Who do we hate the most?

[IBK]

I really don't.

Don't know how you keep your patience, mate.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I hate Chelsea fans the most, but hate City more than any other team.

If things don't work out, they'll throw another quarter of a billion at the team.

If things do work out, they'll throw another quarter of a billion at the team.

[Özim]

Don't know how you keep your patience, mate.

Water of a ducks back and all that. Been happening for years, after a while you just get use to it.

[Özim]

What about Blackburn? Do people hate them, after all Jack Walker bankrolled them and they won the PL. Are they not disliked because it's not happening now?

[Xhaka Can’t]

I didn't particularly like them - but they were of a much smaller scale - so much so, it was incomparable. And for all his faults, JW was a life long supporter of the team that was in a position to realise his dream.

[Özim]

To be honest they were on a smaller scale in relative terms, in those days transfer fees were much lower, the 5 million they paid for Chris Sutton was seen as mind blowing at the time.

JW may have been a supporter, but what's the real difference, he still essentially spent large amounts to finance his team and effectively led them to the title. The Russian at Chelsea seems to love football and surely has an affinity for Chelsea, why else would he spend such large amounts of his own money?

So if an Arsenal fan bought us and then we spent 500 million would that make it ok?

[Xhaka Can’t]

To be honest they were on a smaller scale in relative terms, in those days transfer fees were much lower, the 5 million they paid for Chris Sutton was seen as mind blowing at the time.

JW may have been a supporter, but what's the real difference, he still essentially spent large amounts to finance his team and effectively led them to the title. The Russian at Chelsea seems to love football and surely has an affinity for Chelsea, why else would he spend such large amounts of his own money?

So if an Arsenal fan bought us and then we spent 500 million would that make it ok?

Ypur points in reverse order:

No, it would not be something I'd like. I did say in my earlier post that I didn't like Blackburn at the time.

The difference between JW and RA is arguable - RA was after a club - any club as long as they were in the CL - had Chelsea not qualified at Liverpool's expense - he;d have looked elsewhere. JW was Rovers through and through.

The scale is not comparable - not even taking into account the difference in transfer fees - in fact the difference in fees has been wildly exacerbated throughout football because of the actions of RA. At least with Rovers, although they spent beyond what could conceiveably be within their means, money was still a finite resource.

But you have brought up an interesting point.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

There is a massive difference between Blackburn and City/Chelsea.

For one, they may have spent big on a few players, but the latter two are doing it for every single signing. And if the first massive signing doesn't work out, they get another one. And another one. And they do that every year. And they stockpile players simply because they can. And they blow other teams out of the water just because they can. They don't need to. They just want to. They're at a stage now where a £38m striker being injured makes not one jot of difference to them because they have other £20m+ strikers to fill his place.That wasn't the case with Sutton. That's a massive distortion to the market and nothing like what Blackburn did. And in any case, it was still comparable to other clubs around them, like Us and United. Even similar to yourselves I think. And compared to the context of European fees, hardly worth batting an eye lid. Chelsea and City are far, far, far ahead of anyone else. We've spent a shit load in the last 5 years or so, alot of it wasted on crap. And yet we're still dwarfed by the Oil clubs by some distance.

Maybe Blackburn would be hated in the same way had they carried it on for another 5 years and had more success, in the same way Chelsea/City would be seen less harshly had it blown up after a season or two. But they didn't.

And one of the important things, their fans aren't complete cunts. Actually that's harsh on City [especially because a lot of theirs is directed at United and should be encouraged!].

[Özim]

Ypur points in reverse order:

No, it would not be something I'd like. I did say in my earlier post that I didn't like Blackburn at the time.

The difference between JW and RA is arguable - RA was after a club - any club as long as they were in the CL - had Chelsea not qualified at Liverpool's expense - he;d have looked elsewhere. JW was Rovers through and through.

The scale is not comparable - not even taking into account the difference in transfer fees - in fact the difference in fees has been wildly exacerbated throughout football because of the actions of RA. At least with Rovers, although they spent beyond what could conceiveably be within their means, money was still a finite resource.

But you have brought up an interesting point.

Fair enough.

Yes that's true, he looked at us before ruling us out due to the debt of our stadium. I would say he was interested in football however and now has an affinity with Chelsea, I can see what you're saying here but in principle it's not that different because both artifically elevated the finances of their club beyond what they could be.

The scale only isn't comparable because RA had a lot more money than JW, that's really the main difference, had JW had similar resources he'd have probably done the same if necessary. They signed a ridiculous amount of players on their way to the title (Newcastle under Keegan tried it as well).

[Özim]

There is a massive difference between Blackburn and City/Chelsea.

For one, they may have spent big on a few players, but the latter two are doing it for every single signing. And if the first massive signing doesn't work out, they get another one. And another one. And they do that every year. And they stockpile players simply because they can. And they blow other teams out of the water just because they can. They don't need to. They just want to. They're at a stage now where a £38m striker being injured makes not one jot of difference to them because they have other £20m+ strikers to fill his place.That wasn't the case with Sutton. That's a massive distortion to the market and nothing like what Blackburn did. And in any case, it was still comparable to other clubs around them, like Us and United. Even similar to yourselves I think. And compared to the context of European fees, hardly worth batting an eye lid. Chelsea and City are far, far, far ahead of anyone else. We've spent a shit load in the last 5 years or so, alot of it wasted on crap. And yet we're still dwarfed by the Oil clubs by some distance.

Maybe Blackburn would be hated in the same way had they carried it on for another 5 years and had more success, in the same way Chelsea/City would be seen less harshly had it blown up after a season or two. But they didn't.

And one of the important things, their fans aren't complete cunts. Actually that's harsh on City [especially because a lot of theirs is directed at United and should be encouraged!].

They had a lot of players and signed quite a lot as well, but you have to remember JW wasn't as wealthy as these guys, thus he was more limited, had he not been he'd have probably spent whatever was necessary, the stockpiling is the manager's choice as well to some extent, if he doesn't want to do this he can just decide to sell them (maybe Dalglish didn't work this way).

To be honest at the time, when Blackburn showed up with the money noone else could compete in England, it was no different to now. As for the transfer fee's European clubs started this all off with 30+ million signings, the likes of Crespo, Zidane, Figo etc etc and co went for huge amounts, I believe that was before Chelsea showed up.

This only seems to have become an issue because domestic clubs can't compete with the money, Real, Barca and Bayern still do.