[Archived] Why Do We Have No Money

[Tris]

When you changed your name from Bazzathegreat to Bazzanotsogreat, did you consider the potential you had unleashed?

Bazzatheclueless has been the obvious choice for quite a while, but at the moment you're posting so much utter rubbish that the possibilities for comically developing your username are limitless.

[stuwilky]

I said that if Mr Williams allowed Wage Budget to increase, a staggering 10 million in one season (as posters have suggested) he wouldn’t be doing his job correctly. But thankfully that won’t happen.

Who suggested it would happen in one season?

I suggested they could, quite possibly go from £33m+ in 04/05 to over £40m in 06/07 - which is within 2 full financial years. Those accounts will not be published until January 2009 - being for the period ending June 2008.

[Brfcrule1]

Hi all,

have just done a search and it seems right we have little money for transfers as it says last year 2006-2007 from the turnover on what was made 75% of that money went on players wages so it looks as though we need extra investment so a takeover sometime soon would be good but the other area where we are suffering is the club shop not having a proper club shop is not good for the finances I mean even teams like spurs and the hammers have things like breakfast bowls,egg cups,water bottles,gym sacks,leather jackets, now we should have things like this I would like to guess but would say the rovers need to address this issue as I feel they are losing out big time with not having proper merchandise on sale at the club shop

laters all.

[DanLad]

Hi all,

have just done a search and it seems right we have little money for transfers as it says last year 2006-2007 from the turnover on what was made 75% of that money went on players wages so it looks as though we need extra investment so a takeover sometime soon would be good but the other area where we are suffering is the club shop not having a proper club shop is not good for the finances I mean even teams like spurs and the hammers have things like breakfast bowls,egg cups,water bottles,gym sacks,leather jackets, now we should have things like this I would like to guess but would say the rovers need to address this issue as I feel they are losing out big time with not having proper merchandise on sale at the club shop

laters all.

Right, I'm not wanting to be a pain or anything but I actually want to be able to read and easily understand my fellow supporters views.

I appreciate your views 'Brfcrule1' but can I buy some punctuation, or at least, a full stop?

SENTENCES!

(Apart from after 'laters all')

[Jan]

Who suggested it would happen in one season?

I suggested they could, quite possibly go from £33m+ in 04/05 to over £40m in 06/07 - which is within 2 full financial years. Those accounts will not be published until January 2009 - being for the period ending June 2008.

In football, wages should not account for more than a certain %age of turnover. I think the recommended %age is approximately 65. The last time I looked we were almost almost at 100%- and trading at, or close to, break even. I suspect that the Directors are trying to keep this percentage to a more reasonable level than has been the case in the past- hence the statement that the wage limit had been reached. There was also mention of potentially capping wages to a %age of turnover- Blatter I think although that's a non-starter.

It can never be healthy for a club's wages to be a high percentage of turnover, and I'm fairly sure ours were.

[American]

Opinions are one things. Posting complete factual inaccuracies and then calling people naive (and worse)

Am I alone in seeing the irony in this statement coming from you?

Are the last published wages including any "dead" wages/payoffs to players like Cole?

I'd still be curious to see a complete listing of who is on what wage, because I don't see how we can be any worse off than Bolton or Wigan in terms of matchday revenue.

[Wolves_Rover]

is the sky money the same next year?

[Paul]

Those figures are somewhat misleading Paul, you have quoted MINIMUM money for 2008. The ACTUAL money we will receive for a mid table finish this year will be ten million more than that, meaning an 18.6m increase from 2005.

Also the actual loss on gate revenue will be be 330k not 1m, the fee for RSC will not be payable up front it will be payable in installments, and Brian Potter in his excellent post claims the 3m p.a. is still available to the club?

No, I pointed out we will receive a minimum of £30m, representing an increase of £8.6m on the YE June 05 (the latest figures I could find) and went on to say I thought 06 would have been similar. I then posted if Rovers finished 10th we would receive an additional £10m, making a total of £40m in the current season.

I agree, finishing 10th will probably increase TV revenues to £40m, probably £18m more than in YE June 06. It seems many fans have difficulty in understanding where the money goes, I'm only trying to show, with limited knowledge, where I think it is spent and why I can understand we don't have cash for players.

Thanks for the info on T/O and gate "support" money - good news.

Another thought on this. I'm sure JW and TF will have written budgets for the current season / financial year. Probably prepared half way through last season? Suddenly we have Newcastle casting around for a new manager. The media report Redknapp was offered £3-5m by Mike Ashley. The media also report Hughes is a Newcastle target. Presumably JW / TF are fighting tooth and nail to keep him, it may cost more money, it might be impacting the whole budget for the current season.

I think we all have to try and look at the complete picture and not just the headline numbers. Of course the response to that is the cost of relegation is so great it's worth taking the risk of investing in players. I can't argue against it, and I suppose this is why JW / TF are running the club and you and I won't be!!!!

[kevinyip]

I always remember Leeds. She has invested in a lot of players once and playing good in CL. But where are they now? So I really hope that our club keep on spending wisely rather spending big. That is no good if we had good result for a short period and then go down because the club need to sell all stars to cope with the wages. I opt for growing steady.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

When you changed your name from Bazzathegreat to Bazzanotsogreat, did you consider the potential you had unleashed?

Bazzatheclueless has been the obvious choice for quite a while, but at the moment you're posting so much utter rubbish that the possibilities for comically developing your username are limitless.

I think you were better when you were at the top of your mountain in your last picture, you should of stayed their it would of if it meant people didn’t have to listen to your spiteful, malicious tone.

That seems to be the problem with this board, that people do actually dare to have an opinion outside of what a dozen of the more established posters believe.

[philipl]

But this isn't about opinions.

Its about you getting your facts wrong when the correct information is often a few posts away from your's if you cared to look.

[BrianPotter]

Excellent post Brian, thanks. I would however make a few comments.

1) Several posters on here who have seen the current chairman's report to accompany the accounts state the 3m p.a. has been withdrawn.

2) I'm sure everyone would agree that the wage bill needs to be kept under some sort of control, however the suggestion that money is there for transfers as long as the wage bill doesn't get too big doesn't really tally with the lack of funding afforded to MH over the last three and a bit years.

3) Everyone would agree that the Trustees were generous to a fault at one time but that time seems to have passed some time ago, there seems to have been a complete sea change in policy, and that doesn't really help us now.

I agree with you on those points Rev, the only answers I could come up with to these were:

(1). I personally haven't seen the report so cant say what is or isnt in it. But I understood that the 3m per season was to continue, but I could be wrong.

(2). We have over recent years managed to pay reasonable fees for players, especially bearing in mind that expendature outrstrips income almost every year, but again the limits that MH has in the transfer market could be attirbuted to not being able to compete on the salary side of things. If we go after a player for £5m say hes going to be looking at high wages. We may be able to raise the fee but not cover the wages - which is a dangerous thing to do as if the said player signs a 4 year deal you are technically tied to paying the full value of wages unless of course he is sold.

(3). I agree that the money invested from the Trust recently has somewhat reduced, but in all honesty you cannot blame them for this. They simply cannot go on forever pumping millions and millions into the club - its not good business for them and doing so could put other businesses and assets owned by the trust at risk - at some point the club must be able to stand on its own two feet as Jack wanted, with assistance from the Trust when needed.

[thenodrog]

(3). I agree that the money invested from the Trust recently has somewhat reduced, but in all honesty you cannot blame them for this. They simply cannot go on forever pumping millions and millions into the club - its not good business for them and doing so could put other businesses and assets owned by the trust at risk - at some point the club must be able to stand on its own two feet as Jack wanted, with assistance from the Trust when needed.

Amen.

I might even use that as my signature.

Superbly simple paragraph that should serve to enlighten everybody. It wont mind you Brian... half of this board have their telescopes firmly planted on their eye patches.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

But this isn't about opinions.

Its about you getting your facts wrong when the correct information is often a few posts away from your's if you cared to look.

What facts, I haven’t stated any figures apart from two, which are correct.

Ive read Pauls figures which are correct, but skewed. That is my point other posters have said the same as me throughout this thread. If anyone hasn’t read through the posts it is you as you are again guessing and assuming what has actually been said.

I have these two figures only, they are :

A proposed future turnover of around 50 million

And a wage bill of between 33-37 million.

( Both are based on actual figures , from last year then factoring in the new tv deal etc.)

BTW – I don’t know how you have the Gaul to question other people’s factual evidence. As the amount of predictions and opinions you have got wrong lately, for such an informed person is unbelievable.

[thenodrog]

I think you've missed an asterix out Bazza.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I think you've missed an asterix out Bazza.

True

[Iceman]

its not like we dont have any money to spend..we do have,just very little of it.The problem is that with the little we have,we cannot expect to always get bargains like Benni,Roque and Samba etc and thats where the problem lies.we do not to get some money into the club,in order to keep the club amongst the top 6 on a regular basis

[RevidgeBlue]

(3). I agree that the money invested from the Trust recently has somewhat reduced, but in all honesty you cannot blame them for this. They simply cannot go on forever pumping millions and millions into the club - its not good business for them and doing so could put other businesses and assets owned by the trust at risk - at some point the club must be able to stand on its own two feet as Jack wanted, with assistance from the Trust when needed.

Fair point Brian, my understanding at one stage was that Jack and subsequently the Trustees always wanted to see the Club eventually "washing its face" i.e. breaking roughly even on a day to day trading basis with the hope that the Trust would come up with "an Andy Cole" from time to time. And that did seem to be the modus operandi for a while.

Not only have there been no "Andy Cole's" in the last five years but now funding is being withdrawn if reports are to be believed. If that's true I can't for the life of me understand why either the Trustees or the Board might think we didn't need that extra 3m p.a., it could be the first installment on three 4m players!.

[den]

Not only have there been no "Andy Cole's" in the last five years but now funding is being withdrawn if reports are to be believed. If that's true I can't for the life of me understand why either the Trustees or the Board might think we didn't need that extra 3m p.a., it could be the first installment on three 4m players!.

That's the thing Rev, why do the trustees say we don't need any more investment from them, when Hughes doesn't appear to be able to compete with any other Pl club?

I appreciate all the contributions from the likes of Brian Potter and Paul, but I'm still not seeing this through properly.

1] If we don't need investment now because of the TV money, then what has to change before we get ANY more investment? Can someone please explain that?

2] Another question that I asked a while ago, - who represents the club and could take the trustees to task? Who could question the trustees application of Jacks' wishes? At the end of the day, whether the club needs more investment is a matter of opinion, - not a matter of fact.

[Darth Paul]

It is very difficult to understand what is right and what is rumour with regard to the Trust, but it would appear that they have the option to give Rovers money as and when they see it to be necessary/urgently needed.

If so then I would ask the question of what would happen if we were relegated? Would they pump millions, ie a lot more than the 3 or 6 million or whatever we have been getting, in not just getting us back up, but stopping us from going bust due to the loss of turnover? If presumably they would, as a Rovers in freefall must surely have been the last thing Jack wanted, then why not invest a fraction of the amount we would need in that instance by allowing us to build on the platform we already have and get us into the Champions League?

We obviously cant gamble ridiculous sums on reaching the CL, but surely not spending anything at all is a false economy in the long run?

[Paul]

What facts, I haven’t stated any figures apart from two, which are correct.

Ive read Pauls figures which are correct, but skewed. That is my point other posters have said the same as me throughout this thread. If anyone hasn’t read through the posts it is you as you are again guessing and assuming what has actually been said.

I have these two figures only, they are :

A proposed future turnover of around 50 million

And a wage bill of between 33-37 million.

( Both are based on actual figures , from last year then factoring in the new tv deal etc.)

BTW – I don’t know how you have the Gaul to question other people’s factual evidence. As the amount of predictions and opinions you have got wrong lately, for such an informed person is unbelievable.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why my figures are skewed, especially as they come from the published accounts. For your interest here are some more "skewed" figures for you from the 2006 accounts (I can e-mail these to you if you don't believe me).

YE June 06

Matchday income £7m

Media income (Sky in the main) £25.66m

Commercial income £10.66m

T / O was £43.4m

Wages were £33.4m in total which includes 57 football players

You state some figures for the current season, which I presume you feel are based on the 07 year end. This information is only currently available to shareholders. In his 06 chairman's report Williams stated he expected the club to reach a turnover of £50m +. The last published wage bill was £33.4m for YE June 06. I think you will find the wages will have increased for the YE 07 and will again increase for the YE June 08. As the wages appear to increase by 10% each year it is not unreasonable to assume the wage bill for YE June 08 will be £40m

Now to go to the point I was trying to make. TV revenue in the YE June 06 (the last published accounts, YE June 07 due out soon) was £25.66m. In the YE ending June 08 the popular figure seems to be £40m (£30m plus say £10m for a 10th place finish). Therefore in the current season, assumming the club, finishes 10th, Rovers will receive £14.4m in additional TV revenues when compared to the 05/06 season. Until the accounts are published for the 06/07 season that is the best anyone can state.

Now I would appreciate if you would stop accusing me of skewing figures. It's tantamount to calling me a liar and I find it offensive. All I am posting is the figures published in the club accounts - or are you saying those are skewed? As I said I'll happily e-mail the accounts to you. Would you like the full share holder list while I'm at it?

There is nothing devious about having this information. Any Rovers fan, or anyone in the world can access it in less than five minutes, via the internet. Would you like the link - it'll cost you £2 to download the info, but of course it might be skewed, you just can't trust those people at Companies House.

[broadsword]

It's impossible for the club to stand on its own two feet, as least in the Premiership.

No-one's going to take the club over, they need to use capital which isn't from loans, plus they will be pi55ing money out of the window that they'll never see again. The club is clearly not a good business proposition.

The trustees do not want to keep on pumping millions into Rovers when it is clearly better spent on other priorities.

We're up the Swanny by the looks of it.

[Darth Paul]

I agree that the trustees might not WANT to keep pumping cash into Rovers, but I presume that they are in place to act out Jack's wishes with regards to the clubs continuity at the top level? It is a genuine question as I will be the first to admit I know nothing the Trust.

Does anybody know the exact wording of the instructions left to the people behind the Trust, or do they just act at their own discretion?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why my figures are skewed, especially as they come from the published accounts. For your interest here are some more "skewed" figures for you from the 2006 accounts (I can e-mail these to you if you don't believe me).

YE June 06

Matchday income £7m

Media income (Sky in the main) £25.66m

Commercial income £10.66m

T / O was £43.4m

Wages were £33.4m in total which includes 57 football players

You state some figures for the current season, which I presume you feel are based on the 07 year end. This information is only currently available to shareholders. In his 06 chairman's report Williams stated he expected the club to reach a turnover of £50m +. The last published wage bill was £33.4m for YE June 06. I think you will find the wages will have increased for the YE 07 and will again increase for the YE June 08. As the wages appear to increase by 10% each year it is not unreasonable to assume the wage bill for YE June 08 will be £40m

Now to go to the point I was trying to make. TV revenue in the YE June 06 (the last published accounts, YE June 07 due out soon) was £25.66m. In the YE ending June 08 the popular figure seems to be £40m (£30m plus say £10m for a 10th place finish). Therefore in the current season, assumming the club, finishes 10th, Rovers will receive £14.4m in additional TV revenues when compared to the 05/06 season. Until the accounts are published for the 06/07 season that is the best anyone can state.

Now I would appreciate if you would stop accusing me of skewing figures. It's tantamount to calling me a liar and I find it offensive. All I am posting is the figures published in the club accounts - or are you saying those are skewed? As I said I'll happily e-mail the accounts to you. Would you like the full share holder list while I'm at it?

There is nothing devious about having this information. Any Rovers fan, or anyone in the world can access it in less than five minutes, via the internet. Would you like the link - it'll cost you £2 to download the info, but of course it might be skewed, you just can't trust those people at Companies House.

I think the one thing people forget is we already had £21.4m per season and so £30m is great but it's only an increase of £8m or so - half of Anelka without paying him a day's wages!!!!

Paul you have changed your stance very slightly look at the earlier post, You seem to indicate within that quote to that we will receive 30 million in TV revenue, were the actual figure will be around 40 million. That is the skewing of the numbers im talking about,

You seem to indicate that we will receive 30 million in TV revenue, were the actual figure will be around 40 million. That is the skewing of the numbers im talking about

All numbers and statistics are skewed to serve purposes, don’t be so offended by the word; everyone uses a “minimum or maximum” measure to suit their argument from time to time. If I offended you I didn’t mean too I think you have taken my use of skewing out of context.

And Paul I really don’t need to see the full accounts to know what rovers will receive in TV revenue this year, its plastered all around the internet. Id could link you numerous reliable sites who state what the new TV deal is worth.

All that my point is we should have a large chunk of that TV money left to give our excellent manager to spend. We can all quote as many figures as we like but my primary concern is keeping this club in a position where it can continue to be successful. We all thought that the new deal would enable us to do so, but people like myself feel a little let down that our manager has little- on money yet again. I am thankful for all of the trust money and time, but they must remove this current state of limbo.

They see no need to invest, but also state they are in no rush to sell- a situation which in my opinion in untenable in today’s mega completive premiership.

One question if he have no money left- how the hell did we survive before the extra 15 million

[philipl]

there are two key factors.

1) Our gate and commercial revenue are simply uncompetitive even with fairly middling city clubs

2) As a result of that, Rovers started spending this season's windfall last season when players could still be picked up for "reasonable" fees and wages, and the squad was deliberately broadened.