No.
Venkys caused the downfall and no one else, they were a mid-table club.
Yawn. Do you not have your own board to bore?
Was Jack Walker good for Blackburn ?
100% yes. Next question.
Look at teams spending the year we won it, i think you'll find that we didn't spend the most.
5 million pounds for a 21 year old in 1994 !
David Platt went for more than that 3 years earlier. We didn't up the game in any way.
Lessons can and should be learned for other clubs adopting a similar approach to that of Jack Walker at Blackburn. In many respects, the timing couldn't have been better for Blackburn - given that it happened right at the start of the premier league, and when revenue capabilities within the game really started to take off (such as more interest in clubs being garnered, a high stock in the financial market, television revenues increasing, and of course an expansion of the Champions League (and earning potential from this competition) a few years down the line. The legacy of Walker's tenure at Blackburn being short-lived success on the pitch and of course the more long-term redevelopment of Ewood Park.
No club should look to delve into the pockets of its owner for a sustained period in order to maintain success, no matter how deep those pockets are. As a City fan, this is my hope for the long term future of City - initial, vast, investment, allowing for development and expansion of the club, resulting in a long term goal of being able to become self-sufficient while remaining a top class club challenging (and winning) honours.
Of course, in terms of fanbase, it is harder for a club such as Blackburn to tap into local support, not only because of Blackburn's population, but also because of it has to compete with several other clubs - some of which are huge clubs - within a certain circumference. There is the valid point that successful teams will attract fans from further afield, and in this respect marketing the club on a global scale was perhaps an opportunity that at the start of the premier league wasn't as easily obtained, or perhaps was an oversight of the club in terms of its long term plans.
As for your question - was Jack Walker right for your club - as an outsider I would say absolutely. Was he good for football in general? He certainly wasn't bad for football, and he certainly was no different to the rich benefactors who have helped out numerous other clubs throughout the history of the game - in some instances (such as at Arsenal and United for example), enabling the club to build foundations in their earlier years and attain successes that are now regarded as key in terms of how their stature as clubs grew.
Is his money the catalyst for Blackburn's current downfall? I would say no. Perhaps because the long term goals weren't realised, Blackburn were always in danger of going back to where they were before Walker invested into the club, but even that has yet to be realised. Blackburn have been relegated previously after Walker's investment, but bounced back to remain a top-flight club for several years. There is the possibility that that will happen again, no matter how despondent many Blackburn fans feel at the moment (which is obviously understandable).
And I don't feel that Walker's investment into Blackburn was a catalyst for the game changing (moving the goalposts) in any way. The game has always been this way, only over the last few decades (the advent of the Champions League, the globalisation of the game, and indeed the formation of the Premier League) it has been compounded. If anything, Walker's investment was merely a reflection of the financial upsurge that the game overall has benefitted (and in some respects suffered) from.
Sorry for the length of this post by the way. This is a discussion that interests me, hence me sticking my two-penneth in.
Yes the one we sold for 10 mill.
Great post RipleysCat very well considered and comprehensive review
I agree 100% with RipleysCat on this. If I remember correctly, I also did the last time this sort of argument came up on ja606.
There has always been a case in football where the richest clubs were the most successful, it isn't something that has reared its head with the creation of the Premier League. The only thing that the Premier League era has done is continued the growth of the financial backing clubs receive.
We've come a long way since the first £1m footballer but I don't think any fan who has been able to enjoy the success incorporated with riches would ever long for the days when they were poor and struggling.
Its a bit disgraceful having a dig at JW for the state of football today. The criminal here is blatantly Sky TV and therefore everyone who subscribes to Sky Sports are accessories to the crime.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)`
No, it didn't. Newcastle chose the amount they wanted, it had no relation to any other transfers.
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?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Was Jack Walker good for Blackburn ?
Page 1 of 1
posted on 8/5/12
No.
Venkys caused the downfall and no one else, they were a mid-table club.
posted on 8/5/12
Who sold to the Venkys ?
posted on 8/5/12
Yawn. Do you not have your own board to bore?
posted on 8/5/12
Was Jack Walker good for Blackburn ?
100% yes. Next question.
posted on 8/5/12
Look at teams spending the year we won it, i think you'll find that we didn't spend the most.
posted on 8/5/12
5 million pounds for a 21 year old in 1994 !
posted on 8/5/12
David Platt went for more than that 3 years earlier. We didn't up the game in any way.
posted on 8/5/12
Lessons can and should be learned for other clubs adopting a similar approach to that of Jack Walker at Blackburn. In many respects, the timing couldn't have been better for Blackburn - given that it happened right at the start of the premier league, and when revenue capabilities within the game really started to take off (such as more interest in clubs being garnered, a high stock in the financial market, television revenues increasing, and of course an expansion of the Champions League (and earning potential from this competition) a few years down the line. The legacy of Walker's tenure at Blackburn being short-lived success on the pitch and of course the more long-term redevelopment of Ewood Park.
No club should look to delve into the pockets of its owner for a sustained period in order to maintain success, no matter how deep those pockets are. As a City fan, this is my hope for the long term future of City - initial, vast, investment, allowing for development and expansion of the club, resulting in a long term goal of being able to become self-sufficient while remaining a top class club challenging (and winning) honours.
Of course, in terms of fanbase, it is harder for a club such as Blackburn to tap into local support, not only because of Blackburn's population, but also because of it has to compete with several other clubs - some of which are huge clubs - within a certain circumference. There is the valid point that successful teams will attract fans from further afield, and in this respect marketing the club on a global scale was perhaps an opportunity that at the start of the premier league wasn't as easily obtained, or perhaps was an oversight of the club in terms of its long term plans.
As for your question - was Jack Walker right for your club - as an outsider I would say absolutely. Was he good for football in general? He certainly wasn't bad for football, and he certainly was no different to the rich benefactors who have helped out numerous other clubs throughout the history of the game - in some instances (such as at Arsenal and United for example), enabling the club to build foundations in their earlier years and attain successes that are now regarded as key in terms of how their stature as clubs grew.
Is his money the catalyst for Blackburn's current downfall? I would say no. Perhaps because the long term goals weren't realised, Blackburn were always in danger of going back to where they were before Walker invested into the club, but even that has yet to be realised. Blackburn have been relegated previously after Walker's investment, but bounced back to remain a top-flight club for several years. There is the possibility that that will happen again, no matter how despondent many Blackburn fans feel at the moment (which is obviously understandable).
And I don't feel that Walker's investment into Blackburn was a catalyst for the game changing (moving the goalposts) in any way. The game has always been this way, only over the last few decades (the advent of the Champions League, the globalisation of the game, and indeed the formation of the Premier League) it has been compounded. If anything, Walker's investment was merely a reflection of the financial upsurge that the game overall has benefitted (and in some respects suffered) from.
Sorry for the length of this post by the way. This is a discussion that interests me, hence me sticking my two-penneth in.
posted on 8/5/12
Yes the one we sold for 10 mill.
posted on 8/5/12
Great post RipleysCat very well considered and comprehensive review
posted on 8/5/12
I agree 100% with RipleysCat on this. If I remember correctly, I also did the last time this sort of argument came up on ja606.
There has always been a case in football where the richest clubs were the most successful, it isn't something that has reared its head with the creation of the Premier League. The only thing that the Premier League era has done is continued the growth of the financial backing clubs receive.
We've come a long way since the first £1m footballer but I don't think any fan who has been able to enjoy the success incorporated with riches would ever long for the days when they were poor and struggling.
posted on 8/5/12
Its a bit disgraceful having a dig at JW for the state of football today. The criminal here is blatantly Sky TV and therefore everyone who subscribes to Sky Sports are accessories to the crime.
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
Page 1 of 1