[Archived] Hughes Challenges Board

[RevidgeBlue]

In other words he is not calling for transfer funds right now but I bet he is saying back me in getting the targets I have already lined up for the summer.

PS Revidge, I completely disagree with your two posts.

376682[/snapback]

A very convoluted conclusion you've managed to reach there philip. Hughes is saying "Back me" full stop IMO. Not necessarily this summer but at any point should the right players become available.

Re: the rolling contract, am I correct in thinking that this means neither he nor the club are under any compulsion to renew this summer or any other summer?.

I don't see how you can disagree with the fact that Hughes hasn't been given a penny to spend on players in net terms during his reign. Everything he's spent he's had to recoup in sales. I appreciate there's room for a variety of opinion as to whether that is reasonable or indeed the correct strategy in our current circumstances.

[stuwilky]

a 12 month rolling contract means that at any given time there is 12 months remaining on his contract, there is no need to renew it this, or any summer, it afford the club and the manager a limited degree of protection if another club seeks to appoint Hughes, or the club choose to part company.

Is it me or are people reading to much into this? It could mean Hughes is unhappy, or equally it could be part of the continuing campaign to try and drum up new external investment? There have been a number of statements over recent months about needing further investment.

[Alan75]

Are the accounts public domain yet?

376755[/snapback]

The accounts were approved by the board on the 13th December and were released to share holders at the begining of January.

[philipl]

A very convoluted conclusion you've managed to reach there philip. Hughes is saying "Back me" full stop IMO. Not necessarily this summer but at any point should the right players become available.

Re: the rolling contract, am I correct in thinking that this means neither he nor the club are under any compulsion to renew this summer or any other summer?.

I don't see how you can disagree with the fact that Hughes hasn't been given a penny to spend on players in net terms during his reign. Everything he's spent he's had to recoup in sales. I appreciate there's  room for a variety of opinion as to whether that is reasonable or indeed the correct strategy in our current circumstances.

376801[/snapback]

First of all let me explain what a rolling contract is. What happens is that every day you wake up it is extended by another day. So yesterday Sparky's contract expired on 21 January 2007, today it expires on 22 January 2007, tomorrow it expires on 23 January 2007.... and so on.

Secondly, the issue is how you interpret the word "then" in the following quotation:

"My ambition is to go as far as I can, and take Blackburn as far as possible.

"We have got some way to go and hopefully we will get there quickly.

"Then we will need major investment to go to the next level.

I read that as Hughes saying that AFTER we have got to where he wants us to go in the short term (good league placing/UEFA Cup is my guess), we need major investment to go to the next level (regular Champions League is my guess).

However, it could be meaning "IT FOLLOWS MY LOGICAL SEQUENCE" that we need major investment to go to the next level in which case it is not dependent upon achieving the next step.

I think my AFTER interpretation is marginally the more likely as Hughes went on to say:

"The club will have to decide how far they want to go. Chase the best or stay where we are?"

The operating word is WILL. Had he said MUST NOW then your version would be correct.

Incidentally I haven't disagreed with the net penny argument- when you see my analysis of the accounts you will see that it could be said that the club is in the middle of reorganising itself to give Hughes a rather pretty net penny which would be consistent with John Williams statement that the only transfers in will be of players to go straight into the first team because they are better than our existing players.

[FourLaneBlue]

I would agree the funding afforded to Souness initially was absurdly generous. By way of contrast, net funding available to Hughes has been non existent.

376799[/snapback]

Remember we also have to factor in signing-on fees and wages which generally double the real cost of a signing. Free transfers end up costing a club lots of money too. We also got rid of Flitcroft and Thompson recently. Those would have cost Rovers, it's not just a case of letting them go, they need to compensated with loyalty bonuses (which players receive when the club wants them to leave without their having placed a transfer request) and also paying off the contract. So these should be taken into account - transfer fees alone, both incoming and outgoing, are only a small part of the overall picture , if that is what you meant by net funding.

With the Rovers board I agree with you that they should be backing Hughes - to an extent. We have to bring a striker in but who? Someone like Ashton for £8million should not be contemplated. It's putting all your eggs in one basket. Hughes should be backed for the right player...at the right price. Benni from Porto sounds perfect. Not too expensive but proven. Rovers have usually backed their managers before, I'd be surprised if they didn't this time. Expect some transfer activity soon.

[Exiled_Rover]

That's not what you said originally Exiled, you said the money afforded RECENTLY was absurd.

I would agree the funding afforded to Souness initially was absurdly generous. By way of contrast, net funding available to Hughes has been non existent.

Whilst the financial support offered to the Club by Jack Walker and latterly the Trustees has always been and continues to be extremely generous there must surely be a middle ground which will enable us to fulfill our enormous potential under Hughes.

376799[/snapback]

Five years ago (essentially) is pretty recent when you're talking about such matters. Whilst I agree Hughes has managed his finances well, offloading deadweight and bringing in quality players, the fact of the matter is that the Trust, or the board (whoever decides these things) has heavily funded Rovers with little or no gain. Why would you expect them to invest again when their return will be minimal, at best?

[Ozz]

In all games played this season, Hughes has won 15 out of 28 games, a win perentage of 53%. I say give him whatever he asks for. That is sensational IMO.

[USABlue]

Bottom line in all of that is he is saying, "I ain't staying" Almost an open invitiation for a club with money to come get him. We'd better stump up some cash or he's off, basically how I read that.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The accounts were approved by the board on the 13th December and were released to share holders at the begining of January.

376804[/snapback]

Brace yourselves folks!!

[RoyRover]

It's great to see Hughes challenging the board like this, letting them now what we can achieve. We are now an established Premiership side and I believe the days of just looking to stay up are over. Hughes has ambitions for the club, he wants them to challenge for Europe and trophies consistently and he wants to be the man who takes them there. He has shown how good he is in the transfer market, uncovering players like Nelsen and Mokoena and giving a new lease of life to Khizinashvili. These signings have been made on a shoe string budget. He bought Bellamy and Savage in for £8 million and they have been great signings. Both of them obviously have big egos and are a bit tempremental, but there hasn't been a word out of either of them. This shows what a great man-manager Sparky must be.

I think that we can make it into Europe this season and our chances will be strengthened by adding one or two players to the squad. In the summer, the board needs to release some serious money to Hughes (within reason of course), so he can add more quality to the team and take the club up a step. The Blackburn board are known for being tight b@st@rds and with Hughes' contract up soon enough, I hope this wouldn't make him think otherwise about signing a new one.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The Blackburn board are known for being tight b@st@rds

376842[/snapback]

Dont agree there Roy, look at the backing Souness received in his tenure at Ewood.....upwards of 50 million!

Problem is the club were stung very badly with some of the deals = 7 million for the walking disaster that was Grabbi, 7 million for the waster Ferguson, 7 million for Cole and then sold for a bag of chips!!!! the list goes on................

The club has a duty to itself to be financially careful these days but we are all, including the manager,uncertain as to whether that sort of financial clout is still available

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. WE'LL SOON FIND OUT EITHER WAY

Edited January 22, 2006 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[stuwilky]

The Blackburn board are known for being tight b@st@rds and with Hughes' contract up soon enough, I hope this wouldn't make him think otherwise about signing a new one.

376842[/snapback]

By Whom?

We have spent millions upon millions, especially good considering we actually have lost £20mill over the last three years alone....

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

I have been thinking about the relative merits of our current side against 94/95.

I have to say that on balance the current side isn't far behind - with one glaring problem - the forwards.

Big gamble for the board - give Hughes approx £10m to purchase a quality forward (maybe two) and Petrov - and we could be pushing for top six or beyond.

It is all a gamble either way - don't invest and we could lose money, our better players, our manager and the ever dwindling fan base. Invest the money and there is no guarantee that we will get any higher than we are - but it should tempt back some floating fans, increase our chances of at least hanging onto 8th spot - and for once give back the impression that Rovers aren't just there to make up the numbers.

I am not aking for hand-outs from the Trust - it should be based on a business decision(gamble). But I think (on balance) it is the only way to go - the alternative is the eventual slow decline of Rovers.

[Paul Mellelieu]

I understand the frustration of those who are calling for more investment in players, but with our decreasing crowds and the lack of a sugar daddy, where are these millions to come from? I can't pretend to understand the finances of the club, but we must be losing a lot of money at the moment. Gambling with the club's finances could mean meltdown if we were to be relegated in the next couple of seasons. The lower leagues are littered with clubs, a lot bigger than the Rovers, who were reckless, and who are now in real trouble.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I understand the frustration of those who are calling for more investment in players, but with our decreasing crowds and the lack of a sugar daddy, where are these millions to come from? 

376854[/snapback]

Like our manager says 'outside investment'?

Hate to say this but has Vinjay,annoying as he was,been vindicated to some extent in his claims?

[Alan75]

Like our manager says 'outside investment'?

Hate to say this but has Vinjay,annoying as he was,been vindicated to some extent in his claims?

376858[/snapback]

Simple answer NO.

The trust could have quite easily after Jacks death closed the cheque book, but they didnt, and have continually bank rolled the club, despite the apathy of the Blackburn public.

[adopted scouser]

Simple answer NO.

The trust could have quite easily after Jacks death closed the cheque book, but they didnt, and have continually bank rolled the club, despite the apathy of the Blackburn public.

376863[/snapback]

Spot on Alan, success is not good news for Blackburn Rovers.

We get a decent manager for the first time in ages, but he needs substantial funds to continue our progress. Substantial funds from gates of around 20K ?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Spot on Alan, success is not good news for Blackburn Rovers.

We get a decent manager for the first time in ages, but he needs substantial funds to continue our progress. Substantial funds from gates of around 20K ?

376865[/snapback]

Agree entirely,we can barely scrape 18,000 for a local top flight derby game, its a vicious circle......great advertisement for possible outside investment NOT!

P.S.

Dingles v Nob End...... 17,000+

Edited January 22, 2006 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[RevidgeBlue]

I am not aking for hand-outs from the Trust - it should be based on a business decision(gamble). But I think (on balance) it is the only way to go - the alternative is the eventual slow decline of Rovers.

376853[/snapback]

Spot on.

Whilst the prize money remains available in it's current format we have to do our best to pursue as much TV and place money as possible imo. We don't have the opportunity to access that kind of money from any other source.

[RevidgeBlue]

Why would you expect them to invest again when their return will be minimal, at best?

376813[/snapback]

If we move up from 8th to 6th this season then the potential upside is fairly limited, around 1m plus any small increase in attendances.

Conversely if our lack of firepower (that was even before Dickov's injury) causes us to drop back to say 12th, then the potential loss of revenue for this season alone is 3m. I wouldn't say that was "minimal" by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not in comparison to the degree of risk involved.

[S15]

At the end of the day it boils down to whether the trustees actually care about football, or Rovers that much.

If they don't, then why would they give us money to rise two positions in the league, as a UEFA Cup run is hardly going to give them much of a return on a £5m, £30k a week striker. They might be quite happy to see us lurking around 8th, and see no particular need to give the club any more of their money, as they have given plenty over the years.

I guess with that in mind it's the job of JW and co to convince the trustees it is worth giving Rovers the cash we need to move on, and that in the no so distent future the trustees will have an attractive gain from doing so.... And I don't envy his position in trying to do so.

[vyeo]

Bottom line in all of that is he is saying, "I ain't staying"  Almost an open invitiation for a club with money to come get him.  We'd better stump up some cash or he's off, basically how I read that.

376833[/snapback]

exactly my sentiments too, USABlue. the most worrying point i abstracted from that article was that hughes seems to be saying 'i'm available', and if the right offer comes along, he's off. the board better tie him down to a long term contract as soon as possible, and insert a release clause in there to ensure we get amply compensated WHEN, not if, someone comes in for him.

[RevidgeBlue]

Incidentally I haven't disagreed with the net penny argument- when you see my analysis of the accounts you will see that it could be said that the club is in the middle of reorganising itself to give Hughes a rather pretty net penny

376805[/snapback]

I hope you're correct with that reading of the situation philip, IF (and it's a massive "if") you were, no-one could have any complaints.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Simple answer NO. The trust could have quite easily after Jacks death closed the cheque book, but they didnt, and have continually bank rolled the club.

Is it possible to argue though that the money the trust provides (around £3m per year I believe) isn't enough to take us to the next level, where Hughes wants us to be?

I'm grateful for the £3m per year, but I must admit when the trust was first set-up I was hoping for a figure of around £8-£10m per year, which would give us a chance of competing at the highest level.

It seems to me that the board/the trustees have a choice: Do they want to dig as deep into their pockets as they can to give Hughes the financial backing he's looking for, enabling us to push for Europe, or do they want to be tight with the pennies and run the risk of losing Hughes to another club?

The latter option would send us back to square one, our best players would want to leave and we'd be in a relegation battle again next season.

A blind man on a galloping horse can see that we need a new striker. Our options up front aren't currently good enough and the lack of a top quality striker to go alongside Craig Bellamy might be the factor that hampers us from going to the next level, where Hughes wants to take the club.

Before Hughes arrived in September 2004, we were in the bottom three with a demoralised and unfit squad of players that was heading for relegation - with the potential loss of around £20m per year from going down and the possibility that we would never recover from such a catastrophic blow.

It's now up to the board to demonstrate their gratitude to Hughes for what he's done so far - and to dig deep to give him the backing in the transfer market that he's looking for.

[thenodrog]

Before Hughes arrived in September 2004, we were in the bottom three with a demoralised and unfit squad of players that was heading for relegation - with the potential loss of around £20m per year from going down and the possibility that we would never recover from such a catastrophic blow.

376909[/snapback]

Agree totally but the reallity is that since Hughes has arrived the attendances have plummeted. I cannot think of any other team in the Prem that would have suffered that ignominity. It's obvious that Blackburn doesn't deserve a Prem team.