned it

Jack Walker's wealth helped Kenny Dalglish, but Rovers spent less money than Manchester United and their other challengers.

Ask anyone to summarise how Blackburn managed to win their first League title for 81 years and they will undoubtedly recall Jack Walker's wealth, Alan Shearer's goals and his SAS partnership with Chris Sutton probably in that order.

A quick internet search generates season reviews which invariably but frustratingly convey the message that "moneybags" Blackburn "bought their way to the title". While Rovers owe a huge debt of gratitude to their generous benefactor, which their fans continue to vociferously acknowledge, the emphasis on money is unjust and the assertion that they only won the league because of it is ignorant of the facts and holds no weight.

To win a league, a team must invest in playing staff. Rovers admittedly spent a considerable amount on their strike force, twice breaking the British transfer record and parting with £8.3 million, while also signing Tim Flowers in a record deal for a goalkeeper. However, in terms of financial outlay on the first team that won the league, that is just about it.

There is a mistaken assumption that the club also spent heavily on Graeme Le Saux, Colin Hendry and captain Tim Sherwood, perhaps because they became indispensable so quickly and were sold on for big profit. In fact, all three were acquired on the cheap: Hendry for £700,000, the same price the club sold him for two years earlier; Le Saux, who was out of favour at Chelsea, for around the same and Sherwood from Norwich City for a mere £400,000.

However, based on calculations of the reported transfer fees for the roughly first choice starting XIs of both clubs in the 1994-95 season (taking into account injuries and long-term suspension), Rovers spent far less than the incumbent champions, Manchester United. Peter Schmeichel, Denis Irwin, Steve Bruce, Gary Pallister, Andrei Kanchelskis, Paul Ince, Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs, Brian McClair, Mark Hughes and Andy Cole cost £19.33m.

Whereas Flowers, Henning Berg, Hendry, Ian Pearce, Le Saux, Stuart Ripley, Mark Atkins, Sherwood, Jason Wilcox, Shearer and Sutton set Rovers back a comparatively low £14.7m. Given that these squads in particular United's took years to assemble, perhaps a fairer assessment would be to look at the 1994-95 spend in isolation. Even on this basis, United's outlay exceeded their rivals'.

Comparisons with other clubs are also favourable. Blackburn's entire back four cost less than Newcastle paid for Darren Peacock and less than half of the sum required to bring Phil Babb and John Scales to Liverpool. In Carlton Palmer, Leeds United spent more on a single midfielder than Rovers did across their starting midfield four illustrating that Rovers' spending was largely limited to their front two and not wasted unlike so many others.

How Blackburn happened to accidentally hoodwink so many into believing this "bought the league" fallacy is partly because of their wilful blindness to some of Kenny Dalglish's shrewd forays in the transfer market and abundance of unsung heroes. Take Atkins, for example. Signed from Scunthorpe United for £45,000 as a right-back, he filled in for the injured David Batty in central midfield and made 30 league appearances during the title-winning campaign, scoring six times the well timed volley at home to Southampton being the pick of a number of sweet strikes.

Other astute additions to play major roles included Berg, who was a relatively unknown 23-year-old at the time of his move from Lillestrom for under half a million, and the largely forgotten Pearce, who had only made four senior appearances before he joined the club for £300,000 both insignificant sums even then.

Also fundamental to Rovers' success was the organisation and desire instilled in the side and, pivotally, the width provided by Wilcox (who incidentally came through the ranks as a trainee) and Ripley. Despite lacking natural pace, they both had the knack of being able to create the half a yard required to deliver crosses into areas where Shearer and Sutton thrived, scoring 49 of Rovers' 80 league goals.

Rovers' rise was remarkable. Dalglish took over an unfashionable club lying in the bottom half of the old Second Division and won promotion to the new Premier League at his first attempt. The following two seasons saw the club finish fourth and then runners-up, before being crowned Champions of England.

It is not disputed that the club were able to offer substantial wages to attract players, but they bought wisely rather than overly and deserved nothing less than the success they achieved. It is a story that is unlikely to happen again and one that should be celebrated with respect and admiration, rather than viewed as the 1990's version of Roman Abramovich's Chelsea or present day Manchester City.

indeed it is. But other fans will never acknowledge. Point is I don't care - it doesn't say that on the trophy. It just says winners and that can't be changed. To some extent everyone has bought the title - anyone who says otherwise is talking kean. Point is we won it and spurs are hundreds Of millions down the drain and still nowhere near.

[Andy]

I've said this for years, Utd spent more than we did, yet we bought the title.

That Darren Peacock cost Newcastle more than our entire back four is hilarious!

[Rover_Shaun]

It's a reprint of a "When Saturday Comes" article from October 16th. Only a week old.

http://www.brfcs.com/mb/index.php/topic/29883-someone-has-finally-figured-it-out-after-all-these-years/

[Mike E]

Wayne Hemmingway did well to put Tim Lovejoy in his place on Soccer AM once. He said something like 'We bought the right to compete with the top 4 and then beat them all. If we didn't deserve to win, then Utd would have taken advantage on the last day but they didn't. So we won it fair and square.'

[M-K]

There was a lot of other stuff during that era that kind of compounded the 'moneybags' tag and the 'bought the league' mindset.

- David Batty joining a smaller club for the money

- Spending £2.7m on Paul Warhurst

- Bid £3.7m for Roy Keane, but Man U poached him

- Newspaper reports at the time said that other clubs would back out of bids for players if they knew Rovers were in for them

And previously in Div 2:

- the well-publicised bids for Gary Lineker (initially dismissed as a joke) and Teddy Sheringham (Brian Clough claimed Rovers had bumped up the price that Forest eventually had to pay)

- taking D Shearer off Swindon for (then) huge money and benching him, just so they wouldn't have their top scorer during the promotion run-in (that was particularly nefarious)

Plenty of good bargain signings but also an absolute keanload of Jack Walker's cash thrown all over the place. The manager himself, for starters.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Everyone spent money. Everyone always spends money.

In the PL era, it's a thousand times better to be a team who spends money to win the league than one who spends more than 500 million on barely coming close, a la Spurs and Liverpool.

[M-K]

Everyone spent money. Everyone always spends money.

It's not really like Liverpool / Spurs, and very much different from Man U / Arsenal etc, because it was big money at a small and unsuccessful (in living memory) club.

Imagine if Darlington suddenly became the biggest spending club in the country and won the league in front of a half empty stadium. Or Milton Keynes Stinking Dons. Nobody would be happy for them or say they deserve it. Everyone would resent them.

[Rover_Shaun]

Then they would be moronic idiots.

And Swindon failed to make the playoffs, hardly rivals. Shearer was signed because Newell got crocked and would, as thought at the time, miss the rest of the season. He was pure gash.

[darrenrover]

The ONLY differentiating general factor regarding football success is money.

It's been that way since the early 60s.

The other minor detail is how it's spent and where......

[Stuart]

It's not really like Liverpool / Spurs, and very much different from Man U / Arsenal etc, because it was big money at a small and unsuccessful (in living memory) club.

Imagine if Darlington suddenly became the biggest spending club in the country and won the league in front of a half empty stadium. Or Milton Keynes Stinking Dons. Nobody would be happy for them or say they deserve it. Everyone would resent them.

You seem to be trying to make the case for the neutral envious.

We have enough detractors out there without Rovers fans trying to take their side.

[M-K]

Then they would be moronic idiots.

And Swindon failed to make the playoffs, hardly rivals. Shearer was signed because Newell got crocked and would, as thought at the time, miss the rest of the season. He was pure gash.

Not sure what you mean. People would be idiots for hating Dons if that lovely Winkleman chap suddenly gave them the money to outbid any club and break the transfer record twice in a couple of years?

Also, there's a reason why Swindon didn't make the play-offs, after threatening to overtake us at one point, and that reason was sitting on the Rovers bench in exchange for 800K. By way of context, Newell was the first and only £1m player outside the top flight, so it was an offer they couldn't refuse.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I can't agree about Ripley lacking pace, Wilcox was a chug a lug but Rippers had enough pace.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

It's not really like Liverpool / Spurs, and very much different from Man U / Arsenal etc, because it was big money at a small and unsuccessful (in living memory) club.

Imagine if Darlington suddenly became the biggest spending club in the country and won the league in front of a half empty stadium. Or Milton Keynes Stinking Dons. Nobody would be happy for them or say they deserve it. Everyone would resent them.

I highly dispute that. There's plenty of fans out there who are happy we won the league over another boring Man U big club triumph, maybe not a majority but certainly a large minority. And I'd wager they're more commonplace amongst smaller clubs.

I'd be very happy if a club like Darlington or Milton Keynes won the league. The vast inequalities that televised football has brought has ruined the game in my opinion. I look at which clubs could win the league in the 1960s and which clubs can win it now and despair that for many football has lost its romanticism and crucially its hope.

FFP is another depressing nail in the coffin, attempting to eradicate the surprise challenger funded by a rich owner. At this rate in a few decades over half the fans in the country will be gloryhunting the privileged few, and the rest will be giving up on the game.

Blackburn Rovers 1994/95 is already a scarcely believable fairytale that kids who bother enough to look at the history of the competition will gawp at in disbelief. And its something that a club our size will never achieve again with football in its current format, that alone should be proof enough that it takes a lot more than money to do what we did.

[Mike E]

Put it this way. The last town club to win the league before us was Ipswich Town in 1962 (still a city with a fair fanbase). The last TOWN team to win before us? Burnley in 1960. That is how unbelievably amazingly fantastic our 94/95 win was.

[M-K]

I'm not denying that it was great. I loved every minute.

I'm saying that I know why, as per the article, you get 'moneybags' and 'bought the league' when you google Rovers 94/95, and why there's significant justification for it.

I suppose Man City is the current equivalent, except their money comes from a particularly loathsome source (see also Chelsea, PSG, Monaco, those Russian teams with an inexplicable number of Brazilian internationals). I don't view any of those as fairytale clubs. Somebody bought success for them. Their fans will all love it while it lasts, and talk about it for years to come, but when you google them in 15 years you'll get 'moneybags' and 'bought the league'.

[old darwen blue]

It's not really like Liverpool / Spurs, and very much different from Man U / Arsenal etc, because it was big money at a small and unsuccessful (in living memory) club.

Imagine if Darlington suddenly became the biggest spending club in the country and won the league in front of a half empty stadium. Or Milton Keynes Stinking Dons. Nobody would be happy for them or say they deserve it. Everyone would resent them.

But historically we are a famous club who have won trophies since the game first began?

[Stuart]

I'm saying that I know why, as per the article, you get 'moneybags' and 'bought the league' when you google Rovers 94/95, and why there's significant justification for it.

I suppose Man City is the current equivalent, except their money comes from a particularly loathsome source (see also Chelsea, PSG, Monaco, those Russian teams with an inexplicable number of Brazilian internationals). I don't view any of those as fairytale clubs. Somebody bought success for them. Their fans will all love it while it lasts, and talk about it for years to come, but when you google them in 15 years you'll get 'moneybags' and 'bought the league'.

What a load of crap. Significant justification? Are you even a Rovers fan?

I've just googled Rovers 94/95 and found no mention of 'moneybags' or 'bought the league' or any other derogatory @#/?. I got to Range Rover's 94/95 model before I gave up.

There is no justification for suggesting we bought the league apart from bitter jealousy, especially from glory hunting United fans or bitter Liverpool fans (who have NEVER won it).

Obviously Jack's money was what got us promoted and even created his legacy - all the way up to Venkys arrival. But as others have said, other teams have 'bought' much less, spending significantly more - even factoring in (football) inflation. Second, third and even fourth place and beyond have been achieved at a much higher cost.

You don't buy the league, you earn it.

[M-K]

What a load of crap. Significant justification? Are you even a Rovers fan?

I've just googled Rovers 94/95 and found no mention of 'moneybags' or 'bought the league' or any other derogatory keans. I got to Range Rover's 94/95 model before I gave up.

Of course I'm a fan, I'm just not blinded by it, and I mentioned the justification earlier. Wasn't suggesting you literally search for that phrase either - it's a line in the original article.

Obviously Jack's money was what got us promoted and even created his legacy - all the way up to Venkys arrival. But as others have said, other teams have 'bought' much less, spending significantly more - even factoring in (football) inflation. Second, third and even fourth place and beyond have been achieved at a much higher cost.

You don't buy the league, you earn it.

The amount isn't really important. It's about a club that was last successful in the days when Arthur Conan Doyle was a hot up-and-coming novelist, in more recent decades accustomed to playing lower-division football in front of sub-10K crowds, suddenly blessed with enough money to outbid the contemporary giants of the game, winning the league.

I know it wasn't easy, you can't hand a few million quid to a bent official and get a trophy in return. It takes skill, judgement, luck and Ludek Miklosko.

I thought it was fantastic, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging the reasons for the resentment that prompted the article in the first post.

[Stuart]

To be honest M-K, you sound like a neutral rather than a Rovers 'fan'.

[M-K]

To be honest M-K, you sound like a neutral rather than a Rovers 'fan'.

Fair enough, maybe I can't be much of a fan if I can accept why people say we bought the title.

I also accept that every title is built on money. Man City fans will say they deserved their title because they had the best team, but I don't know if anyone other than them will take much pleasure in it.

[Tardyrover]

That article makes it sound like Dalglish signed Mark Atkins. He didn't! He was already here. He was utter garbage pre Dalglish, but class during the Prem years!

SUPER ATKO, SUPER ATKO......... :-)

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Fair enough, maybe I can't be much of a fan if I can accept why people say we bought the title.

I also accept that every title is built on money. Man City fans will say they deserved their title because they had the best team, but I don't know if anyone other than them will take much pleasure in it.

I took a lot of pleasure in it. I don't understand why some fans would rather see Man U win it for the millionth time rather than see City win it.

Is Man U's revenue stream any more noble? About half a billion gloryhunters worldwide who fuel a massive yearly revenue and huge wage/transfer budgets. Widespread televised football put Man U where they are as financial powerhouses who can only be overcome by multi billionaires. If everyone on the planet had the guts, integrity and strength of character to support their local club then Man wouldn't have won as many titles as they did. Obviously they would have still won a lot but 13 out of 20 is ridiculous, and was helped massively by Ferguson's ability to bully referees at all times, have time added on whenever he needed it and to outspend their rivals whenever they needed to. The Man U pre-1990 couldn't have done that because they didn't have half the people in the country "supporting" them.

Gloryhunters are a far bigger plague on the game than billionaire owners in my opinion. Give me more situations like Rovers and City, anything to stop another 100,000 kids from Lancashire supporting Man Utd and 100,000 from Kent supporting Arsenal. The destructive cycle of more fans = more money = more success = more fans etc could eventually destroy football.

[Amo]

To be honest M-K, you sound like a neutral rather than a Rovers 'fan'.

But then the thread would be full of tub-thumping and, well... boring.

An unfashionable, small-town Northern club would've never stood a chance of upsetting the natural order had it not been for Uncle Jack's deep pockets. It was an advantage that most similar-sized clubs could only dream of, and many would've seen it as an unfair advantage. Rovers were not spending within their means, and the overnight success came from riding on the coattails of the local Steel magnate. Of course to suggest Rovers 'bought the title' is petty semantics. Strictly speaking, that means any team spending significant amounts of money on winning the league has technically 'bought it'. Yes, we did break the transfer record twice, but the title winning side was also compromised of bargain bucket signings. It's not really comparable to the likes of Chelsea or Man. City who have paid through the nose to put together an all-star team year after year. However, Rovers title success is the one usually held up as this example because we weren't a big city club with a large fanbase and a packed stadium. There should be no shame in that. It's a free market and Jack was entitled to invest his millions however he wanted to, and he had a lot of people in dreamland. I don't think M-K is trying to denigrate that success, but simply try and put the 'moneybags' stigma into some kind of context.

[Stuart]

Purely and simply it is the green eyes monster that has brought out the snipers.

We could have spent all the money we wanted provided we didn't win the league. We bought wisely and tactically and built a great team, with only a few outstanding individuals. Probably one, maybe two, world class players.

We didn't go out and buy the best players in the world and pay them obscene amounts of money. If anyone should be held up as the small club that bought the title it should be Chelsea, but no, it's the northern town club who had a GENUINE FAN put his own money in, not by some Russian bored of yachts, that is stigmatised.

If Blackburn had been a London borough it would be held in nations bosom as something to be cherished. Just like how West Ham won us the World Cup, innit. But no, us northern monkeys should know our place.