[Archived] The Philipl Report

[joey_big_nose]

Obvious question, suprised no one has explicitly asked it- I could not quite decipher Phillips cryptic comment in the report.

What is a decent guesstimate for the summer's transfer budget if we exclude unknown factors (dont factor in Dahlin money, Assume Finishing at 17th- it cant be any lower! etc.)?

Does the Walker funds intervention have a huge impact on this or a tny one? Will we see Shevchenko and Ronaldinho sign in the summer? Or Nicky Barmby and a one legged chimp?

Edited February 21, 2005 by joey_big_nose

[Jan]

The latter

Transfer budget = approximately £0.

Apparently JW has promised the Ferguson money to spend, but can't see it myself given the debt situation

[philipl]

I have a colleague who is very seriously ill so apologies for being too busy to answer the questions raised in the posts.

First of all there has been no change in accounting policy. Amortisation and depreciation effectively mean the same thing- writing down the value of an asset over its useful life. The players' transfer value is amortised over the length of their contracts with Rovers.

At any one time, the players have a value as an intangible fixed asset- £14m in the Rovers' books at 30 June 2004.

From comments made by John Williams during the Ferguson saga, it is obvious that the club internally take a great deal of attention to these matters and it was very clear the Rovers were not willing to take a write-down on Ferguson on his book value (the original transfer cost less his amortisation).

This was the reason why I suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that the Rovers seem to be managing their amortisation charges very carefully at around £11m per year. Given that, in the long term, amortisation costs are the same as the total investment in players, I rather mischieviously suggested that might be a pointer to our gross annual transfer expenditure target.

With regards to non-Walker Trust debts, bank lending to Rovers rose from £12.4m to £16.1m during 2003/4 of which £2.4m was overdraft at 30 June 2004.

The staff numbers at Ewood were (2003 in brackets)

Senior footballers and management 54 (54)

Academy 56 (57)

Commercial 56 (51)

Media services 11 (14)

Administration 17 (16)

Building and grounds 50 (51)

Total staff 244 (243)

I don't know whether the deal to transfer the shop staff to Lonsdale came before or after the year end. The bar and catering staff are all employed by outside companies so are not included in these numbers. However, I believe if the numbers of people employed indirectly by Rovers is included, probably around 1,000 people owe their livelihoods to the football club making the Rovers a major economic engine for the Blackburn area.

With regards to the two employed directors, the total cost of employing them (so this figure includes National Insurance, pensions etc.) rose 8% from £396K to £429K.

For those MB members who chose not to read what is written, my comments will be ignored, but it is worth reiterating it is NOT a double digit increase and John Williams is NOT earning £400K. But when did the facts ever get in the way of a Murdochian prejudice?

Finally, the "rich list" of clubs is a listing by income, not by wealth or assets. Several clubs in the "rich list" are in fact in deep financial stress- Dortmund, Lazio, Man City and Rangers amongst them. It is also worth adding that Rangers will disappear from that list next season because of their Champs League failure just as Rovers would join the top twenty if we had a season of Champs League Group Stage football.

[dave birch]

"Murdochian predjudice' Nice one phil, an accountant with a sense of irony.

As someone with a little bit of accounting nouse, but being unable to interpret them into plain speak, I do appreciate your analysis of the books.

[Paul]

and just for consistency page 1 is quite good in this thread