[Archived] Blackburn Rovers Accounts 2008

[thenodrog]

I guess the wage cost will include paying off Ince and his backroom staff will it not? Not sure how big an impact that is but it will have some.

Dunno about that cos rem we got a dollop for Hughes and his team.

[Antgrad]

Dunno about that cos rem we got a dollop for Hughes and his team.

Which should be included in the 2008 account should it not as it happened before June 30th?

I guess that might actually decrease the 2008 costs and explain the jump in 2009 if Ince's payments are in there.

Edit.

Just checked and the compensation for Hughes is mentioned in the 2008 accounts and included in the Player Trading figures. I don't think paying Ince his contract would go there.

[Jan]

Which should be included in the 2008 account should it not as it happened before June 30th?

I guess that might actually decrease the 2008 costs and explain the jump in 2009 if Ince's payments are in there.

Edit.

Just checked and the compensation for Hughes is mentioned in the 2008 accounts and included in the Player Trading figures. I don't think paying Ince his contract would go there.

Correct. The compensation for the loss of a good manager went in 2008, the waste of space money spent will go in 2009.

[BuckyRover]

Bentley was a pest and being disruptive...you can't blame Ince for that decision.

He made the right call at the time and used what money was left to bring in his own players.

Ince had plenty of faults, but the Bentley call was not one of them.

nicko have you not learnt anything whilst you have been on here? I used to think things like that but I have been corrected by many on here. I will explain:

Ince - BAD

Sam - GOOD

Who needs grey areas?

(Please see below before you jump on me)

[den]

nicko have you not learnt anything whilst you have been on here? I used to think things like that but I have been corrected by many on here. I will explain:

Ince - BAD

Sam - GOOD

Who needs grey areas?

(Please see below before you jump on me)

Ince - worst ever.

Sam - better [not much to beat though].

[den]

Bentley was a pest and being disruptive...you can't blame Ince for that decision.

He made the right call at the time and used what money was left to bring in his own players.

Ince had plenty of faults, but the Bentley call was not one of them.

So was Barry. He knuckled down as soon as the season started though, - just as Bentley would have done. If we had kept hold of him then, spurs wouldn't be coming back. It would have been easy to keep hold of him - all in my opinion of course.

[incecticide]

Ince - worst ever.

Kidd?

[2PAC 4 Blackburn]

I guess the wage cost will include paying off Ince and his backroom staff will it not? Not sure how big an impact that is but it will have some.

Plus people like Vogel, Grella & Robbo will all be on big wages i bet.

[The Prof.]

Might as well put this piece about Newcastle here

Two key points- how gullible Mike Ashley turned out to be

- that the Trust at Blackburn has and only has been giving and taken nothing from Rovers. alanncd's post is 100% incorrect and he should both apologise and retract.

Okay - Makes you wonder just how ethical it is to pay yourself huge salaries and bonuses from an indebted business doesn't it (Have I heard that before this week?) and jus how much the beloved Halls and Fat Freddie made from just being in the right place at the right time. Not to mention how stupid the Newcastle supporters are.

Haven't seen the accounts this year but Rovers ones tend not to hide much - someones just said the great profit made by Barclays hides a huge pile of debt so are the accounts any use at all now?

So on the presumption that the Rovers accounts are okay it lead only to one conclusion.

Rovers have a business plan/model which is kack.

We do not pay top wages, we appear to have no high value players, the grounds paid for and we have little debt to service. This all points to amatuerism. In effect as I have said for far too long Rovers costs are prohibitively high, and as this is largely players wages it's time to make an adjustment. Get rid of a few and pay position related bonuses.

Who's fault is it PhilllipL?

[PAFELL]

Might as well put this piece about Newcastle here

Two key points- how gullible Mike Ashley turned out to be

- that the Trust at Blackburn has and only has been giving and taken nothing from Rovers. alanncd's post is 100% incorrect and he should both apologise and retract.

Lets be honest the trustees are trustees in name only. The owners are not funding the club anymore, is that not in the chairmans report in the accounts? They may not be taking anything out, but they have now stopped the giving as well.

The reality is that rovers are owned by an owner who has basically just put the club on a shelf called 'not interested'.

Out of curiosity, what use are the owners to Rovers today?

By not wanting to invest in the club they are saying to the supporters, we do not care what this club meant to Jack Walker, we do not care about the supporters and if a day the owners sell, they will be taking something out of the club.

[leftfooter]

After a fair run in the League Cup this season (adding TV revenue and inflation busting gate receipts in Man Yoo away) and given the potential for another decent FA Cup adventure, I'd be interested to know how much extra revenue it all might raise (let's say if we reach the semis at Wembley in April)?

Given the Wembley factor and the new ITV deal, isn't there now a greater prospect for higher revenues than previous runs brought us under Sparky?

[The Prof.]

We CAN blame him for emulating Bentley over the next few months.......

Furthermore he replaced Bentley with players that we will never sell for more than we gave with the possible exception of Bunn ( that leaves him with a lot to do). That is the talent that we lost when Hughes went and it is a talent that is absolutely vital to the future of BRFC as a club. We killed the Goose that laid the golden egg.

Lets' bring him back when he gets sacked.

Lets be honest the trustees are trustees in name only. The owners are not funding the club anymore, is that not in the chairmans report in the accounts? They may not be taking anything out, but they have now stopped the giving as well.

The reality is that rovers are owned by an owner who has basically just put the club on a shelf called 'not interested'.

Out of curiosity, what use are the owners to Rovers today?

By not wanting to invest in the club they are saying to the supporters, we do not care what this club meant to Jack Walker, we do not care about the supporters and if a day the owners sell, they will be taking something out of the club.

Excellent point. Do we really have 'owners' or are they minders? It's not their money and they have no stake. They don't live here (not sure about Freds position). They don't answer to anyone.

If the terms of the trust were broken who would be the plaintiff? It would need someone with huge pockets and clout to bring a trust like that to court and to account for a breach.

Is the trust worth anything now to BRFC?

[gazsimm]

basically we are skint and need to stay in the prem this season. If we do get relegated this season, i reckon we will be in the championship for years to come without new backers who are willing to pump some much needed money into the club.

As for the Bentley sale, i think Ince had to sell him basically because Bentley wanted to go and he probably thought under Ince the club would struggle, which he was right!.

Aston Villa kept hold of Barry because Villa managed to convince Barry they have ambiton and want to go places, unlike what Rovers could do, when Bentley wanted leave.

[PAFELL]

Lets' bring him back when he gets sacked.

Excellent point. Do we really have 'owners' or are they minders? It's not their money and they have no stake. They don't live here (not sure about Freds position). They don't answer to anyone.

If the terms of the trust were broken who would be the plaintiff? It would need someone with huge pockets and clout to bring a trust like that to court and to account for a breach.

Is the trust worth anything now to BRFC?

What are the terms of the trust - are the terms invented as they go along? I do not know how trusts etc work, but if you are able to get hold of imformation with regards the accounts of this and that company - why are not the terms of a trust of public interest / knowledge?

basically we are skint and need to stay in the prem this season. If we do get relegated this season, i reckon we will be in the championship for years to come without new backers who are willing to pump some much needed money into the club.

As for the Bentley sale, i think Ince had to sell him basically because Bentley wanted to go and he probably thought under Ince the club would struggle, which he was right!.

Aston Villa kept hold of Barry because Villa managed to convince Barry they have ambiton and want to go places, unlike what Rovers could do, when Bentley wanted leave.

It would also help if 'somehow' supporters could do something to encourage the owners to refund the club again.

[philipl]

Bentley was a pest and being disruptive...you can't blame Ince for that decision.

He made the right call at the time and used what money was left to bring in his own players.

Ince had plenty of faults, but the Bentley call was not one of them.

In other words Bentley was bigger than Ince- which he is and was

Talking of Bentley.... I would agree that he was in with the wrong crowd if that guy is his agent.

This is the excellent interview with John Williams in the LT

[gazsimm]

What are the terms of the trust - are the terms invented as they go along? I do not know how trusts etc work, but if you are able to get hold of imformation with regards the accounts of this and that company - why are not the terms of a trust of public interest / knowledge?

It would also help if 'somehow' supporters could do something to encourage the owners to refund the club again.

we might be able to help, but at this moment of time the least we want to do is to have a demonstration during a match. The players on the pitch need our full support untill we are safe from relegation. Untill then any demonstrations should be put on hold.

[roversmum]

Pardon me interrupting this Barry love-in, but wasn't the reason he didn't go to Liverpool the fact that they wouldn't meet Villa's price?

[Tris]

Paffle / Prof.

FACT - Without the stewardship of the JW Trust, Rovers would not have returned to the PL, won the League Cup, appointed Mark Hughes, played in Europe 4 times in recent seasons - in short been in a position where ironically the Trust now attracts criticism for a perceived lack of action.

FACT - Jack Walker wanted the club to stand on it's own two feet financially.

The amount of the annual cash injection after his passing was designed to help at a time when media revenue was a fraction of where it is now. The dramatic escalation in the media income has meant that annual sum of cash is comparitively devalued several times over. That original annual sum is approx what Man Utd or Arsenal take from each and every home game - before they even tap their Sky money!

Fans such as yourselves probably think that the investment from the Trust should have escalated in line with the rest of the inflation in the game - driven by transfer fees and wages, and those media deals.

I would suggest that to do so would be in direct contravention with their requirement to make a sucess of the whole of Jack's business empire.

Jack would not want his fortune frittered away in an environment where the richest clubs talk about #100 million transfers for a single player (or #5 million for Jimmy Bullard). A smaller sum bought the new Ewood Park, built Brockhall and won a Championship.

Therefore, it's entirely reasonable that the Trust should take a stance that - as media income has so massively exploded, and in the terms of what Jack wanted for BRFC - trickling an extra #3 million into players and agents pockets every year is not what they should be doing at this moment.

For impatient fans, it's far too easy to take the short term view that several million quid should have been unearthed last month to beef up the squad. The money men didn't agree. It's their job to safeguard Jack's money.

That doesn't mean they are useless to BRFC. Far from it. There is no better owner out there for the club at this moment, and there probably never will be one where the security of the club is so assured in the long term.

[den]

Pardon me interrupting this Barry love-in, but wasn't the reason he didn't go to Liverpool the fact that they wouldn't meet Villa's price?

Yep, Villa set a figure that would have put them in a position to replace him. Liverpool wouldn't pay it. Barry is playing extremely well and surprisingly not sulking. Nor is Rocky.

We let Bents go for peanuts.

[OscarRaven]

Rovers have a business plan/model which is kack.

We do not pay top wages, we appear to have no high value players, the grounds paid for and we have little debt to service. This all points to amatuerism. In effect as I have said for far too long Rovers costs are prohibitively high, and as this is largely players wages it's time to make an adjustment. Get rid of a few and pay position related bonuses.

Who's fault is it PhilllipL?

So what is it we pay too much or we don't pay enough? I thought you were supposed to debate with other members not yourself?

[OscarRaven]

FACT - Without the stewardship of the JW Trust, Rovers would not have returned to the PL, won the League Cup, appointed Mark Hughes, played in Europe 4 times in recent seasons - in short been in a position where ironically the Trust now attracts criticism for a perceived lack of action.

FACT - Jack Walker wanted the club to stand on it's own two feet financially.

Ok so I'm expecting a rough ride for saying this but ultimatley Jack dying when he did has ensured his legacy and status in the Rovers fans eyes will live on on forever.

If he was still here today he would be trying to get the club to 'wash its own face', so what would we be singing?

"We want Walker out" - Probably!

We have more money than ever and that is the reason why we need more from Jack (which is what we are effectivley saying - blame the trustees all you want but ultimatley we have no right to ask Jack Walker for more), it just doesn't make sense.

I guess its a case of you reap what you sow, we started the the bubble, we could be the first club to burst..

[Boz]

Tris has thrown some much needed sense to bear, spot on.

I find it amusing how the term 'investment' is repeatedly used.

If it was a viable investment, I'm sure the owners would be very keen to invest more, however any return on investment still looks very remote.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Ok so I'm expecting a rough ride for saying this but ultimatley Jack dying when he did has ensured his legacy and status in the Rovers fans eyes will live on on forever.

If he was still here today he would be trying to get the club to 'wash its own face', so what would we be singing?

"We want Walker out" - Probably!

We have more money than ever and that is the reason why we need more from Jack (which is what we are effectivley saying - blame the trustees all you want but ultimatley we have no right to ask Jack Walker for more), it just doesn't make sense.

I guess its a case of you reap what you sow, we started the the bubble, we could be the first club to burst..

Disagree - Jack did want Rovers to "wash its own face" - but I think (only my personal opinion) that he often let his heart rule his head where Rovers was concerned. He would have still been dipping in his pocket - and I am sure that he would have backed Hughes with his own money given the fact that it looked like we were on the verge of something good. Similarly - after watching them relegated once already - he would have provided additional funds for Sam in the last transfer window.

I hope I am wrong - but based on history - Rovers major benefactors seem to come once every 100 years - so we have a long wait.

Personally I have never understood fans who believe that owners (no matter how wealthy) should pour their own money into a loss making business. If you are lucky enough to have a Jack or Roman - great - but why do fans expect other owners to fund huge transfers that benefit nobody else but players and their agents ?

[CAPT KAYOS]

Tris has thrown some much needed sense to bear, spot on.

I find it amusing how the term 'investment' is repeatedly used.

If it was a viable investment, I'm sure the owners would be very keen to invest more, however any return on investment still looks very remote.

Indeed , the Trustees are seeing it as just throwing bad after bad , especially in terms that it seems the players get paid even more for not winning anything going of those accounts.

Looks like they are taking the hard line ( arguably) and are not being played by the glitzed up Premier League to strangle themselves with their own noose.

Probably the best run club - in the worst run league.

Looks to me like the trust are doing exactly what Jack wanted - to try and make the club self sustaining, its just unfortunate for them that it has degenerated into the debt rich structure we now see.

[PAFELL]

we might be able to help, but at this moment of time the least we want to do is to have a demonstration during a match. The players on the pitch need our full support untill we are safe from relegation. Untill then any demonstrations should be put on hold.

After the match - a sit in