Lancashire TelegraphBusy summer ahead for Rovers boss as he balances books (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Busy summer ahead for Rovers boss as he balances books

Lancashire Telegraph: Gary Bowyer Gary Bowyer

GARY Bowyer says Blackburn Rovers face a ‘big summer’ as they bid to avoid financial fair play sanctions in January – but he expects less transfer activity than a year ago.

The Rovers boss knows he faces a delicate balancing act this summer as he bids to reduce the club’s wage bill again, while bringing in players to improve results.

Rovers have already put six players – Leon Best, DJ Campbell, Dickson Etuhu, David Goodwillie, Alex Marrow and Jordan Slew – on the transfer list and must move on some of their high earners before the Football League’s new financial fair play regulations come into force.

Clubs falling foul of the rules face a transfer embargo from January onwards, and Rovers have been shedding players for some time in preparation for the new regulations.

“It’s going to be a big summer for us because obviously financial fair play comes in,” Bowyer said.

“We’re aware of what we’ve got to do and we’re trying to implement that now.

“We’ve released quite a few players throughout the course of the year, I think it’s been 26 in total.

“We’ve made inroads on that wage bill but we’re not kidding ourselves, we know it’s still got to be addressed.

“But at the same time we’ve got to make sure we’re still competitive, as we were last season.”

Discussions are ongoing between clubs and the Football League over possible changes to the rules, but as things stand Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments.

Rovers have significantly reduced their wage bill by moving on the likes of Danny Murphy, Nuno Gomes, Morten Gamst Pedersen, Gael Givet and Scott Dann in the past 12 months.

But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage.

Bowyer still wants to add players this summer but does not expect the same number of signings as 12 months ago, when the newly appointed manager was reshaping his squad to fit his own ethos.

“Last season I think we brought 14 in during the summer and I don’t think we’ll be doing that again,” he told Rovers Player.

“But we fell short of the play-offs so we feel we need to add a little bit more.”

Bowyer’s plans for next season are already being formulated and he hopes the positivity of a 12-match unbeaten run at the end of the 2013/14 campaign can be retained.

“I’d like to think there’s a lot more positivity about the place at the moment,” he said.

“We still feel there’s a hell of a lot to do both on and off the pitch.

“We’ve laid the foundations for things to progress and hopefully we can do that this summer and go again.

“Going into the final game the message to the players was just win the game.

“It was important because they’re away on holiday now with that feelgood factor, with that 12-game unbeaten run.

“I’ve had four days away with my wife so the season has started now for me.

“As soon as the season finished you’re straight back at it looking at the start of the next one coming.”

Comments (93)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:29am Fri 30 May 14

dallydally says...

Getting rid of plonkers like Best, Etuhu and Campbell will be extremely difficult. I can't see how the loss can be reduced to the sort of levels needed even if he gets these players off the books so a transfer embargo seems a a certainty
Getting rid of plonkers like Best, Etuhu and Campbell will be extremely difficult. I can't see how the loss can be reduced to the sort of levels needed even if he gets these players off the books so a transfer embargo seems a a certainty dallydally
  • Score: 7

9:30am Fri 30 May 14

RobH2O says...

So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate......... RobH2O
  • Score: 13

9:32am Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

"Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments."

"But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage."

Oh dear.... well you can't say I didn't warn you.

Well and truly Donald Ducked.
"Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments." "But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage." Oh dear.... well you can't say I didn't warn you. Well and truly Donald Ducked. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -28

9:35am Fri 30 May 14

owd nick says...

Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them. owd nick
  • Score: 10

9:43am Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

Systemic sounds like a good word, well done, but you’ve tagged it on to a £26m figure that you’re simply not qualified or knowledgeable to know anything about. It being the case that no one’s interested in your views in any case and you yourself should have no healthy interest in this thread, please stop wasting your time and be a good little boy and fun run off to your own area of interest. Maybe post your Colne Park Run PB while you’re at it, perhaps the Olympic Assessors will be reading……
Systemic sounds like a good word, well done, but you’ve tagged it on to a £26m figure that you’re simply not qualified or knowledgeable to know anything about. It being the case that no one’s interested in your views in any case and you yourself should have no healthy interest in this thread, please stop wasting your time and be a good little boy and fun run off to your own area of interest. Maybe post your Colne Park Run PB while you’re at it, perhaps the Olympic Assessors will be reading…… TurfMoorTom
  • Score: -9

9:51am Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -10

9:55am Fri 30 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

Operation Reduce Expectations begins.
Operation Reduce Expectations begins. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: -8

9:57am Fri 30 May 14

bring back the good old days says...

RobH2O wrote:
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
The trouble with that plan is that no one is going to offer anything like the sorts of money for the players quoted, in descending order of difficulty; Etuhu, Campbell , Best, Goodwillie.

All they can hope to do is get them off the wage bill, and that is going to take a small miracle when/if expecting to recoup any sort of reasonable initial outlay made. This, aided and abetted by our stint as 'Agents FC'.

This 'task' was always going to take several windows, but my instinct tells me that our 'on going clearing of the decks' (clear to see for all) could give us a fair chance of gaining a little more breathing space if/when going to appeal.
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........[/p][/quote]The trouble with that plan is that no one is going to offer anything like the sorts of money for the players quoted, in descending order of difficulty; Etuhu, Campbell , Best, Goodwillie. All they can hope to do is get them off the wage bill, and that is going to take a small miracle when/if expecting to recoup any sort of reasonable initial outlay made. This, aided and abetted by our stint as 'Agents FC'. This 'task' was always going to take several windows, but my instinct tells me that our 'on going clearing of the decks' (clear to see for all) could give us a fair chance of gaining a little more breathing space if/when going to appeal. bring back the good old days
  • Score: 6

9:57am Fri 30 May 14

RobH2O says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
Systemic sounds like a good word, well done, but you’ve tagged it on to a £26m figure that you’re simply not qualified or knowledgeable to know anything about. It being the case that no one’s interested in your views in any case and you yourself should have no healthy interest in this thread, please stop wasting your time and be a good little boy and fun run off to your own area of interest. Maybe post your Colne Park Run PB while you’re at it, perhaps the Olympic Assessors will be reading……
I'm glad you like "systemic". I pinched it from the League's financial appraisal, so sadly no praise for me there I'm afraid. I got the figures from the appraisal too. No praise for me there either.

I go to Ewood twice a season, which is more than you do, loser. Your current "comment" name, one of so many you have, displays what you're in this for.

I wonder which entry is the ore viable to this debate here, yours or mine? God, you are so dumb its beyond belief. You let your club down 24/7/365
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: Systemic sounds like a good word, well done, but you’ve tagged it on to a £26m figure that you’re simply not qualified or knowledgeable to know anything about. It being the case that no one’s interested in your views in any case and you yourself should have no healthy interest in this thread, please stop wasting your time and be a good little boy and fun run off to your own area of interest. Maybe post your Colne Park Run PB while you’re at it, perhaps the Olympic Assessors will be reading……[/p][/quote]I'm glad you like "systemic". I pinched it from the League's financial appraisal, so sadly no praise for me there I'm afraid. I got the figures from the appraisal too. No praise for me there either. I go to Ewood twice a season, which is more than you do, loser. Your current "comment" name, one of so many you have, displays what you're in this for. I wonder which entry is the ore viable to this debate here, yours or mine? God, you are so dumb its beyond belief. You let your club down 24/7/365 RobH2O
  • Score: 10

9:59am Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

Its really interesting how many clubs are able to release without any effect on first team what so ever. Personally I think this is part of what is damaging englands long term prospects , clubs are registering far too many players that they cannot offer football too. They are then left with the option of loaning them out or they just train and play practice matches. The leagues should put a restriction on player registrations. Chelsea had a huge amount of players out on loan last year, and god knows how many not actually playing. Too many players are disappearing into the football wilderness because they can take contracts on £5K plus a week to just sit on benches.

Forcing clubs to reduce player registartions would force the big clubs at the top of the premier league to release players who would then end up signing for clubs further down the premier league and beyond. This would raise the standards of the clubs below the top 6 and make the league more competitive. As well as aid player development by getting these lads playing competitive football. I do not hold with the argument that these top 6 clubs offer better coaching development, they have effectively been in charge of Englands young talent for the last 25 years plus and we are further behind a lot of top european countries than we have ever been.

A frive towards having players play regular competitive football should be on the FAs radar, and B teams is not the answer.
Its really interesting how many clubs are able to release without any effect on first team what so ever. Personally I think this is part of what is damaging englands long term prospects , clubs are registering far too many players that they cannot offer football too. They are then left with the option of loaning them out or they just train and play practice matches. The leagues should put a restriction on player registrations. Chelsea had a huge amount of players out on loan last year, and god knows how many not actually playing. Too many players are disappearing into the football wilderness because they can take contracts on £5K plus a week to just sit on benches. Forcing clubs to reduce player registartions would force the big clubs at the top of the premier league to release players who would then end up signing for clubs further down the premier league and beyond. This would raise the standards of the clubs below the top 6 and make the league more competitive. As well as aid player development by getting these lads playing competitive football. I do not hold with the argument that these top 6 clubs offer better coaching development, they have effectively been in charge of Englands young talent for the last 25 years plus and we are further behind a lot of top european countries than we have ever been. A frive towards having players play regular competitive football should be on the FAs radar, and B teams is not the answer. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 15

10:00am Fri 30 May 14

hasslem hasslem says...

so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing.

it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles
so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing. it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 23

10:01am Fri 30 May 14

owd nick says...

RobH2O wrote:
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
Fair comment but I don't think we will get full market price for any player, even Rhodes, because for smaller clubs the transfer market which was once their lifeline is going to get severely depressed if the rules are applied to the letter.

We can see what is happening with the likes of Best, Etuhu and Campbell etc; sitting tight with their salaries guaranteed, they know that Rovers are their last big payday and putting them on the transfer list isn't going to matter one iota, unless Rovers can find a way of paying them off they are going nowhere.

Rovers can do quite a few things; and having moved on around 30 players last season they have probably done everything they can possibly do with the playing staff under the circumstances, but that is one hemorrhage they can't staunch until their contracts run out.

BTW; i was told recently that the Portuguese contingent that Shebby signed were each on around £10k a week, others who have gone were on significantly more.

I don't know how true this is but it was from a good source, thankfully they are all gone now and if it was the case that is a significant saving, he estimated in the region of £7 million + pa.

The total saving in salaries probably close to £15 million as an absolute minimum, of course you have to offset some of that with the salaries of the players brought in.

I am pretty certain that Venky's, as well as the owners of other clubs in a similar position are working on it behind the scenes, contrary to popular belief billionaires aren't stupid all the time.
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........[/p][/quote]Fair comment but I don't think we will get full market price for any player, even Rhodes, because for smaller clubs the transfer market which was once their lifeline is going to get severely depressed if the rules are applied to the letter. We can see what is happening with the likes of Best, Etuhu and Campbell etc; sitting tight with their salaries guaranteed, they know that Rovers are their last big payday and putting them on the transfer list isn't going to matter one iota, unless Rovers can find a way of paying them off they are going nowhere. Rovers can do quite a few things; and having moved on around 30 players last season they have probably done everything they can possibly do with the playing staff under the circumstances, but that is one hemorrhage they can't staunch until their contracts run out. BTW; i was told recently that the Portuguese contingent that Shebby signed were each on around £10k a week, others who have gone were on significantly more. I don't know how true this is but it was from a good source, thankfully they are all gone now and if it was the case that is a significant saving, he estimated in the region of £7 million + pa. The total saving in salaries probably close to £15 million as an absolute minimum, of course you have to offset some of that with the salaries of the players brought in. I am pretty certain that Venky's, as well as the owners of other clubs in a similar position are working on it behind the scenes, contrary to popular belief billionaires aren't stupid all the time. owd nick
  • Score: 4

10:08am Fri 30 May 14

dangerous dave says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
unlike owd nick's post which nine times out of ten are cr-p and although I dont like siding with a claret (too much) the comments of this chap are right to the point especially the one about the Venkys failing to take appropriate action at the time when it was needed - but this sums them up anyway - the overall mess that the Rovers find themselves in - is down to them and their irresponsible cohorts!!!
OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]unlike owd nick's post which nine times out of ten are cr-p and although I dont like siding with a claret (too much) the comments of this chap are right to the point especially the one about the Venkys failing to take appropriate action at the time when it was needed - but this sums them up anyway - the overall mess that the Rovers find themselves in - is down to them and their irresponsible cohorts!!! OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS dangerous dave
  • Score: -8

10:11am Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

owd nick wrote:
RobH2O wrote:
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
Fair comment but I don't think we will get full market price for any player, even Rhodes, because for smaller clubs the transfer market which was once their lifeline is going to get severely depressed if the rules are applied to the letter.

We can see what is happening with the likes of Best, Etuhu and Campbell etc; sitting tight with their salaries guaranteed, they know that Rovers are their last big payday and putting them on the transfer list isn't going to matter one iota, unless Rovers can find a way of paying them off they are going nowhere.

Rovers can do quite a few things; and having moved on around 30 players last season they have probably done everything they can possibly do with the playing staff under the circumstances, but that is one hemorrhage they can't staunch until their contracts run out.

BTW; i was told recently that the Portuguese contingent that Shebby signed were each on around £10k a week, others who have gone were on significantly more.

I don't know how true this is but it was from a good source, thankfully they are all gone now and if it was the case that is a significant saving, he estimated in the region of £7 million + pa.

The total saving in salaries probably close to £15 million as an absolute minimum, of course you have to offset some of that with the salaries of the players brought in.

I am pretty certain that Venky's, as well as the owners of other clubs in a similar position are working on it behind the scenes, contrary to popular belief billionaires aren't stupid all the time.
there are also some key figures that make up that original 36 million loss.

£11 million on Rhodes and Best
£2 million on Henning Berg
£0.5 million on Appleton

and the paying up of Danny Murphy and Nun0 Gomes contract.

All loses assosicated with youth development are also able to be offset. WBA chairman recently stated it costs them around £ 3million per year to run their academy.Its also well documented the BRFC have set an cademy up in india thats run and coached by BRFC employees god knows what that costs.

Recent votes to change by the Championship clubs saw a majority in favour of change just not the 75% , each year 6 clubs come in an out of the league so with ongoing talks and 6 new clubs able to vote change could well happen.

The figures asked for were an extension from the £ 5m to between £10m and £14m, suggesting the worst case for most clubs is a £9m off target.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........[/p][/quote]Fair comment but I don't think we will get full market price for any player, even Rhodes, because for smaller clubs the transfer market which was once their lifeline is going to get severely depressed if the rules are applied to the letter. We can see what is happening with the likes of Best, Etuhu and Campbell etc; sitting tight with their salaries guaranteed, they know that Rovers are their last big payday and putting them on the transfer list isn't going to matter one iota, unless Rovers can find a way of paying them off they are going nowhere. Rovers can do quite a few things; and having moved on around 30 players last season they have probably done everything they can possibly do with the playing staff under the circumstances, but that is one hemorrhage they can't staunch until their contracts run out. BTW; i was told recently that the Portuguese contingent that Shebby signed were each on around £10k a week, others who have gone were on significantly more. I don't know how true this is but it was from a good source, thankfully they are all gone now and if it was the case that is a significant saving, he estimated in the region of £7 million + pa. The total saving in salaries probably close to £15 million as an absolute minimum, of course you have to offset some of that with the salaries of the players brought in. I am pretty certain that Venky's, as well as the owners of other clubs in a similar position are working on it behind the scenes, contrary to popular belief billionaires aren't stupid all the time.[/p][/quote]there are also some key figures that make up that original 36 million loss. £11 million on Rhodes and Best £2 million on Henning Berg £0.5 million on Appleton and the paying up of Danny Murphy and Nun0 Gomes contract. All loses assosicated with youth development are also able to be offset. WBA chairman recently stated it costs them around £ 3million per year to run their academy.Its also well documented the BRFC have set an cademy up in india thats run and coached by BRFC employees god knows what that costs. Recent votes to change by the Championship clubs saw a majority in favour of change just not the 75% , each year 6 clubs come in an out of the league so with ongoing talks and 6 new clubs able to vote change could well happen. The figures asked for were an extension from the £ 5m to between £10m and £14m, suggesting the worst case for most clubs is a £9m off target. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 4

10:11am Fri 30 May 14

Bill Carson says...

So many dingles posting first thing on the Rovers news stories, how sad are they?!!
Yep, we all know the financial implications of FFP you mongs.

Must be great knowing your next year's PL whipping boys and another single season in the top flight before imminent further embarrassment of relegation yet again!!
So many dingles posting first thing on the Rovers news stories, how sad are they?!! Yep, we all know the financial implications of FFP you mongs. Must be great knowing your next year's PL whipping boys and another single season in the top flight before imminent further embarrassment of relegation yet again!! Bill Carson
  • Score: 12

10:12am Fri 30 May 14

Old age pensioner says...

RobH2O wrote:
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
Good points Rob!
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........[/p][/quote]Good points Rob! Old age pensioner
  • Score: 5

10:12am Fri 30 May 14

RobH2O says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing.

it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles
Sorry you feel that way. I am a life-long Burnley fan with a number of friends who are Rovers fans. We do a match exchange twice a season. Other than bits of light-hearted banter, I don't come on here to have a go. You'll notice Turf Moor Tom's entry on here - not a Burnley fan. He is on our board constantly and he has four or five other guises. I turn vicious with him - but not on this board by choice. The comments I made below are genuine. Perhaps you'd like to comment reasonably regarding that.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing. it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles[/p][/quote]Sorry you feel that way. I am a life-long Burnley fan with a number of friends who are Rovers fans. We do a match exchange twice a season. Other than bits of light-hearted banter, I don't come on here to have a go. You'll notice Turf Moor Tom's entry on here - not a Burnley fan. He is on our board constantly and he has four or five other guises. I turn vicious with him - but not on this board by choice. The comments I made below are genuine. Perhaps you'd like to comment reasonably regarding that. RobH2O
  • Score: 9

10:13am Fri 30 May 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments."

"But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage."

Oh dear.... well you can't say I didn't warn you.

Well and truly Donald Ducked.
zzzzzzzNzzzzzHzzzzzN
zzzzHzzzzNzzzzzzHzzz
zzz
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments." "But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage." Oh dear.... well you can't say I didn't warn you. Well and truly Donald Ducked.[/p][/quote]zzzzzzzNzzzzzHzzzzzN zzzzHzzzzNzzzzzzHzzz zzz Old age pensioner
  • Score: 10

10:13am Fri 30 May 14

RobH2O says...

Old age pensioner wrote:
RobH2O wrote:
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
Good points Rob!
Cripes! I am now sitting down shaking with shock!
[quote][p][bold]Old age pensioner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........[/p][/quote]Good points Rob![/p][/quote]Cripes! I am now sitting down shaking with shock! RobH2O
  • Score: 4

10:39am Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets. says...

There will be trouble ahead.........becaus
e I'm well into my fifties and obese.
There will be trouble ahead.........becaus e I'm well into my fifties and obese. Super_Clarets.
  • Score: -3

10:47am Fri 30 May 14

hasslem hasslem says...

RobH2O wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing.

it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles
Sorry you feel that way. I am a life-long Burnley fan with a number of friends who are Rovers fans. We do a match exchange twice a season. Other than bits of light-hearted banter, I don't come on here to have a go. You'll notice Turf Moor Tom's entry on here - not a Burnley fan. He is on our board constantly and he has four or five other guises. I turn vicious with him - but not on this board by choice. The comments I made below are genuine. Perhaps you'd like to comment reasonably regarding that.
RobH20 - as a rovers fan i have many friends who are burnley supporters. you single out turf moor tom who is obviously a plant-pot - but if you visit these rovers pages at all - you will note that they are polluted with total burnley (supposed supporting) detritus......this forum used to be a half decent place to have a good debate/argument and even the a bit of digging into each other's ribs - but they pages have been ruined by one complete clown who posts on here from 9am til well after midnight.

it is easy to say just scroll past its postings - but when these make up around 40-50% of postings it becomes impossible to do so. yes, i acknowledge that turf moron tom is on your pages with the odd daft comment - but scroll through some back pages/stories on rovers site and see what your idiot has done. so many people have left these pages cos of this stupid clown
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing. it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles[/p][/quote]Sorry you feel that way. I am a life-long Burnley fan with a number of friends who are Rovers fans. We do a match exchange twice a season. Other than bits of light-hearted banter, I don't come on here to have a go. You'll notice Turf Moor Tom's entry on here - not a Burnley fan. He is on our board constantly and he has four or five other guises. I turn vicious with him - but not on this board by choice. The comments I made below are genuine. Perhaps you'd like to comment reasonably regarding that.[/p][/quote]RobH20 - as a rovers fan i have many friends who are burnley supporters. you single out turf moor tom who is obviously a plant-pot - but if you visit these rovers pages at all - you will note that they are polluted with total burnley (supposed supporting) detritus......this forum used to be a half decent place to have a good debate/argument and even the a bit of digging into each other's ribs - but they pages have been ruined by one complete clown who posts on here from 9am til well after midnight. it is easy to say just scroll past its postings - but when these make up around 40-50% of postings it becomes impossible to do so. yes, i acknowledge that turf moron tom is on your pages with the odd daft comment - but scroll through some back pages/stories on rovers site and see what your idiot has done. so many people have left these pages cos of this stupid clown hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 9

10:52am Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
RobH2O wrote:
hasslem hasslem wrote:
so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing.

it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles
Sorry you feel that way. I am a life-long Burnley fan with a number of friends who are Rovers fans. We do a match exchange twice a season. Other than bits of light-hearted banter, I don't come on here to have a go. You'll notice Turf Moor Tom's entry on here - not a Burnley fan. He is on our board constantly and he has four or five other guises. I turn vicious with him - but not on this board by choice. The comments I made below are genuine. Perhaps you'd like to comment reasonably regarding that.
RobH20 - as a rovers fan i have many friends who are burnley supporters. you single out turf moor tom who is obviously a plant-pot - but if you visit these rovers pages at all - you will note that they are polluted with total burnley (supposed supporting) detritus......this forum used to be a half decent place to have a good debate/argument and even the a bit of digging into each other's ribs - but they pages have been ruined by one complete clown who posts on here from 9am til well after midnight.

it is easy to say just scroll past its postings - but when these make up around 40-50% of postings it becomes impossible to do so. yes, i acknowledge that turf moron tom is on your pages with the odd daft comment - but scroll through some back pages/stories on rovers site and see what your idiot has done. so many people have left these pages cos of this stupid clown
In actual fact there are more Super_Clarets appearing by the day as Blackburn Rovers fans seek to imitate the great one, I'm seeing all kinds of variations on the same theme, there's even one above stating that he's in his fifties and obese. There are more Super_Claret Rovers fans polluting "your pages" than there are Burnley fans. Embarrassing but true. So wind your neck in you mug.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: so just so i understand - a rovers story and over half the comments from one (or a selection of dingles) meanwhile over on the burnley fc tumbleweed pages - virtually nothing. it just beggars belief that they are more interested in rovers pages than their own. OCDingles[/p][/quote]Sorry you feel that way. I am a life-long Burnley fan with a number of friends who are Rovers fans. We do a match exchange twice a season. Other than bits of light-hearted banter, I don't come on here to have a go. You'll notice Turf Moor Tom's entry on here - not a Burnley fan. He is on our board constantly and he has four or five other guises. I turn vicious with him - but not on this board by choice. The comments I made below are genuine. Perhaps you'd like to comment reasonably regarding that.[/p][/quote]RobH20 - as a rovers fan i have many friends who are burnley supporters. you single out turf moor tom who is obviously a plant-pot - but if you visit these rovers pages at all - you will note that they are polluted with total burnley (supposed supporting) detritus......this forum used to be a half decent place to have a good debate/argument and even the a bit of digging into each other's ribs - but they pages have been ruined by one complete clown who posts on here from 9am til well after midnight. it is easy to say just scroll past its postings - but when these make up around 40-50% of postings it becomes impossible to do so. yes, i acknowledge that turf moron tom is on your pages with the odd daft comment - but scroll through some back pages/stories on rovers site and see what your idiot has done. so many people have left these pages cos of this stupid clown[/p][/quote]In actual fact there are more Super_Clarets appearing by the day as Blackburn Rovers fans seek to imitate the great one, I'm seeing all kinds of variations on the same theme, there's even one above stating that he's in his fifties and obese. There are more Super_Claret Rovers fans polluting "your pages" than there are Burnley fans. Embarrassing but true. So wind your neck in you mug. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -7

10:54am Fri 30 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
Its really interesting how many clubs are able to release without any effect on first team what so ever. Personally I think this is part of what is damaging englands long term prospects , clubs are registering far too many players that they cannot offer football too. They are then left with the option of loaning them out or they just train and play practice matches. The leagues should put a restriction on player registrations. Chelsea had a huge amount of players out on loan last year, and god knows how many not actually playing. Too many players are disappearing into the football wilderness because they can take contracts on £5K plus a week to just sit on benches.

Forcing clubs to reduce player registartions would force the big clubs at the top of the premier league to release players who would then end up signing for clubs further down the premier league and beyond. This would raise the standards of the clubs below the top 6 and make the league more competitive. As well as aid player development by getting these lads playing competitive football. I do not hold with the argument that these top 6 clubs offer better coaching development, they have effectively been in charge of Englands young talent for the last 25 years plus and we are further behind a lot of top european countries than we have ever been.

A frive towards having players play regular competitive football should be on the FAs radar, and B teams is not the answer.
This is an excellent idea, the only drawback I can see is that it would leave a lot of our footballing talent potentially in the wilderness, ie without a club.

The problem is with the current grading of the academies, because that means that the young talent will always gravitate towards the Man Utd's, Man City's and Chelsea's of the world because their scouts get carte blanche when it comes to picking up the best talent, only to ditch them a couple of years later.

Clubs like Burnley, Blackburn and the like would be better places for these youngsters to develop as we can offer them a much more likely chance of first team involvement than the so-called bigger clubs can, and what better for development than an actual chance of appearing in a competitive Championship/PL game?
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: Its really interesting how many clubs are able to release without any effect on first team what so ever. Personally I think this is part of what is damaging englands long term prospects , clubs are registering far too many players that they cannot offer football too. They are then left with the option of loaning them out or they just train and play practice matches. The leagues should put a restriction on player registrations. Chelsea had a huge amount of players out on loan last year, and god knows how many not actually playing. Too many players are disappearing into the football wilderness because they can take contracts on £5K plus a week to just sit on benches. Forcing clubs to reduce player registartions would force the big clubs at the top of the premier league to release players who would then end up signing for clubs further down the premier league and beyond. This would raise the standards of the clubs below the top 6 and make the league more competitive. As well as aid player development by getting these lads playing competitive football. I do not hold with the argument that these top 6 clubs offer better coaching development, they have effectively been in charge of Englands young talent for the last 25 years plus and we are further behind a lot of top european countries than we have ever been. A frive towards having players play regular competitive football should be on the FAs radar, and B teams is not the answer.[/p][/quote]This is an excellent idea, the only drawback I can see is that it would leave a lot of our footballing talent potentially in the wilderness, ie without a club. The problem is with the current grading of the academies, because that means that the young talent will always gravitate towards the Man Utd's, Man City's and Chelsea's of the world because their scouts get carte blanche when it comes to picking up the best talent, only to ditch them a couple of years later. Clubs like Burnley, Blackburn and the like would be better places for these youngsters to develop as we can offer them a much more likely chance of first team involvement than the so-called bigger clubs can, and what better for development than an actual chance of appearing in a competitive Championship/PL game? Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 1

11:12am Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
inflightmagazine wrote:
Its really interesting how many clubs are able to release without any effect on first team what so ever. Personally I think this is part of what is damaging englands long term prospects , clubs are registering far too many players that they cannot offer football too. They are then left with the option of loaning them out or they just train and play practice matches. The leagues should put a restriction on player registrations. Chelsea had a huge amount of players out on loan last year, and god knows how many not actually playing. Too many players are disappearing into the football wilderness because they can take contracts on £5K plus a week to just sit on benches.

Forcing clubs to reduce player registartions would force the big clubs at the top of the premier league to release players who would then end up signing for clubs further down the premier league and beyond. This would raise the standards of the clubs below the top 6 and make the league more competitive. As well as aid player development by getting these lads playing competitive football. I do not hold with the argument that these top 6 clubs offer better coaching development, they have effectively been in charge of Englands young talent for the last 25 years plus and we are further behind a lot of top european countries than we have ever been.

A frive towards having players play regular competitive football should be on the FAs radar, and B teams is not the answer.
This is an excellent idea, the only drawback I can see is that it would leave a lot of our footballing talent potentially in the wilderness, ie without a club.

The problem is with the current grading of the academies, because that means that the young talent will always gravitate towards the Man Utd's, Man City's and Chelsea's of the world because their scouts get carte blanche when it comes to picking up the best talent, only to ditch them a couple of years later.

Clubs like Burnley, Blackburn and the like would be better places for these youngsters to develop as we can offer them a much more likely chance of first team involvement than the so-called bigger clubs can, and what better for development than an actual chance of appearing in a competitive Championship/PL game?
I agree initially they would have to find new clubs but the hope would be a cascade down of talent through the leagues. I for one would love to see league 2 full of young hungry talent , learning how to play the game rather than overweight pub players, kicking ten bells out of each other.

The FA is very weak on this one, they brought in the home grown ruling to try and encourage player development by clubs. However as I read it Homegrown just means they have been affiliated to the FA or welsh FA for a total of 36 months prior to there 21st Birthday. So effectively clubs will ship in a boat load of foreign talent on there 18th Birthday , ship out the local lads,and take a look at the foreign lads for a few years. Hence the large number of foreign players playing in the u21 sides of our top teams. This is another reason I do not agree with B teams all it will do is help develop u21 players from spain, france and Germany.

They have to find away taking a bit of control on player development and so far its not working.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: Its really interesting how many clubs are able to release without any effect on first team what so ever. Personally I think this is part of what is damaging englands long term prospects , clubs are registering far too many players that they cannot offer football too. They are then left with the option of loaning them out or they just train and play practice matches. The leagues should put a restriction on player registrations. Chelsea had a huge amount of players out on loan last year, and god knows how many not actually playing. Too many players are disappearing into the football wilderness because they can take contracts on £5K plus a week to just sit on benches. Forcing clubs to reduce player registartions would force the big clubs at the top of the premier league to release players who would then end up signing for clubs further down the premier league and beyond. This would raise the standards of the clubs below the top 6 and make the league more competitive. As well as aid player development by getting these lads playing competitive football. I do not hold with the argument that these top 6 clubs offer better coaching development, they have effectively been in charge of Englands young talent for the last 25 years plus and we are further behind a lot of top european countries than we have ever been. A frive towards having players play regular competitive football should be on the FAs radar, and B teams is not the answer.[/p][/quote]This is an excellent idea, the only drawback I can see is that it would leave a lot of our footballing talent potentially in the wilderness, ie without a club. The problem is with the current grading of the academies, because that means that the young talent will always gravitate towards the Man Utd's, Man City's and Chelsea's of the world because their scouts get carte blanche when it comes to picking up the best talent, only to ditch them a couple of years later. Clubs like Burnley, Blackburn and the like would be better places for these youngsters to develop as we can offer them a much more likely chance of first team involvement than the so-called bigger clubs can, and what better for development than an actual chance of appearing in a competitive Championship/PL game?[/p][/quote]I agree initially they would have to find new clubs but the hope would be a cascade down of talent through the leagues. I for one would love to see league 2 full of young hungry talent , learning how to play the game rather than overweight pub players, kicking ten bells out of each other. The FA is very weak on this one, they brought in the home grown ruling to try and encourage player development by clubs. However as I read it Homegrown just means they have been affiliated to the FA or welsh FA for a total of 36 months prior to there 21st Birthday. So effectively clubs will ship in a boat load of foreign talent on there 18th Birthday , ship out the local lads,and take a look at the foreign lads for a few years. Hence the large number of foreign players playing in the u21 sides of our top teams. This is another reason I do not agree with B teams all it will do is help develop u21 players from spain, france and Germany. They have to find away taking a bit of control on player development and so far its not working. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 1

11:13am Fri 30 May 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

RobH2O wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Systemic sounds like a good word, well done, but you’ve tagged it on to a £26m figure that you’re simply not qualified or knowledgeable to know anything about. It being the case that no one’s interested in your views in any case and you yourself should have no healthy interest in this thread, please stop wasting your time and be a good little boy and fun run off to your own area of interest. Maybe post your Colne Park Run PB while you’re at it, perhaps the Olympic Assessors will be reading……
I'm glad you like "systemic". I pinched it from the League's financial appraisal, so sadly no praise for me there I'm afraid. I got the figures from the appraisal too. No praise for me there either.

I go to Ewood twice a season, which is more than you do, loser. Your current "comment" name, one of so many you have, displays what you're in this for.

I wonder which entry is the ore viable to this debate here, yours or mine? God, you are so dumb its beyond belief. You let your club down 24/7/365
So Tom you suggesting crispy and rob are one and the same? No wonder they meet each other in the rodders toilets, they look in the mirror, and there they are, 118 and 118 very clever.
I also want to know his immaginary 10k PB time. I think if he keeps telling himself he's the sporty type, his lard filled folds may just disappear.
The other persona will be here soon, with tales of fell running and bike rides.
Sad 118 pining to be in the rodders toilets, with his souey cell mates teaching him the offside rule.
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: Systemic sounds like a good word, well done, but you’ve tagged it on to a £26m figure that you’re simply not qualified or knowledgeable to know anything about. It being the case that no one’s interested in your views in any case and you yourself should have no healthy interest in this thread, please stop wasting your time and be a good little boy and fun run off to your own area of interest. Maybe post your Colne Park Run PB while you’re at it, perhaps the Olympic Assessors will be reading……[/p][/quote]I'm glad you like "systemic". I pinched it from the League's financial appraisal, so sadly no praise for me there I'm afraid. I got the figures from the appraisal too. No praise for me there either. I go to Ewood twice a season, which is more than you do, loser. Your current "comment" name, one of so many you have, displays what you're in this for. I wonder which entry is the ore viable to this debate here, yours or mine? God, you are so dumb its beyond belief. You let your club down 24/7/365[/p][/quote]So Tom you suggesting crispy and rob are one and the same? No wonder they meet each other in the rodders toilets, they look in the mirror, and there they are, 118 and 118 very clever. I also want to know his immaginary 10k PB time. I think if he keeps telling himself he's the sporty type, his lard filled folds may just disappear. The other persona will be here soon, with tales of fell running and bike rides. Sad 118 pining to be in the rodders toilets, with his souey cell mates teaching him the offside rule. AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: 2

11:20am Fri 30 May 14

Ewood_Mark says...

Bye bye Rhodes. Bye bye Cairney. HELLO League One !
Bye bye Rhodes. Bye bye Cairney. HELLO League One ! Ewood_Mark
  • Score: -5

11:33am Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

owd nick wrote:
RobH2O wrote:
So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it.

I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this.

My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted.

So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........
Fair comment but I don't think we will get full market price for any player, even Rhodes, because for smaller clubs the transfer market which was once their lifeline is going to get severely depressed if the rules are applied to the letter.

We can see what is happening with the likes of Best, Etuhu and Campbell etc; sitting tight with their salaries guaranteed, they know that Rovers are their last big payday and putting them on the transfer list isn't going to matter one iota, unless Rovers can find a way of paying them off they are going nowhere.

Rovers can do quite a few things; and having moved on around 30 players last season they have probably done everything they can possibly do with the playing staff under the circumstances, but that is one hemorrhage they can't staunch until their contracts run out.

BTW; i was told recently that the Portuguese contingent that Shebby signed were each on around £10k a week, others who have gone were on significantly more.

I don't know how true this is but it was from a good source, thankfully they are all gone now and if it was the case that is a significant saving, he estimated in the region of £7 million + pa.

The total saving in salaries probably close to £15 million as an absolute minimum, of course you have to offset some of that with the salaries of the players brought in.

I am pretty certain that Venky's, as well as the owners of other clubs in a similar position are working on it behind the scenes, contrary to popular belief billionaires aren't stupid all the time.
I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past aquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: So, Current systemic losses running at £26m per season. You can run at a total loss of £6m this season, reduce your wage bill to 85% of turnover and you avoid FFP in January. This means you've to shift £24m of costs and assets to make it. I'm a disappointed dingle! I Banter aside, this is do-able. Sell your best three players for full market price and raise, say £15m. Then use a small chunk of the proceeds along with the £6m loss allowable and replace the players. The purchase of Gestede shows GB has an eye for this. My guess is you are left with about £12m FFP shortfall. If Venky converts £12m of its loan stock to equity then tally-ho; job sorted. So, it all rests with Venky stepping up to the plate.........[/p][/quote]Fair comment but I don't think we will get full market price for any player, even Rhodes, because for smaller clubs the transfer market which was once their lifeline is going to get severely depressed if the rules are applied to the letter. We can see what is happening with the likes of Best, Etuhu and Campbell etc; sitting tight with their salaries guaranteed, they know that Rovers are their last big payday and putting them on the transfer list isn't going to matter one iota, unless Rovers can find a way of paying them off they are going nowhere. Rovers can do quite a few things; and having moved on around 30 players last season they have probably done everything they can possibly do with the playing staff under the circumstances, but that is one hemorrhage they can't staunch until their contracts run out. BTW; i was told recently that the Portuguese contingent that Shebby signed were each on around £10k a week, others who have gone were on significantly more. I don't know how true this is but it was from a good source, thankfully they are all gone now and if it was the case that is a significant saving, he estimated in the region of £7 million + pa. The total saving in salaries probably close to £15 million as an absolute minimum, of course you have to offset some of that with the salaries of the players brought in. I am pretty certain that Venky's, as well as the owners of other clubs in a similar position are working on it behind the scenes, contrary to popular belief billionaires aren't stupid all the time.[/p][/quote]I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past aquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 3

11:37am Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

"Blackburn manager Gary Bowyer insists the club have received no firm enquiries as yet about Jordan Rhodes but would sell the striker for the right price.

Rhodes has long been linked with a move to the Premier League, but Bowyer insists, although there could soon be approaches made for his star striker, there has been no bid received for the player thus far. The Rovers boss does, however, accept the player could be sold if a large bid is made.

He told Sky Sports News Radio: "We've said all along that the owners don't have any intention of selling Jordan but everybody has a price. We're fully aware given the financial situation that if someone came in with a suitable bid then we won't be in a position to refuse it."
"Blackburn manager Gary Bowyer insists the club have received no firm enquiries as yet about Jordan Rhodes but would sell the striker for the right price. Rhodes has long been linked with a move to the Premier League, but Bowyer insists, although there could soon be approaches made for his star striker, there has been no bid received for the player thus far. The Rovers boss does, however, accept the player could be sold if a large bid is made. He told Sky Sports News Radio: "We've said all along that the owners don't have any intention of selling Jordan but everybody has a price. We're fully aware given the financial situation that if someone came in with a suitable bid then we won't be in a position to refuse it." Super_Clarets
  • Score: -6

11:52am Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

see lamberts off to Liverpool, Brendan Rodgers ( Northern Ireland) Doing more for the England teams development than the FA have ever done
see lamberts off to Liverpool, Brendan Rodgers ( Northern Ireland) Doing more for the England teams development than the FA have ever done inflightmagazine
  • Score: 4

11:56am Fri 30 May 14

PhilipMc says...

no idea what people are crying about it was what 2 weeks ago bowyer said I DO NOT HAVE TO SELL ANY OF MY STAR PLAYERS

im not worried hes far to clever to make a statement like that and not mean it
no idea what people are crying about it was what 2 weeks ago bowyer said I DO NOT HAVE TO SELL ANY OF MY STAR PLAYERS im not worried hes far to clever to make a statement like that and not mean it PhilipMc
  • Score: 1

12:06pm Fri 30 May 14

BRFC75 says...

We'll probably sell Rhodes perhaps Cairney ! Scott or Rudy , but hey we're gonna keep SHEBBY and HENDRY , getting rid of these two old non contributors will save us a million pounds a year,A Big Chunk, Singh had no allegiance to Rovers and Hendry walked put on us TWICE for few shillings more , there loyalty is only driven by the size of their paypackts.
We'll probably sell Rhodes perhaps Cairney ! Scott or Rudy , but hey we're gonna keep SHEBBY and HENDRY , getting rid of these two old non contributors will save us a million pounds a year,A Big Chunk, Singh had no allegiance to Rovers and Hendry walked put on us TWICE for few shillings more , there loyalty is only driven by the size of their paypackts. BRFC75
  • Score: 2

12:12pm Fri 30 May 14

RobH2O says...

TurfMoorTom says..
"Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m"

January sunshine. Check the accounts and the forward projection provided to the League. You are absolutely and utterly clueless.
TurfMoorTom says.. "Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m" January sunshine. Check the accounts and the forward projection provided to the League. You are absolutely and utterly clueless. RobH2O
  • Score: -1

12:24pm Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

RobH2O wrote:
TurfMoorTom says..
"Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m"

January sunshine. Check the accounts and the forward projection provided to the League. You are absolutely and utterly clueless.
where can you get the 2013/14 accounts can only see the 2012/13 accounts on company house.
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: TurfMoorTom says.. "Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m" January sunshine. Check the accounts and the forward projection provided to the League. You are absolutely and utterly clueless.[/p][/quote]where can you get the 2013/14 accounts can only see the 2012/13 accounts on company house. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 4

12:24pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short
-of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.
How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short -of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Fri 30 May 14

roverstid says...

BRFC75 wrote:
We'll probably sell Rhodes perhaps Cairney ! Scott or Rudy , but hey we're gonna keep SHEBBY and HENDRY , getting rid of these two old non contributors will save us a million pounds a year,A Big Chunk, Singh had no allegiance to Rovers and Hendry walked put on us TWICE for few shillings more , there loyalty is only driven by the size of their paypackts.
Shut it tinfoil smelly
[quote][p][bold]BRFC75[/bold] wrote: We'll probably sell Rhodes perhaps Cairney ! Scott or Rudy , but hey we're gonna keep SHEBBY and HENDRY , getting rid of these two old non contributors will save us a million pounds a year,A Big Chunk, Singh had no allegiance to Rovers and Hendry walked put on us TWICE for few shillings more , there loyalty is only driven by the size of their paypackts.[/p][/quote]Shut it tinfoil smelly roverstid
  • Score: -2

12:33pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
RobH2O wrote:
TurfMoorTom says..
"Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m"

January sunshine. Check the accounts and the forward projection provided to the League. You are absolutely and utterly clueless.
where can you get the 2013/14 accounts can only see the 2012/13 accounts on company house.
Leave him to it - he's a fantasist fun runner. If he had access to any figures common sense would suggest he'd post them. He hasn't got any information or common sense. Like any 6-fingered sister lover he just posts wild unsubstantiated figures.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: TurfMoorTom says.. "Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m" January sunshine. Check the accounts and the forward projection provided to the League. You are absolutely and utterly clueless.[/p][/quote]where can you get the 2013/14 accounts can only see the 2012/13 accounts on company house.[/p][/quote]Leave him to it - he's a fantasist fun runner. If he had access to any figures common sense would suggest he'd post them. He hasn't got any information or common sense. Like any 6-fingered sister lover he just posts wild unsubstantiated figures. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 1

12:35pm Fri 30 May 14

Tatts says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"Blackburn manager Gary Bowyer insists the club have received no firm enquiries as yet about Jordan Rhodes but would sell the striker for the right price.

Rhodes has long been linked with a move to the Premier League, but Bowyer insists, although there could soon be approaches made for his star striker, there has been no bid received for the player thus far. The Rovers boss does, however, accept the player could be sold if a large bid is made.

He told Sky Sports News Radio: "We've said all along that the owners don't have any intention of selling Jordan but everybody has a price. We're fully aware given the financial situation that if someone came in with a suitable bid then we won't be in a position to refuse it."
Reek, will your master allow you to watch the World Cup this summer or will you still be confined to spending every hour of every day on the Rovers message boards?

Must be hard for you.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Blackburn manager Gary Bowyer insists the club have received no firm enquiries as yet about Jordan Rhodes but would sell the striker for the right price. Rhodes has long been linked with a move to the Premier League, but Bowyer insists, although there could soon be approaches made for his star striker, there has been no bid received for the player thus far. The Rovers boss does, however, accept the player could be sold if a large bid is made. He told Sky Sports News Radio: "We've said all along that the owners don't have any intention of selling Jordan but everybody has a price. We're fully aware given the financial situation that if someone came in with a suitable bid then we won't be in a position to refuse it."[/p][/quote]Reek, will your master allow you to watch the World Cup this summer or will you still be confined to spending every hour of every day on the Rovers message boards? Must be hard for you. Tatts
  • Score: 3

12:40pm Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short

-of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.
Ah Tom, you never fail to make me laugh at you, the most deluded of all no-dads.


Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short -of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.[/p][/quote]Ah Tom, you never fail to make me laugh at you, the most deluded of all no-dads. Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -1

12:44pm Fri 30 May 14

garyintandem says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers? garyintandem
  • Score: 2

12:49pm Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

The best advice I ever got from our accountant at work was that end of year accounts represent the view point of the person putting them together.
The best advice I ever got from our accountant at work was that end of year accounts represent the view point of the person putting them together. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 2

1:10pm Fri 30 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
[quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 4

1:18pm Fri 30 May 14

Old age pensioner says...

garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
Because he's a tosser,

Souper Clurite say Clurites down forever!!
[quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]Because he's a tosser, Souper Clurite say Clurites down forever!! Old age pensioner
  • Score: 4

1:22pm Fri 30 May 14

roverstid says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again). roverstid
  • Score: -4

1:25pm Fri 30 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short


-of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.
Ah Tom, you never fail to make me laugh at you, the most deluded of all no-dads.


Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
I love Toms optimism that we are now trading nearly at break even which of course, we arnt. Huge savings are going to be have to be made but I don't think its as much as £25m, prob £15-20m (which is still massive).

The trouble is our owners didnt start this process early enough, infact they increased our salery costs by employing Gomes, Murphy etc when they should have done the OPPOSITE (gross mis-management on their part).

Obviously we will all know where the club stands financially when Rovers post their annual accounts, although I expect Venkys to post them as late as they can get away with (most companies losing huge amounts of money seem to do this).

I cannot see how we can avoid a transfer embargo (presuming it is going to be implemented) unless we sell Rhodes.

I don't see how we can make enough savings by just getting rid of the deadwood, I think it would have to be ALL the deadwood we can get rid of AND Rhodes and then we might just squeeze in, but even then I might just be hoping against hope.

WE MUST avoid being put into an embargo at all costs because -

1 - It would be humiliating for such a proud old club like ours to be placed in such a position for the 1st time in our 139 year history.
2 - We would be then FORCED to sell Rhodes anyway in order to reduce costs and comply (and we would get a much reduced price for him in this senario).
3 - It's likely that many of our other better players would become unsettled or be unsettled by other clubs or their own agents and want to move on (again at reduced prices).

For some Rovers fans to say that a transfer embargo wouldnt effect us just goes to show how little they understand of the situation.

A transfer ban will have a massive effect on any club which is forced into one, both financially and football-wise.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short -of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.[/p][/quote]Ah Tom, you never fail to make me laugh at you, the most deluded of all no-dads. Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]I love Toms optimism that we are now trading nearly at break even which of course, we arnt. Huge savings are going to be have to be made but I don't think its as much as £25m, prob £15-20m (which is still massive). The trouble is our owners didnt start this process early enough, infact they increased our salery costs by employing Gomes, Murphy etc when they should have done the OPPOSITE (gross mis-management on their part). Obviously we will all know where the club stands financially when Rovers post their annual accounts, although I expect Venkys to post them as late as they can get away with (most companies losing huge amounts of money seem to do this). I cannot see how we can avoid a transfer embargo (presuming it is going to be implemented) unless we sell Rhodes. I don't see how we can make enough savings by just getting rid of the deadwood, I think it would have to be ALL the deadwood we can get rid of AND Rhodes and then we might just squeeze in, but even then I might just be hoping against hope. WE MUST avoid being put into an embargo at all costs because - 1 - It would be humiliating for such a proud old club like ours to be placed in such a position for the 1st time in our 139 year history. 2 - We would be then FORCED to sell Rhodes anyway in order to reduce costs and comply (and we would get a much reduced price for him in this senario). 3 - It's likely that many of our other better players would become unsettled or be unsettled by other clubs or their own agents and want to move on (again at reduced prices). For some Rovers fans to say that a transfer embargo wouldnt effect us just goes to show how little they understand of the situation. A transfer ban will have a massive effect on any club which is forced into one, both financially and football-wise. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 3

1:28pm Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
"When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us"


The transfer embargo is simply the sanction put in place to ensure that you meet the requirements of Financial Fair Play. It will remain in place until you do.

The requirements are that your losses are no greater than £3million.

Your wage bill alone for last season was £36million.

Do I really need to spell this out to you? The transfer embargo will prevent you from signing players. The cost cutting will mean that ALL players of value are sold.

It's pretty simple really. You have a saving of £25million to make and that is only possible by selling Rhodes (and thereby getting rid of his £2million annual salary), Cairney, Hanley, and Gestede.

Not sounding so harmless now is it?
[quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]"When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us" The transfer embargo is simply the sanction put in place to ensure that you meet the requirements of Financial Fair Play. It will remain in place until you do. The requirements are that your losses are no greater than £3million. Your wage bill alone for last season was £36million. Do I really need to spell this out to you? The transfer embargo will prevent you from signing players. The cost cutting will mean that ALL players of value are sold. It's pretty simple really. You have a saving of £25million to make and that is only possible by selling Rhodes (and thereby getting rid of his £2million annual salary), Cairney, Hanley, and Gestede. Not sounding so harmless now is it? Super_Clarets
  • Score: -1

1:34pm Fri 30 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!! J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 2

1:46pm Fri 30 May 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
"When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us"


The transfer embargo is simply the sanction put in place to ensure that you meet the requirements of Financial Fair Play. It will remain in place until you do.

The requirements are that your losses are no greater than £3million.

Your wage bill alone for last season was £36million.

Do I really need to spell this out to you? The transfer embargo will prevent you from signing players. The cost cutting will mean that ALL players of value are sold.

It's pretty simple really. You have a saving of £25million to make and that is only possible by selling Rhodes (and thereby getting rid of his £2million annual salary), Cairney, Hanley, and Gestede.

Not sounding so harmless now is it?
zzzzzNzzzzzzHzzzzzNz
zzzzzHzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]"When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us" The transfer embargo is simply the sanction put in place to ensure that you meet the requirements of Financial Fair Play. It will remain in place until you do. The requirements are that your losses are no greater than £3million. Your wage bill alone for last season was £36million. Do I really need to spell this out to you? The transfer embargo will prevent you from signing players. The cost cutting will mean that ALL players of value are sold. It's pretty simple really. You have a saving of £25million to make and that is only possible by selling Rhodes (and thereby getting rid of his £2million annual salary), Cairney, Hanley, and Gestede. Not sounding so harmless now is it?[/p][/quote]zzzzzNzzzzzzHzzzzzNz zzzzzHzzzzz Old age pensioner
  • Score: 4

2:00pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 6

2:05pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
How do we get out of it? Contracts of the deadwood simply run to conclusion.

Once the parachute payments run out we'll need to restructure and that probably means sell Rhodes. Until then we've got next season for a good go at it.

Now shut up and support your club or sleep with your sister, the choice is yours.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!![/p][/quote]How do we get out of it? Contracts of the deadwood simply run to conclusion. Once the parachute payments run out we'll need to restructure and that probably means sell Rhodes. Until then we've got next season for a good go at it. Now shut up and support your club or sleep with your sister, the choice is yours. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: -3

2:31pm Fri 30 May 14

BlueSkies says...

Froch or Groves?
Froch or Groves? BlueSkies
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Fri 30 May 14

Rovers F.C. says...

BlueSkies wrote:
Froch or Groves?
Froch, he's a Northerner.
[quote][p][bold]BlueSkies[/bold] wrote: Froch or Groves?[/p][/quote]Froch, he's a Northerner. Rovers F.C.
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!! Super_Clarets
  • Score: -4

4:36pm Fri 30 May 14

owd nick says...

dangerous dave wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
unlike owd nick's post which nine times out of ten are cr-p and although I dont like siding with a claret (too much) the comments of this chap are right to the point especially the one about the Venkys failing to take appropriate action at the time when it was needed - but this sums them up anyway - the overall mess that the Rovers find themselves in - is down to them and their irresponsible cohorts!!!
OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS
Come on Dave, we all know you are missing arse licking Allardyce every day but swapping him for "Super Claret"?......really
?
[quote][p][bold]dangerous dave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]unlike owd nick's post which nine times out of ten are cr-p and although I dont like siding with a claret (too much) the comments of this chap are right to the point especially the one about the Venkys failing to take appropriate action at the time when it was needed - but this sums them up anyway - the overall mess that the Rovers find themselves in - is down to them and their irresponsible cohorts!!! OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS[/p][/quote]Come on Dave, we all know you are missing arse licking Allardyce every day but swapping him for "Super Claret"?......really ? owd nick
  • Score: -2

4:43pm Fri 30 May 14

owd nick says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
Good post JC, but you are missing one point, all this is speculation, for a start we don't know, and won't know until around the end of June what our trading losses are.

That's what any fines or embargo's will be based on, how much we bring in over a period of time and how much we spend during that same period.

From what I can see it doesn't include historical debts.

I don't pretend to be an expert, the only thing I can predict is we will know by December what the issues we have to deal with are.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!![/p][/quote]Good post JC, but you are missing one point, all this is speculation, for a start we don't know, and won't know until around the end of June what our trading losses are. That's what any fines or embargo's will be based on, how much we bring in over a period of time and how much we spend during that same period. From what I can see it doesn't include historical debts. I don't pretend to be an expert, the only thing I can predict is we will know by December what the issues we have to deal with are. owd nick
  • Score: -2

4:45pm Fri 30 May 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Super NH talks sh!te again.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Super NH talks sh!te again. Old age pensioner
  • Score: 3

4:48pm Fri 30 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
How do we get out of it? Contracts of the deadwood simply run to conclusion.

Once the parachute payments run out we'll need to restructure and that probably means sell Rhodes. Until then we've got next season for a good go at it.

Now shut up and support your club or sleep with your sister, the choice is yours.
Please don't tell me to shut up Tom, my opinion is as valid as yours.

Firstly there is no way the Portugese 5 were on £7m wages between them (£27,000 each per week – I think not).

Yes its good we have got rid of them and a few others but to say we'll get out of the embargo by simply letting the deadwoods contracts run out is utter cr@p - and you must know it (you maybe an obnoxious individual but you aint stupid).

Best, the highest paid player at Rovers (apart from Rhodes) is on £35,000 per week (£1,820,000 per year and his contract runs out in July 2016 and Dixon Etuhu on a reported £30,000 per week (£1560000 per annum) has a contract until Aug 2016.

That would take well over 18 months from the 1st Jan 2015 for both of their contracts to run out and we would still probably be miles short of the mark anyway and then we'd have to find more savings because of the ending of the parachute money (their combined contracts cost us about £3.4m per year. That’s a lot of money but hardly a ripple in the £20-30m in savings which we’re gonna have to find over the next 18 months.

Also, don't you think it would bother some of our better players if were put in a transfer embargo? (remember players are usually selfish money grabing b*****ds who care only for their own career - or do you think cos Rhodes, Cairney, Conway, Hanley etc are all great guys and not like other footballers, just cos they play for us?).

Nothing wrong with being positive and yes, I agree that we may have a decent chance in the league next year but to refuse to accept that if the worst happened and we were put into a transfer embargo then it wouldn’t have a huge impact on our club is just like acting like an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!![/p][/quote]How do we get out of it? Contracts of the deadwood simply run to conclusion. Once the parachute payments run out we'll need to restructure and that probably means sell Rhodes. Until then we've got next season for a good go at it. Now shut up and support your club or sleep with your sister, the choice is yours.[/p][/quote]Please don't tell me to shut up Tom, my opinion is as valid as yours. Firstly there is no way the Portugese 5 were on £7m wages between them (£27,000 each per week – I think not). Yes its good we have got rid of them and a few others but to say we'll get out of the embargo by simply letting the deadwoods contracts run out is utter cr@p - and you must know it (you maybe an obnoxious individual but you aint stupid). Best, the highest paid player at Rovers (apart from Rhodes) is on £35,000 per week (£1,820,000 per year and his contract runs out in July 2016 and Dixon Etuhu on a reported £30,000 per week (£1560000 per annum) has a contract until Aug 2016. That would take well over 18 months from the 1st Jan 2015 for both of their contracts to run out and we would still probably be miles short of the mark anyway and then we'd have to find more savings because of the ending of the parachute money (their combined contracts cost us about £3.4m per year. That’s a lot of money but hardly a ripple in the £20-30m in savings which we’re gonna have to find over the next 18 months. Also, don't you think it would bother some of our better players if were put in a transfer embargo? (remember players are usually selfish money grabing b*****ds who care only for their own career - or do you think cos Rhodes, Cairney, Conway, Hanley etc are all great guys and not like other footballers, just cos they play for us?). Nothing wrong with being positive and yes, I agree that we may have a decent chance in the league next year but to refuse to accept that if the worst happened and we were put into a transfer embargo then it wouldn’t have a huge impact on our club is just like acting like an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 4

5:15pm Fri 30 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

owd nick wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
Good post JC, but you are missing one point, all this is speculation, for a start we don't know, and won't know until around the end of June what our trading losses are.

That's what any fines or embargo's will be based on, how much we bring in over a period of time and how much we spend during that same period.

From what I can see it doesn't include historical debts.

I don't pretend to be an expert, the only thing I can predict is we will know by December what the issues we have to deal with are.
Hi Nick
I agree that until the accounts are published we are all using rough figures.

Also, we could (hopefully) still get a stay of execution from the league which would be a massive boost for us but the club cannot just "hope" the league will give them more time.

The club has to think that FFP will be implemented and has to start cutting the costs accordingly - which is what GB appears to be saying.

All I'm trying to get across is that IF we were to be put into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then it would have a devastating effect on our ability to compete at the top and of the table and would be a disastrous day for the club and that we MUST try to avoid an embargo at all costs
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!![/p][/quote]Good post JC, but you are missing one point, all this is speculation, for a start we don't know, and won't know until around the end of June what our trading losses are. That's what any fines or embargo's will be based on, how much we bring in over a period of time and how much we spend during that same period. From what I can see it doesn't include historical debts. I don't pretend to be an expert, the only thing I can predict is we will know by December what the issues we have to deal with are.[/p][/quote]Hi Nick I agree that until the accounts are published we are all using rough figures. Also, we could (hopefully) still get a stay of execution from the league which would be a massive boost for us but the club cannot just "hope" the league will give them more time. The club has to think that FFP will be implemented and has to start cutting the costs accordingly - which is what GB appears to be saying. All I'm trying to get across is that IF we were to be put into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then it would have a devastating effect on our ability to compete at the top and of the table and would be a disastrous day for the club and that we MUST try to avoid an embargo at all costs J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 3

6:02pm Fri 30 May 14

jim 2012 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short


-of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.
Ah Tom, you never fail to make me laugh at you, the most deluded of all no-dads.


Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
can you tell us what will happen to burnley football club
you seem to have a uncanny knack of being able to predict
what is going to be the fate off Blackburn rovers
but you are strangely silent on burnleys fate for next season
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: How about accounting for the £35m loss for the extra-fingered-short -of-brain-cell lot down the M65 that keep harping on about FFP £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Hopefully this stops them recirculating this £25m loss once and for all. We all know the final deadwood needs to be cleared, until then Venky’s need to put their hand in their pockets. Truly shocking what they did selling off an established Prem squad and blowing the income and parachute payments on what they did, but at the end of the day that’s where we are.[/p][/quote]Ah Tom, you never fail to make me laugh at you, the most deluded of all no-dads. Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]can you tell us what will happen to burnley football club you seem to have a uncanny knack of being able to predict what is going to be the fate off Blackburn rovers but you are strangely silent on burnleys fate for next season jim 2012
  • Score: 7

6:15pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
It did you're right, but then they've all gone so what's the problem?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]It did you're right, but then they've all gone so what's the problem? TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 3

6:26pm Fri 30 May 14

Welsh Rover says...

''Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.'' - Samuel Clemens

What a coincidence, they've even got the same initials... ;)
''Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.'' - Samuel Clemens What a coincidence, they've even got the same initials... ;) Welsh Rover
  • Score: 8

6:30pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
How do we get out of it? Contracts of the deadwood simply run to conclusion.

Once the parachute payments run out we'll need to restructure and that probably means sell Rhodes. Until then we've got next season for a good go at it.

Now shut up and support your club or sleep with your sister, the choice is yours.
Please don't tell me to shut up Tom, my opinion is as valid as yours.

Firstly there is no way the Portugese 5 were on £7m wages between them (£27,000 each per week – I think not).

Yes its good we have got rid of them and a few others but to say we'll get out of the embargo by simply letting the deadwoods contracts run out is utter cr@p - and you must know it (you maybe an obnoxious individual but you aint stupid).

Best, the highest paid player at Rovers (apart from Rhodes) is on £35,000 per week (£1,820,000 per year and his contract runs out in July 2016 and Dixon Etuhu on a reported £30,000 per week (£1560000 per annum) has a contract until Aug 2016.

That would take well over 18 months from the 1st Jan 2015 for both of their contracts to run out and we would still probably be miles short of the mark anyway and then we'd have to find more savings because of the ending of the parachute money (their combined contracts cost us about £3.4m per year. That’s a lot of money but hardly a ripple in the £20-30m in savings which we’re gonna have to find over the next 18 months.

Also, don't you think it would bother some of our better players if were put in a transfer embargo? (remember players are usually selfish money grabing b*****ds who care only for their own career - or do you think cos Rhodes, Cairney, Conway, Hanley etc are all great guys and not like other footballers, just cos they play for us?).

Nothing wrong with being positive and yes, I agree that we may have a decent chance in the league next year but to refuse to accept that if the worst happened and we were put into a transfer embargo then it wouldn’t have a huge impact on our club is just like acting like an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand.
JC - if you're sincere and don't have 6 fingers then fair do's and I apologize. I heard the figure about the Portuguese contingent from a personal acquaintance of one of our recent managers. Stacks up with what Nick heard too.

I've put elsewhere about savings expected since last reported extraordinary £35m losses and in my view you're being a bit alarmist. The truth will fall somewhere between the two but not as bad as a Dingle would have you believe.

I don't think FFP will bother any player at the club over the course of next season. If we don't go up, then I think it obviously will.

Either way, I reckon we've got one last big push before significant change is needed. So I don't think we're saying anything different other than I'm saying we've still got a good chance to right the club next season so may as well go for it.

ps - I should only appear obnoxious to a Dingle!!
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!![/p][/quote]How do we get out of it? Contracts of the deadwood simply run to conclusion. Once the parachute payments run out we'll need to restructure and that probably means sell Rhodes. Until then we've got next season for a good go at it. Now shut up and support your club or sleep with your sister, the choice is yours.[/p][/quote]Please don't tell me to shut up Tom, my opinion is as valid as yours. Firstly there is no way the Portugese 5 were on £7m wages between them (£27,000 each per week – I think not). Yes its good we have got rid of them and a few others but to say we'll get out of the embargo by simply letting the deadwoods contracts run out is utter cr@p - and you must know it (you maybe an obnoxious individual but you aint stupid). Best, the highest paid player at Rovers (apart from Rhodes) is on £35,000 per week (£1,820,000 per year and his contract runs out in July 2016 and Dixon Etuhu on a reported £30,000 per week (£1560000 per annum) has a contract until Aug 2016. That would take well over 18 months from the 1st Jan 2015 for both of their contracts to run out and we would still probably be miles short of the mark anyway and then we'd have to find more savings because of the ending of the parachute money (their combined contracts cost us about £3.4m per year. That’s a lot of money but hardly a ripple in the £20-30m in savings which we’re gonna have to find over the next 18 months. Also, don't you think it would bother some of our better players if were put in a transfer embargo? (remember players are usually selfish money grabing b*****ds who care only for their own career - or do you think cos Rhodes, Cairney, Conway, Hanley etc are all great guys and not like other footballers, just cos they play for us?). Nothing wrong with being positive and yes, I agree that we may have a decent chance in the league next year but to refuse to accept that if the worst happened and we were put into a transfer embargo then it wouldn’t have a huge impact on our club is just like acting like an ostrich and sticking your head in the sand.[/p][/quote]JC - if you're sincere and don't have 6 fingers then fair do's and I apologize. I heard the figure about the Portuguese contingent from a personal acquaintance of one of our recent managers. Stacks up with what Nick heard too. I've put elsewhere about savings expected since last reported extraordinary £35m losses and in my view you're being a bit alarmist. The truth will fall somewhere between the two but not as bad as a Dingle would have you believe. I don't think FFP will bother any player at the club over the course of next season. If we don't go up, then I think it obviously will. Either way, I reckon we've got one last big push before significant change is needed. So I don't think we're saying anything different other than I'm saying we've still got a good chance to right the club next season so may as well go for it. ps - I should only appear obnoxious to a Dingle!! TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
It did you're right, but then they've all gone so what's the problem?
The problem is that they weren't all paid £27,000 a week each as you claimed, which is just one more of your nonsense figures created to disguise the fact that you're about 3 miles up sh!t creek and you paddle is long gone.

Stop backing Venky's Tom, because that's all you are doing here, you are making excuses for a set of clueless imbeciles who are destroying your club.

£25million to save, best get those collection buckets out Tom.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]It did you're right, but then they've all gone so what's the problem?[/p][/quote]The problem is that they weren't all paid £27,000 a week each as you claimed, which is just one more of your nonsense figures created to disguise the fact that you're about 3 miles up sh!t creek and you paddle is long gone. Stop backing Venky's Tom, because that's all you are doing here, you are making excuses for a set of clueless imbeciles who are destroying your club. £25million to save, best get those collection buckets out Tom. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -1

6:52pm Fri 30 May 14

Richard Oakley says...

@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books. Richard Oakley
  • Score: 3

7:24pm Fri 30 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us.

The moon is made of cheese, unicorns are real, England will win the world cup.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the winner of the most deluded no-dad of 2014..........Mr garyintandem.
[quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. The moon is made of cheese, unicorns are real, England will win the world cup. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the winner of the most deluded no-dad of 2014..........Mr garyintandem. Steven Seagull
  • Score: -4

7:36pm Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

FFP rules will only remain in place as long as 75% of teams in the championship do not vote to change it. So based on the recent well documented communication from the championship the majority of teams are in favour of change, by definition that is a minimum of 12 teams want change. To achieve 75% 18 are required. All three teams coming down are likely to vote for change as will wolves. That means only 2 more need to change there minds.


FFP is about as useful as the banks self regulating , it has no standard across Europe and is simply designed to maintain the status quo for the top 6.

So far football in the uk has managed to bring in some pretty strange rules can any one explain the benefit of the EPP financial compensation program.

The maximum a club can claim for a player that has been with them is £209,000 if they are a level 1 academy. If they are a level 3 lower down the league is £84,000 that's a killer blow to lower league clubs.

Lets examine the recent TV deal yes Cardiff got £62 million but Liverpool got £92 million under the same deal.

Don't really see a lot of fairplay there.
FFP rules will only remain in place as long as 75% of teams in the championship do not vote to change it. So based on the recent well documented communication from the championship the majority of teams are in favour of change, by definition that is a minimum of 12 teams want change. To achieve 75% 18 are required. All three teams coming down are likely to vote for change as will wolves. That means only 2 more need to change there minds. FFP is about as useful as the banks self regulating , it has no standard across Europe and is simply designed to maintain the status quo for the top 6. So far football in the uk has managed to bring in some pretty strange rules can any one explain the benefit of the EPP financial compensation program. The maximum a club can claim for a player that has been with them is £209,000 if they are a level 1 academy. If they are a level 3 lower down the league is £84,000 that's a killer blow to lower league clubs. Lets examine the recent TV deal yes Cardiff got £62 million but Liverpool got £92 million under the same deal. Don't really see a lot of fairplay there. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 1

7:43pm Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
A fair amount of semantics in this and fairly debatable, the only statement I don't quite understand is the "Blackburn rovers has no remit to develop football in india" what do you mean by that. Most clubs have overseas development programs.
[quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]A fair amount of semantics in this and fairly debatable, the only statement I don't quite understand is the "Blackburn rovers has no remit to develop football in india" what do you mean by that. Most clubs have overseas development programs. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 1

8:13pm Fri 30 May 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
It did you're right, but then they've all gone so what's the problem?
The problem is that they weren't all paid £27,000 a week each as you claimed, which is just one more of your nonsense figures created to disguise the fact that you're about 3 miles up sh!t creek and you paddle is long gone.

Stop backing Venky's Tom, because that's all you are doing here, you are making excuses for a set of clueless imbeciles who are destroying your club.

£25million to save, best get those collection buckets out Tom.
zzzzzNzzzzzHzzzzzNzz
zzzHzzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]It did you're right, but then they've all gone so what's the problem?[/p][/quote]The problem is that they weren't all paid £27,000 a week each as you claimed, which is just one more of your nonsense figures created to disguise the fact that you're about 3 miles up sh!t creek and you paddle is long gone. Stop backing Venky's Tom, because that's all you are doing here, you are making excuses for a set of clueless imbeciles who are destroying your club. £25million to save, best get those collection buckets out Tom.[/p][/quote]zzzzzNzzzzzHzzzzzNzz zzzHzzzzzz Old age pensioner
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Fri 30 May 14

Rovers F.C. says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Super_Cunt
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Super_Cunt Rovers F.C.
  • Score: 2

9:52pm Fri 30 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
[quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Fri 30 May 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Has Ingsy signed yet?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Has Ingsy signed yet? baldie
  • Score: 1

10:48pm Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

My guess is run away champions
My guess is run away champions inflightmagazine
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Fri 30 May 14

Steven Seagull says...

Rovers F.C. wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Super_Cunt
Oooooh, NOT THE C WORD!
[quote][p][bold]Rovers F.C.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Super_Cunt[/p][/quote]Oooooh, NOT THE C WORD! Steven Seagull
  • Score: -1

10:53pm Fri 30 May 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments."

"But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage."

Oh dear.... well you can't say I didn't warn you.

Well and truly Donald Ducked.
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Rovers will face a transfer embargo in January if they post a loss of more than £3m for the 2013/14 – with a further £3m loss permitted via shareholder investments." "But the club announced a pre-tax loss of £36.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2013. The club’s wage bill stood at £36m at that stage." Oh dear.... well you can't say I didn't warn you. Well and truly Donald Ducked.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 1

10:54pm Fri 30 May 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 1

10:54pm Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

baldie wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Has Ingsy signed yet?
He doesn't need to, he's already under contract. If he signs a contract extension I will tell you straight away, it obviously gives you a boner.
[quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Has Ingsy signed yet?[/p][/quote]He doesn't need to, he's already under contract. If he signs a contract extension I will tell you straight away, it obviously gives you a boner. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -1

10:55pm Fri 30 May 14

Rovers F.C. says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
Rovers F.C. wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Super_Cunt
Oooooh, NOT THE C WORD!
"The C- word"? Why hide behind the first letter you sad-B*rnley-****?
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers F.C.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Super_Cunt[/p][/quote]Oooooh, NOT THE C WORD![/p][/quote]"The C- word"? Why hide behind the first letter you sad-B*rnley-****? Rovers F.C.
  • Score: 1

10:56pm Fri 30 May 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"Blackburn manager Gary Bowyer insists the club have received no firm enquiries as yet about Jordan Rhodes but would sell the striker for the right price.

Rhodes has long been linked with a move to the Premier League, but Bowyer insists, although there could soon be approaches made for his star striker, there has been no bid received for the player thus far. The Rovers boss does, however, accept the player could be sold if a large bid is made.

He told Sky Sports News Radio: "We've said all along that the owners don't have any intention of selling Jordan but everybody has a price. We're fully aware given the financial situation that if someone came in with a suitable bid then we won't be in a position to refuse it."
You said all this in January dimwit.
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "Blackburn manager Gary Bowyer insists the club have received no firm enquiries as yet about Jordan Rhodes but would sell the striker for the right price. Rhodes has long been linked with a move to the Premier League, but Bowyer insists, although there could soon be approaches made for his star striker, there has been no bid received for the player thus far. The Rovers boss does, however, accept the player could be sold if a large bid is made. He told Sky Sports News Radio: "We've said all along that the owners don't have any intention of selling Jordan but everybody has a price. We're fully aware given the financial situation that if someone came in with a suitable bid then we won't be in a position to refuse it."[/p][/quote]You said all this in January dimwit. Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 1

10:58pm Fri 30 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -3

10:59pm Fri 30 May 14

Rovers F.C. says...

Rovers F.C. wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
Rovers F.C. wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
This board seems to be full of Dingles.

"Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14."

I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths.

Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.
Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers!

Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it.

LOL!!
Super_Cunt
Oooooh, NOT THE C WORD!
"The C- word"? Why hide behind the first letter you sad-B*rnley-****?
"The C-word"? Why hide behind the first letter you sad_B*rnley_Cunt?
[quote][p][bold]Rovers F.C.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers F.C.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: This board seems to be full of Dingles. "Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14." I've put it in back and white you pr!ck. Massive savings have already been made as the past exceptional losses have been stemmed or have not been repeated. In concentrating on wages alone you also conveniently fail to account for £7m wages of the Portuguesers. There's nothing more to say, you've got your own futile agenda and you haven't got enough going on up top to get simple maths. Concentrate on Burnley FC, the club that celebrated flying too close too the sun. Future turmoil beckons for the 6-fingered brigade.[/p][/quote]Hahahahaha £7million on portuguesers! Its all gone to sh!t Tom and there aint a thing you can do about it. LOL!![/p][/quote]Super_Cunt[/p][/quote]Oooooh, NOT THE C WORD![/p][/quote]"The C- word"? Why hide behind the first letter you sad-B*rnley-****?[/p][/quote]"The C-word"? Why hide behind the first letter you sad_B*rnley_Cunt? Rovers F.C.
  • Score: 1

11:03pm Fri 30 May 14

baldie says...

Strange how the larger the threat of FFP becomes,the trimmer but stronger our squad seems to get.
It would appear that our management is now getting paid to do what it's meant to do, ie manage.
We may end up with a transfer embargo,we may not.
But this has been one mighty kick up the backside that this club needed.
By the way,i still can't find it anywhere if the embargo would include loans.
I'm sure one of our FFP correspondents must know the answer.
Strange how the larger the threat of FFP becomes,the trimmer but stronger our squad seems to get. It would appear that our management is now getting paid to do what it's meant to do, ie manage. We may end up with a transfer embargo,we may not. But this has been one mighty kick up the backside that this club needed. By the way,i still can't find it anywhere if the embargo would include loans. I'm sure one of our FFP correspondents must know the answer. baldie
  • Score: 2

11:05pm Fri 30 May 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
A rover obsessed dingle :-)
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]A rover obsessed dingle :-) Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 1

11:07pm Fri 30 May 14

roverstid says...

These forums are a disgraceful example of what happens if you let dingles breed.

What happened to the comments on the Simon Garner article?
These forums are a disgraceful example of what happens if you let dingles breed. What happened to the comments on the Simon Garner article? roverstid
  • Score: 1

11:48pm Fri 30 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

Let's hope the recent departure of lambert from Southampton doesn't spark a rush by players with a Southampton link to join them
Let's hope the recent departure of lambert from Southampton doesn't spark a rush by players with a Southampton link to join them inflightmagazine
  • Score: 2

1:18am Sat 31 May 14

Rovers F.C. says...

bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
Thick as a plank :-)
...thick as two short planks and twice as useless.
[quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]...thick as two short planks and twice as useless. Rovers F.C.
  • Score: 0

1:23am Sat 31 May 14

jim 2012 says...

bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
A rover obsessed dingle :-)
Thick as a plank :-)
Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws
Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens
[quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]A rover obsessed dingle :-) Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens jim 2012
  • Score: 1

1:47am Sat 31 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

jim 2012 wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
A rover obsessed dingle :-)
Thick as a plank :-)
Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws
Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens
Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine.

What a moron.

Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow.

STAYING DOWN FOREVER.
[quote][p][bold]jim 2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]A rover obsessed dingle :-) Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens[/p][/quote]Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine. What a moron. Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow. STAYING DOWN FOREVER. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 0

2:12am Sat 31 May 14

jim 2012 says...

if you want all of them nasty things to happen to Blackburn rovers
then you will need to have the laws changed in the european courts of justice
ffp rules contravene laws with regard to free movement of labour within the EU
ffp rules also contravene business investment rules within the EU
t
if you want all of them nasty things to happen to Blackburn rovers then you will need to have the laws changed in the european courts of justice ffp rules contravene laws with regard to free movement of labour within the EU ffp rules also contravene business investment rules within the EU t jim 2012
  • Score: 2

2:16am Sat 31 May 14

jim 2012 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
jim 2012 wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
A rover obsessed dingle :-)
Thick as a plank :-)
Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws
Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens
Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine.

What a moron.

Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow.

STAYING DOWN FOREVER.
accepting a fine and paying a fine are not the same thing
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jim 2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]A rover obsessed dingle :-) Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens[/p][/quote]Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine. What a moron. Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow. STAYING DOWN FOREVER.[/p][/quote]accepting a fine and paying a fine are not the same thing jim 2012
  • Score: 0

2:53am Sat 31 May 14

jim 2012 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
jim 2012 wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
A rover obsessed dingle :-)
Thick as a plank :-)
Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws
Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens
Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine.

What a moron.

Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow.

STAYING DOWN FOREVER.
you'r constant obsessive thoughts about blackburn rovers
your obsessive compulsive urges to repeat yourself
every day in the hope you will be taken seriously
you have nothing of any value to say but keep it up
we will all look forward to you'r next re run of the financial fair play rules
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jim 2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]A rover obsessed dingle :-) Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens[/p][/quote]Course they are, that's why Man City have just accepted a £50million fine. What a moron. Blackburn Rovers are about to be royally shafted, and no amount of whining, crying or making things up will soften the blow. STAYING DOWN FOREVER.[/p][/quote]you'r constant obsessive thoughts about blackburn rovers your obsessive compulsive urges to repeat yourself every day in the hope you will be taken seriously you have nothing of any value to say but keep it up we will all look forward to you'r next re run of the financial fair play rules jim 2012
  • Score: 3

8:35am Sat 31 May 14

Welsh Rover says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
Let's hope the recent departure of lambert from Southampton doesn't spark a rush by players with a Southampton link to join them
With Liverpool also after Lallana I wouldn't be surprised if Southampton not only step-up their interest in Ings, but also do everything in their power to stop Rodriguez leaving too.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: Let's hope the recent departure of lambert from Southampton doesn't spark a rush by players with a Southampton link to join them[/p][/quote]With Liverpool also after Lallana I wouldn't be surprised if Southampton not only step-up their interest in Ings, but also do everything in their power to stop Rodriguez leaving too. Welsh Rover
  • Score: 2

8:37am Sat 31 May 14

Welsh Rover says...

09:32 - 01:47 = 16hrs 15mins.

Really?
09:32 - 01:47 = 16hrs 15mins. Really? Welsh Rover
  • Score: 3

12:12pm Sat 31 May 14

Manuel Hung says...

jim 2012 wrote:
bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
Richard Oakley wrote:
@roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already.
@"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment.
@turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money.

The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds.

Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come.

The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs.

@RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued.

As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.
Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there:

I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased.

Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level.

By my reckoning, this is where we are:

An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season:

Next season income is:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Last parachute payment £8m
Venkys (guilt money!) £5m
Total income = £23.5m

Next season outgoings
Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week)
Running costs £3.5m

Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell).

Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m.

I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments):

£35m loss last financial year

£7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed
£11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made)
£4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff)
£2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off
£2m Pederson contract termination (good lad)
£2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc)
£6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared
£1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared

Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.
Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million!

THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS.

Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take.

The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far....

However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement.

With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m.

From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m.

Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark.

Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it?

Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte.

So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking.

Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14.

As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months.

Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer.

Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration?

There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.
A rover obsessed dingle :-)
Thick as a plank :-)
Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws
Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens
Why don't you cry about it and see if that helps?
[quote][p][bold]jim 2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richard Oakley[/bold] wrote: @roverstid Enough with the crude sexual innuendo, already. @"Stevie" - all Championship Clubs receive a £2.3m Premier League Solidarity payment. @turfmoortom don't complain about the number of Burnley fans on this board. They don't have to be here. Pouring over accounts and projections is something a lot of them spent the 20 years between the day Burnley nearly ceased to be a fooball league team to the day promotion to the Premier League was achieved. If they hadn't , Burnley FC would have ceased to exist. I see no reason to doubt FFP sanctions will be enacted, unless the rules are changed. Blackburn's wage bill has to fall to an amount covered by turnover without parachute payments in short order -hence the reduce by £25m figure. Blackburn Rovers fans allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by Jack Walker's money. The administration costs are unusually high. That may b explained in some part by the building of an academy and staffing costs out in India. Blackburn Rovers Football Club has no remit to develop football in India. A use of Blackburn Rovers Football Club funds to purchase a franchise in the forthcoming Indian Soccer league would be an improper use of Club funds. Parachute payments cover 4 years: 2 at £16m a year and 2 at £8m a year. Rovers have spent 2 years out of the premier league. There are two years of £8m a year further parachute payments to come. The way FFP fines work for 2014-15 are based on the full set of accounts for the year preceding 01 December 2014, which for Rovers is 30 Jun 2014. Clubs may make a loss of £3m pounds with out payment of fines. A further £5m loss may be covered by the issue of new equity by the owners. The issue of equity is academic since Venkys won't do it. They will argue that Shebby and the Academy in India and wages to players out on loan are exempt. I'd expect he Football League to say that if they are in the Rovers accounts, they count as Rovers losses. The total loss allowable for 2014-15 is £5m. Hence the on-going requirement to reduce costs. @RobH2O If Venkys saw a plate they'd examine it. If valuable, they'd take it. As you know money from transfers is spread over more than one year -usually. I get to the same figure you do by assuming a £15m short -term unsecured loan. My gut then says there's a trading profit of £4.5m to leave a loss of £7.5m - still 4.5m over the £3m allowable loss. Not a problem, if new equity were issued. As Burnley FC fans are all to well aware, selling your most marketable player is the rule rather than the exception to balance the books.[/p][/quote]Fair play Richard...but while we've sill got the parachute payments what I've been saying is we're already a long way there: I was told £600k/month for the Portuguese lot. All now gone, all losses now ceased. Why the Dingles continue to harp on about this mystical £25m and continue to recycle old losses from managerial pay-offs, buying Rhodes every season etc is beyond me though understandable with their dreams and intelligence level. By my reckoning, this is where we are: An embargo doesn't mean Rovers need to sell, they just wouldn't be able to buy. To become sustainable perhaps Best and Etuhu need to stop draining £2m a year each out of the club and get some self repect by moving on. Other than that, if Venkys are willing to put £5m in as they are allowed (why/when was this reduced t £3m as given in this aricle?) then from what i can make out it's game on for next season: Next season income is: Championship TV £3m Gates (avg 13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Last parachute payment £8m Venkys (guilt money!) £5m Total income = £23.5m Next season outgoings Wages £20m (29 players on an average £13k/week) Running costs £3.5m Basically, Venky's £5m injection will need to cover the wages of the poor past acquisitions by their own advisors (Best, Etuhu & Campbell). Admittedly after next season, once the last parachute payment is gone then there will need to be some more restructuring, but not before. Either way we're not that far away, and certainly not £25m. I've also explained the reduction in losses (while we still have parachute payments): £35m loss last financial year £7m Portuguese lot – all stemmed £11m transfer fees for Best and Rhodes – exceptional purchases, assume transfers otherwise balanced the books (either way cash positive investments have since been made) £4m Managerial pay-offs (Berg & Appleton + their staff) £2m Murphy wages and subsequent pay-off £2m Pederson contract termination (good lad) £2m Reduced running costs (scouting, office staff etc) £6m Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages – still need to be cleared £1m Hendry & Singh contracts – still need to be cleared Everyone else has just thrown figures around. My reckoning is we'll report losses of £10-15m as the restructuring took time through the year. Best, Etuhu, Campbell & Goodwillie wages will be a large chunk of that, something we're powerless over and a waste of time to restructure for as they'll be off in 18 months. That loss is not great and I have never said it is. What I have said is that everything is in place to have a good go next season, so it's futile to change things radically now. After next season, restructuring I necessary if we don't go up.[/p][/quote]Your wage bill alone for the last accounting period was over £36million! THIRTY-SIX MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS. Since then to your credit you have moved on the high-earners of Murphy, Gomes, Pedersen, Givet and Dann. So let's average it out and say that equates to an annual salary saving of 5 players x £25k per week = £6.5m, give or take. The remainder of the players released were loans who have since returned and primarily youth and/or development/backup players on lower salaries, so let's say 10 players released at £3k p/w for a further (optimistic) cost saving of £1.5m. All good so far.... However, what you conveniently forget to include are all the NEW contracts that have been taken on over the last year, and there have been many. Bowyer has brought in a total of 21 players, some of these on loan, some permanent, and I may be wrong but none of these will have been offering their services for free. There are wages, bonuses and loan fee's to pay, in addition to the percentage of loaned-out player salaries that your club has also been funding, i.e., loan out a player and pay him, loan-in a player and pay him too, bizarre but true. Sheffield Wednesday were reportedly paying only a 6th of Leon Best salary during his loan spell! You couldn't make up such financial mismanagement. With the exception of Rhodes, reported to be on around £40k a week, the contracts handed out over the last season or so have been more in line with Championship averages, so let's say 8 players recruited at an average of £12k p/w for a total annual expenditure of £5m. From these reasonable figures, and considering that you are still funding a large number of obscene contracts for non-players, i.e. Etuhu, Best, Campbell, Goodwillie to name but four, it is therefore likely that your actual cost savings on the wage bill run to something in the region of only £3m. Now lets say you manage to shift a couple of your tumours, say Etuhu and Best, (unlikely to happen but hear me out), then you could realistically add a further wage bill saving of £3m, bringing your total overall saving to around the £6m mark. Your wage bill then stands at somewhere in the region of £30m, with the maximum allowable loss being just £3m. Not looking so good is it? Of course there are also general running costs, the reduction in parachute payments to account for (£8m), reduced commercial income, reduced sponsorship coming into the club, and I'm sorry to break this to you but media revenue for Championship clubs is actually £2m for all clubs, according to Deloitte. So I think its quite clear that your massaging of the figures to make yourself feel better is only masking a truth that is somewhat shocking. Blackburn Rovers WILL have to make cost savings in the region of £25million to align with the FFP rules and until such time they will be placed under a transfer ban preventing players being brought into the club. You will be forced to utilise your youth team as players continue to be sold and contracts paid off to off-set the massive loss for 2013/14. As a result I see no possible way that you will continue to hold on to assets such as Rhodes, Cairney, Hanley, and possibly Gestede over the coming months. Should all four be sold at market value bringing in say £12m total plus a further £4m salary saving, then you will still be falling short of FFP compliance by approximately £10million! This is the reason why your club has openly stated compliance will take another two summer transfer windows to achieve. You have to hope that none of your saleable assets pick up serious injuries or the process could take far longer. Ultimately you will struggle to compete once these changes are underway and I can only realistically see you being able to put out a bottom half of the Championship side at best, which given the need for a further £10million cost saving next season could see you relegated to League One before the transfer ban is lifted, the question is, will Venky's continue to keep you afloat at this point or will they simple write off this horrific mistake and depart with Blackburn Rovers in administration? There are indeed some difficult times ahead Tom, and deep down you know it. Venky's have massacred your football club, and there will simply be nothing left when they depart. A sad end to Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]A rover obsessed dingle :-) Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]Financial Fair Play rules are against european union laws Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens[/p][/quote]Why don't you cry about it and see if that helps? Manuel Hung
  • Score: -1

5:09pm Sat 31 May 14

owd nick says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
owd nick wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
roverstid wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
garyintandem wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it.

Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are.

If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.
Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure.

I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim.

I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent.

All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however.

You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be.

Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence.

It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.
When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?
I presume this is a joke post ?

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs.

If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs.

Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments).

Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC.

As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club
Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is.

Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty.

Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway.

It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).
Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand.

Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis.

How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then.

If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP.

I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!!
Good post JC, but you are missing one point, all this is speculation, for a start we don't know, and won't know until around the end of June what our trading losses are.

That's what any fines or embargo's will be based on, how much we bring in over a period of time and how much we spend during that same period.

From what I can see it doesn't include historical debts.

I don't pretend to be an expert, the only thing I can predict is we will know by December what the issues we have to deal with are.
Hi Nick
I agree that until the accounts are published we are all using rough figures.

Also, we could (hopefully) still get a stay of execution from the league which would be a massive boost for us but the club cannot just "hope" the league will give them more time.

The club has to think that FFP will be implemented and has to start cutting the costs accordingly - which is what GB appears to be saying.

All I'm trying to get across is that IF we were to be put into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then it would have a devastating effect on our ability to compete at the top and of the table and would be a disastrous day for the club and that we MUST try to avoid an embargo at all costs
Sorry I haven't replied earlier, been very busy! LOL

I think that from all accounts the club are more than aware of their responsibilities under FFP and appear to be doing everything in their power to comply, that's the general feeling I get from whats coming out of Ewood anyway.

I doubt it is looking for "special treatment" either and it has already cut a significant level of cost by reducing the playing staff by some 30 players, it's long been known that the greatest burden on any football club's finances are transfer fees, agents fees and players salaries, Rovers are no exception to this.

This is where I think Rovers have been very clever, they have cleared out a lot of expensive dross (still more to go I accept) and have built a tight, flexible squad on basically nothing if you take the excesses of recent years into account.

FFP works season on season, and as GB has said many times it will be a couple of years before we are one an even financial keel, simply because of the 6 players that are (quite rightly) bleeding us dry.

Therefore any embargo, if it happens will be restricted in length and may not have the disastrous effect some expect, provided that Rovers continue to work at complying.

And don't forget that any club faced with a fine or embargo can appeal, I suspect many will, which will in turn tie up the system.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garyintandem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Doesn't need to bring in many players anyway, get Rochina back into the fold, make him feel wanted, a decent right back and make certain we have defensive cover in the middle and that's about it. Personally I don't believe there will be a transfer embargo for any club because it doesn't make any sense because 90 odd percent of clubs are carrying significant levels of debt, many much more than Rovers are. If one club is hit by an embargo all the rest have to be so clubs won't be able to move players on because no-one will be able to buy them.[/p][/quote]Sadly for you though FFP has nothing to do with a clubs debt, it's based entirely on the annual loss you make, which in your case is quite a figure. I have stated on several occasions that you will have to cut costs this season by upwards of £25million in order to fall in line with the rules, and this will mean a transfer embargo in the interim. I cannot see any way for a Championship club with a wages to turn-over ratio of 136.1% to make a £25million saving without a drastic restructuring across the board. Bowyer is playing it down as you would expect but I imagine there is panic beginning to spread behind the scenes as the gravity of your dire situation becomes apparent. All of your higher earners will have to go. The trouble is that some are unsellable such as Etuhu, Best, and Campbell, and as such they will have to have their contracts paid up to get them off the wage bill. The effect of this will mean that further player sales are required to recoup the additional loss made. I see Rhodes, Cairney and Hanley as your only players of value and as such I expect these will be sold as a matter of urgency. Rhodes replacement already appears to have been recruited in Varney however. You can keep believing there wont be a transfer embargo, but there will be. Those are the rules, your club has been aware of them since 2012 and agreed to the terms of non-compliance. The fact that Venky's have failed to act until its is far too late is of no consequence. It's the beginning of a long, hard, miserable season for Blackburn Rovers.[/p][/quote]When are you going to realise that a transfer embargo won't harm us. We've already got the players that are going to win us the Championship next year. Why do you waste so much of your mental capacity on the Rovers?[/p][/quote]I presume this is a joke post ? We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at ALL costs. If you are put into one then our sellable assets would have to be sold (and would prob want to leave) at much reduced costs. Bear in mind you can't leave an embargo until you've come into line with FFP and to make matters worse we would have to find an additional £10m in savings yet again (£2m in reduced ownership injection and £8m reduction in our parachute payments). Too many Rovers fans are so ingnorant about the FFP rules and still have their head in the sand that it aint going to happen or it aint going to effect BRFC. As it stands today, it will happen and it WILL have a (huge) impact on our club[/p][/quote]Sorry J C but from someone who hasn't had a decent thing to say about Rovers since Venkys took over, your post is as predictable as Sloppy Clutz is. Yes an embargo will affect us IF we HAVE to bring in players in January due to injuries, it doesn't mean we can't get promoted and it certainly doesn't mean there's nothing we can do about it or its even a certainty. Our cost cutting over the last few years is evident and I highly doubt if the FFP is seen to wanting to be a success, that the FA will ignore all the evidence in front of them and sanction us anyway. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But at this stage the likelihood of it is as certain as the Dingles hopes that Rhodes will be sold (again).[/p][/quote]Another Rovers fan with his head in the sand. Okay, lets go with your assumption that we get put into an embargo and we don't have a injury crisis. How do we get out of it ? - unless we go up (and no-one can say we will, it will be a hugely competative league, as always and we will be one of 9 or 10 clubs with a good chance) because at the end of next season (summer of 2015) we will have to find ANOTHER £10m in savings (fact) on top of the £15-20m we will have already have had to find between now and then. If we are put into an embargo our first priority would have to be to try to get out of it again ASAP. I just don't see how we can make those massive amounts of savings without it having an impact on our ability to compete on-field (I'm not trying to be negatve, I'm trying to be realistic). I think fans saying a transfer embargo won't effect the playing side of the club are talking nonsense, of course it will !!![/p][/quote]Good post JC, but you are missing one point, all this is speculation, for a start we don't know, and won't know until around the end of June what our trading losses are. That's what any fines or embargo's will be based on, how much we bring in over a period of time and how much we spend during that same period. From what I can see it doesn't include historical debts. I don't pretend to be an expert, the only thing I can predict is we will know by December what the issues we have to deal with are.[/p][/quote]Hi Nick I agree that until the accounts are published we are all using rough figures. Also, we could (hopefully) still get a stay of execution from the league which would be a massive boost for us but the club cannot just "hope" the league will give them more time. The club has to think that FFP will be implemented and has to start cutting the costs accordingly - which is what GB appears to be saying. All I'm trying to get across is that IF we were to be put into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then it would have a devastating effect on our ability to compete at the top and of the table and would be a disastrous day for the club and that we MUST try to avoid an embargo at all costs[/p][/quote]Sorry I haven't replied earlier, been very busy! LOL I think that from all accounts the club are more than aware of their responsibilities under FFP and appear to be doing everything in their power to comply, that's the general feeling I get from whats coming out of Ewood anyway. I doubt it is looking for "special treatment" either and it has already cut a significant level of cost by reducing the playing staff by some 30 players, it's long been known that the greatest burden on any football club's finances are transfer fees, agents fees and players salaries, Rovers are no exception to this. This is where I think Rovers have been very clever, they have cleared out a lot of expensive dross (still more to go I accept) and have built a tight, flexible squad on basically nothing if you take the excesses of recent years into account. FFP works season on season, and as GB has said many times it will be a couple of years before we are one an even financial keel, simply because of the 6 players that are (quite rightly) bleeding us dry. Therefore any embargo, if it happens will be restricted in length and may not have the disastrous effect some expect, provided that Rovers continue to work at complying. And don't forget that any club faced with a fine or embargo can appeal, I suspect many will, which will in turn tie up the system. owd nick
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree