Premier League

[speeeeeeedie]

47 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

During the 90s Newcastle and others spent more than Rovers.

Rovers followed by ManU just spent it better than most especially the child killers.

I'd wager that if you ask your average football fan aged 40+ they'll say that Rovers bought the league in 1995. We know it didn't happen that way, but that is perception for you. Not one Rovers fan bemoaned Jack Walker splashing the cash on and off the pitch to make Rovers a first class club. Of course not, he was a hero that brought absolute joy to many. Now there are Rovers fans complaining at Newcastle and the rest doing it, all viewed from outside the fence.

My point isn't about spending though, it's about Rovers not being in the top flight and the many frustrations that result from it. The Premier League wouldn't be sterile if Rovers were in it, and if it wasn't for Venkys and the idiocy they continue to convey Rovers would probably still be there.

[jim mk2]

Any football "fan" who says Rovers "bought the league" is a no-nowt berk. If Rovers "bought the league" then the same applies to just about every club since professional football began - particularly in the last 30-40 years. ManU fans will say they had the class of 92 in their team but they wouldn't have won anything without buying other players who were crucial to their success. And in any case, many of the players that Rovers bought were cheap, bargain unwanted players from the reserve teams of other clubs.

The twits who say that "we bought the league" are also only parroting the numbskulls in the national media who always looked down on the rise of little Blackburn Rovers and invented the they "bought the league" narrative as a slogan with which to do us down. Anyone football fan who really knew his stuff would never repeat this nonsense,

[roverandout]

Rovers spent very little during the glory years. We had alot of bargain basements signings. Only really spent big on Shearer and sutton

[ballboy]

https://halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/some-call-it-godcore/friday-night-and-the-gates-are-low/

@Tabula Rasa Half Man Half Biscuit were complaining about the evils of Sky TV as long ago as 1995 at a time when we probably didn't have a care in the world about where football was heading. True visionaries and possibly the greatest band ever imho. See also "Rock and Roll is full of bad wools" from 90 Bisodol for further evidence of their disdain of modern football culture.' Catch them on tour' if you get chance.

Edited September 25, 2023 by ballboy

[davulsukur]

5 hours ago, Tom said:

Not sure I fully agree given how much Burnley spent, it’s not like they’ve been working on a shoe string 

Luton are a small club and have clearly decided to pocket the cash and use it to secure the future and build a team for another promotion push 

Fair enough, I actually didn't realise they'd spent that much. According to Transfermarket they spent just over £100m, it kind of reinforces my overall gripe that the financial chasm between the 2 leagues is insane, they have to spend that much just to be winless and in the bottom 3. (Yes, you can argue the money hasn't been spent well, poor manager etc)

Like Forest last season had to spend £150m to just about survive.

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

The main reason why the PL is so boring/uncompetitive and why the rest of the English football pyramid is, in comparison, in such a shit shape, is primarly due to the fact that the top PL teams retain the bulk of the commercial income.

I don't think PL is boring or uncompetitive at all. I thoroughly enjoyed the North London derby on Sunday and Newcastle put Sheffield United to the sword and keep wanted to score more goals even being up at 3 nil up at Half time. Just like we have done in past. 

 

5 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

And the reason why the 12 or so original member of the ESL publically promoted it in the first place, was because they wanted to retain the bulk of the financial income from that.

It's all about the same thing; greed.

The ESL only failed - for now at least - due to public backlash. Without doubt, those clubs who subsequently publically distanced themselves from it (City, Liverpool et al), will still be keeping a watching brief and having closed door conversations with the 3 clubs you mention.

The PL have stop any English team from ever joining by the new rules they passed. 

Premier League brings in new rules to prevent ESL repeat - SportsPro (sportspromedia.com)

European Super League: Key questions answered as fresh plans for competition announced | Football News | Sky Sports

5 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

It's hypocritcal to state that the top PL teams should retain the bulk of the PL money, but to then to criticise the ESL for the same thing.

No it's ain't. Man City got an extra £52.5m than Norwich did in the 21/22 season. 

Here is a breakdown to what payments they received from the PL 

Premier League value of central payments to clubs 2021/22

 

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

I know it's been 30 years but Rovers once did what you say Newcastle are doing now. Jack Walker's millions allowed Blackburn Rovers to buy the best player in the land for a record fee in the summer of 1992. I loved watching Norwich get battered 7-0 at Ewood. Norwich recovered. 

Exactly, Without Jack Walker buying Rovers, investing and spending his own money on the club to improve it and take us to the PL and to win the PL. Newcastle are investing their own money on the club from the owners, they aren't using bank loans or debt to buy the club like Glazers did with Man Utd or Hicks and Gillet with Liverpool. 

2 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

If Rovers were still a Premier League team I doubt that many of views stating the soullessness of the league would be as readily espoused. 

If the Walker family hadn't sold Rovers when they did and kept it under their control and let John Williams and Tom Finn keep running the club and especially when the New TV deal kick in and would have help maintain Rovers as a PL club. Yes Williams and Finn would have had to make the right managerial appointments but I believe they would have do 

2 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

Money does need to be more equally distributed throughout the pyramid. The top teams buy everybody, spend oodles on players who will never play for their first team, loan them out for extortionate fees, and reap the rewards again once they are sold. 

Man City, and Newcastle don't do that but Chelsea are doing that so I can see your point. Some of the asking prices Chelsea were supposedly rumoured to be asking for were OTT by far. 

I posted this morning what the PL were rumoured to be paying the EFL over a 6 years period 

[jim mk2]

5 hours ago, Wheelton Blue said:

The main reason why the PL is so boring/uncompetitive and why the rest of the English football pyramid is, in comparison, in such a shit shape, is primarly due to the fact that the top PL teams retain the bulk of the commercial income.

The Premier League isn't "boring" but it isn't a true competition because only a select few clubs can win it. As such, you could definitely (not deffo) say that the Premier League is pointless because there will be only ever be a very small group of potential winners, while the rest are there to make up the numbers. As always, it's the relegation battle at the bottom that is far more interesting

[Wheelton Blue]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

No it's ain't. Man City got an extra £52.5m than Norwich did in the 21/22 season. 

Here is a breakdown to what payments they received from the PL 

Premier League value of central payments to clubs 2021/22

 

And by comparison, how much did non-parachute receiving clubs get over the same period? That's the point.

[oldjamfan1]

Anyone comparing the premier league during the Jack Walker era and now needs to give your heads a wobble. It’s not just the goalposts that have been shifted in the 30 years since, it’s just about every aspect of top level English league football. When Rovers won the league you would have been hard pressed at the start of that season to predict who the bottom 6 clubs in the prem would have been. Nowadays it’s fairly obvious.
 

As someone above posted, you do start to wonder what the point is these days. Mid table in the championship is possibly about as good and as entertaining as it’s ever likely to get for a club like the Rovers. In fact any club save for the very top 6 or so richest.  

It just isn’t healthy.

[philipl]

The big problem is wages are now so high that decent PL cast offs rarely come down into the Championship and Championship players for that matter are not picked up by the PL to anything like the extent they used to be.

That said, Newcastle, Brighton, West Ham and Villa of the 8 PL teams in Europe were in the Championship not that long ago.

[AllRoverAsia]

14 hours ago, speeeeeeedie said:

I'd wager that if you ask your average football fan aged 40+ they'll say that Rovers bought the league in 1995. We know it didn't happen that way, but that is perception for you. Not one Rovers fan bemoaned Jack Walker splashing the cash on and off the pitch to make Rovers a first class club. Of course not, he was a hero that brought absolute joy to many. Now there are Rovers fans complaining at Newcastle and the rest doing it, all viewed from outside the fence.

My point isn't about spending though, it's about Rovers not being in the top flight and the many frustrations that result from it. The Premier League wouldn't be sterile if Rovers were in it, and if it wasn't for Venkys and the idiocy they continue to convey Rovers would probably still be there.

Jack Walkers spending cannot be compared in any financial, ethical or moral way to the spending of multinational companies, hedge funds or a Trump supported child killing cunt like MBS. Therefore they are fair game.

My point is that there were bigger spenders than Rovers in the 90s and we spent it better than most in the early 90s.

Personally I don't deny that a fans money plus his wisdom of appointing the best manager in British football, a Scottish man, won us the Title. It's never an issue for me and shouldn't be.

Edited September 26, 2023 by AllRoverAsia

[AllRoverAsia]

"If Rovers have been bought by the same owners as Newcastle United" I would tell my family members to cancel their STs and if they failed to do so would disinherit them.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

12 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Anyone comparing the premier league during the Jack Walker era and now needs to give your heads a wobble. It’s not just the goalposts that have been shifted in the 30 years since, it’s just about every aspect of top level English league football. When Rovers won the league you would have been hard pressed at the start of that season to predict who the bottom 6 clubs in the prem would have been. Nowadays it’s fairly obvious.
 

As someone above posted, you do start to wonder what the point is these days. Mid table in the championship is possibly about as good and as entertaining as it’s ever likely to get for a club like the Rovers. In fact any club save for the very top 6 or so richest.  

It just isn’t healthy.

FA Cup winners when I first started going  in the 1960’s - Wolves, Spurs, Spurs, Man Utd, West Ham, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, West Brom, Man City. Now it’ll be one from about 5 teams.

There’s not much fun in aiming to be fourth from the bottom every year.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

FA Cup winners when I first started going  in the 1960’s - Wolves, Spurs, Spurs, Man Utd, West Ham, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, West Brom, Man City. Now it’ll be one from about 5 teams.

There’s not much fun in aiming to be fourth from the bottom every year.

It's the same with all the Cups, the big clubs enter late on and this is when the broadcasters become interested..

It's a closed monopolistic corrupt crap shoot.

On the FA Cup only 8 clubs outside the top flight have ever won it and non since 1980. West Ham's win will never ever be repeated. Without checking I think it was a Brooking header.

Edited September 26, 2023 by AllRoverAsia

[Upside Down]

17 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Any football "fan" who says Rovers "bought the league" is a no-nowt berk. If Rovers "bought the league" then the same applies to just about every club since professional football began - particularly in the last 30-40 years. ManU fans will say they had the class of 92 in their team but they wouldn't have won anything without buying other players who were crucial to their success. And in any case, many of the players that Rovers bought were cheap, bargain unwanted players from the reserve teams of other clubs.

The twits who say that "we bought the league" are also only parroting the numbskulls in the national media who always looked down on the rise of little Blackburn Rovers and invented the they "bought the league" narrative as a slogan with which to do us down. Anyone football fan who really knew his stuff would never repeat this nonsense,

Post of the century.

[Lancs Rover]

20 hours ago, ballboy said:

https://halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/some-call-it-godcore/friday-night-and-the-gates-are-low/

@Tabula Rasa Half Man Half Biscuit were complaining about the evils of Sky TV as long ago as 1995 at a time when we probably didn't have a care in the world about where football was heading. True visionaries and possibly the greatest band ever imho. See also "Rock and Roll is full of bad wools" from 90 Bisodol for further evidence of their disdain of modern football culture.' Catch them on tour' if you get chance.

They even mention ex-Rovers players in their songs.

Bobby Svarc anyone?

https://halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/a-to-z-svarc/

[ballboy]

http://www.halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/saucy-haulage-ballads/i-went-to-a-wedding/

As well as Brad Friedel 

[speeeeeeedie]

21 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

The Premier League isn't "boring" but it isn't a true competition because only a select few clubs can win it. As such, you could definitely (not deffo) say that the Premier League is pointless because there will be only ever be a very small group of potential winners, while the rest are there to make up the numbers. As always, it's the relegation battle at the bottom that is far more interesting

The Premier League turning into a global status symbol for the uber rich has certainly propelled investment, spending, and wages to unforeseen levels. Since the Premier League's inception there have been 7 different winners. I think what distorts it is that the concentration of those winners. At the moment City seem unstoppable. 30 years ago it was Man U. 50 years ago Liverpool were top dogs. 

Prem winners;

Rovers, Leicester, and Liverpool with 1 each.

Arsenal 3. Chelsea 5. Man City 7. Man U 13.

For the 30 years prior to 1992 there were 10 winners. 

Villa, Forest, Ipswich, Man City 1 each.

Derby and Man U 2. Arsenal and Leeds 3. Everton 4. Liverpool 13. 

Looking at 60 years of winners and as clubs arms race themselves into ever increasing spending, finding the right manager is absolutely crucial. What stands out to me is how integral the manager was to many teams who have multiple titles. Man U won with Ferguson. City - Guardiola. Forest and Derby - Clough. Liverpool had Shankly but were able to carry that through to Dalglish. 

I still stand my point from yesterday that Rovers fans looking at the Prem from the outside don't view it as favourably as they did when Rovers were in it. Stating that the Premier League is stale has hints of jealousy which, given the position Rovers daft owners have put the club in, is completely understandable. The opposite was true when Jack Walker was building the club up. Other fans were envious of Rovers success so had to find a way to justify it. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

On 26/09/2023 at 09:14, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I see there’s speculation about Real Madrid looking at the Brighton manager Robert De Zerbi. You can get a pound to a penny that Brighton will already have their next manager in mind if De Zerbi was to leave. That’s how successful clubs are run.

[Upside Down]

25 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I see there’s speculation about Real Madrid looking at the Brighton manager Robert De Zerbi. You can get a pound to a penny that Brighton will already have their next manager in mind if De Zerbi was to leave. That’s how successful clubs are run.

Nah, you fuck around for months then when you finally get someone you lie to them constantly before sabotaging their first season and slashing the budget halfway through the transfer window of the next.

All hail our mighty chicken overlords. May there never be a word of discontent uttered in your direction.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The BBC sports football thread has an article - The Best Volleyed goals in the Premier League - predictably Tugay doesn’t feature or Shearer whilst he was at Rovers.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[rigger]

3 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The BBC sports football thread has an article - The Best Volleyed goals in the Premier League - predictably Tugay doesn’t feature or Shearer whilst he was at Rovers.

Stop wallowing in self-pity. It is not a good look. 

[LeftWinger]

36 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The BBC sports football thread has an article - The Best Volleyed goals in the Premier League - predictably Tugay doesn’t feature or Shearer whilst he was at Rovers.

The Tugay one against Spurs is one of the cleanest volleys I've ever seen - absolutely should be in there.

The Pedersen one against Fulham as well (where Tugay also scored an incredible volley in the same game).

[chaddyrovers]

On 25/09/2023 at 19:56, Wheelton Blue said:

And by comparison, how much did non-parachute receiving clubs get over the same period? That's the point.

why would they get more than they did when they weren't PL club and part of bring in that revenue? That's my point