Now that the dust has settled (a bit) and Rovers relegation has been confirmed, my question is `Was JW good for Blackburn and Football in general`. No doubt Rovers fans will say he was the best thing that ever happened to Rovers. Maybe so in the short term, but 20 years down the line has Jacks money proved to be the catalyst for Rovers downfall ?
No doubting that Jacks intention were honourable, however his massive non returnable investment in his beloved Rovers raised the stakes to levels never seen before in British Football. Yes he certainly bought the title but at what price in the future.
If we look at the game as it is today, the Blackburns and Burnleys really dont stand a chance against any of the big City clubs. GENUINE investors ( not Indian asset strippers) would never want to invest in East Lancashire. Why would they when they can takeover Southampton, Leeds, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield United or Wednesday etc. Sorry to say it but Jacks donations to Rovers moved the goalposts for ever. Sport ended and big business took over.
This is not a dig at the late Jack Walker. He probably thought that the trust he formed would carry on indefinitely. Wrong. Once he was gone the writing was on the wall and the trust just wanted out. If I had Jacks money I would have done exactly what he did but for my hometown club.
The small town clubs might get the odd season in the Pl as we did and Barnsley did, but long term it is totally unsustainable. The best East Lancashire can hope for is to have its teams battling it out in The Championship. Sadly for Uncle Jack its not the way he planned it.
Was Jack Walker good for Blackburn ?
posted on 8/5/12
Hmmm, Sky haven't exactly helped but I don't think they're entirely to blame. It could be argued that through Sky money, influence and marketing was the only way the Premier League could become the best league in the world, which it definitely was at one point - if not now.
If you're looking for someone to blame, take the easy English option and blame the foreigners. After all, how many times have clubs from Italy and Spain smashed the world transfer record?
posted on 8/5/12
Well I suppose it depends on what you define as the problems with modern football. My problem with it is footballers are paid too much and the game is too financially imbalanced.
In my opinion:
1. Footballers are paid too much because TV pumps about £1 billion a year into the game.
2. Football is too financially imbalanced because some teams have tens of millions of fans, and some have tens of thousands. Why? Cause the tens of millions clubs are always on TV.
posted on 8/5/12
I find it frightening when you could realistically reduce every number associated with certainly Premier league football by a decimal place and would still be 'obscene' amounts of money... £250,000 a week wages become 25k Still huge!
posted on 8/5/12
Well I suppose it depends on what you define as the problems with modern football. My problem with it is footballers are paid too much and the game is too financially imbalanced.
In my opinion:
1. Footballers are paid too much because of the competition between the big clubs from around the world jostling for the best players, thus increasing prices and wages that players can get away with asking for ie Eto'o on 300k a week at Anzhi.
2. Football is too financially imbalanced because some teams gambled with high prices and it paid off, leading to decades of dominance and others gambled and lost, leading to them playing second fiddle.
posted on 8/5/12
SKA, just to correct you re David Platt. Chris Suttons move from Norwich to Blackburn was a new English transfer record.
Some good posts and comments on here. The general consensus is that players are paid far too much. Is the average Championship player really worth 15/20k a week. it is utter madness.
As i said, I am not having a go at JW, but he certainly raised the stakes.
posted on 8/5/12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progression_of_British_football_transfer_fee_record
It depends on what you're definition of English transfer fee is. If it's a fee paid by an English team specifically then, yes, you're right.
If it's a fee that contains an English team within the transfer (ie, Ronaldo to Real Madrid becoming the new English transfer record as well as world record) then I'm right.
As it comes down to a simple definition, it doesn't really matter either way but my definition is the latter.
Interestingly enough, Man United smashed that fee not too long after. In the season we won the league, as well.
posted on 8/5/12
Either way, 5 million was a huge amount for a 21 year old in 1994. Man U did pay more for Andy Cole later that season which begs the question, `Did Suttons purchase inflate transfer fees (and wages)`
posted on 8/5/12
No, it didn't. Newcastle chose the amount they wanted, it had no relation to any other transfers.
posted on 8/5/12
The vast majority of Jack Walkers benevolence was used to rebuild the stadium and purchase the property to build and develop the academy at brockhall.
The squad that won the league cost £25M in total.
Subsequent sales of players bought or developed generated over £60M at least.
Jack's plans meant that we had to be self sufficient, with his "trusts" cash input "topping up" what monies would be generated with gate average of 30,000.
Equivalent to about £4M a season and suspended for a good few years after his passing.
Just imagine what could have been done if he'd have invested 10 years before Sky and the Prem?
posted on 8/5/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator