Leicester

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo talking lots of sense on this thread. Pretty sure Ipswich under Ramsey won the Div 1 (proper) title in their first season after promotion. If that isn't a shock I don't know what is.

The talk of "Blackburn bought the title" is utter rot. Well they did but EVERYBODY buys the title. Blackburn's huge investment was just in a shorter period of time, that's all. Man C is the title buying equivalent now but they have years and years to catch up on compared to  their city rivals. That sort of talk is just silly: it's the established super powers ring-fencing their super poweredness.

Football thrives on competition but clubs thrive on dominance from whence comes eternal conflict.

The way clubs like Blackburn or Chelsea or Man City sink vast sums into their teams is sickening and inflationary but if they don't then we see 20 years of dominance like Shankly/Paisley/Dalglish Liverpool of old or Ferguson's United more recently.

I suspect that Leicester's budget shrinks into insignificance compared to Chelsea's but no matter how you cut it a great team will always beat great individuals; this may be Leicester's chance much more than vast spending might be.

But you've just contradicted yourself. You say everyone buys the title, whilst acknowledging the point that Ipswich winning the title was a shock, where they clearly didn't 'buy' it.

The point about Blackburn is that without the cash they would have been nowhere near it - that cannot be said of Ipswich, Forest or Derby. I'd argue Leeds in the early 90's was a bigger shock than Blackburn.

L

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Elias wrote:

Blackburn spent a fortune at the time.

Yep, the original Premier League money men - they bought the title and were nothing like Forest etc

The total cost of their team amounted to £14.7 million. United's were £19.3 million.

They wisely spent a large amount on two forwards and a keeper.

There entire back four cost less than Newcastle paid for Darren Peacock.

The midfield four cost less than Leeds paid for Carlton Palmer.

Which suggests that Dalglish understood what football in those days was all about. Scoring goals and stopping goals.

It's interesting that today's stats are all about possession. Leicester are being outplayed in most games yet are top of the league.

Blackburn did spend a lot but in the right positions.

Very true.

Let's not forget that as much of a miracle as it seems now, Clough wasn't afraid to spend big when it came to it. He wanted a keeper, so went out and bought the best in Shilton, his board weren't please he spent that much but as he correctly pointed out he would be worth 10 points a season. If it was as simple as buying the title man city would be winning it every year.

Hugh Watt wrote:

L

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Innocent Egbunike wrote:

Elias wrote:

Blackburn spent a fortune at the time.

Yep, the original Premier League money men - they bought the title and were nothing like Forest etc

The total cost of their team amounted to £14.7 million. United's were £19.3 million.

They wisely spent a large amount on two forwards and a keeper.

There entire back four cost less than Newcastle paid for Darren Peacock.

The midfield four cost less than Leeds paid for Carlton Palmer.

Which suggests that Dalglish understood what football in those days was all about. Scoring goals and stopping goals.

It's interesting that today's stats are all about possession. Leicester are being outplayed in most games yet are top of the league.

Blackburn did spend a lot but in the right positions.

Very true.

Let's not forget that as much of a miracle as it seems now, Clough wasn't afraid to spend big when it came to it. He wanted a keeper, so went out and bought the best in Shilton, his board weren't please he spent that much but as he correctly pointed out he would be worth 10 points a season. If it was as simple as buying the title man city would be winning it every year.

True but in the light of the teams mentioned, Blackburn are still an anomaly. They would not have been challenging for the title, maybe in the top flight at all, without Walker's cash. The same isn't true of the others. Blackburn were expected to be challenging for the title and they had Dalglish as manager and Shearer up front in anticipation of success, not as a result of it.

Originally I was querying czarcasm's assertion of Leicester winning the title being the biggest sensation in the history of football, ever!

Applying it to clubs in my lifetime then Ipswichs' achievement was just as the minimum wage was to be scrapped(well done Jimmy Hill). So it might have been a more level playing field. Don't know enough about it to be honest.

Certainly Greaves and Law's transfer fees altered the equilibrium.

It's difficult to imagine now how £100,000 transfers were deemed massive. I remember Liverpool paid it for two average forwards in Tony Hateley and Alan Evuns.

Which I why I think Derby winning it in 1972 might just eclipse Forest doing the same six years later. They never spent huge amounts in comparison to the big clubs at that time.

It's great to see the rise of the little teams this season but can they sustain it. I'll be surprised.