How about this? Suggest one thing the club could do that's unconventional without being boring or oppressive? Ask what I and others think. Have enough respect not to treat it as a complete joke.

Yeah and that's you like FUP because you're only bothered by how good people are at football. Most of the current bunch (and could say same for many clubs in Championship) don't give a toss and have little to no personality to go with it. One day an owner might decide to be unconventional and take on board ideas like these. When that happens there isn't a damn thing you would be able to do about it anyway. Maybe you might realise it's better to be entertaining than boring in such circumstances. Should also add I would only sign players 25 and older. Want a stepping stone? Sod off somewhere else. What would you rather have a team of Championship/EPL players with a couple who are prized assets likely to be sold? Or a team of players who might be good enough to win promotion but not likely to go to a higher placed club? Take the marketing argument aspects out and tell me what's wrong with the latter on it's own? It would keep in line with the FUP nonsense too. To be honest Rovers fans are boring. I've been called boring in the past (for things like regular digs at the Walkers) but at least I make an effort to be interesting and suggest new ideas and mentality. It's a waste of time. One day a Championship club might decide to be unconventional and on the lookout for a marketing genius. Who knows? Oh and another things. Ticket prices would be reduced significantly. Find a problem with that. Maybe let people in free (even if it's for one season) to go along with new marketing plans, etc.

So what? How many of them are marketable? In the EPL of course there's all the Tv money coming in. So you could spend more there even with FUP it wouldn't be a dent in owners pocket. Who would I try to sign first in the EPL? Probably Balotelli. Yeah OK he's got the big car and all that but he's personable. He's got his detractors on the pitch but "instant relegation" if you sign him? Of course not. He's much more likable than a thug like Rooney or a typical bore who says all the right corporate bywords. Sign players who want to play with freedom and express themselves.

Did I say sign Stokes? No. If people want to chant about the IRA that's what Celtic are for. You would struggle with anything which isn't boring and conventional. What's the point of the Academy with people like Jones and Mahoney? One who tried to screw the club on a clause and the other who hardly brought in meaningful money anyway. By "controversial" that could just mean players who are funny, loud, cool and a "bit of an edge". The only "controversy" if you could call it that is not signing stereotypical footballers. Derby got publicity from signing Rooney. He's just a thug with nothing likable about him whatsoever. Why would anyone want that to be the face of your club?

Spend the least money possible on players with big (cool) personalities even if they are extremely controversial. Not people who care only about having a bimbo on their arm and showing off their cars/mansions. Sign a manger who is a big personality with the biggest name possible. Maradona would fit perfectly. If that means regulartly risking fluctuation between league 1 and the Championship so be it. Approach brands known for a rebellious nature. Attract people with a rebellious nature which rules out virtually all of Blackburn. That would be easier to market in London. Find every way possible to get a headline. Constant publicity stunts. Never boring. Invite people to games who are guaranteed to be noticed even if it's a "one off". Send a free shirt to the top 1000 people on Twitter (except United players). It's a nice kit who's to say some of them won't be pictured in it? There's countless things that could be done and too many to list. Downsize the academy as much as possible. If you want to be "counter culture" then you're not gonna be used as a stepping stone. Of course this all assumes that the Raos aren't bothered about getting their money back. With FUP and this virus situation why not try to be different? Would you rather be boring and even if club got into EPL finish midtable season after season? Europa league? Been there done that even if underachieved. Would it alienate some existing fans? Well at this club you can't even get people to say FUP so what the hell? This could apply to many championship clubs. What's wrong with being creative and unconventional? I didn't particularly want Ronaldinho for the record. Past his peak and big payday. Not interested in that. Though he's had quite a bit of publicity for other reasons lately!

When I think of "great success" Burnley isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Boring club with a dreary name that offers nothing to the EPL. Why would I want to be like that? If you're jealous of that then it's you who's being ridiculous. As for "jollies in Aberdeen" as you describe it so what? I've never been there but it's hardly Las Vegas is it? Even clubs that support FUP should at least try and come up with new ideas. How else can you grow without attracting mass publicity when there's an enforced financial ceiling? Why am I even on here anyway?

Not sure what you're even talking about? Could you perhaps try just once to come up with an insult that's witty and original?

Indeed. Conspiracy theories orchestrated by Man United. At least that's one thing they don't have as an excuse.

This is a club which took the time to run a mascot competition then picked the most uncreative option possible. Innovative isn't the most commonly used word at Ewood (or anywhere if you want to be pedantic about it). The marketing has been substandard for 20 years. With FUP as well it makes sense to do thing completely differently. Rovers fans aren't the most rebellious bunch so any major direction would have to come from the club. I've said this before but why has no club made serious overtures to Maradona? The marketing publicity would be huge and the documentary rights fees would surely be considerable. Netflix should be looking for a Championship or midtable EPL club to facilitate this. If a club already has a rich owner then the key phrase is "sustainable trainwreck" and how people wouldn't be able to look away. There's a place for a club that's basically a Jerry Springer freakshow. Deliberately sign players who are controversial. Rather that than that sign a bunch of boring corporate puppets who don't really give a damn. Do everything possible to attract headlines and publicity. Who cares what other fans and media think? How could you do something more explosive than bring Maradona to England? He's still a football man it wouldn't be like "find the biggest name possible to manage the club whether they are football people or not". Another option could be something drastic like refusing to pay transfer fees. Would this mean more years of medicority and risking relegation? Probably but with FUP what's the point of spending anything? I never thought this would be something endorsed by me but beginning to come round to the idea. Union Berlin didn't pay transfer fees for years (only recently relaxed) and are now in the Bundesliga. They also have the rebellious fanbase to go with it. You could do everything within reason to scrap commercialism though being anti-commercialism is somewhat of a commercial identity. You might alienate some fans but as long as it isn't boring then you might actually win some round. In this country renaming a club "tigers" or changing the shirt colour is seen as innovative. Neither were innovative. You can make drastic identity changes and be truly innovative and with that attract a new audience. Rayo Vallecano are another said to be very anti-commercial. St Pauli would be another but that wasn't initially a club led movement. What is there to tap into locally other than the Asian market? There's not an awful lot of personality to the place so there's no other group which hasn't already been tapped into. Need to look a bit wider. Do everything possible to become the "cure for the common club". It wouldn't always be a "sustainable trainwreck" there could be years of success as well. Most clubs have had some degree of success like being promoted. Look at the Championship Ipswich were in it for 17 straight years but every other club had moved one way or the other in that period. With FUP what's the point otherwise? Just say "to hell with it" and be completely unconventional. Now I know people on here will read this and say "thank goodness this guy hasn't got power". If any club wants to be truly different though they need a mind that's just a bit crazy. There's so many clubs that need to be shaken up. So what if they come across as publicity hounds? You need to make the media ask "what the hell are they gonna do next?". In this unprecedented situation it's time for extreme innovation. For some clubs it might even be the key to survival. Challenging someone to a game on FIFA to me isn't "an innovative way of keeping the club socially active". People aren't going to think "oh wow someone still has the password to the Twitter account".

I did get it.

I prefer to remember him scoring against someone else! (twice)

Surprised by lack of immediate responses. Maybe more people are bothered by him speaking about Jack like a piece of trash in his book than I thought.

Haven't watched it. Feel some slight sympathy for their fans who must be embarrassed by it. At least if you're gonna be a trainwreck make it entertaining rather than bleak. I would approach the people who made the "Maradona in Mexico" documentary (Netflix) and attempt to bring him to Sunderland. Why not take the risk? At worst it's likely to be a sustainable trainwreck (risking one poor season or relegation wouldn't kill a club and what if it actually worked?) you can't deny people would want to play for him. You might as well look for gimmicks and other ways of earning revenue/publicity. The people behind the Mexico documentary and other investors could pay part of his salary. Imagine Di Canio on acid and you have Maradona. That's probably an understated way of putting it. Those documentary makers should be doing everything they can to bring him to England. They just need a facilitator.

Old photos of Rovers the title says in normal English.

...and with that said I've done my bit.

Liverpool fans have many faults (as evidenced by their tedious FUP behaviour recently) but Shankly for the most part is remembered as a God. Whereas Jack Walker is remembered like an uncle people quite liked. Socialism does not work despite it's downsides the best model is capitalism. Obviously Jack was a capitalist but he could be considered an exceptional "social capitalist".

Not Tv as such but I've been checking out a new smartphone streaming service called Quibi. It's free for 90 days. Here's some more information. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/apr/06/quibi-app-new-netflix-or-mistake

Other people have said he bailed them out. I don't know whether it's true or not. If you can be bothered to check their accounts most likely any such assistance would come under "donations received". Jack wanted Rovers to be the leading club of significance in modern day Lancashire there's no doubt about that. Only have to look at what Williams said in 1998 about "how we must see ourselves as being Lancashire" and there's zero doubt in my mind that was at Jack's direction. It's other people's fault that the mentality changed. Even though Rovers were clearly the leading club in Lancashire for years after his death by some distance. Far as I'm concerned it still is. If you consider marketability, shirt, badge, stadium and training/academy facilities it's not even close. Preston North End isn't a marketable name. Blackpool obviously has more tourism but there's nothing about the football club that matches Rovers. I despair at the mentality and poor marketing after Jack died and it's not just the club's fault. Fans have to learn how to carry themselves a certain way. That's part of supporting far as I'm concerned. People might say "well we don't want to hear it from you because you hardly ever go to Ewood and don't really support the club anymore." Well they never wanted to hear it from me when I did! As for throwing money at lost causes. First there's an obvious joke there (not Rovers) but I'll resist. If he helped them out it was paltry money for someone like him. I don't know if Jack made any truly bad deals in business. Other prominent businessmen have made terrible deals, missed opportunities and gone through unstable times. Walkersteel seems to have made consistent profits and never really suffered any severe downturns. Acquiring other steel stockholders also worked out well rather than overloading the company. Strike action didn't hurt the company either as when people picketed outside (union members who didn't even work for the company!) his workers ignored them. His airline also grew though obviously it had more financial capital to begin with. Budget airlines are often very unstable but British European (before it changed to the tackier sounding Flybe after he died) seems like it was consistent as well. Not to mention a perfect safety record. When Walkersteel was sold the city (of London) financial analysts felt Jack had gotten better end of the deal. Obviously there's some bias but the steel industry went into a recession not long afterwards. So yeah I think to sum things up Jack was a safe bet in business.

Sounds more like "epic rap battles of history" than a match. Speaking of that check this out particularly 0:32-0:38.

Yeah that would be United's press stooges. He didn't even sue until over 2 years later and I wouldn't be surprised if Ferguson encouraged that. I saw Dunn mentioned. Obviously I've commented on him before so I'll just mention this. I remember Brian Clough in his 442 column complimenting Souness on how he handled the situation. Have wondered sometimes what Clough thought of Jack. He wasn't beyond paying big money for players (or for that matter wanting to "play in a palace" as he put it after Forest fell into debt on a new stand Clough wanted) so I don't think he would have felt threatened unlike another manager telling press to shove "bought the title" and "Shearer only signed for the money" line down people's throats. He did shout at Don Mackay after having to match Rovers bid for Edward Sheringham though. ?

I know one thing we both like and that's your avatar. ?

Avoid cheap joke...avoid cheap joke...avoid cheap joke.

Guardiola's Mother just died and Liverpool quick to send insincere sympathies. Moral vacuum indeed. They shouldn't even have bothered saying anything. Probably already writing another letter trying to influence an appeal process for their precious FUP. Disingenuous pricks. This will probably be removed as usual. If you want a thread on morals then you can include insincerity of those who have none.Especially in football. Add United to that insincere sympathy list as well. Attack Jack Walker you're my enemy. It's that simple.

Incase anyone is wondering what Gumboots and Mike E are responding to it's one of my posts that has been removed. Again. Probably by K-Hod. Also Breaking Bad is not boring. If that's boring then what the hell is interesting? Does there have to be plane crashes, bombs and blowing up rooms with exploding crystals every 2 minutes to be interesting?

I know FUP isn't something that gets much negative press on here but mentioning Burnley should help. 7 leading Premier League clubs and Burnley all signed a letter to try and get Man City banned from Europe. Even before an appeal process which City are very confident of winning. Of course you can see the motives (and downright hypocrisy in some cases) but Burnley's seem different. Hatred of Jack Walker is the obvious agenda and I know how important is is to mention Jack being disrespected when it's Burnley doing it. You could argue that well "they might get a rich backer" but if someone wants to pick a club with a name as dreary as that it would seem strange. Can't imagine kids saying "isn't Burnley a cool name" and smashing down their door for tickets. Also they seem to enjoy being boring. Now I know Rovers had no ambition under greedy family influenced trustees and while many on here thought nobody would buy the club under right circumstances there wasn't total opposition. Burnley seem to enjoy not spending money simply because it's the opposite of Jack Walker. I don't know if it's true but supposedly Jack helped them one time financially. This has seemingly angered some of their fans even more. They are probably offended that Jack didn't hate them how perverse is that? That's probably the real reason they are so glad he's dead because that's when Rovers fans started paying more attention to them than they had in a decade. Jack wasn't a hateful man anyway so it wasn't like he was deliberately patronising them by helping out. There's only one club he ever seemed irritated by and that's an extreme case. If you're constantly being sneered at for "buying the title" and constantly harassing the club over your star striker for an entire summer it would test the patience of a saint. Which Jack was as far as I'm concerned. Should add that there have also been comments from Burnley claiming they could "go bust" over this pandemic crisis. Firstly any club that "goes bust" would surely be granted re-entry to their respective league (or close enough) as things stand given the extreme circumstances. Secondly does that not show Burnley's hypocrisy over "being sustainable". Of course it's an extreme time but they were built on a platform of Tv money (which they seem reluctant to spend any of) and are now pleading poverty. They say what Jack did "wasn't sustainable". Maybe not if you had a crystal ball and could see ever increasing fees capped off by Abramovich in the future. Jack would have downsized without completely starving the club or selling to someone who at least knew what relegation is. If you're not sustainable beyond that what more can you do? That's what Burnley need to ask themselves sitting on a pile of Tv money yet claiming could go bust even if league resumes as soon as August. Man City can certainly take the hit (obviously FUP will be suspended but they will probably try and cap transfers as another way for United led cartel to hold City down) but many of those clubs that claimed they were "sustainable" are not saying the opposite. Or they are just greedy with Liverpool and Tottenham coming in for criticism in particular. Won't even get started on United. FUP does not work in the real world and it sure as hell does not work in the football world. You want to preach about City not being sustainable. The truth is they are more sustainable than anyone else. United's debt has never been as much of a handicap as fans claim (though it might be now given extreme circumstances) given all money they have pissed away. Goes against what FUP lovers claim it's all about though. Of course United fans don't like people mentioning this as hating the Glazers and crowing about FUP at same time isn't convenient for them. Rovers were never the biggest spending club (even at the peak Milan and a couple of others prevented Rovers ever being no 1 in world for spending) but in the early 90's Jack's money to many looked like a bottomless pit (except to his family who probably whined when he donated the steel for the new Riverside never mind what happened later) but In City's case it's as bottomless as you can ever get.