Who's the other one, you can't mean Blackburn? They were the original bank rolled Premier League club and finished runner up the year before.
Clearly I do mean Blackburn..
Bank rolling aspect is irrelevant, the quality in the league was much lower then. While Leicester didn’t spend money like the top clubs, they still spent money on a handful of key players over a few years in amounts that are huge to to likes of us normal people. Everyone has just become so used to discussions about tens of millions that six or seven digit values are considered nothing.
OK, Blackburn was less of a surprise than Leicester, but go back a couple of seasons before and it would have seemed unlikely. Two seasons after and the key player(s) have moved on for big money.. and Blackburn fell back into the hole. What happens to Leicester now Mahrez is on his way?
Plenty of valid things to compare, and the point was about how often one time winners happen, not how far back they came from and how quickly they got there. Handful of key players and a manager who put it all together in a one time deal that looks out of place compared to most winners.
As to bankrolling, buying the right player at the right time is what it’s all about. The idea that using money is cheating is a bit crazy really, especially considering our own history. Did United not “bankroll” Cantona? Or did they make a great buy at the right time?
Pissing your money up the wall (Leeds) or buying half the worlds young players to control the market (Chelsea) is different (insane/cheating respectively) but buying players who then show they are worth the money and then some? Good planning and management. Which is ultimately what won both Blackburn and Leicester their titles.