[Archived] What Happened To Our Money?

[JAL]

Jw deserves great credit for the finacial running of our club, without doubt.

How do you get that are we not carrying debt, Kilby said last night that come the end of this season the Dingles will be debt free are we ? Definitely Not!

Has JW developed the academy over the past ten years so that we are now seeing year after year an exciting crop of players ? Definitely not !

Graeme Souness, Mark Hughes and now Sam Allardyce have done more for Rovers than JW.

[Kelbo]

How do you get that are we not carrying debt, Kilby said last night that come the end of this season the Dingles will be debt free are we ? Definitely Not!

Has JW developed the academy over the past ten years so that we are now seeing year after year an exciting crop of players ? Definitely not !

Burnley will be debt free as their highest earner will be on £10,000 per week!! but will they survive with all their squad untried/unsuccessfull at premiership level?

JW didnt develop the Academy, indeed I understand the academy is under the jurasdiction of the Manager and if anything both Souness and Hughes did not

do too much in the development of young players!!

Sam seems to be looking at the academy and youth much more closely!!

[Big Fat Sam]

How do you get that are we not carrying debt, Kilby said last night that come the end of this season the Dingles will be debt free are we ? Definitely Not!

Has JW developed the academy over the past ten years so that we are now seeing year after year an exciting crop of players ? Definitely not !

Graeme Souness, Mark Hughes and now Sam Allardyce have done more for Rovers than JW.

Let see where Burnleys finanaces are once they've been in the league for while.

Can't say I know much about the goings on at the academy.

Those three have done a lot for us and our status, but JW will not walk out on us.

[1864roverite]

Graeme Souness, Mark Hughes and now Sam Allardyce have done more for Rovers than JW.

Who is it that provides the baseline for these managers to weave their magic ?

Who is that loosens the purse strings for their signings ?

Your final sentence is utter crap my friend. John Williams is doing a fantastic job at BRFC, there is no doubt about it. I am certain that if the constraints HE is bound by were a little less then THE CLUB and MANAGER would be the forst to benefit.

[JAL]

Who is it that provides the baseline for these managers to weave their magic ?

Who is that loosens the purse strings for their signings ?

Your final sentence is utter crap my friend. John Williams is doing a fantastic job at BRFC, there is no doubt about it. I am certain that if the constraints HE is bound by were a little less then THE CLUB and MANAGER would be the forst to benefit.

Loosen the purse strings are you having a laugh 1864, what purse strings ?.

Was the baseline not initially provided by Jack Walker and supported a little more from the Walker Trust with not the biggest of margins but a margin never the less.

The Rovers academy has been a total abject failure, I dont blame the first team managers on this one but the people running the club.

With the benefit of Jack Walker providing a great base to start a premiership club, the question is has JW grown the club since ?.

[Kelbo]

Loosen the purse strings are you having a laugh 1864, what purse strings ?.

Was the baseline not initially provided by Jack Walker and supported a little more from the Walker Trust with not the biggest of margins but a margin never the less.

The Rovers academy has been a total abject failure, I dont blame the first team managers on this one but the people running the club.

With the benefit of Jack Walker providing a great base to start a premiership club, the question is has JW grown the club since ?.

A club, any club can normally only improve through investment, JW is an employee of the club and like any employee is accountable to the owners,

if the owners an financial institutions insist upon financial constraints there is little JW can do about it.

John Williams has done remarkably well with limited resourses and in the main has supported his manager, however, there could be an underlying reason for the constraints this season, could there be a buyer who meets the criteria JackWalker laid down with regard to the club ownership and indeed wants to get the debt reduced before buying the club?

We dont know the reason, thats an assumption, but to blame John Williams is totally unfair!

[Eddie]

Comparing Walker and Williams is rather stupid. Williams is in charge, but is still answerable to the money men on the board I would assume, it's not like he simply picks the budget and that is what we work with. Like the manager, he does the best with what we get. The money questions need to be posed to the trustees and board. It's all well and good saying that the club needs to be run sensibly, which I entirely agree with, but it is baffling to me why they can't recognise that at times there are situations where 3/4 million extra would mean the world to this club. Another central midfielder in who could pass, tackle AND stay fit could mean an extra 3/4 places this year and you get your money back.

[AlanK]

I disagree with this one:

There is nothing to disagree with. What I have stated is fact.

[PAFELL]

I dont think other than the PAYE element any taxes would exist unless there were profits made and then any losses would be offset against any tax liability!

We lost off the payroll, Villanueva, Tugay, OOoijer, Derbyshire, Santa Cruz, Vogel, Nolan, and Simpson, we have Bunn and Treacy out on loan, Kilinac and

Di Santo didnt arrive until August so we gained a months wages on those two players!!

We have signed Kilinac who will be on much less than Santa Cruz, Jacobson on less than Ooijer, plus Van Heerden, NZonzi (who will not be on big money) and Givet!! Hoilet ws still a Rovers player and will be on peanuts compared to the rest.

So we have 8 players out, 2 out on loan and only 6 players in, apart from Givet, the rest on comparartively low wages!!

Thats why I asked the question, this is not to say anyone is taking the money, its a question which I think needs answering though because I think the savings

would be close to the £5,000,000 we needed to cut off the wage bill!!

If that is the case, then I ask someone from the club to tell me why a fee for a player, includes his wages when calculating the managers spending ability!!

Dont forget, we backed the clown last year with money for players, despite half of Bentleys fee going to Arsenal!!

So last year, we had Robinson, £3,500,000 Keith Andrews £1,000,000 Villanueva (£5,000,000 if he stayed) Simpson on loan out of an income of around £10,000,000 if we include Friedel -- this year, we have coined in £18,000,000 Santa Cruz, £3,000,000 Derbs and Sam has only got half that to spend!!

Any answers??

When Rovers lost Hughes , they received compensation - this equals 1 pot of money coming in which I suggest was then lost on Inces appointmet - 1 pot of money going out - and sacking - another pot of money going out - and then giving Sam the job - another pot of money going out. I think that has to be taken into consideration when talking about where has the money gone.

Rovers cannot take out money from the general pot to run the club - but payments etc still need to be paid. So I suppose it is easier to raid the transfer pot that any other.

Rovers lost placement money as well last season - did they not publiclly say that they had financed things for a higher league placement - which would have messed things up a bit.

I therefore suggest if it wasn't for having to change the manager - twice - the low league finish - the transfer money would have greater. The strain on the bank debt would also have been less.

[American]

When Rovers lost Hughes , they received compensation - this equals 1 pot of money coming in which I suggest was then lost on Inces appointmet - 1 pot of money going out - and sacking - another pot of money going out - and then giving Sam the job - another pot of money going out. I think that has to be taken into consideration when talking about where has the money gone.

If those 3 were more than what we got for Hughes and team, there are some major questions to be asked about how we negotiate.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 things I don't understand:

After years of running with the overdraft at a certain sort of level (and both the Bank and Club presumably being comfortable with that) why was it felt it needed to be reduced in one go by about 60%?

Why are we still claiming the wages budget is STILL full to bursting?

According to a pull out in the LT we've bought seven players in:

Di Santo, Kalinic, Van Heerden, Nzonzi, Jacobsen Givet and Giannakopolous

But since the end of last season we've reduced the squad by thirteen:

Josh O Keefe Ooijer Tugay Vogel Mokoena Simpson Villenueva RSC Derbyshire Tony Kane Ariestidou Winnard Bussman

With 5 more out on loan:

Treacy Bunn Judge Marrow Gunning

So seven in, eighteen out! We must have made a huge wage saving already without Sam having to go down on bended knee to bring one more in. And a quick glance at Soccerbase shows the squad is dangerously thin with a squad of "only" 26 but many of those 26 being very marginal players indeed like Julio Santa Cruz.

[Kelbo]

2 things I don't understand:

After years of running with the overdraft at a certain sort of level (and both the Bank and Club presumably being comfortable with that) why was it felt it needed to be reduced in one go by about 60%?

Why are we still claiming the wages budget is STILL full to bursting?

According to a pull out in the LT we've bought seven players in:

Di Santo, Kalinic, Van Heerden, Nzonzi, Jacobsen Givet and Giannakopolous

But since the end of last season we've reduced the squad by thirteen:

Josh O Keefe Ooijer Tugay Vogel Mokoena Simpson Villenueva RSC Derbyshire Tony Kane Ariestidou Winnard Bussman

With 5 more out on loan:

Treacy Bunn Judge Marrow Gunning

So seven in, eighteen out! We must have made a huge wage saving already without Sam having to go down on bended knee to bring one more in. And a quick glance at Soccerbase shows the squad is dangerously thin with a squad of "only" 26 but many of those 26 being very marginal players indeed like Julio Santa Cruz.

I understand the need to be prudent but I fully agree with this post, I wish the club would give us some answers!!

[joey_big_nose]

2 things I don't understand:

After years of running with the overdraft at a certain sort of level (and both the Bank and Club presumably being comfortable with that) why was it felt it needed to be reduced in one go by about 60%?

Why are we still claiming the wages budget is STILL full to bursting?

According to a pull out in the LT we've bought seven players in:

Di Santo, Kalinic, Van Heerden, Nzonzi, Jacobsen Givet and Giannakopolous

But since the end of last season we've reduced the squad by thirteen:

Josh O Keefe Ooijer Tugay Vogel Mokoena Simpson Villenueva RSC Derbyshire Tony Kane Ariestidou Winnard Bussman

With 5 more out on loan:

Treacy Bunn Judge Marrow Gunning

So seven in, eighteen out! We must have made a huge wage saving already without Sam having to go down on bended knee to bring one more in. And a quick glance at Soccerbase shows the squad is dangerously thin with a squad of "only" 26 but many of those 26 being very marginal players indeed like Julio Santa Cruz.

Hoilett and Gallagher are two more players around now who weren't last season.

In terms of wages since Sam came in we probably have lost seven substantial wage earners (Cruz, Ooijer, Tugay, Vogel, Mokoena, Villanueva, Derbyshire) and gained five (Kalanic, Di Santo, Givet, Diouf and Jackobsen) so there must have been some saving.

The main thing is we have net lost quite a lot of players but we still have far too many midfielders. If we bring in Salgado we can easily afford to lose two central midfielders.

[PAFELL]

If those 3 were more than what we got for Hughes and team, there are some major questions to be asked about how we negotiate.

I was just trying to give a 'possible' explanation as to where the money has gone. Another thought I have is that maybe somebody is interested in a takeover - subject to the clubs debts being drastically reduced. Which may explain the appeared haste to repay the bank and not just for credit crunch reasons.

Same as everybody else - we don't know where the money has gone until somebody tells us. I have said for awhile the trustees of Rovers are just too silent and therefore in my view not fan friendly. Something has needed to be done for a long time to get the trustees to speak a bit more about the club. Their aims / hopes plans etc.

Rothchilds are meant to be helping to sell the club - well having failed to find a decent interested person etc for Rovers, the reputaion of Rothchilds has really gone down hill.

I understand the need to be prudent but I fully agree with this post, I wish the club would give us some answers!!

This will never happen, sadly, because the trustees are too secretive. Until somebody really challenges them to speak, maybe via the local ? national media, they will remain silent.

[American]

I was just trying to give a 'possible' explanation as to where the money has gone. Another thought I have is that maybe somebody is interested in a takeover - subject to the clubs debts being drastically reduced. Which may explain the appeared haste to repay the bank and not just for credit crunch reasons.

Same as everybody else - we don't know where the money has gone until somebody tells us. I have said for awhile the trustees of Rovers are just too silent and therefore in my view not fan friendly. Something has needed to be done for a long time to get the trustees to speak a bit more about the club. Their aims / hopes plans etc.

Rothchilds are meant to be helping to sell the club - well having failed to find a decent interested person etc for Rovers, the reputaion of Rothchilds has really gone down hill.

This will never happen, sadly, because the trustees are too secretive. Until somebody really challenges them to speak, maybe via the local ? national media, they will remain silent.

Wouldn't matter to who was buying us, that would be factored into the price.

Does matter to who is selling us, though.

[thenodrog]

Rothchilds are meant to be helping to sell the club - well having failed to find a decent interested person etc for Rovers, the reputaion of Rothchilds has really gone down hill.

This will never happen, sadly, because the trustees are too secretive. Until somebody really challenges them to speak, maybe via the local ? national media, they will remain silent.

And so would I if I was them.

As far as Rothschilds performance I dunno ...... but at least they've filtered out the likes of the Gaydemaks, the dodgy icelanders, Dan Williams and the Glazers etc.

[JAL]

2 things I don't understand:

After years of running with the overdraft at a certain sort of level (and both the Bank and Club presumably being comfortable with that) why was it felt it needed to be reduced in one go by about 60%?

Why are we still claiming the wages budget is STILL full to bursting?

Come on Rev, the club cocked up big style financially with the appointment of Paul ince and his morons.

I'm sure in truth John Williams would be mightly embarrassed by how the club performed financially last summer with all their comings and goings. A Dingle on claretsmad around xmas this year mentioned that Rovers had just borrowed £8m from the bank he was working at.

For a club Rovers size it must have hurt big time that the club are probably trying hide face by allowing Big Sam to bring those seven faces into the club that the club couldnt really afford it, but they are now trying to please supporters and hide their 'financial cock ups'.

Theres a near £3m bill out there for some type of building work then theres all these 'payoffs' to Ince and his cronies, Downes etc., are we not also in an era of the banks demanding monies lent to businesses back asap otherwise its increased future interest payments.

[RevidgeBlue]

Come on Rev, the club cocked up big style financially with the appointment of Paul ince and his morons.

Maybe but we also reportedly received a 5m compensation payment when Hughes left so I would have thought those two events more or less cancelled each other out.

[JAL]

Maybe but we also reportedly received a 5m compensation payment when Hughes left so I would have thought those two events more or less cancelled each other out.

Years and years of debt all builds up, we'll never know the true amount except its definitely minus.

[dj54nna]

Years and years of debt all builds up, we'll never know the true amount except its definitely minus.

Definitely.

I can't believe people are so bloody short-sighted as to still be asking 'where's the money gone?'

Have any of you asking this actually considered the absolutely monumental cost of running a Premier league football club? The bills for services, policing, maintenance and staff before we even get on to players.

There will have been numerous bank loans accumulated over the years to keep a club like ours afloat. With a miniscule gate and near enough zero international profile, our main 'income' will always be TV money, league position and selling players for more than we paid for them.

By missing the top half last season and spending to correct Ince's reign, why is it so bloody hard to understand that a massive profit on Santa Cruz would not be used to stabilise the club for a few more years? Paying off debts is priority number one because debts only get bigger in football, they never go away.

Last season we didn't lack a decent set of players, we lacked a decent manager. We've sorted that and improved the squad, whilst keeping the bank off our back.

If we hadn't sold Santa Cruz, we'd have still shipped out a few players, brought in a few less and not been in as financially safe a position. If we'd desperately needed more players, the board may have had to stump up more money to keep the team competitive enough to stay in the league, but then if we had a bad season regardless, we'd be more than skint eventually.

Honestly, it's like listening to a bunch of spoilt kids reaming off what they want for Christmas ('the next Tugay', 'a world class 20 a season striker' as if they grow on cheap trees) and seeing their poor parents slogging their guts out just to try and appease them and keep the leccy from being cut off.

They could put the prices back up and no-one will come. They could sell all our best players then no one will come and we'll get relegated. Then when we're even less of a financial prospect, the only people desperate to get into Ewood park will be the banks to start taking out the seats.

Everyone (well, almost) who is questioning the spending has said they respect John Williams. Himself and the board he works with have kept us in the league in increasingly difficult times, so I can't see why you can't accept that he's doing his best for the club now.

Sorry for the ridiculously long rant, but I couldn't keep it in any longer.

[Mr. E]

Definitely.

I can't believe people are so bloody short-sighted as to still be asking 'where's the money gone?'

Excuse us kindly for asking about the going-ongs at the club then.

Have any of you asking this actually considered the absolutely monumental cost of running a Premier league football club? The bills for services, policing, maintenance and staff before we even get on to players.

There will have been numerous bank loans accumulated over the years to keep a club like ours afloat. With a miniscule gate and near enough zero international profile, our main 'income' will always be TV money, league position and selling players for more than we paid for them.

We pay some of the lowest salaries in the premiership, and the "TV money" comes from the richest league in the world. That's gotta work some way towards balancing the budget. "The zero international profile" is really not a fair assessment, as even this site can attest. A lot of clubs our size pay big money for players and are in debt. Not a good thing, you will say. Well we pay relatively very small sums for players, yet we are also in debt.

By missing the top half last season and spending to correct Ince's reign, why is it so bloody hard to understand that a massive profit on Santa Cruz would not be used to stabilise the club for a few more years? Paying off debts is priority number one because debts only get bigger in football, they never go away.

What exactly did we have to "pay to correct", when Ince couldn't spend anything either?

Last season we didn't lack a decent set of players, we lacked a decent manager. We've sorted that and improved the squad, whilst keeping the bank off our back.

We did lack a great manager, because Hughes fraked off for the Arab money. We also lacked the only outfield player who created any chances at all the previous season (Bentley), and the rock that had kept the team stable for many, many years (Friedel), and add to that the fact that our top scorer didn't really show up (Santa Cruz).

If we hadn't sold Santa Cruz, we'd have still shipped out a few players, brought in a few less and not been in as financially safe a position. If we'd desperately needed more players, the board may have had to stump up more money to keep the team competitive enough to stay in the league, but then if we had a bad season regardless, we'd be more than skint eventually.

Honestly, it's like listening to a bunch of spoilt kids reaming off what they want for Christmas ('the next Tugay', 'a world class 20 a season striker' as if they grow on cheap trees) and seeing their poor parents slogging their guts out just to try and appease them and keep the leccy from being cut off.

Yeah, how spoiled of us to dream of a premiership-quality central midfielder and not have to content with a gaping whole in that area for 2 years straight. We started the season with Keith "League 1" Andrews and a teenager from the lower french leagues. If that doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does.

[AggyBlue]

Yeah, how spoiled of us to dream of a premiership-quality central midfielder and not have to content with a gaping whole in that area for 2 years straight. We started the season with Keith "League 1" Andrews and a teenager from the lower french leagues. If that doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does.

You're not content with waiting for the three international midfielders we currently have injured then.

How many shall we buy? Are you happy with one?

Hang on, I'll see how much I've got in my back pocket

[dj54nna]

Excuse us kindly for asking about the going-ongs at the club then.

We pay some of the lowest salaries in the premiership, and the "TV money" comes from the richest league in the world. That's gotta work some way towards balancing the budget. "The zero international profile" is really not a fair assessment, as even this site can attest. A lot of clubs our size pay big money for players and are in debt. Not a good thing, you will say. Well we pay relatively very small sums for players, yet we are also in debt.

Paying the nearly the lowest salaries in the league means very little when they constitute 85% of turnover. Only going to get worse as time moves on, not better, as Burnley are soon going to discover.

International profile was referring to income generated from foreign sources (TV, sponsorship, merchandise), not our attractiveness to potential players. Sorry for the lack of clarity on that one. Also, 'zero' was a bit harsh.

What exactly did we have to "pay to correct", when Ince couldn't spend anything either?

Ince's and his staff's pay offs. About £5m plus top wages for Givet and Diouf. Big Fat Sam's big fat wage packet. Ince spent £4m on Grella, over £1m on Andrews and £3.5m on Robinson,which isn't much at all, but that was his budget and his decisions.

We did lack a great manager, because Hughes fraked off for the Arab money. We also lacked the only outfield player who created any chances at all the previous season (Bentley), and the rock that had kept the team stable for many, many years (Friedel), and add to that the fact that our top scorer didn't really show up (Santa Cruz).

Santa Cruz's injuries kept him out of the team, bad luck for us. Nobody's fault. We sold an old servant for peanuts and got a younger England international, who's proved to be shrewd business. And yes we did lose Bentley, and Ince's insistence on buying Andrews and Grella (two more average mids) left us lacking.

Yeah, how spoiled of us to dream of a premiership-quality central midfielder and not have to content with a gaping whole in that area for 2 years straight. We started the season with Keith "League 1" Andrews and a teenager from the lower french leagues. If that doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does.

And again, perhaps spoiled children is a harsh analogy, but I don't see why people are making out like the team has been robbed of money and fans are being conned because not all the money made from transfers is being spent on transfers.

It's taken us since Lucas Neill left to sign a proper right back (and he was playing on the left!), so I'm not surprised we've not immediately signed a Tugay replacement.

Sam's the manager and was given a budget and has signed players with those figures to work to. Premier league players come with ridiculous price tags (£5m for Bobby Zamora FFS), so to get Givet (capped for France? Haven't wiki'd it...) , Jacobsen (international), Diouf (retired international, I think?) Van Heerden (international), Kalinic (international) and N'Zonzi (U21 international) for what we have spent (and this includes wages) is some good business and we've not much to worry about yet.

For some players to be earning £20-£30k+ a week just means that money has disappeared before it's even come in. I'm pretty sure the Walkers would be the first to tell you that it's not ended up in their pockets, they'd love to be turning a profit. Is it completely unfeasable to you and others that this money you think has disappeared into thin air might just have gone on bills (some subject to large amounts of interest)?

[Mr. E]

For some players to be earning £20-£30k+ a week just means that money has disappeared before it's even come in. I'm pretty sure the Walkers would be the first to tell you that it's not ended up in their pockets, they'd love to be turning a profit. Is it completely unfeasable to you and others that this money you think has disappeared into thin air might just have gone on bills (some subject to large amounts of interest)?

Definitely not. I don't think many people here are saying "there is no way the money could have been used correctly, someone is definitely cheating us". But it is clear our situation is really not that good financially, and we can't seem to get a break even if we sell players for many times what we bought them for. So people are interested to see exactly where this money is going. A clearer picture from someone like JW (not that you can expect him to post here obviously) would help ease the concerns.

[doctorryan]

Here: Why don't you attack the real source of all this instead of heaping it on John Williams. Go all Vinjay on them if you like. Lord knows they deserve it.

I figure you all have the right to this information anyway. At least that's the case if you've ever bought tickets, an online subscription or club-shop items from Rovers.

The Jack Walker Settlement

C/O Rathbone Trust Company

17 Seaton Place

St Helier

Jersey

JE2 3QL

Channel Islands

Attn.: Paul Egerton-Vernon

There are 4 other Trustees. But Paul is the public face of course. Have fun.