[Archived] The Philipl Report

[Jan]

I'm afraid Streaky's right

You won't find people of that calibre for less than they're on- Tom Finn's salary in particular is quite poor for his responsibilities. I know many will be horrified by that, but it's just a fact.

Partners in my firm START on £250k and the AVERAGE remuneration is £400k, and we're not the highest paid.

[The Producer]

Thanks Philip - very much appreciated.

Good that the Trust Fund has converted that chunk of debt into shares. Ok, it may make no difference in terms of cashflow in practice, but much better in the long run in case something odd happened and for whatever reason the Trust Fund decided it had to call some of the loan in or charge interest.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Who says streaky b?

Normally shareholders etc and done on a vote and most are normally asked to stand down ( discreetly  )  with a nice golden handshake though if performance is bad

Tend to agree with Scotty and Revidge on this though

Presume you are not a regular reader of The FT (it the only paper my place of work will buy for us :-( ) and just see the news stories about Fat Cats.

The majority of company shareholders are large investment firms. they are in for the long haul and are prefectly happy to have a cheif exec preside over a large loss IF the companies business plan stand up to examinationa nd they are turning the company around.

Yes, if performance is bad they will be asked to stand down, but a loss is not bad performance.

If i took over a company who lost 100mil in the last financial year and in my first year i turned the company round to make only a 50mil pound loss should I be disposed of as I have turned the company instantly profitable?

It a case of balancing expectations. Very few football clubs make money (ManU). Even Chelsea and Arsenal are currently loss making. Its just a question of ensuring sustainability and longevity.

For all those who want Finn and Williams to earn a lot less or be replaced. Please tell me where you will find people willing to do this job, do it better, have the expereince and want substaially less pay.

Don't think people are saying they should earn alot less or be replaced - just questioning the rise , given the circumstances we have found ourselves in for the last two seasons and the dwindling numbers through the gates. No matter how you wrap it up NO company can continue making losses on a regular basis with the 'fat cats' continuing in their positions.

What tends to happen, is these fat cats are also supported by others on the gravy train and as you say happy for Execs to sit on top of losses - performance wise yes award achievements/targets reached etc but not if specific objectives are not met - which in the case of the Rovers would not appear to have been done.

Not a regular of the FT , no point for me now. Used to work in the Corporate of one of the major Banks and have come across similar sort situations in my time (inc our subject now) - at the end of the day in all reality at one time Football was about getting bums on seats and winning things (still is to me) but the way it is going as mentioned by somebody on the 'Fed Up of Footballl thread' maybe now it is all about surviving which is not good for the game.

[streakyb]

........which in the case of the Rovers would not appear to have been done.

All depends on what our targets are. What we think they should be and what they realistically should be.

I think that in hindsight the only and biggest mistake they have done recently was to keep Souness for as long as they did and let him spend as he did (too many players bough without knowing enough about them, but you have to trust who you select as your manager).

Apart from that they have done a good job, they have managed our finances, in my opinion, quite well, and have made some other good decisions.

The pay rise may not be deserved, but then again, it isn't not deserved. We should, like Jan pointed out, keep them at least at the bottom end of the pay scale for people doing their jobs.

[CAPT KAYOS]

........which in the case of the Rovers would not appear to have been done.

All depends on what our targets are. What we think they should be and what they realistically should be.

Agree

Judging on my own feelings really tbh

at one time Football was about getting bums on seats and winning things (still is to me)

[Exiled in Toronto]

I found several things to be of interest in the accounts.

Firstly, I was actually very surprised at how attendances were such a small percentage of our turnover (c15%). The notion constantly peddled by the club that its future hangs on whether 21,000 or 24,000 turn up is patently not the case. And of the $1.7m drop in matchday income, probably two thirds of that is due to the Man U semi-final and the Celtic games being in the previous year, so the impact of the decline in prem league fixtures is actually quite negligible in the scheme of things.

As to the salaries of Messrs Williams and Finn, I think the argument relating their income to total turnover is spurious. The vast majority of that income turns up automatically:

- the 17,000 diehards

- whatever the league placing is

- number of games on TV

- cup runs

Williams and Finn have zero impact on that income. The only things I think they are really accountable for are:

- appointing a manager every three years (N/A)

- firing a manager at the right time (failed)

- Commercial income (moderate success - say $2m better than it could have been)

- Success of the Academy (fair at best)

Against that background, they are over-paid and did not do enough in the year to justify their large increases.

[stuwilky]

I found several things to be of interest in the accounts.

Firstly, I was actually very surprised at how attendances were such a small percentage of our turnover (c15%). The notion constantly peddled by the club that its future hangs on whether 21,000 or 24,000 turn up is patently not the case. And of the $1.7m drop in matchday income, probably two thirds of that is due to the Man U semi-final and the Celtic games being in the previous year, so the impact of the decline in prem league fixtures is actually quite negligible in the scheme of things.

As to the salaries of Messrs Williams and Finn, I think the argument relating their income to total turnover is spurious. The vast majority of that income turns up automatically:

- the 17,000 diehards

- whatever the league placing is

- number of games on TV

- cup runs

Williams and Finn have zero impact on that income. The only things I think they are really accountable for are:

- appointing a manager every three years (N/A)

- firing a manager at the right time (failed)

- Commercial income (moderate success - say $2m better than it could have been)

- Success of the Academy (fair at best)

Against that background, they are over-paid and did not do enough in the year to justify their large increases.

The academy success is "fair"

Along with the majority of your post that is tripe. Find another academy that has earned the club as much money as it has cost over 10 years, not to mention the fact those players produced also spent good periods of time in the first team here, helping the club earn more income.

Fair my arse.

[jim mk2]

As to the salaries of Messrs Williams and Finn, I think the argument relating their income to total turnover is spurious. The vast majority of that income turns up automatically:

Williams and Finn have zero impact on that income.

With most of the club's income guaranteed as long as we stay in the Premiership, it does not need a genius to be chief executive and secretary of Blackburn Rovers FC and makes the salary increases of Williams and Finn even harder to justify.

Attendances may be only a small percentage of income but it the one source of income that Williams and Finn have the power to influence through their skills (or lack of them) as managers.

Williams has said over the past year that he does not know how to reverse the decline in attendances, which is a remarkable admission of failure that would have led to his departure/sacking in other industries.

[Duff's Minder]

sorry if I'm going over old territory here but what exactly is the situation with the trust fund, are we reliant on the continued goodwill of the Walker family or is a certain amount of cash guranteed?

(i still hate the fact I'm having an accounts discussion on a football site though...)

[Exiled in Toronto]

I found several things to be of interest in the accounts.

Firstly, I was actually very surprised at how attendances were such a small percentage of our turnover (c15%). The notion constantly peddled by the club that its future hangs on whether 21,000 or 24,000 turn up is patently not the case. And of the $1.7m drop in matchday income, probably two thirds of that is due to the Man U semi-final and the Celtic games being in the previous year, so the impact of the decline in prem league fixtures is actually quite negligible in the scheme of things.

As to the salaries of Messrs Williams and Finn, I think the argument relating their income to total turnover is spurious. The vast majority of that income turns up automatically:

- the 17,000 diehards

- whatever the league placing is

- number of games on TV

- cup runs

Williams and Finn have zero impact on that income. The only things I think they are really accountable for are:

- appointing a manager every three years (N/A)

- firing a manager at the right time (failed)

- Commercial income (moderate success - say $2m better than it could have been)

- Success of the Academy (fair at best)

Against that background, they are over-paid and did not do enough in the year to justify their large increases.

The academy success is "fair"

Along with the majority of your post that is tripe. Find another academy that has earned the club as much money as it has cost over 10 years, not to mention the fact those players produced also spent good periods of time in the first team here, helping the club earn more income.

Fair my arse.

I was referring to it's contribution during the financial year, not over it's life.

Did any players break through into the team last year?

If you are inferring that Williams should be given credit for the discovery and nuturing of Duff and Dunn, then that would be tripe.

Actually, I did miss out the role that Williams and Finn play in the spending of the capital budget, almost all of which goes on transfers. And again, I would not be giving them high marks in their annual appraisal on that front. We have a habit of both paying high and then assuming that the productive lifespan of the players will be quite long. When those players leave the club, more often than not there is a write down of the asset value, which I think will be quite large this year: Cole, Yorke, Ferguson, and hopefully Amo will all result in write-downs.

If Williams/Finn are truley accountable for the total financial performance of the club, then there is only one factor they absolutely must get right - ensuring we have the best manager for the job at all times, since so much of the income is dependant on league position. And in this they failed.

[American]

Question for Philip and/or Jan: I'm assuming the club owns Ewood. Are the results of operations of Ewood itself included in these numbers, or is it run as a separate entity?

[streakyb]

Attendances may be only a small percentage of income but it the one source of income that Williams and Finn have the power to influence through their skills (or lack of them) as managers.

Williams has said over the past year that he does not know how to reverse the decline in attendances, which is a remarkable admission of failure that would have led to his departure/sacking in other industries.

I am not sure whether attendances have been done to death of this forum but it has been done on most.

Blackburn Rovers have a small catchment area. Therefore we are already have a higher percentage of "locals" who follow the club. this means that it will be a very hard challenge to increase this.

We also suffer the problem of other large and succesfull clubs who to the young may look more glamourous to support. This is the only market they can target.

The adult market is predominatly performance based. Therfore this is ot fully in therir control. Second to performance is cost. This is a carefull balancing act, ower prices, more fans, yet lmay not be more income.

The youthof the town is the future of the club. Since I dont not live in Blackburn and do not have kids, I cannot comment on this but I feel that this is an area where even the best marketeers wiil find hard.

But it sounds like some here what to remove the chief executive and replace him with a marketing executive. I think we may be underestimating the task of running a multi million pound business.

[stuwilky]

I havnt inferred anything about Williams and Finn and their involvement in the club.

Perhaps you could come and do a better job?

[happygilmore]

Williams has said over the past year that he does not know how to reverse the decline in attendances, which is a remarkable admission of failure that would have led to his departure/sacking in other industries.

Our club lost almost 2k of Season ticket holders the season we came sixth- what would you had said, if you were the chief exec?

Many chief execs would have left a long time ago if they'd known the reality it is in running Rovers and for the salary we're offering.

[streakyb]

I was referring to it's contribution during the financial year, not over it's life.

Did any players break through into the team last year?

...........And in this they failed.

Douglas broke through to play. And you cannot judge the succes of an academy on a yearly basis, it has to be done over a period of years. We do have one of the better acadamies if not the best, for a club of our size and status.

The better the club status and bigger its size, the easier it is to tempt youngsters there. Our acadamy has a good enough reputation to lure players to us instead of Man u etc.

As for Souness. They did a very good job in getting him to begin with. We have to remember from where he took us from and to the heights we achieved. But do agree that in hindsight we would have been better off to have replaced him about 10mnths earlier.

[broadsword]

Streakyb, I think you are making the mistake of being logical, coherent and reasonable with people who want to moan and groan - it's makes them happy.

[streakyb]

Streakyb, I think you are making the mistake of being logical, coherent and reasonable with people who want to moan and groan - it's makes them happy.

Sorry, I just though I would give it a go.

The important thing in all this is the passion we all show for the club.

[jim mk2]

The youthof the town is the future of the club but I feel that this is an area where even the best marketeers wiil find hard.

. I think we may be underestimating the task of running a multi million pound business.

It's not that difficult. All it requires is foresight and long-term planning.

Twenty years ago, Leicester rugby club started giving away FREE season tickets to kids in the area, building up a supporter base that is now maturing to the extent that the club are leaving Welford Road to accommodate their burgeoning crowds in Leicester City FC's Walkers Stadium.

I think you overestimate the ability of chief executives and managers in general. Most do not have any special ability but have got where they are either through bullshitting/brownnosing their way to the top, or luck.

I repeat what I said: running Blackburn Rovers does not require any special skills and for what they do Williams and Finn receive more than ample remuneration.

[Scotty]

Streakyb, I think you are making the mistake of being logical, coherent and reasonable with people who want to moan and groan - it's makes them happy.

I think that, in the main, the points people have raised are worth raising and are far from moaning and groaning. And all streakyb seems to be doing is towing the company line without really thinking too deeply about the problems.

People have a right to criticise the club if they feel the need. They may be wrong to do so in some cases, but to just dismiss all criticism as moaning and groaning just lowers the standard of the debate.

[happygilmore]

I repeat what I said: running Blackburn Rovers does not require any special skills and for what they do Williams and Finn receive more than ample remuneration.

Maybe you should send in your CV to the Rovers board.

[streakyb]

I think you overestimate the ability of chief executives and managers in general. Most do not have any special ability but have got where they are either through bullshitting/brownnosing their way to the top, or luck.

Why is it me overestimating and not youunderestimating.

And as far as leicester. How many rugby clubs did they have competing with them for the market share. Not saying free tickets for under 12's isnt a bad idea, just that leicester had an esier target.

[streakyb]

I think that, in the main, the points people have raised are worth raising and are far from moaning and groaning. And all streakyb seems to be doing is towing the company line without really thinking too deeply about the problems.

People have a right to criticise the club if they feel the need. They may be wrong to do so in some cases, but to just dismiss all criticism as moaning and groaning just lowers the standard of the debate.

Firsty, I am happy with everyone having their own views as long as they jusify them.

I am not towing the company line, just saying what I feel. If that means I am relativelt happy with the sitaution, then so be it. And I am not the only one who think the ay I do. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am wrong (or right)

So why am I not thinking hard enough then? What problems am I simplyfying?

Yes, we need to getmore fans in, but I feel on pitch improvement is the main way to achieve it. Yes Souness should have gone earlier, but the club did as must clubs (and hence chief exec do) and gave him time. Else we cld be like Southampton.

And I am sorry if i feel that Finn and Williams deserve to be earning clsoe to what people in their posistions in other comapnies earn. Perhaps we shoudl install monkeys in their places witha salary of bananas as a lot would feel they would do a better job.

[broadsword]

Having been on this messageboard for a while I feel that Jim and Exiled in Toronto have agendas other than an open discussion of Rovers at heart.

They're quite happy to slag off anything and everything.

It was just a throwaway line from me on a sh1tty day in East Kent, I doubt it will alter the standard of the "debate" in any way.

[streakyb]

It was just a throwaway line from me on a sh1tty day in East Kent, I doubt it will alter the standard of the "debate" in any way.

Some people fail to get sarcasm etc and take it all to heart

it just a case of people airing and justifying their opinions.

[Scotty]

I think you've hugely simplified the attendance problem streakyb but that's probably for another thread (and has been done to death over the years on here).

For what it's worth, I'm not too arsed about the salary's of Williams and Finn. What I will say though, in fact what I've already said, is that for the first time since they joined I'm starting to question their methods. They've got one or two things wrong recently and, more worringly, they don't seem to have a strategy to improve attendances.