[Archived] Why Do We Have No Money

[stuwilky]

they are stu..they should pay us

A fair point.

so we are now a business...still says football club on my badge not PLC

We've always been a business. Remember not being able to pay for the milk?

The club is Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club plc.

[FourLaneBlue]

so we are now a business...still says football club on my badge not PLC

What do you mean now?

We became a business in 1875. John Lewis was our first treasurer.

[nick123]

see youve rose to my point........

I dared to speak out !!!!

Crush the debate!!!

[AggyBlue]

Do any of our owners actually bother to attend matches or are we the only club in the country were the owners turn their backs completely on the performances and outcome of their clubs games?

[FourLaneBlue]

see youve rose to my point........

I dared to speak out !!!!

Crush the debate!!!

Who is crushing what debate?

You made an incorrect point about us being a business now. We have always been a business. We cannot spend money we do not have or we could well pay for it in the future like many other clubs. If the trustees do not wish to give us any extra money then there is not a lot we can do. It is not as if anybody wants to actually buy the club and throw away their savings on us.

That is why we are a selling club. It is because we do not have enough money to be a buying club anymore!

Do any of our owners actually bother to attend matches or are we the only club in the country were the owners turn their backs completely on the performances and outcome of their clubs games?

One of the trustees was at the Wigan game which brought to an end the Ince regime IIRC but they do not seem to make a habit of visiting the games on a regular basis as far as we seem to know.

[Mr. E]

What do you mean now?

We became a business in 1875. John Lewis was our first treasurer.

There's a difference between making sure a club is financially stable in order to continue competing, and existing with the sole purpose of filling the owner's pockets with money. (and being used and abused like we are if we do not have the means to fulfill that)

For the most part football fans allowed this to happen, which benefited the super rich, stuck the mediocre clubs in limbo, and although we have achieved great, great things for our resources - looks set to bury smaller clubs like ours.

[stuwilky]

see youve rose to my point........

I dared to speak out !!!!

Crush the debate!!!

Im not aware that anything has been crushed. More incorrect statements corrected.

There's a difference between making sure a club is financially stable in order to continue competing, and existing with the sole purpose of filling the owner's pockets with money.

There is indeed.

And given that our owners have not taken a single penny out of us, in fact rather the opposite since Jack died, then Im not sure what your point is.

I dont like them not giving us millions of pounds, however that is their decision to take - they are trying to sell us - but we aint gonna find someone to GIVE us millions us of pounds.

[broadsword]

We are the trustees' ball and chain, and no-one is stepping forward with a key.

It's an impossible situation. To find someone willing to buy a loss-making concern that shows no sign of heading into the black, despite an enormous turnover, with very little scope for cutting costs without hurting revenue, within a framework of a passionate following who'll criticise your every move. And while they look for a buyer they have to find a way to maintain income but keep costs to the barest minimum they can (which is still absurdly large) without affecting our status and seeing income drop catastrophically with no guarantee of restoring it.

Hi John, I'm Bryan. Let me tell you where I'm at. Your cost base is enormous, I see no basis for the projected profits and I'm afraid on that basis, I'm out.

[FourLaneBlue]

There's a difference between making sure a club is financially stable in order to continue competing, and existing with the sole purpose of filling the owner's pockets with money. (and being used and abused like we are if we do not have the means to fulfill that)

Exactly.

Which is why having owners who do not personally profit from the club is a big plus in our favour.

Who else wants to buy us and run us a Premiership club?

[Tris]

Minus £18m in the summer - the Jersey Boys have left us deep in the mire....

What a load of rubbish.

Allardyce alone is to blame for the current situation. He sold players who shouldn't have been sold and went out and bought players we don't need and can't afford.

He was given a task to reduce the wage bill and he's increased it.

The "Jersey Boys" can't compete with the 200 million spent by Man City, or the 80 million shirt deal Liverpool have just bagged. Thankfully they are keeping us away from the fate of the likes of Leeds and Southampton.

Go away and read John Williams LT interview about where the money has gone - WAGES.

Then slag off the players for being paid crazy money and the manager for signing useless marquee names on even crazier money.

[Bobby G]

He sold players that shouldnt have been sold?

Roque? Wanted to leave.

Warnock? Wanted to leave.

Derbs? Wanted first team football. Good deal for us.

[Mr. E]

Im not aware that anything has been crushed. More incorrect statements corrected.

There is indeed.

And given that our owners have not taken a single penny out of us, in fact rather the opposite since Jack died, then Im not sure what your point is.

I dont like them not giving us millions of pounds, however that is their decision to take - they are trying to sell us - but we aint gonna find someone to GIVE us millions us of pounds.

Erm, the entire point of having owners is to give us financial stability. We lose money from having uncommitted owners because they do not provide us with enough money to at least keep stable, and that is why we have to sell all our stars every season and have money to spend to buy next to no one. They can not make a profit out of us and that's why they've left us in the mud.

Really, I cannot believe anyone can argue we have good owners. They do not provide adequate support for the club we all love. Case and point.

[Tris]

He sold players that shouldnt have been sold?

Roque? Wanted to leave.

Warnock? Wanted to leave.

Derbs? Wanted first team football. Good deal for us.

RSC - agreed he had to go.

Warnock was sold to pay Salgado's wages. He was totally committed to BRFC when we used to play football.

Derbyshire or Kalinic. Oh dear.

[FourLaneBlue]

Erm, the entire point of having owners is to give us financial stability. We lose money from having uncommitted owners because they do not provide us with enough money to at least keep stable, and that is why we have to sell all our stars every season and have money to spend to buy next to no one. They can not make a profit out of us and that's why they've left us in the mud.

Really, I cannot believe anyone can argue we have good owners. They do not provide adequate support for the club we all love. Case and point.

Of course they provide us with financial stability. Look around the Premiership. How many of the other sides have had such stability since 2000?

They are not funding us anymore but they are not taking money out to line their own pockets either. We would all like more money spent but nobody wants to buy us and splash the cash so it comes down to the Trustees being the best - indeed only - option at the moment.

[stuwilky]

Erm, the entire point of having owners is to give us financial stability. We lose money from having uncommitted owners because they do not provide us with enough money to at least keep stable, and that is why we have to sell all our stars every season and have money to spend to buy next to no one. They can not make a profit out of us and that's why they've left us in the mud.

Really, I cannot believe anyone can argue we have good owners. They do not provide adequate support for the club we all love. Case and point.

We have financial stability.

Books that balance - almost.

Not saddled with stupid debt - check

Not spending beyond our means - a bit, but only to try and keep up with the Jones'

You want an owner to pour millions into the club, so do I. However one of us has a sense of realism. And Ill give you a clue, its the one who has a season ticket.

[beerwins]

RSC - agreed he had to go.

Warnock was sold to pay Salgado's wages. He was totally committed to BRFC when we used to play football.

Derbyshire or Kalinic. Oh dear.

So we sold warnock (a left back) to fund salgado's (another right back) wages and oh yes we signed pascal (another right back) to play full time at left back, thats really an "expert" decision.

Someone should have took hughesy grandads camera off him.

[Mr. E]

We have financial stability.

Books that balance - almost.

Not saddled with stupid debt - check

Not spending beyond our means - a bit, but only to try and keep up with the Jones'

You want an owner to pour millions into the club, so do I. However one of us has a sense of realism. And Ill give you a clue, its the one who has a season ticket.

There is a big difference between wanting a Man-City like owner and someone with who won't have to sell 20 million worth of players every season or else we're dead. So stop talking nonsense. This is what "financial stability" means to me - being able to keep our players, but if we sell them to at least be given money to replace them. That is the type of stability with which you can build a committed team unit that progresses up the league. The people who own the club have a responsibility towards it. It's "realists" like you who don't question anything that makes them think they can do whatever they want and no one will bother them about it.

[stuwilky]

You just want someone to give us millions of pounds. Don't we all.

[beerwins]

This transfer window around 18 mill was gained from sales of players to help balance the books because if we went down we would be in serious sh1t, well a lot of people have said that something has changed at rovers this preseason and i agree.

Last few seasons under hughes we thought of ourselves as a top ten club but this season so many people are saying we will be in the bottom half dangerously hovering above relegation, how has it come to this? on the bbc webby earlier some clown was saying we certainly look like relegation fodder.

If we are gearing ourselves financially to be safe when we go down then we are already in a negative attitude but what can we do? nothing really apart from some shiek punting millions into the club which isnt going to happen and i dont really want to see this happen.

So what now? i am a realist and i enjoy watching decent football and if im honest with myself the prem really doesnt have much to offer for smaller clubs apart from survival, we cant compete financially anymore with a lot of prem clubs even stoke could afford the wages of tuncay when we couldnt.

Sooner or later we will go down because it seems the money men have deemed it more sensible to be realistic and i for one wont be crying on the inevitable day we go back down because at least the next season we will have something to play for each week and not survival for the lining of pockets.

[FourLaneBlue]

There is a big difference between wanting a Man-City like owner and someone with who won't have to sell 20 million worth of players every season or else we're dead. So stop talking nonsense. This is what "financial stability" means to me - being able to keep our players, but if we sell them to at least be given money to replace them. That is the type of stability with which you can build a committed team unit that progresses up the league. The people who own the club have a responsibility towards it. It's "realists" like you who don't question anything that makes them think they can do whatever they want and no one will bother them about it.

At a club like Rovers that is not "stability" but instead charity. The books do not balance nearly enough for us to reinvest all the money we receive. Of course we would love more investment (read - money thrown away at players that the owners will never get back) but we do not have anyone who wants to come in and throw their money at us.

As for "they can do whatever they want"...well, of course they can. They have provided the cheapest tickets in the land to watch Premiership football. We have been a Premiership club for 9 straight seasons now which is two more than we managed when Jack was here. Not to mention four European campaigns. How can we really complain too much if they expect us to pay our own way?

It is not that the Trustees are the best choice we have. They are the only choice.

Last few seasons under hughes we thought of ourselves as a top ten club but this season so many people are saying we will be in the bottom half dangerously hovering above relegation, how has it come to this? on the bbc webby earlier some clown was saying we certainly look like relegation fodder.

That is what one bad managerial appointment does to a club like ours. Ince did it for us after three years as a top half outfit. At Bolton the appointment of Sammy Lee meant they were cast out after four years in the top 8. Even Wigan struggled to overcome the appointment of Chris Hutchings. Middlesbrough did not get wise and sack Southgate and down they went. Newcastle made too many bad appointments and paid. Both those sides have spent far more than us for years on both wages and transfer fees.

[philipl]

Excellent post FLB.

Hits all the nails on the head.

[TimmyJimmy]

There are few bigger critics of the Trustees than me but I confine my angst to the fact that they won't sell us for a 'sensible' price, nothing more.

They are all sensible people who have done a lot for this club behind the scenes, I'm grateful. All airlines are being bashed in the current recession, even a national carrier like JAL is on the ropes and looking for a saviour, could just be that the Trustees are having to pump so much cash into their other business/es that there's nowt left for us. For the moment we are afloat so they might be bailing out a different boat right now.

We all strongly suspect that we don't fit into their portfolio very well and they want shut. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is how much they want for the club - no sale - wrong price.

BRFC was never an investment for them anyway, we were always Jack's passion - his toy train set - no one understood his enthusiasm but it was his dosh so he just got on with it. To keep up with the spirit of the great man I think they should bite the bullet and write us off and walk away. If the bottom's dropped out of the toy train market and they want their living room back then don't stubbornly hang on for the off-chance of bumping into an eccentric with cash to spare. Conversely don't whizz us in the skip, there's plenty of charity shops who can do something with the bequest.

An idea - they want 68M - if I had 68M I'd buy the club but then I'd have nothing left to invest in transfers - so zero improvement just a different name over the door. However if they ask for say 38M and demand that 30M is pumped into a transfer pot as a condition of sale then I still buy for 68M (so I'm fit and proper and not an asset stripper) but the club now gets new blood on the field. The Trustees take the hit but they get rid and keep to the spirit of Jacks model layout.

What do I know? Could be be the stupidest idea in the history of the world but they can't sell, even in the economic boom times, so when you've ruled out the impossible what remains is ... stupid ideas?

[PAFELL]

There are few bigger critics of the Trustees than me but I confine my angst to the fact that they won't sell us for a 'sensible' price, nothing more.

They are all sensible people who have done a lot for this club behind the scenes, I'm grateful. All airlines are being bashed in the current recession, even a national carrier like JAL is on the ropes and looking for a saviour, could just be that the Trustees are having to pump so much cash into their other business/es that there's nowt left for us. For the moment we are afloat so they might be bailing out a different boat right now.

We all strongly suspect that we don't fit into their portfolio very well and they want shut. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is how much they want for the club - no sale - wrong price.

BRFC was never an investment for them anyway, we were always Jack's passion - his toy train set - no one understood his enthusiasm but it was his dosh so he just got on with it. To keep up with the spirit of the great man I think they should bite the bullet and write us off and walk away. If the bottom's dropped out of the toy train market and they want their living room back then don't stubbornly hang on for the off-chance of bumping into an eccentric with cash to spare. Conversely don't whizz us in the skip, there's plenty of charity shops who can do something with the bequest.

An idea - they want 68M - if I had 68M I'd buy the club but then I'd have nothing left to invest in transfers - so zero improvement just a different name over the door. However if they ask for say 38M and demand that 30M is pumped into a transfer pot as a condition of sale then I still buy for 68M (so I'm fit and proper and not an asset stripper) but the club now gets new blood on the field. The Trustees take the hit but they get rid and keep to the spirit of Jacks model layout.

What do I know? Could be be the stupidest idea in the history of the world but they can't sell, even in the economic boom times, so when you've ruled out the impossible what remains is ... stupid ideas?

You wouldn't last long as an owner like that. You would be back to our position now once the 30mill is spent - in one transfer market.

As much as I would want the trustees to be more vocal with the supporters, I have to admit that they have done and continue to do good for Rovers. Could they do more, yes of course. Do they want to - probable not. They have openly said they want to sell the club, so why (from their point of view) put money into something they want rid of? Players wages / transfers is lost money to them, and not an investment.

I do not believe they would allow Rovers to sink and go out of Business - because there would then be no business to sell.

Interesting it was said on Motd last night during the commentry, that there were strong rumours if Rovers had been relegated last season, they would have gone bust. Which explains the small transfer kitty.

Maybe it is the supporters who need to do more to publish the fact that the club is for sale to the right buyer - after all Rothschilds don't appear to be doing much. What supporters could do is another thing, but the current situation with Rothschilds is not working.

[philipl]

There are few bigger critics of the Trustees than me but I confine my angst to the fact that they won't sell us for a 'sensible' price, nothing more.

It has absolutely nothing to do with price.

The Trust takes nothing out of the club (not even management fees) so for a new owner to be better than the Trustees under the terms of Jack's Will, they have to take even less than nothing.

[thenodrog]

It has absolutely nothing to do with price.

The Trust takes nothing out of the club (not even management fees) so for a new owner to be better than the Trustees under the terms of Jack's Will, they have to take even less than nothing.

What most want seem to want Gunner is an "Investor" to "invest" in the club. Unfortunately in football Alan Sugar's definition of 'investor' is inevitably the case and there aren't too many of those outside of Iceland.