[Archived] Nicko's Thread

[philipl]

Let me help with at least with a factual understanding of Rovers' numbers:

- The Trust putting in around £6m a year every year has in the past few years simply enabled the club to pay its bills. There is no hidden surplus from previous seasons.

- The reason why the Rovers have been splashing the cash but not making walloping big money signings is the Rovers have hitherto been competitive in wage payments at the level below Newcastle, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea. This has been a significant factor in the way Rovers have had a good track record in making signings when there has been other EPL or foreign competition.

- The Rovers are beneficiaries of the same Jack Walker will as the Walker family are. The attack on greedy Trustees and family members was as well directed as Nicholas Anelka in front of an open goal. Jack Walker cut the cake and if the slice going to Ewood is not enough for the Rovers for your liking, then he is the one you should be criticising.

Going forwards, the new ownership of several clubs and the increased TV deal have changed the balance this season and potentially the way Rovers should go about their business. Looking forwards, the following are the key issues:

- are the new owners going to continue splashing £20m, £30m and upwards EVERY season? Maybe some will but enough are commercial enterprises (or funded by banks and hedge funds) that they NEED those monies flowing back to their pockets with interest and a healthy profit margin. Quite how is an interesting speculation. If these clubs are not continuing to spend at those rates, Rovers will have been seen to have played a blinder keeping out of a temporarily crazy market.

- in the last year of the old Sky deal, Premiership revenues were roughly coming in equal portions from gate revenues, TV deals and marketing. This season, gate revenue will slip to about 25% as the TV deal becomes the biggest segment. IN THEORY, only 25% of the mix (gate revenue) sees Rovers at a competitive disadvantage against much of the rest of the Prem. That is in turn offset by the Walker Trust inflation adjusting £6m each year and the cost of ownership (primarilly directors' fees etc) being at least £1m a year less than most other EPL clubs.

- at worst, on average, the new economics drop Rovers from a natural position of second quartile to third quartile of the Premiership. That is far more dangerous as one bad season would see the club go down but the Trust spent £20m in transfer fees in our first season back and when we were at real risk. The economics of football are now such that I suspect the business case of buying players when the downside is relegation from the EPL would drive a more expansive transfer policy.

Summing up, I can see a time when Rovers' ownership by the Trust will give us a massive advantage, particularly as many clubs are operating assuming the gravy's getting ever thicker and more plentiful, not just that the existing gravy train will continue. I don't know when that time will come but the Jack Walker legacy, whether it is in the custodianship of the Trustees or some even more munificent owner bound in effect by the terms of Jack's Will, means that 1995's triumph will become possible again when the English football economy ceases to support a lot of other clubs' business plans.

[Sandiway Blue]

There was a time in the 80`s when Rovers couldn`t even pay their milk bill we were that poor.Can anybody remember how much we had to raise to rebuild the riverside? i seem to remember it was around £200,000 but i am not sure

We even had a big barometer style sign on the riverside to say how much we had raised towards rebuilding.I think that was the year when Jack started to get involved.

[thenodrog]

Quote nicko...........

if you look at the team and the cost of them it's a miracle you are in the top half. The trouble is you have to keep performing them.

I cant buy that. we have spent very little the past two seasons, much less than other similar sized clubs who lack big investors (Wigan, Fulham ( I don't think Fayed has put much money in), Reading, Middlesborough).

1. They are in the bottom half.

2. They are all in the Prem because they have big investors who have invested big!

Time for some on here to take a reallity check jbn and compare BRFC to other bigger i.e. better supported clubs but with no sugar daddies like Forest, LUFC, Coventry, Wolves, Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd, West Brom, Leicester, Soton. Alternatively try comparing us to clubs of similar support and with no outside help e.g. Millwall, Oldham, Bradford, PNE, Watford, Luton, Stoke, Plymouth, Brighton etc. As I have said before we WILL find our own true level down amongst the dead men one day.... it's inevitable... but until that day comes just enjoy the ride and stop whingeing.

I bet the biggest whingers will not even have seen the club in the 3rd Div and so potless that the milkman stopped delivering milk!

[ABBEY]

theres too many silver spooned spoilt bratty rovers fans nowadays...i inprint it on my little un where we came from and how the olden days were and how lucky he is to see top flight footy including euros and how he missed us in the champ league......

[den]

Oh come on! Are you seriously suggesting we'd be lording it over PNE and the Dingles like we are without Jack?

Why not? We were before we had Jack.

[nicko]

On the Pontus Farnerud story...his 'people' say it is not true.

The entertainment at Burnley is such that this is the most exciting news to emerge from the first half...

[Alex Rover]

Oh come on! Are you seriously suggesting we'd be lording it over PNE and the Dingles like we are without Jack?

Your appetite for contradicting everything and making a complete tit of yourself is truly amazing!

Why not? We were before we had Jack.

We were the pride of Lancashire and looking down on the others well before Jack.

[thenodrog]

Good post Mozzer,

I want to know what has happend to the TV money are the "Walker" family sat on it because if they are they can dish out abit the greedy bast$rds. The club needs to get sold to go further and that is what Hughes and the fans want! Sell the club for whatever weve had enough of all this Dan Wank3r Williams talk which is probs about dead now. We need to buy players to progress because sooner or later we will slip down the league with injuries etc. Derby have spent 20 mill this year and i want to know how they can spend that and we cant?

I too cannot understand where all the extra TV money has gone? Ok we have improved some contracts and used £1 million to reduce ticket prices, but what about the rest?

Surely there is £10 million around for this season if Hughes needs it? What extra TV money do we now get, is it an extra £15 million a season or something like that?

Maybe the owners simply wanted too see some money back. Anybody who can rem the dark days could never begrudge them that. Maybe they are keeping their powder dry for when needs are more pressing. Who knows and who with any nous cares?

Just as a matter of interest have either of you two ever wondered why all these yanks, Thai's and russki's etc are over here?

Anyway a very simplified question....... Paying a player a salary of 50k pw (£2m per annum) over the length of a 4 year contract costs the club £8m for his services, paying £8m for him in the first place and him walking away for nowt means the total cost of that player over 4 years is £16m. Given that we need a first team squad of 25 - 30 and our gross income is prob in the region of £40m pa you show me how you would do the sums in your world.

[RevidgeBlue]

Let me help with at least with a factual understanding of Rovers' numbers:

- The Trust putting in around £6m a year every year has in the past few years simply enabled the club to pay its bills. There is no hidden surplus from previous seasons.

- The reason why the Rovers have been splashing the cash but not making walloping big money signings is the Rovers have hitherto been competitive in wage payments at the level below Newcastle, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea. This has been a significant factor in the way Rovers have had a good track record in making signings when there has been other EPL or foreign competition.

- The Rovers are beneficiaries of the same Jack Walker will as the Walker family are. The attack on greedy Trustees and family members was as well directed as Nicholas Anelka in front of an open goal. Jack Walker cut the cake and if the slice going to Ewood is not enough for the Rovers for your liking, then he is the one you should be criticising.

Going forwards, the new owners have changed the balance this season. Looking forwards, the following are the key issues:

- are the new owners going to continue splashing £20m, £30m and upwards EVERY season? Maybe some will but enough are commercial enterprises (or funded by banks and hedge funds) that they NEED those monies flowing back to their pockets with interest and a healthy profit margin. Quite how is an interesting speculation.

- in the last year of the old deal, Premiership revenues were roughly coming in equal portions from gate revenues, TV deals and marketing. This season, gate revenue will slip to about 25% as the TV deal becomes the biggest segment. IN THEORY, only 25% of the mix (gate revenue) sees Rovers at a competitive disadvantage against much of the rest of the Prem. That is in turn offset by the Walker Trust inflation adjusting £6m each year and the cost of ownership (primarilly directors' fees etc) being at least £1m a year less than most other EPL clubs.

Summing up, I can see a time when Rovers' ownership by the Trust will give us a massive advantage, particularly as many clubs are operating assuming the gravy's getting ever thicker and more plentiful, not just that the existing gravy train will continue. I don't know when that time will come but the Jack Walker legacy, whether it is in the custodianship of the Trustees or some even more munificent owner bound in effect by the terms of Jack's Will, means that 1995's triumph will become possible again when the English football economy ceases to support a lot of other clubs' business plans.

Will you stop saying the Trust are putting in around 6m every year. They are not, they are putting in 3m every year. Obviously after taking into account the effects of annual inflation this static amount is a contribution that is gradually decreasing in real terms, albeit it is extremely welcome and we'd no doubt be struggling without it.

The extra amount you quote are attributable to the writing off of certain loans which make the accounts look a lot rosier but which don't otherwise benefit us in terms of spending power.

I think your hypothesis that Trust ownership will eventually give us a huge advantage is optimistic in the extreme. Even if other club owners do scale down the level of their investment, it's still one hell of a quantum leap from 3m p.a. to 20 or 30m p.a. or even the 10 - 15m that most of the lesser clubs seem to have invested on the playing side since the "new" money came in in the summer.

[92er]

We were the pride of Lancashire and looking down on the others well before Jack.

Before Uncle Jack took over he provided funds to buy the odd player. When he took over-I think-he funded the purchases of Dobson and Livingston, and I think Mimms as well without whom we would have been relegated. Fox would probably not have got us back up to the old 2nd Division.

[den]

Before Uncle Jack took over he provided funds to buy the odd player. When he took over-I think-he funded the purchases of Dobson and Livingston, and I think Mimms as well without whom we would have been relegated. Fox would probably not have got us back up to the old 2nd Division.

I can't remember PNE or the Dingles finishing anywhere but below us for endless seasons. In fact Baz is 30 and he reckons he's never seen either of those teams above rovers.

[philipl]

For the benefit of Rev, the Trust have put in £6m new CASH every year and on average per year have put in marginally MORE than the average per year when Jack was alive.

If you are going to be an accounting pedant, the Trust have subscribed to vastly more ordinary share in Blackburn Rovers than Jack did.

Others may correct me here as I am not looking the accounts up but the share capital was around £25m when Jack died. It is now about £110m. The difference was 100% subscribed by the Trust.

[RevidgeBlue]

I bet the biggest whingers will not even have seen the club in the 3rd Div and so potless that the milkman stopped delivering milk!

I was there in the bad old days Gordon and all the "we couldn't even afford the milk in the old days" stuff is heartrending and nostalgic, it brings a tear to the eye it really does!

But, it's a load of old cobblers, what the hell has that got to do with anything these days? Since those times Uncle Jack probably pumped about 120m into the infrastructure of the Club and the Trustees a significant amount on top of that in the couple of years immediately following his death. Luckily for us also, we got back into the Premiership just in time to benefit from the huge growth in TV and place money income.

It would be tragic to see all that just go to waste through under investment over the last few seasons and in the years to come.

[modes98]

Who was the last good Swede to come to the Premier?

Fredrik Ljungberg, Henrik Larsson, Olof Mellberg and the best of all This Guy

[Sandiway Blue]

Maybe the owners simply wanted too see some money back. Anybody who can rem the dark days could never begrudge them that. Maybe they are keeping their powder dry for when needs are more pressing. Who knows and who with any nous cares?

Just as a matter of interest have either of you two ever wondered why all these yanks, Thai's and russki's etc are over here?

Anyway a very simplified question....... Paying a player a salary of 50k pw (£2m per annum) over the length of a 4 year contract costs the club £8m for his services, paying £8m for him in the first place and him walking away for nowt means the total cost of that player over 4 years is £16m. Given that we need a first team squad of 25 - 30 and our gross income is prob in the region of £40m pa you show me how you would do the sums in your world.

Thank you,at last some common sense on here!

If you look at our sponsorships over the last few years and empty spaces where advertising billboards should be,it is easy to work out we don`t gain much revenue from that side of the business.

I would guess our squad of players would on average earn somewhere between £25,000-£30,000 each per week,which if you base our numbers on a 25 man squad equates to between £625,000-£750,000 per week.Over a year this works out at £32.5m-£39m.

If you based our gates on being around the 24,000 mark for home attendances and priced at average £25 per person over 19 home games,per season it works out approx £11.4m.This obviously doesn`t include costs for police,stewards,ground maintenance,backroom staff and day to day running of the club etc.

Given that i haven`t even taken into account transfer fees,frankly i am amazed how the club keeps running how it has done.

And for some people on here to even question where the money goes is a joke and very disrespectful to the board.

[Sandiway Blue]

I was there in the bad old days Gordon and all the "we couldn't even afford the milk in the old days" stuff is heartrending and nostalgic, it brings a tear to the eye it really does!

But, it's a load of old cobblers, what the hell has that got to do with anything these days? Since those times Uncle Jack probably pumped about 120m into the infrastructure of the Club and the Trustees a significant amount on top of that in the couple of years immediately following his death. Luckily for us also, we got back into the Premiership just in time to benefit from the huge growth in TV and place money income.

It would be tragic to see all that just go to waste through under investment over the last few seasons and in the years to come.

I think what Gordon is saying is we should count ourselves to be lucky to be where we are,and i agree with him.

[Sandiway Blue]

Just to bring a smile to everybody`s face on here,the Dingles are losin at home to Qpr 1-0

[ABBEY]

I think what Gordon is saying is we should count ourselves to be lucky to be where we are,and i agree with him.

me too

its like were would jack or stella or kelly be without there dads money....ish

[tchocky]

This whole discussion seems to have generated from news reports of Hughes stating we have to shop in the bargain basement in january. Just like the Rovers management/board have said/done in all the last transfer windows. For at least the past five years. They keep playing down our purchasing power, so much so that you'd almost think we were only looking at free transfers. You can be certain though, that if there comes along a player that Hughes really thinks will do the business, then the money will be there. That's what I think. It's a healthy way to go about things.

[stuwilky]

We were the pride of Lancashire and looking down on the others well before Jack.

We were indeed. But which division were we in, and where were the Dingles and North End? If it wasnt for Jack the gap would have well and truly closed long since.

If you based our gates on being around the 24,000 mark for home attendances and priced at average £25 per person over 19 home games,per season it works out approx £11.4m.This obviously doesn`t include costs for police,stewards,ground maintenance,backroom staff and day to day running of the club etc.

The average per head cost of a match ticket LAST season was around £13. Taking a literal 25% off that for this season's reductions doesnt make pretty reading....

[RevidgeBlue]

For the benefit of Rev, the Trust have put in £6m new CASH every year and on average per year have put in marginally MORE than the average per year when Jack was alive.

If you're going back to the date of Jack's death (2000?) you might be able to average it out at that but the fact remains that over the last few seasons the cash injection has been and remains a static 3m p.a.

I'm not sure your second statement is correct, surely Jack's total investment in the club averaged something like 10 - 12 m over his c10 year period of ownership? Even if you are correct, your second statement only goes to demonstrate how much the contribution has declined in real terms if it is only marginally above a period dating back to c1990.

Not that we could ever expect the Trustees to have anything like the same enthusiasm for the cause as the great man himself.

[philipl]

This should help because Bacup blue, Revidge and others are coming from erroneous starting points- the review of 2006 accounts posted in January 2007.

(Rovers share capital is now £140m so the Trust has boosted the club's capital by around £100m since Jack's death. Now when people who know come on here explaining that the Trust cannot LEGALLY sell other than to a buyer who can beat their size of commitment to the Rovers, perhaps bumping up the share capital in seven years by £100m shows how high an incoming investor has to jump. And I will stress, THIS IS ALL MONEY TO BE PUT INTO THE ROVERS AND NOT TO PAY THE TRUSTEES)

Here goes:

Sheffield United boss Neil Warnock has revealed he was closing to signing Stephen Warnock. "We also had talks with Stephen Warnock after agreeing a fee of £1.5million along with Blackburn," said Warnock. "He's a good young, English player who warranted an offer.

"That was a disappointment but under the circumstances you can't blame him for chosing Blackburn. We're not at their level yet financially."

That was lifted from Tribal Football- not the most likely of sources with which to start a review of Rovers' 2005/6 accounts. However, it does show that despite Sheffield United raising between £5m and £10m (depending on reports) to spend in the January transfer window and being a club from a big city (not forgetting the only Prem club in the eastern half of the country north of Watford and south of Boro), Rovers do have significant financial muscle, even in comparison to other Premiership clubs.

Once again, Rovers' accounts give all the signs of a well-run financially prudent operation within the confines of something as inherently unstable and risky as a football club.

The headline news is that the steady decline in attendance is biting. If we had maintained the average gates we were getting in the Premiership of over 26,000- just four short years ago, Rovers' cumulative financial base would be healthier today by at least £7m adding the four seasons together. It is a moot point whether some or all of that would have been recycled into transfer expenditure.

Match revenue actually declined only slightly whilst average ticket spend per head at league games (this seems to exclude executive seats otherwise it doesn't calculate to the total matchday revenue figure) has risen from £12.77 to £13.64. Attendances fell from an average of 22,294 when we came 15th in 2004/5 to 21,015 when we came 6th in 2005/6. At least the rate of decline halved from the 2,000 a year of the previoustwo seasons.

Somebody knowing nothing about football looking at these numbers would conclude:

- the people turning up at Ewood paid higher prices to compensate for the losses from the stay aways in 2005/6, and

- the Blackburn public finds coming higher up the league a big turn off in terms of wanting to go to matches.

To the numbers themselves. Because it is difficult to tabulate within the messageboard, I am presenting the numbers in the following way:

2005/6 - 2004/5 - 2003/4. All figures are in £ millions unless otherwise specified.

Total income 43.4 - 41.3 - 40.8 includes

Matchday 7.1 - 7.3 - 6.9

Media 25.7 - 21.4 - 21.8

Commercial 10.7 - 12.4 - 12.2

So a modest increase in turnover driven completely by the £4.4m increase in place prize money from rising up the league from 15th to 6th. For the third season running, the number of matches covered by live TV dropped (down from 12 in 2004/5 to 11 in 2005/6- a further indication of concentration on the big 4 who bored us up to 24 times). 2004/5 income had been boosted by £2.5m from the FA Cup run to the semi-final. Commercial income which I commented had done well to hold up in 2004/5 is now suffering despite the Bet24 deal which itself is possibly under threat from possible new rules about promoting online gaming and the American debacle affecting the sector. Apart from the £1m a year Sportsworld and £2m a year Bet24 deals, commercial is very much driven by matchday attendance/attractiveness. A 20% decline in attendance over four years must be reflecting in a commensurate fall in unit sales of food and beverage, programmes etc. The "prawn sandwich" briggade in the Executive boxes are not increasing sufficiently to offset the decrease in raw attendance numbers and the 2005/6 figures suggest that they are in retreat as well.

Operating profits were 0.7 - 1.0 - (1.4) (brackets denote an operating loss in 2003/4)

The final bottom line losses were 6.9 - 5.0 - 5.1

So despite coming 6th losses could not be effectively contained, again that decline in attendances impacting.

The other villain of the piece are wages of 33.4 - 31.3 - 31.3.

£1.5m of the £2.1m increase in payroll costs was occaisioned by Performance Related Pay so that in itself is a good thing. Wages as a proportion of turnover rose from 76% in 2004/5 to 77% in 2005/6. John Williams comments that the new Media deal means that wages SHOULD drop back to a more sensible 65% of turnover but we are subject to Premiership going rates. To be realistic, only perhaps two or three Rovers players need to be paid to prevent them being easy prey to the CL 4 (after all their squads totalling 100 players are already stuffed with world class quality) but the stupid pay levels paid by clubs such as Boro and Newcastle have now been joined by Pompey, possibly Villa, and as we have just seen West Ham. It is probably very important for the financial health of the Premiership that West Ham do get relegated to clear a mid range money no object club out of the system. Rovers can refuse to go with the flow if Chelsea want to pay Michael Ballack £130,000 a week but it is quite another thing if the mark for Lucas Neill-type players gets raised to £60,000 a week because that is where we have to compete.

Staff numbers make interesting reading: 223 - 231 - 244 people employed. There was reduction of 15 employees in the Academy which is partly offset by modest increases in staff in all other areas including the players and coaches in the senior squad.

For those interested in such things, pay to the individual Executive Directors remained broadly flat again although the appointment of the Financial Director to the board meant that there are now three Directors in the reported £491K as opposed to two in last year's £352K. For a business as large as Rovers and bearing in mind that John Williams was promoted to Chairman during the year, these are very modest numbers.

The player trading account shows the following:

Original transfer values 26.1 - 27.6 - 33.7

Net Book Value 10.7 - 9.1 - 14.7

Contingent Liabilities 4.3 - 4.7 - 4.8

Reported transfer spending (not net of sales) was £8.2m in 2005/6 and £6.3 in 2004/5.

Some explanations- original value is the sum of transfer payments paid for all the players currently at the club. Rovers in common with every other club amortises the transfer payment over their length of contract. So if a player was bought on a 4 year contract at the end of 2003/4 for £4m, he would be valued at £3m in 2004/5 and £2m in 2005/6. The sum of those residual values gives us the Net Book Value figure. In addition, many transfers have clauses which trigger additional payments IF players or the club achieve certain targets. Those amounts ONLY become payable if there is achievement and the total value of those clauses is the contingent liability figure (last year I speculated the club might have included a number for the hit if Newcastle lost their VAT case- this year the note explains the contingent liabilities are for transfer payment terms).

Now a look at the balance sheet items and their impact on the club's profitability. End of year bank borrowings are virtually unchanged at £10.8m but the timings of the borrowings and upwards drift of interest rates has impacted net interest payable: 740K - 532K - 668K

The club is still cash generative- just- net cash before financing dropped from £2m raised in 2004/5 to £40K in 2005/6. At least Rovers are not haemoraging cash.

However, there is a dramatic increase in net current liabilities from £13.7m in 2004/5 to £20m in 2005/6. Interestingly a lot of this is down to Rovers being very smart in their transfer payment terms. Fees receivable have dropped from £6m to £1.6m whilst transfer fees payable in over one year's time have increased from £866K to £2.25m.

When supporters bitch about transfers taking so much time, they should realise that John Williams and Tom Finn are screwing down these sorts of terms to Rovers' advantage.

Last year the Walker Trust converted £14m of debt into shares and an even more dramatic change in the club's balance sheet will come in the 2006/7 accounts when the redeemable preference class of shares (effectively debt) of £80m are converted into ordinary shares of the same value making it irrecoverable from the club's own resources. No doubt Mancs wish the Glazers would/could do the same! In total, the club's ordinary share capital is now £140m, £111m of which has been consumed by losses the Rovers have made over the years.

So to the future.

It is dominated by the new TV deal and the very real prospect that in 2006/7 Rovers will become a £50m+ turnover business. Putting that into a world context, Rovers would rank somewhere round about 25th in the Deloittes rich list of clubs and if we had a run to the FA Cup Final as well as a top 6 finish (and assuming crowds have not dropped below 20,000 in the meantime), Rovers could make it into the 20 highest earning clubs in the world without qualifying for the Champs League. This is mind boggling for us older supporters and would have Bill Fox speechless in amazement.

If Rovers keep wages at current levels, they will become profitable on a sustained basis for virtually the first time in their history and have the odd five millions available for net transfers each year. Wages hold the key which is why the Icelandic egghead's buy of Lucash is such bad news. But if we were in an equally perilous position as the WHammers, wouldn't we demand Rovers board do the same? And therein lies the rub.

The Rovers board and Walker Trustees have clearly decided that the interpretation of Jack's Will in terms of entertaining the public of Blackburn extends to cutting prices now that the new deal makes that possible.

Very quietly tucked away in the notes is a non-repayable, non-interest bearing non-term loan from the parent of £3m which I presume is in addition to the usual automatic top-up from the Trust Jack Walker settled for Rovers' benefit. So again, the Walkers have slipped Rovers yet another £6m. I speculated last year that the sale of Flybe might make the Walker Trust sufficiently liquid to enable even more largesse but Flybe has itself bought BA Connect and cancelled its flotation so that prospect is some way off. Also distant I believe is the prospect of any new owner of any nationality who could pass the tests of fitness to own Blackburn Rovers FC that Jack effectively imposed.

Other clubs and other potential owners will see the new TV windfall differently from Rovers but the new range of investors coming into the game are doing so with an eye on the profits to be made- huge returns given the inherent risk of relegation which has to be factored into any football calculation. In these circumstances, we can only say that Rovers are fortunate in having a non-profit seeking Trust as our owner. Perhaps we could see Rovers' style of ownership bearing out Neill Warnock's comments about other Premiership clubs not being in Rovers' league financially on a longer term basis.

[EwoodGlory]

the Trust have put in £6m new CASH every year

It states in the accounts thats it's £3m per year,

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

During the year the company recieved a donation from the Jack Walker Settlement of £3,000,000 (2005 £3,000,000).

As noted below the Settlement is the company's ultimate controlling entity.

PARENT COMPANY

The directors consider BRFC Investments Limited, incorporated in the Channel Islands to be this company's parent comapny.

Ultimate control is held by the Trustees of Jack Walker settlement, a Jersey trust.

[RevidgeBlue]

I think what Gordon is saying is we should count ourselves to be lucky to be where we are,and i agree with him.

Couldn't agree more.

By the same token, Jack put everyone connected with the club in a tremendously privileged position and that should not simply be allowed to go to waste.

[modes98]

Just to bring a smile to everybody`s face on here,the Dingles are losin at home to Qpr 1-0

2-0 The end of the new manager lift and normal service is resumed.