[Archived] Why Do We Have No Money

[bubblerrovers]

People still don't get it, Rovers could have ZERO debt and cost £1 Noone would buy us. Cost or debt doesn't compare to the ammount of money any new owner would have to spend to try and get us competing, let alone start to see a return on his investment

[mellison24]

People still don't get it, Rovers could have ZERO debt and cost £1 Noone would buy us. Cost or debt doesn't compare to the ammount of money any new owner would have to spend to try and get us competing, let alone start to see a return on his investment

How much did Hughes spend to get us competing? Very little. How much has Sam spent so far in a stabilising season? Even less. The buyer of a club like us (with an astute manager at the helm) would lose less money than if they bought any other club with expectations of astronomical budgets. we merely ask for 10million a year to spend.

[Mr. E]

How much did Hughes spend to get us competing? Very little. How much has Sam spent so far in a stabilising season? Even less. The buyer of a club like us (with an astute manager at the helm) would lose less money than if they bought any other club with expectations of astronomical budgets. we merely ask for 10million a year to spend.

Not entirely sure about that. Didn't Kalinic and Givet combined cost around 10m? I think Hughes's biggest spending was on Santa Cruz, around 2.5m.

[joey_big_nose]

People still don't get it, Rovers could have ZERO debt and cost £1 Noone would buy us. Cost or debt doesn't compare to the ammount of money any new owner would have to spend to try and get us competing, let alone start to see a return on his investment

There is a lot of strength in that argument if you compare us to the big four, Villa or even Fulham. But AESF has every righ to point to Stoke, a side we can entirely compete with in terms of economics and ambition. There is a legitimate question there in terms of why do they have investment?

However the point is that we have been on sale for nearly three years now, performed okay, represent value for money. However no one wants to buy us. Not sure what else anyone at the club can reasonably do. Is there anything anyone can point to that Stoke have done that we aren't? That is the crucial question.

And there is a valid viewpoint that we could end up like Portsmouth if we get too gung ho about getting money from anywhere.

We will go down eventually, it is a matter of time, but we are doing bloody well against enormous gravity. This year we will stay up imo and we seem to have another crop of pretty exciting players coming through. We cannot wish money from nowhere.

Not entirely sure about that. Didn't Kalinic and Givet combined cost around 10m? I think Hughes's biggest spending was on Santa Cruz, around 2.5m.

I think the point is net. While Hughes spent relatively little he also didn't generate the sort of money that Allaryce, Ince and Souness did. Cumilitively Hughes spent more than Allardyce, at minus 18 million (!?!), has. The only big fee he got was Bellamy for six million pound. We signed Cruz (3.5) Benni (2.5) Roberts (2.5) Bentley (1m) Warnock (1.5) etc. Not huge amounts but they added up.

[Mr. E]

However the point is that we have been on sale for nearly three years now, performed okay, represent value for money. However no one wants to buy us. Not sure what else anyone at the club can reasonably do. Is there anything anyone can point to that Stoke have done that we aren't? That is the crucial question.

And why is that? Because of the mentality that a lot of supporters and almost all people involved with football have adopted - that the sport is all business, all about the money, there is no room for sentimentality or anything of that sort. If you're not making as much money as you can you're a fool. And since only a "fool" would buy us, that is most certainly not going to happen. Jack Walker was one of the last of his kind. Currently it's hard to see a way out for us.

[philipl]

Which is why I keep reiterating that in the absence of a new Jack, the Trust are the best owners for us by a long way.

They take nothing out of the club.

They are making sure the numbers make sense.

They are letting high quality professional management run the club the way it should be.

[thenodrog]

Which is why I keep reiterating that in the absence of a new Jack, the Trust are the best owners for us by a long way.

They take nothing out of the club.

They are making sure the numbers make sense.

They are letting high quality professional management run the club the way it should be.

http://www.brfcs.co.uk/mb/index.php/topic/17932-savage-the-bad-apple/page__view__findpost__p__830195

[Tris]

http://www.brfcs.co....post__p__830195

You're on shaky ground suggesting that gambling on the future value of a player is a sound basis on which to run a PL club budget! Especially a player who would smash the existing wage structure and could break his leg at any time rendering the hoped-for future value to zero.

And I wouldn't be holding Portsmouth up as a good example either. It's by going ahead with daft transfers and salaries they couldn't afford that they got to the end of last week without even enough ready cash to pay the staff!

about sums it up.

[thenodrog]

You're on shaky ground suggesting that gambling on the future value of a player is a sound basis on which to run a PL club budget! Especially a player who would smash the existing wage structure and could break his leg at any time rendering the hoped-for future value to zero.

REALLY TRIS? BUT SURELY EVERY PROFESSIONAL CLUB EVERYWHERE GAMBLES ON PLAYERS ITS PART AND PARCEL. BUT NEVER MIND THE OTHERS LETS LOOK AT OURSELVES WERE BELLAMY, SAV, KUQI, RSC, BENTLEY, WARNOCK, SAMBA NOT ALL GAMBLES TOO? NOW PLEASE COMPARE WITH FOWLER, ANDREWS, ROBINSON, GRELLA AND RECENTLY KALINIC, SALGADO, NZONZI, CHIMBONDA, HOILLETT AND DIOUFF. ALL GAMBLES IMO. TIME WILL TELL WHO WAS THE BEST 'GAMBLER' TOO BUT WOULD YOU BET AGAINST IT BEING HUGHES? I WOULDN'T. I CABN HONESTLY SAY THAT WE HAVE NEVER HAD A MANAGER LIKE HIM IN MY TIME FOLLOWING BRFC. SINCE '65 (AND BARRING JACKS TENURE) MONEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR DOWNFALL AND HE PROVIDED HIS OWN. ABSOLUTELY REMARKEABLE.

AS FOR BROKEN LEGS? DO WE NOT PAY INSURANCE?

And I wouldn't be holding Portsmouth up as a good example either. It's by going ahead with daft transfers and salaries they couldn't afford that they got to the end of last week without even enough ready cash to pay the staff!

I ACCEPT THAT IN PART BUT WITHOUT THE DIARRA DEAL THEY'D HAVE RUN OUT OF CASH MONTHS AGO. WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO DRESS IT UP HUGHES JUDGEMENT WAS SPOT ON. HE'D EASILY DONE ENOUGH PREVIOUSLY AND EARNED THE RIGHT TO BE BACKED TO THE TUNE OF 5M IMO. HE'D GENERATED HIS OWN TRANSFER KITTY FOR GOODNESS SAKE! IF JACK WALKER HAD BEEN ALIVE HUGHES WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN WITH US IMO. HE'D HAVE FOUGHT AS HARD TO KEEP HIM AS HE DID WITH SHEARER. REM JACK ALWAYS STRESSED THAT BRFC WAS A BUSINESS FIRST AND FOREMOST.

[John]

Not sure if this has been posted today: Arsenal, Birmingham, Blackburn, Everton, Hull, Liverpool, Portsmouth and West Ham face uncertain futures.

Also revealed each clubs net debt (ours being £16.92 million)

[Big Fat Sam]

Also revealed each clubs net debt (ours being £16.92 million)

I'm still gobsmacked that with all the sales over the last three windows that that figure is not lower.

[LeChuck]

Not sure if this has been posted today: Arsenal, Birmingham, Blackburn, Everton, Hull, Liverpool, Portsmouth and West Ham face uncertain futures.

Also revealed each clubs net debt (ours being £16.92 million)

Yhis part of that article surprised me:

"Other well-run clubs such as Tottenham cut their cloth accordingly, imposing a £70,000-a-week salary ceiling on their top earners.

Daniel Levy's business model is a blueprint for the top clubs, with a sustainable wage bill of £52m a year and a team pushing for the top four."

Looking from the outside, I always thought Spurs came across as a team chucking money at the Champion's League dream. Given their massive turnover rates (don't they seem to assemble a new squad every summer?) they're doing very well if that article is correct.

[Hughesy]

I'm still gobsmacked that with all the sales over the last three windows that that figure is not lower.

Here we go again - Bentley money - swallowed up by Ince spending and the clause that took a massive chunk to Arsenal

Santa Cruz, Warnock etc - we spent a fair chunk again - the rest fills the gaping hole left by finishing lower than planned, and sacking/ hiring of management teams. Its really not that difficult to understand

[joey_big_nose]

Yhis part of that article surprised me:

"Other well-run clubs such as Tottenham cut their cloth accordingly, imposing a £70,000-a-week salary ceiling on their top earners.

Daniel Levy's business model is a blueprint for the top clubs, with a sustainable wage bill of £52m a year and a team pushing for the top four."

Looking from the outside, I always thought Spurs came across as a team chucking money at the Champion's League dream. Given their massive turnover rates (don't they seem to assemble a new squad every summer?) they're doing very well if that article is correct.

Hmm. It is decent, but I would imagine they would still have the sixth largest wage bill in the Prem (after top four and city). I doubt anyone at Villa and Everton is on over 70k a week and few are approaching that figure, while Spurs must have 8-10 players getting right up towards that ceiling. Actually maybe Sunderland would be pushing them at the moment? But still don't have anywhere near as many top bracket earners as Spurs....

Are the wage bills of each prem club published?

[philipl]

As I have commented before, Spurs are extremely well run in all matters except on the football pitch where they have the magical touch of turning good players into dross. Not even Spurs fans would disagree with that assessment.

The Rovers number is at 30 June 2008 and involves some adding up of debts. That is the last published number so they do not have the current figure.

As mentioned many times before, the Arsenal take meant we got very little net cash out of the first tranche from the Bentley transfer which was why I argued against selling him- yes he would be teed of with it but what is he now when he won't get a game because it would trigger a payment to Rovers?

Extremely misleading article to lump Rovers in with the other clubs.

Yes the club is for sale but at that point all comparisons end in terms of degree of debt stress, owner going under etc etc.

[Big Fat Sam]

Here we go again - Bentley money - swallowed up by Ince spending and the clause that took a massive chunk to Arsenal

Santa Cruz, Warnock etc - we spent a fair chunk again - the rest fills the gaping hole left by finishing lower than planned, and sacking/ hiring of management teams. Its really not that difficult to understand

Thats for that, any chance of a summary on the youth thread as well?

My post wasn't intended to spark the old debate again. But I am still genuinely surprised when I see that figure, given our sales over the last couple of windows.

So if David "I cuddle myself whilst sleeping" Bentlay plays one more game we get some dollar?? Happy days, JW call them and tell we'll forfeit it if they give him to us on loan for the rest of the season.

[thenodrog]

Jim Smiths take on the situation........

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/4722266.Finances_mean_it_s_a_losing_battle_for_Blackburn_Rovers_____Jim_Smith/

[Majiball]

I wonder if we should follow the current trends and sell the naming rights to Ewood Park. Whilst I'd not be best pleased in our current predicament every penny counts and that could be worth 500K a year or so? Pennies make pounds and all that.

What do you guys think?

[thenodrog]

I wonder if we should follow the current trends and sell the naming rights to Ewood Park. Whilst I'd not be best pleased in our current predicament every penny counts and that could be worth 500K a year or so? Pennies make pounds and all that.

What do you guys think?

Reading some of the crap posted on here the 'Samaritans Stadium' has a nice ring to it?

[Inta Beaver]

I wonder if we should follow the current trends and sell the naming rights to Ewood Park. Whilst I'd not be best pleased in our current predicament every penny counts and that could be worth 500K a year or so? Pennies make pounds and all that.

What do you guys think?

Why not just move our home games to Dubai! Get real!

[Claytons Left Boot]

Where Smith says, "money runs the game," there is a spelling mistake because they've missed the letter "i" out.

[doctorryan]

I wonder if we should follow the current trends and sell the naming rights to Ewood Park. Whilst I'd not be best pleased in our current predicament every penny counts and that could be worth 500K a year or so? Pennies make pounds and all that.

What do you guys think?

NO!

[Majiball]

I'll take that as a no then.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

I wonder if we should follow the current trends and sell the naming rights to Ewood Park. Whilst I'd not be best pleased in our current predicament every penny counts and that could be worth 500K a year or so? Pennies make pounds and all that.

What do you guys think?

No problem with it because all Rovers fans will still call it Ewood any way

[Stuart]

No problem with it because all Rovers fans will still call it Ewood any way

If it was done in the same way Ashley is trying to market it, yes.

Don't you think it's quite telling that he's had to use his own company as the ginea pig. Sounds like nothing more than stick a billboard in front of the stadium name.

I can just picture it, a great big black and white Crown logo slapped above the Ewood Park sign.

They ruined our shirts and even the team photo. Would surprise me if we did.