[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[winner]

Hughes desperately needs more money on players. As someone has said already a £10 million transfer kitty to last for a 12 month period, is what he should be given. I dont care how the board finds this money, just find it. I am also surprised that there has been no foreign investment in the club, this would be the safest way of finding this extra finances, assuming the investor was trustworthy and had the interests of the club a heart. Loans are not the way to do it, just ask Leeds United.

[stuwilky]

So you believe our overall wages will go up by 30% in 18 months?

No.

I would be surprised if the figure spent on wages in the year 05/06 will did not increase by around £10m in the 2 years to be included for 07/08 are published. If we spent less than 75% of the new TV money on increases to the wage bill, without seriously jeapordising the current squad - Id be impressed.

There is only one place any extra money recieved into Blackburn Rovers coffers is going, and if we want to hang onto our better players, the improved contracts offered to Nelsen, Pedersen, Samba et al and likely to be offered to at least Bentley and probably a handful of others over the next 6/12 months will cost us a fortune. Coupled with natural inbuilt rises, and any transfer we might pick up in January. We ccan only hope that Savage is paid a lot, and is offloaded!

Football is in a mess.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

No.

I would be surprised if the figure spent on wages in the year 05/06 will did not increase by around £10m in the 2 years to be included for 07/08 are published. If we spent less than 75% of the new TV money on increases to the wage bill, without seriously jeapordising the current squad - Id be impressed.

There is only one place any extra money recieved into Blackburn Rovers coffers is going, and if we want to hang onto our better players, the improved contracts offered to Nelsen, Pedersen, Samba et al and likely to be offered to at least Bentley and probably a handful of others over the next 6/12 months will cost us a fortune. Coupled with natural inbuilt rises, and any transfer we might pick up in January. We ccan only hope that Savage is paid a lot, and is offloaded!

Football is in a mess.

Your seriously not thinking through the magnitude a 10 million rise in wages (in 18 months )would be.

It would mean that all of our first choice XI will receive a 17.5K a week wage rise, surely you don’t believe the frugally tight board will allow such profligacy’s

And yes Sav is probably amongst the top 3 earners at the club

[rebelmswar]

And yes Sav is probably amongst the top 3 earners at the club

In the 35-42k range isnt he?

[stuwilky]

Your seriously not thinking through the magnitude a 10 million rise in wages (in 18 months )would be.

It would mean that all of our first choice XI will receive a 17.5K a week wage rise, surely you don’t believe the frugally tight board will allow such profligacy’s

And yes Sav is probably amongst the top 3 earners at the club

Where are you getting 18 months from? It is over 2 year period. the period ending June 2006, to the period ending June 2008.

And I am thinking through the numbers. It isnt a prediction, just a musing.

Id make a bigger "guesstimate" for the 2 years between the accounts about to become public and those in 2 years from now.

[nicko]

In the 35-42k range isnt he?

Sav is on nothing like that...

[ABBEY]

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BUY US AFTER TODAY SHOULD BE GIVEN PINK ROOM,PADDED SELL AND A STRAIT JACKET

[Paul]

Paul if it truly frustrates you, then why don’t you raise these frustrations when the usual suspects proclamations on rover’s finances?

You miss the point completely.

Paul you bleat on about the level of investment the trust has made in the past.

No I don't bleat on about it. I merely read what the accounts say.

As for the rest of your post - I'll just smile quietly to myself.....but may well return to it in early February.

[rebelmswar]

Sav is on nothing like that...

Well that is good news, always happy to stand corrected. Thanks. (I am NOT being sarcastic) [nor then]

[philipl]

Sav is on nothing like that...

Care to do some sums and work out where £36m wages went to last year Mr Nicko?

That works out at over £700K per week.

Sav has got to be on well north of £30K a week if he is amongst the best paid.

[bob fleming]

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BUY US AFTER TODAY SHOULD BE GIVEN PINK ROOM,PADDED SELL AND A STRAIT JACKET

The American consortium that Dan Williams was putting together, I don't suppose Britney Spears was part of that was she?

[RevidgeBlue]

Would anyone be shocked if the wage bill rose by Paul's estimated £10m over two seasons? I must admit, Id be shocked if it DIDN'T go up by that amount between the accounts published last season 05/06 and those for this season - published in January 2009.

I'd be very surprised if the wage bill had gone up by anything like that over two seasons - assuming you've improved the contracts of five of your better players it would mean they're getting an EXTRA 20k p.w. each.

[Alan75]

I'd be very surprised if the wage bill had gone up by anything like that over two seasons - assuming you've improved the contracts of five of your better players it would mean they're getting an EXTRA 20k p.w. each.

Then you better prepare yourself.

[RevidgeBlue]

Then you better prepare yourself.

Well have they or haven't they? Have you seen them or something?

I was under the impression the annual wage bill has been in excess of 30m for quite a number of years now.

[nicko]

Care to do some sums and work out where £36m wages went to last year Mr Nicko?

That works out at over £700K per week.

Sav has got to be on well north of £30K a week if he is amongst the best paid.

McCarthy would not have come cheap, Brad got a rise, Ryan Nelsen got TWO rises. I don't know if it includes Bellamy...because he was the best-paid of the lot.

I'm not going to go into details, but Sav's figures are below that.

I would have to say the overall £36m figure being quoted sounds a bit high. Maybe it includes the managerial and backroom staff. Perhaps it also includes bonuses, which would hike it up a little, but not a lot.

Rovers are good payers, but not THAT good payers.

Whatever the size of the bill it certainly does not equate with the crowds you get...how many Rovers fans were at the game yesterday, for instance.

The fact is that TV money pays for most of the wages. So you have to keep well up the table and get the prize money to pick up the tab.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I'd be very surprised if the wage bill had gone up by anything like that over two seasons - assuming you've improved the contracts of five of your better players it would mean they're getting an EXTRA 20k p.w. each.

To swallow up 10 million it would need 10 players to recieve 20k EXTRA not 5 , which is frankly riduculous;

Chelsea woudnt give that sort of mass raises to players let alone rovers It seems to me that those who will support the trust no-matter what they do, are using this ludicrous proposition as a way a protecting them.

Ill say it again the extra TV revenue 10-15 million will not all go on increased wages. Id be surprised if the club spent a third of that revenue on the wage budget

[Bazzanotsogreat]

McCarthy would not have come cheap, Brad got a rise, Ryan Nelsen got TWO rises. I don't know if it includes Bellamy...because he was the best-paid of the lot.

I'm not going to go into details, but Sav's figures are below that.

I would have to say the overall £36m figure being quoted sounds a bit high. Maybe it includes the managerial and backroom staff. Perhaps it also includes bonuses, which would hike it up a little, but not a lot.

Rovers are good payers, but not THAT good payers.

Whatever the size of the bill it certainly does not equate with the crowds you get...how many Rovers fans were at the game yesterday, for instance.

The fact is that TV money pays for most of the wages. So you have to keep well up the table and get the prize money to pick up the tab.

Nicko- when Sav left Brum he had just signed a new deal with them, it was reportedly worth over 30k a week, the brum fans said he would receive a 7k a week pay-rise at Blackburn.

Everything ive read and heard indicates that Sav is one of the best earners at the club along with Nelsen ( who is on staggering wages ), brad , Benni and Bentley

[nicko]

Nicko- when Sav left Brum he had just signed a new deal with them, it was reportedly worth over 30k a week, the brum fans said he would receive a 7k a week pay-rise at Blackburn.

Everything ive read and heard indicates that Sav is one of the best earners at the club along with Nelsen ( who is on staggering wages ), brad , Benni and Bentley

I think there was some exaggeration going on at the time...I would put Sav in the top eight or nine earners, no more than that. And he is not on that kind of money.

[RevidgeBlue]

To swallow up 10 million it would need 10 players to recieve 20k EXTRA not 5 , which is frankly riduculous;

Yes, if you're saying the ANNUAL bill has gone up by 10m. I think Paul was guesstimating the total wage bill might have risen by 10m over a two year period.

Generally though I agree with you, it seems to me "wages" are being trotted out as a convenient excuse for the Trustees not backing Mark Hughes when really, no-one outside of the Trustees and the Board really know the ins and outs.

[Paul]

Yes, if you're saying the ANNUAL bill has gone up by 10m. I think Paul was guesstimating the total wage bill might have risen by 10m over a two year period.

Thank you Revidge. I have been talking about the total wage bill. I also said it will have risen by several millions, perhaps as much as £10m. Of course people just jump on the one figure rather than reading the whole sentence. Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of the salareis at Ewood. I think it's fair to guess everyone, except the players, will get the rate for the job. The "football staff" (everyone connected with kicking a ball) will take up the bulk of the salaries. A part of the club's policy in the last two seasons has been to support Hughes by resisting bids for our squad. This means paying them more money and generally improving contracts.

As an aside on this I wonder how many fans realise, or think about, the EMPLOYER costs which must be added to the wage bill. If we have a wage bill of £30m, at least 10% of that will be going on employer costs, a wage bill of £40m would include £4m of employer costs - in other words there is more to employing someone than their salary.

Somehwere I read Rovers anticipate turnover in the region of £45-48m in the current season. I can't recall where and it is not something I can back up. However if one looks back at previous years and add in the extra TV revenue it makes sense. Earlier in this thread it was posted that Rovers wage bill is 85% of turnover. On a turnover of £48m that is £40,8m in wages. I think my guesstimates are a lot closer to the truth than some are prepared to give credit for.

YE June 2004 - payroll costs £31.3m (down from £35.5m)

YE June 2005 - payroll costs £31.4m

YE June 2006 - payroll costs £33.6m

YE June 2007 - payroll costs ???

I don't think it takes a genius to work out where these costs are headed in the seasons 06/07 and 07/08.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Thank you Revidge. I have been talking about the total wage bill. I also said it will have risen by several millions, perhaps as much as £10m. Of course people just jump on the one figure rather than reading the whole sentence. Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of the salareis at Ewood. I think it's fair to guess everyone, except the players, will get the rate for the job. The "football staff" (everyone connected with kicking a ball) will take up the bulk of the salaries. A part of the club's policy in the last two seasons has been to support Hughes by resisting bids for our squad. This means paying them more money and generally improving contracts.

As an aside on this I wonder how many fans realise, or think about, the EMPLOYER costs which must be added to the wage bill. If we have a wage bill of £30m, at least 10% of that will be going on employer costs, a wage bill of £40m would include £4m of employer costs - in other words there is more to employing someone than their salary.

Somehwere I read Rovers anticipate turnover in the region of £45-48m in the current season. I can't recall where and it is not something I can back up. However if one looks back at previous years and add in the extra TV revenue it makes sense. Earlier in this thread it was posted that Rovers wage bill is 85% of turnover. On a turnover of £48m that is £40,8m in wages. I think my guesstimates are a lot closer to the truth than some are prepared to give credit for.

YE June 2004 - payroll costs £31.3m (down from £35.5m)

YE June 2005 - payroll costs £31.4m

YE June 2006 - payroll costs £33.6m

YE June 2007 - payroll costs ???

Paul you are again not factoring in the huge rise in TV revenue. Your wage percentage calculations (85% of turnover) of overall turnover is based on figures that do not include the new TV money that satrted this , if the botom club recieved a min of 30 m then a tenth place finish will recieve in the region of 40 milion which is a huge increse in previous years, thus all the extra money that seems to sloshing around the Prem at the mo .

You have provided payroll costs for the past 3 and a bit years, they show a correlation of remaining pretty much static ( a million or two either way) why would be logical to think they would jump 30% in the next set of club accounts?

We can bicker all we want about ; but all I know is that if we do not give our manager a workable transfer budget we will start to head in wrong direction

[Alan75]

We can bicker all we want about ; but all I know is that if we do not give our manager a workable transfer budget we will start to head in wrong direction

You cant buy a Ferrarri if you can only afford a Mini.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You cant buy a Ferrarri if you can only afford a Mini.

You can if youve got 15 million floating around that you didnt have the season before

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The trustees/Walkers are recouping every bit of coin they can until the club is sold.....that is the only viable explanation I can give as to why Hughes is painfully being made to beg steal and borrow in the tranfer market.

I really do fear matters cant continue this way.

[philipl]

The trustees/Walkers are recouping every bit of coin they can until the club is sold.....that is the only viable explanation I can give as to why Hughes is painfully being made to beg steal and borrow in the tranfer market.

I really do fear matters cant continue this way.

Very peculiar post.

They are not taking a penny out of the club. In fact if you compare Rovers with other Prem clubs where Directors and Directors' advisers fees and perks can cost figures into the millions, that aspect is another hidden benefit the Rovers enjoy compared with the likes of Newcastle for example.