[Archived] Why Do We Have No Money

[Bazzanotsogreat]

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

Is the clubs current strategy geared towards relegation- check

Are we the only club in the league that apparently has to sell to stay alive- check

Is their a 15-20 million profit made in the summer transfer dealings with most of this money disappearing-check

[stuwilky]

Is the clubs current strategy geared towards relegation- check

Are we the only club in the league that apparently has to sell to stay alive- check

Is their a 15-20 million profit made in the summer transfer dealings with most of this money disappearing-check

Nothing has disappeared bazza, its very clear where the money has gone, the accounts will also show that - but they wont be published covered this summer until January 2011.

Other clubs have also had to sell players to balance the books, it isnt a great business strategy either (ask Paul Hart). However, with the lowest gate income in the top flight, and a wage bill geared at what? circa 75% of turnover (I cant be bothered looking up the exact figure)- well above the 60% recommended, it doesnt take a genius to work out there has to be some give somewhere.

The current owners will not feed us millions of pounds, no one will. Expecting that will just lead to disappointment.

[BrianPotter]

It amazes me that no matter what happens this still seems to rage on. Despite the informed posts of many people on here to try and explain the situation and then an explanation straight from the horses mouth so to speak people still do not get it and will not accept the situation

The bottom line is that Rovers do not generate nearly enough revenue to sustain competing as a top club. Its that simple. For example, if you earn 30K a year you couldnt keep up with people earning 100K a year. Over the past 17 years the gap (or black hole) between our actual turnover and what is needed to compete has been filled by Jack Walker and later the Trustees. However, it is simply not possible for the Trust, or any owner for that matter, to keep doing that year on year. To make this worse, the way football has gone in terms of money means that the amount required to plug this black hole has grown.

[thenodrog]

It amazes me that no matter what happens this still seems to rage on. Despite the informed posts of many people on here to try and explain the situation and then an explanation straight from the horses mouth so to speak people still do not get it and will not accept the situation

The bottom line is that Rovers do not generate nearly enough revenue to sustain competing as a top club. Its that simple. For example, if you earn 30K a year you couldnt keep up with people earning 100K a year. Over the past 17 years the gap (or black hole) between our actual turnover and what is needed to compete has been filled by Jack Walker and later the Trustees. However, it is simply not possible for the Trust, or any owner for that matter, to keep doing that year on year. To make this worse, the way football has gone in terms of money means that the amount required to plug this black hole has grown.

It's the 60's issue all over again but in different guise. There really is only one long term solution. Oh Lanky Lanky........

[Duff's Minder]

All I want from the owners of Blackburn Rovers is that they run the club in a responsible manner. My Great-Grandad stood on the terraces 100 years ago and I want my Great-Grandson to do the same.

By not spending beyond our means the trust are doing their job. The problem is that even if another Jack Walker was out there he wouldn't be able to do much. £100m doesn't buy you a title-winning side these days in fact it doesn't even save you from relegation.

Every year that we stay up is a victory but if the owners didn't have the club in a position to survive relegation then they would be neglecting their duties and 130+ years of proud history.

[TimmyJimmy]

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.

I disagree that it has absolutely nothing to do with price - but I am happy to agree that price is only a part of the problem.

For the non-price bit I was trying to address this in my earlier post and which Pafell picked up on ie the 'fit and proper' clauses that we all assume are in Jack's Will somewhere. Simply lowering the sale price would get us nowhere I agree but if the amount to be paid is one proof point in the 'fit and proper' due diligence then my scheme ensures no-one picks up the club on the cheap. Sale proceeds will be the same so only buyers who can stump up will show up, plus the cash element going into a transfer pot may put the pressure on for them to turn up with cash and not long term borrowings.

If the buyer sees an opportunity to effectively buy low and then sell high they will just face the same problems that the Trust have had to deal with. However it has to be more attractive this way as even though the buyer is paying out the same amount of cash some of it is being reinvested into an asset they now own. If they cannot realise the gain on re-sale then it's another proof point that they must have the clubs interest at heart as their exit plan doesn't make them money (unless they turn us into a world wide brand woth billions, then who'll care anyway, they deserve it).

Pafell, agree that this is a one season benefit but only if the manager elects to spend it in one season. It's a mechanism to smooth out the transition of ownership, that's it. Future owner/s will have to fund the business as necessary. The due diligence will show whether they are flying a kite or have serious backing.

It may seem a stupid idea but only if you're inside the Trust and are being asked to take the hit on the sale proceeds, otherwise it's sound and sensible, everyone else wins. Even for the Trust they haver to weigh up how much they want/don't want the club and the cost of running it going forward and even, God forbid, the costs of relegation. Taking that view this sale price adjustment may be a good deal even from the Trusts point of view.

Lastly whatever Jack's clauses are, surely this is in the spirit of his ownership/passion. I assume he didn't want us asset stripped but that he also wasn't so much concerned with selling the club at a profit. Transfer to 'good' owners who have some albeit limited funds under a scheme such as the above has to be somwhere close to his intentions. Guesswork and supposition I know, but it feels right.

[Exiled in Toronto]

The bottom line is that Rovers do not generate nearly enough revenue to sustain competing as a top club. Its that simple.

As a top 6 club - yes, but the Premier League has other clubs, plus three new ones each year that are in the same boat as us, yet they don't seem to have given up hoping to do do better. Our near neighbours, operating on a tiny fraction of our income, are above us. All the while Hull were in the Championship, we were enjoying the Sky riches and yet as soon as they come up, we are seemingly no better than them.

Who in the Championship will have revenue greater than 50 million this year? Yet apparently we are the ones defying gravity.

I've been told by the experts on here that, if we went down, we would immediately do a Norwich or Southampton, i.e., be far worse than Blackpool. After 10 years of Sky riches we have built nothing as sustainable as Blackpool? We will have generated more money in the last 3 years than Jack put in in total. The issue is that we haven't been spending it very well.

[philipl]

Jack often talked about the long term good of the club. The fact the Trust did not sell the club immediately points to long term clauses being in the documentation. So looking at this in terms of one season is completely missing the point.

However, we can be pretty certain that the Trust would struggle to comply with the terms of the settlement in selling to someone with "some albeit limited" funds. There was a poster with a legal background who used to contribute regularly who was unambiguous in saying that bidders without over a hundred million at their disposal were completely wasting their time and that has probably not changed.

Don't forget, if the Trust wanted to sell at an a true ownership profit then the asking price would be £200m on a cash basis and probably £400m if interest were imputed so the last paragraph of timmyjimmy's post is completely invalidated.

A key point which must not be forgotten is that even on an historic valuation, Rovers are significant property owners with over £40m of land and buildings on the books. It is probably fair to say that some of the aspirant buyers whose names became public saw that property as a way of leveraging their own debt to which the Trust's reaction seems to have been "oh no you don't" in the form of sticking a commercial value on such assets.

I think this is where the idea the Trust "are asking too much" has come from.

[thenodrog]

I was rather worried that with the likes of Bentley, Warnock, RSC all on the books that the club would be a target for some dodgepot to buy out the Walker trust at a knock down price only to then come in, sell everything that is not nailed down and asset strip the club to oblivion............. However I'm no longer worried about that happening.

[67splitscreen]

"Im only a simple bloke" waggy are you with us so far.

[Boz]

When a club is performing well and generating points the supporters are happy to pay the players' wages and there is little moaning.

When not, it is the owners who are all to blame for everything.

BRFC pay way over the odds on players' wages, more than any other club with similar gate income, without a benefactor.

Can we please address all gripes on the subject of our league position and style of play to the direction of our highly paid and large playing squad (save for KA who £ for £ gets far more than his share), plus the management team?

A 3 - nil win next saturday will rightfully see this topic sink back down the forum.

In the event of a reverse, may I ask that supporters read exactly what JW recently said on this subject, before again querying into which financial black hole all the supposed missing millions disappear to?

[PAFELL]

All I want from the owners of Blackburn Rovers is that they run the club in a responsible manner. My Great-Grandad stood on the terraces 100 years ago and I want my Great-Grandson to do the same.

By not spending beyond our means the trust are doing their job. The problem is that even if another Jack Walker was out there he wouldn't be able to do much. £100m doesn't buy you a title-winning side these days in fact it doesn't even save you from relegation.

Every year that we stay up is a victory but if the owners didn't have the club in a position to survive relegation then they would be neglecting their duties and 130+ years of proud history.

As much as I would want rovers to win the prem again. I would just be happy to finish in a champion league qualifiying spot as often as possible. As that alone would help Rovers moneywise. That has to be Rovers aim at the moment.

[gumboots]

As much as I would want rovers to win the prem again. I would just be happy to finish in a champion league qualifiying spot as often as possible. As that alone would help Rovers moneywise. That has to be Rovers aim at the moment.

Surely our first aim has to be survive. Then get as high as we can because every place brings more cash. Then look to get into Europe then possibly in our wildest dreams the top 4. At the moment our only priority is stay up

[Sparky Marky]

As much as I would want rovers to win the prem again. I would just be happy to finish in a champion league qualifiying spot as often as possible. As that alone would help Rovers moneywise. That has to be Rovers aim at the moment.

Seriously mate....do you really think that Big Sam is aiming for a Champions League spot?

[ada2020]

As much as I would want rovers to win the prem again. I would just be happy to finish in a champion league qualifiying spot as often as possible. As that alone would help Rovers moneywise. That has to be Rovers aim at the moment.

I'm sorry but are you real? City have just spent £250 million quid in the hope they can break into the champs league positions.

We havn't got a pot to p*** in and you think that our aim should be to get a regular champs league slot.

I agree with your theory it would solve our cash problem, but it is no way realistic.

[TimmyJimmy]

Jack often talked about the long term good of the club. The fact the Trust did not sell the club immediately points to long term clauses being in the documentation. So looking at this in terms of one season is completely missing the point.

However, we can be pretty certain that the Trust would struggle to comply with the terms of the settlement in selling to someone with "some albeit limited" funds. There was a poster with a legal background who used to contribute regularly who was unambiguous in saying that bidders without over a hundred million at their disposal were completely wasting their time and that has probably not changed.

Don't forget, if the Trust wanted to sell at an a true ownership profit then the asking price would be £200m on a cash basis and probably £400m if interest were imputed so the last paragraph of timmyjimmy's post is completely invalidated.

A key point which must not be forgotten is that even on an historic valuation, Rovers are significant property owners with over £40m of land and buildings on the books. It is probably fair to say that some of the aspirant buyers whose names became public saw that property as a way of leveraging their own debt to which the Trust's reaction seems to have been "oh no you don't" in the form of sticking a commercial value on such assets.

I think this is where the idea the Trust "are asking too much" has come from.

Some/all of this may be factual, but is it relevant? The oldest form of madness in the world is to keep doing the same things and expecting a different result. Question is do the Trust want a different result?

Structuring a deal like the sale of BRFC is a question for the pros not us, doen't matter at all what we agree/disagree with. 400, 200, 68 who knows how many millions should be on the ticket but the bottom line is the club has not sold. Structuring the deal, moving assets in/out/protecting, selling/leasing, whatever, it is not beyond the wit of man to describe a deal that will work for all parties. Greater minds than ours will ponder that one.

Bottom line is always, always, always about cash and cashflow timings. I'm not trying to dis your take-over accountancy experience but even you cannot avoid the simplifying reduction that price is at the heart of the issue. All other components can be addressed (IMO).

By the way, I was doing just the opposite of advocating a one year deal. Also I enjoy the view from 30,000 ft detail is for the completer/finishers.

[philipl]

The only benefit to Rovers and the fans of the club being sold would be for another football-mad Rovers-loving philanthropist to buy the club.

If one were to come along with deep enough pockets to make a serious difference in Premier League terms, the sale price would be a relatively minor detail.

Selling price is not the number one issue for the Trust- they are required by Jack's Settlement to look at other criteria in assessing the suitability of any potential purchaser.

The club has not sold simply because there has never been a good enough buyer, not because a magical sale price has not been reached.

[PAFELL]

Seriously mate....do you really think that Big Sam is aiming for a Champions League spot?

Surely it has to be the aim. The higher up the league the team finishes the better. I have not said the team is good enough etc to do it. But money wise it has to be one of the aims, though basic survival in the prem is always the first aim.

I'm sorry but are you real? City have just spent £250 million quid in the hope they can break into the champs league positions.

We havn't got a pot to p*** in and you think that our aim should be to get a regular champs league slot.

I agree with your theory it would solve our cash problem, but it is no way realistic.

Of course it is unrealistic for Rovers to get a champions league spot - but it has always to be the target for Rovers and every other prem club.

[thenodrog]

Of course it is unrealistic for Rovers to get a champions league spot - but it has always to be the target for Rovers and every other prem club.

As is crossing the Atlantic for a hang glider. I'm sure that no board of directors out of the 7 currently wealthy clubs will ever contemplate CL qualificatioon as any sort of a target behind the closed doors of the boardroom.

[Boz]

When a club is performing well and generating points the supporters are happy to pay the players' wages and there is little moaning.

When not, it is the owners who are all to blame for everything.

BRFC pay way over the odds on players' wages, more than any other club with similar gate income, without a benefactor.

Can we please address all gripes on the subject of our league position and style of play to the direction of our highly paid and large playing squad (save for KA who £ for £ gets far more than his share), plus the management team?

A 3 - nil win next saturday will rightfully see this topic sink back down the forum.

In the event of a reverse, may I ask that supporters read exactly what JW recently said on this subject, before again querying into which financial black hole all the supposed missing millions disappear to?

I just thought I'd bump this topic back to the top, rather than heading towards the depths of page 2! No doubt come the end of October it will again feature as a headline topic.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Were any of the Jersey Boys watching the defensive shambles at the Emirates?

Someone mentioned recently that we must be one of the very few clubs in the Premier League whose owners hardly ever seem to turn up for matches. The Jersey Boys have wanted to sell the club for quite some time. They no longer want to own Rovers or provide the vital funds for us to remain a competitive Premier League force.

If any of the Jersey Boys had turned up for the game against Arsenal they would have seen an embarrassing defensive capitulation in the second half against an admittedly top quality side. But quality is something that we severely lack on the pitch. We are simply not good enough and we don't have the strength in depth to provide proper cover for injuries. That boils down to a lack of proper investment in recent years.

TODAY WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH

I agree with Abbey. The manager is not immune from criticism. Sam has made mistakes this season and I don't absolve the 'Expert' from all of the blame. However if you give the manager a transfer budget of minus £18m in the summer, sell your best players like Santa Cruz and Warnock and fail to invest all of the money gained from sales on adequate replacements then it's perhaps inevitable we will struggle.

For how much longer can we continually sell our best players each summer and fail to invest the money gained on replacements? It cannot go on indefinitely. Eventually we will come unstuck and we will be relegated. Then the club will lose around £40m and be in one hell of a mess. But the Jersey Boys seem to think that we can have Premier League football on a shoestring.

6 -v- 2 we were lucky.....it should have been at least 10.

Paul Robinson has been described by fans and the manager as "outstanding", but what does that say about the guys in front of him if he concedes six goals and is still outstanding. Surely the defensive protection in front of him, both in defence and in midfield was unacceptable.

The highest number of goals scored by a top flight team since the formation of the Premier League in 1992 is Man United's 9-0 drubbing of Ipswich Town in the 1994/95 season. If it hadn't been for Paul Robinson pulling off some good saves, Arsenal could have matched that 9 goals or even beaten that tally. Would that have been acceptable?

I know there are some fans who defend the trustees and say: "Why should they spend money on the club?" - but the problem is that many of our rivals in the Premier League have owners who are prepared to spend money in the transfer market.

Stoke City's owner Peter Coates is one example. He made his money through gambling company Bet365 and is worth around £400m according to the Sunday Times Rich List. Robert Huth and Tuncay were bought from Middlesbrough for a combined £10m in the summer. Stoke also bought West Ham's Danny Collins and Uruguayan international Diego Arismendi to take their summer spending to around £18.5m.

Rovers on the other hand spent minus £18m - gaining approximately £30m in sales and spending only £12m in return. Is it really that surprising that Stoke are doing better in the Premier League than us this season?

We are being left behind at the moment not just by the Big Four, or the Big Six, but by other smaller mid-table teams like Stoke as well. Mr Coates is willing to invest in his football club. The Jersey Boys are not willing to invest sufficient funds. That's the difference.

At one time Mark Hughes said that his aim was to qualify for Europe. Now we are back to the bad old days of "Survival is the main aim" - and one wonders for how many seasons can this continue before we eventually succomb to relegation.

I accept that Big Sam has made mistakes. At the moment our Croatian striker Kalinic hasn't exactly set the world alight and Signor Salgado has looked way off the pace so far. Sam the expert could have invested the small amount of money available to him in other areas. However I don't think any manager in the Premier League would be happy with a transfer budget of minus £18m.

At the moment when Rovers come up against top quality opposition we are frankly embarrassing and a shambles. (In our last three matches with Arsenal the aggregate scoreline is Arsenal 14 Blackburn Rovers 2. It's not a little gulf between us - it's a gigantic chasm.)

But it's not just against the Big Four that's the worry. We should be aiming to beat struggling teams like West Ham at home, but failed to do so. I think it's going to be a long hard depressing season and the lack of finance from the owners in the summer has done us no favours whatsoever.

[thenodrog]

Were any of the Jersey Boys watching the defensive shambles at the Emirates?

Someone mentioned recently that we must be one of the very few clubs in the Premier League whose owners hardly ever seem to turn up for matches. The Jersey Boys have wanted to sell the club for quite some time. They no longer want to own Rovers or provide the vital funds for us to remain a competitive Premier League force.

If any of the Jersey Boys had turned up for the game against Arsenal they would have seen an embarrassing defensive capitulation in the second half against an admittedly top quality side. But quality is something that we severely lack on the pitch. We are simply not good enough and we don't have the strength in depth to provide proper cover for injuries. That boils down to a lack of proper investment in recent years.

I agree with Abbey. The manager is not immune from criticism. Sam has made mistakes this season and I don't absolve the 'Expert' from all of the blame. However if you give the manager a transfer budget of minus £18m in the summer, sell your best players like Santa Cruz and Warnock and fail to invest all of the money gained from sales on adequate replacements then it's perhaps inevitable we will struggle.

For how much longer can we continually sell our best players each summer and fail to invest the money gained on replacements? It cannot go on indefinitely. Eventually we will come unstuck and we will be relegated. Then the club will lose around £40m and be in one hell of a mess. But the Jersey Boys seem to think that we can have Premier League football on a shoestring.

Paul Robinson has been described by fans and the manager as "outstanding", but what does that say about the guys in front of him if he concedes six goals and is still outstanding. Surely the defensive protection in front of him, both in defence and in midfield was unacceptable.

The highest number of goals scored by a top flight team since the formation of the Premier League in 1992 is Man United's 9-0 drubbing of Ipswich Town in the 1994/95 season. If it hadn't been for Paul Robinson pulling off some good saves, Arsenal could have matched that 9 goals or even beaten that tally. Would that have been acceptable?

I know there are some fans who defend the trustees and say: "Why should they spend money on the club?" - but the problem is that many of our rivals in the Premier League have owners who are prepared to spend money in the transfer market.

Stoke City's owner Peter Coates is one example. He made his money through gambling company Bet365 and is worth around £400m according to the Sunday Times Rich List. Robert Huth and Tuncay were bought from Middlesbrough for a combined £10m in the summer. Stoke also bought West Ham's Danny Collins and Uruguayan international Diego Arismendi to take their summer spending to around £18.5m.

Rovers on the other hand spent minus £18m - gaining approximately £30m in sales and spending only £12m in return. Is it really that surprising that Stoke are doing better in the Premier League than us this season?

We are being left behind at the moment not just by the Big Four, or the Big Six, but by other smaller mid-table teams like Stoke as well. Mr Coates is willing to invest in his football club. The Jersey Boys are not willing to invest sufficient funds. That's the difference.

At one time Mark Hughes said that his aim was to qualify for Europe. Now we are back to the bad old days of "Survival is the main aim" - and one wonders for how many seasons can this continue before we eventually succomb to relegation.

I accept that Big Sam has made mistakes. At the moment our Croatian striker Kalinic hasn't exactly set the world alight and Signor Salgado has looked way off the pace so far. Sam the expert could have invested the small amount of money available to him in other areas. However I don't think any manager in the Premier League would be happy with a transfer budget of minus £18m.

At the moment when Rovers come up against top quality opposition we are frankly embarrassing and a shambles. (In our last three matches with Arsenal the aggregate scoreline is Arsenal 14 Blackburn Rovers 2. It's not a little gulf between us - it's a gigantic chasm.)

But it's not just against the Big Four that's the worry. We should be aiming to beat struggling teams like West Ham at home, but failed to do so. I think it's going to be a long hard depressing season and the lack of finance from the owners in the summer has done us no favours whatsoever.

Can't blame em for being stuck with us when they have little interest. Maybe by cashing their Mark Hughes legacy chips in and effectively asset stripping their own club they might now be able to reduce the selling price in order to fulfill their first wish and offload the club to a less 'minted' option. All fine and dandy of course but is it in all honesty really 'our' first wish?

[philipl]

Two completely mindless posts.

[thenodrog]

Two completely mindless posts.

Two, too or to?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Two completely mindless posts.

Please elaborate? Mindless, as they don’t agree with your myopic, happy-clappy defence of the indefensible?