[Archived] Rovers Accounts Review

[philipl]

I will shortly be doing a review of the Rovers accounts which undoubtedly will kick off another vigorous debate about the Rovers' ownership. So I thought it would be fun to do a league table of the good the bad and the ugly of Premier League club owners.

1. Chelsea- you cannot argue with £650m, half of which has been converted into share capital. And although Abramovich has been accused of having his say (well seriously, should he keep quiet after splashing that much?), Mourinho's difficulties at Inter suggest the Special One is not the easiest of bed-fellows. Pretty effective spending as well with Champions League football every season, two titles and another on the way and consistently good football. Kenyon getting them a transfer ban was a bit of blob.

2. Aston Villa- the quiet American did not overpay in buying Villa and since then has done exactly what he promised to do in investing modestly each season. Built up a very English squad of players and have slipped inobtrusively into a CL- challenging position. The restoration of the Holte Pub was a very nice touch.

3. Arsenal- this one is a bit controversial considering the shareholders are at one another's throats and are in imminent danger of being gobbled by an American or an Uzbek. Even more so when the financial crisis nearly wrecked their extremely well executed plan to substantially fund the Emirates from property development at Highbury. But their financing of the Emirates was a model of football investment without a rich sugar daddy and their patience with Wenger and support of him makes Arsenal simply the best watch in football when they are on their game.

4. Spurs- I know this will bring howls of protest but the owners are not the ones who buy good footballers and turn them into duds. Superbly managed financially generated huge sums for investment in the playing side despite only having a 35,000 seater stadium and only injecting about £35m in new capital over the past decade. Following the Arsenal model in their financing of White Hart Lane and are pulling it off in far worse financial circumstances than ARrsenal had.

5. Sunderland- seemless change to new ownership in the summer. Have not spent to good effect and have appointed less than stellar managers but the cash keeps coming for the Wearside outfit.

6. Rovers- for sheer professionalism and longevity, the Walker Trust are unbeatable. Were generous in the initial years following Jack's death (put in £30m+ and converted all debt into shares) and are now probably even more valuable to the club's well-being for not selling out to any of the charlatans who fancy a football club in their portfolio. Would have been higher but for the Ince debacle. As high as 6th because of the willingness to invest in the fan base by offering the Prem's lowest ticket prices and are being rewarded by crowds of improbable proportions given the size. wealth (lack of) and location of the town.

7. Fulham- Al Fayed has kept popping up with the cash when it mattered and and has made some good managerial appointments. Another long term owner who has kept an unfashionable club in the top echelon long term.

8. Stoke City- Too early to say and perhaps destined to rise up both this table and the real one but given the ownership I expect cash will be regularly supplied.

9. Man City- £250m of brash classless mouthiness. Yes a Champions League place is more possible this season than for many years past because of Liverpool's decline but has all that money bought a stronger outfit than either Spurs or Villa? They are still Council tenants.

10. Wigan- not a retiring sort but Dave Whelan has pulled off a remarkable achievement in taking Wigan to being a permanent fixture in the PL and has managed not to spend too much in doing so.

11. Wolves- released the cash this summer for McCarthy to spend on a not very good squad.

12. Birmingham City- Let's see what the HK connection will do but credit to Gold and Sullivan for handing it over in such a healthy position despite bouncing between leagues.

13. Bolton Wanderers- by many accounts not the nicest piece of work but Gartmore and his Isle of Man backers have kept the Trotters in the Prem despite a couple of iffy appointments post-Sam.

14. Burnley- the what the **** are you doing in the Prem club. Flood and Kilby got mega lucky twice over: appointing Coyle and going up when another season in the fizzy pop would have seen them sink financially.

15. Everton- forever pleading penury and effectively the only big city club with old fashioned small town club-style ownership. Kenwright's heart is in the right place but not so sure about the rest of him. Permanent top flight fixture but cannot help but feel they are being ever so slightly mismanaged.

16. Hull City- would have been lower but Pearson's re-appointment indicates that the owners' other financial troubles have been stabilised. At one point it looked like the ownership was going to drag the Tigers down.

17. Man U- should be the top club in the world but aren't because of the wrong owners. Got incredibly lucky when about the time they arrived all Ferguson's signings turned to gold. They missed a chance of putting Man U so far ahead of all other football clubs they would have been out of sight and instead some £300m has been extracted from the club to service the debts incurred simply for the Glazers to buy it. For spectators, the costs of going to Manc games have effectively doubled. As I write, debts are £700m+ of which £225m or so needs to be rescheduled this coming April and has not been.

18. Liverpool- unlike the lucky Glazers, the Gillett/Hicks combo have been luckless and more naive, not least in falling out between themselves and letting four factions develop at the club- now reduced by the departure of Parry. They said they wouldn't load debt of purchase onto the club, they did; they said they'd build a new stadium, they didn't and perhaps have spent tens of millions in not doing so. Got lucky in Istanbul and it has been a steady slow unravelling since. A monster club laid low by the wrong owners.

19=. West Ham- what is there not to like about this lot? Tevezgate, post-Tevezgate which has lead to the £25m settlemnt with Sheff U, wrecked the Prem's calmed down wages market by paying stupid money, now owned by the owners' liquidators whose only interest is maximising their exit price whilst forcing repeated sales.

19=. Portsmouth- at one stage more owners than points. The latest lot don't have the dosh so more horror stories of delayed payments and a transfer freeze. Quite likely to go into administration. Like West Ham, wrecked any sanity there was in Prem League wages and are now paying a very heavy price.

[thenodrog]

I will shortly be doing a review of the Rovers accounts which undoubtedly will kick off another vigorous debate about the Rovers' ownership. So I thought it would be fun to do a league table of the good the bad and the ugly of Premier League club owners.

1. Chelsea- you cannot argue with £650m, half of which has been converted into share capital. And although Abramovich has been accused of having his say (well seriously, should he keep quiet after splashing that much?), Mourinho's difficulties at Inter suggest the Special One is not the easiest of bed-fellows. Pretty effective spending as well with Champions League football every season, two titles and another on the way and consistently good football. Kenyon getting them a transfer ban was a bit of blob.

2. Aston Villa- the quiet American did not overpay in buying Villa and since then has done exactly what he promised to do in investing modestly each season. Built up a very English squad of players and have slipped inobtrusively into a CL- challenging position. The restoration of the Holte Pub was a very nice touch.

3. Arsenal- this one is a bit controversial considering the shareholders are at one another's throats and are in imminent danger of being gobbled by an American or an Uzbek. Even more so when the financial crisis nearly wrecked their extremely well executed plan to substantially fund the Emirates from property development at Highbury. But their financing of the Emirates was a model of football investment without a rich sugar daddy and their patience with Wenger and support of him makes Arsenal simply the best watch in football when they are on their game.

4. Spurs- I know this will bring howls of protest but the owners are not the ones who buy good footballers and turn them into duds. Superbly managed financially generated huge sums for investment in the playing side despite only having a 35,000 seater stadium and only injecting about £35m in new capital over the past decade. Following the Arsenal model in their financing of White Hart Lane and are pulling it off in far worse financial circumstances than ARrsenal had.

5. Sunderland- seemless change to new ownership in the summer. Have not spent to good effect and have appointed less than stellar managers but the cash keeps coming for the Wearside outfit.

6. Rovers- for sheer professionalism and longevity, the Walker Trust are unbeatable. Were generous in the initial years following Jack's death (put in £30m+ and converted all debt into shares) and are now probably even more valuable to the club's well-being for not selling out to any of the charlatans who fancy a football club in their portfolio. Would have been higher but for the Ince debacle. As high as 6th because of the willingness to invest in the fan base by offering the Prem's lowest ticket prices and are being rewarded by crowds of improbable proportions given the size. wealth (lack of) and location of the town.

7. Fulham- Al Fayed has kept popping up with the cash when it mattered and and has made some good managerial appointments. Another long term owner who has kept an unfashionable club in the top echelon long term.

8. Stoke City- Too early to say and perhaps destined to rise up both this table and the real one but given the ownership I expect cash will be regularly supplied.

9. Man City- £250m of brash classless mouthiness. Yes a Champions League place is more possible this season than for many years past because of Liverpool's decline but has all that money bought a stronger outfit than either Spurs or Villa? They are still Council tenants.

10. Wigan- not a retiring sort but Dave Whelan has pulled off a remarkable achievement in taking Wigan to being a permanent fixture in the PL and has managed not to spend too much in doing so.

11. Wolves- released the cash this summer for McCarthy to spend on a not very good squad.

12. Birmingham City- Let's see what the HK connection will do but credit to Gold and Sullivan for handing it over in such a healthy position despite bouncing between leagues.

13. Bolton Wanderers- by many accounts not the nicest piece of work but Gartmore and his Isle of Man backers have kept the Trotters in the Prem despite a couple of iffy appointments post-Sam.

14. Burnley- the what the **** are you doing in the Prem club. Flood and Kilby got mega lucky twice over: appointing Coyle and going up when another season in the fizzy pop would have seen them sink financially.

15. Everton- forever pleading penury and effectively the only big city club with old fashioned small town club-style ownership. Kenwright's heart is in the right place but not so sure about the rest of him. Permanent top flight fixture but cannot help but feel they are being ever so slightly mismanaged.

16. Hull City- would have been lower but Pearson's re-appointment indicates that the owners' other financial troubles have been stabilised. At one point it looked like the ownership was going to drag the Tigers down.

17. Man U- should be the top club in the world but aren't because of the wrong owners. Got incredibly lucky when about the time they arrived all Ferguson's signings turned to gold. They missed a chance of putting Man U so far ahead of all other football clubs they would have been out of sight and instead some £300m has been extracted from the club to service the debts incurred simply for the Glazers to buy it. For spectators, the costs of going to Manc games have effectively doubled. As I write, debts are £700m+ of which £225m or so needs to be rescheduled this coming April and has not been.

18. Liverpool- unlike the lucky Glazers, the Gillett/Hicks combo have been luckless and more naive, not least in falling out between themselves and letting four factions develop at the club- now reduced by the departure of Parry. They said they wouldn't load debt of purchase onto the club, they did; they said they'd build a new stadium, they didn't and perhaps have spent tens of millions in not doing so. Got lucky in Istanbul and it has been a steady slow unravelling since. A monster club laid low by the wrong owners.

19=. West Ham- what is there not to like about this lot? Tevezgate, post-Tevezgate which has lead to the £25m settlemnt with Sheff U, wrecked the Prem's calmed down wages market by paying stupid money, now owned by the owners' liquidators whose only interest is maximising their exit price whilst forcing repeated sales.

19=. Portsmouth- at one stage more owners than points. The latest lot don't have the dosh so more horror stories of delayed payments and a transfer freeze. Quite likely to go into administration. Like West Ham, wrecked any sanity there was in Prem League wages and are now paying a very heavy price.

Good summary gunner...... have you had a quiet Christmas too? Not suprisingly, with one or two obvious exceptions, the financial state of each club is roughly reflected in it's league position.

[jonv]

[den]

4. Spurs- I know this will bring howls of protest but the owners are not the ones who buy good footballers and turn them into duds. Superbly managed financially generated huge sums for investment in the playing side despite only having a 35,000 seater stadium and only injecting about £35m in new capital over the past decade. Following the Arsenal model in their financing of White Hart Lane and are pulling it off in far worse financial circumstances than ARrsenal had.

How much of this is down to management and how much is down to one huge advantage they have - the Jewish community?

JW once said that the sponsors list at Spurs, was virtually a list of the FTSE 100 businesses. I would imagine that the said list contains quite a reflection of the Jewish business accumen?

[thenodrog]

How much of this is down to management and how much is down to one huge advantage they have - the Jewish community?

JW once said that the sponsors Spurs, was virtually a list of the FTSE 100 businesses. I would imagine that the said list contains quite a reflection of the Jewish business accumen?

When you put it like that den I cannot think of a bigger contrast to BRFC.

[philipl]

A huge amount is down to good management at Spurs. If you look at their wage bill, it is £30m a year less than Arsenal's- those guys know how to control costs.

[cletus]

A huge amount is down to good management at Spurs. If you look at their wage bill, it is £30m a year less than Arsenal's- those guys know how to control costs.

Spurs should be far far bigger than Arsenal given their Jewish backers, location & naturally wealthy supporters. Infact they should be one of THE biggest clubs in the world! ....... but have failed miserably for donkey years. They`re only just in the top3 London clubs.

I don`t call that good management at all. Sorry

[jonv]

Spurs should be far far bigger than Arsenal given their Jewish backers, location & naturally wealthy supporters. Infact they should be one of THE biggest clubs in the world! ....... but have failed miserably for donkey years. They`re only just in the top3 London clubs.

I don`t call that good management at all. Sorry

have you something against jews

[cletus]

have you something against jews

....absolutely nothing against them jonv. Merely stating that Spurs have a huge jewish following & as Den previously stated....."How much of this is down to management and how much is down to one huge advantage they have - the Jewish community? JW once said that the sponsors Spurs, was virtually a list of the FTSE 100 businesses. I would imagine that the said list contains quite a reflection of the Jewish business accumen?"

To have such powerful & influential financial backers & to hail from one of the biggest most vibrant cities in the world......& then to have failed so compete so miserably since probably the 60s, is what i call poor management. Arsenal & Chelsea have repeatedly won trophies & attracted some of the best footballers to their clubs, yet Spurs with all their clout have never been able to attract the proper 'top' players to WHL.

[thenodrog]

A huge amount is down to good management at Spurs. If you look at their wage bill, it is £30m a year less than Arsenal's- those guys know how to control costs.

Yet they must pay big remuneration somehow to attract the big players. Rem Bentley left a great offer here to sign for them. Crouch was on big money at Lpool and Pompey, no doubt Keane and Defoe the same so if the above is true then something is not stacking up.

[joey_big_nose]

Spurs should be far far bigger than Arsenal given their Jewish backers, location & naturally wealthy supporters. Infact they should be one of THE biggest clubs in the world! ....... but have failed miserably for donkey years. They`re only just in the top3 London clubs.

I don`t call that good management at all. Sorry

Not sure how you came up with that. Spurs are not in a "naturally wealthy" area at all. Tottenham/Edmonton/Hackney are some of the poorest areas of the country. Nothing like Arsenal who draw support from Islington, Highgate and Camden or, of course, Chelsea or Fulham. Spurs do obviously have some wealthy backers but in terms of catchment area they have always not been as well placed as some other London clubs (although a bit better off than West Ham or Millwall and the like).

To keep the wage bill that low when they have signed so many established players is interesting. I would have assumed virtually everyone in the first XVI players would be on 40-60k a week. How have they managed it? How does their wage bill compare to Rovers?

I hate Tottenham, but if they really have only injected 30m over the last few years you have to respect that given the cost of who they have brought in. I suppose Carrick and Berbatov have donw a great deal to offset their outlay.

[RevidgeBlue]

I will shortly be doing a review of the Rovers accounts which undoubtedly will kick off another vigorous debate about the Rovers' ownership. So I thought it would be fun to do a league table of the good the bad and the ugly of Premier League club owners.

No debate whatsoever to be had there. We need new ones. The Trustees would probably be the first to admit that.

[Mr. E]

6. Rovers- for sheer professionalism and longevity, the Walker Trust are unbeatable. Were generous in the initial years following Jack's death (put in £30m+ and converted all debt into shares) and are now probably even more valuable to the club's well-being for not selling out to any of the charlatans who fancy a football club in their portfolio. Would have been higher but for the Ince debacle. As high as 6th because of the willingness to invest in the fan base by offering the Prem's lowest ticket prices and are being rewarded by crowds of improbable proportions given the size. wealth (lack of) and location of the town.

and who exactly is "fancying" us, when anyone who buys Rovers will be making no profit at all? We have not been sold because there is no one to sell us to, it's as simple as that.

[RoversSG]

Spurs should be far far bigger than Arsenal given their Jewish backers, location & naturally wealthy supporters. Infact they should be one of THE biggest clubs in the world! ....... but have failed miserably for donkey years. They`re only just in the top3 London clubs.

I don`t call that good management at all. Sorry

They are actually well managed. I know the stereotype view of spurs is that they spend a lot but if you look at their accounts, they only spend slightly more than us in terms of wages (they spend about £52m in 2008 compared to £40m for us. Their revenue though, is double ours!

That's what i call sustainable investment!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/table/2009/jun/03/premier-league-turnover-wages-debt

[FourLaneBlue]

An excellent read as always philipl. Thank you.

Looking forward to your take on the accounts of Rovers.

4. Spurs- I know this will bring howls of protest but the owners are not the ones who buy good footballers and turn them into duds.

I think they should be above Arsenal. They are superbly managed off the pitch. They seem to be finally getting it right there too.

A Big 4 club in the making...one day!

[FourLaneBlue]

10. Wigan- not a retiring sort but Dave Whelan has pulled off a remarkable achievement in taking Wigan to being a permanent fixture in the PL and has managed not to spend too much in doing so.

Not sure why they are so low. Longevity? Check. Sensible investment? Check. Success? From League one to Prem regulars. Check. No way should they be so low Pip.

[American]

Not sure why they are so low. Longevity? Check. Sensible investment? Check. Success? From League one to Prem regulars. Check. No way should they be so low Pip.

Agree with that. If his blinkers weren't on, they'd be above us.

[thenodrog]

No debate whatsoever to be had there. We need new ones. The Trustees would probably be the first to admit that.

How many of our previous owners would you swop the current lot for? I know the ownership situation is different thasn in the past but the fact is that the Walkers have been unique in our history. They sunk massive amounts in in the early 90's on a gamble (succesful as it turned out) so if they have chosen to sell a few players in order to 'have a draw' this past couple of years as the world entered recession can we really blame them?

btw How is Dan Williams business empire faring? Anyone know? I might be completely wrong but imo that was another Gaydemak in the making.

[Paul]

Our problem is not the club ownership but the lack of funds. In terms of overall stability the trustees provide a very strong base, our problem being there is no logical reason (other than avoiding relegation) to "invest" (i.e throw away) vast sums of money on Blackburn Rovers. This isn't just true of Rovers but any PL club, nobody is making profits which relate to the level of investment. It's possible the trustees do have money set aside for Rovers but this is being kept until we truely need it, meanwhile bumbling along will just have to do.

[philipl]

Answering the points above:

Cletus- you have a misguided view of the jewish community if you think they are 100% homogenous and all Spurs supporters! In fact you are 100% wrong. The cost of boxes at WHL is nothing like as prohibitive as at the Emirates or Stamford Bridge but obviously a multiple of Ewood Park. JBN, FLB and SGRover hit the nail on the head with their posts. For all the big names Spurs attract, Levy has an unparalleled track record of screwing down their wages. If all owner chairmen were like Levy, the Prem would be a seriously profitable set-up.

American and FLB- Wigan are not above us because all Whelan's money is in debt and I believe neatly parcelled so he can exit with it if he gets a taker. Also, Wigan have not received any Whelan largesse for quite some time and this last year were massive net sellers. They are already a sell to survive club, Rovers are not.

The 'drog answered the point about who fancied buying us. Add Chris Ronnie. In fact at any time since the Trust announced they were looking for the next Jack Walker, I am certain Rothschilds have been fielding at least one chancer who fancies picking up Rovers with dubious funds and borrowings.

[Bobby G]

When will we see the accounts?

[JAL]

Will it be possible to breakdown and highlight the full cost of Paul Ince, his regime, and his signings please Philipl.

[American]

American and FLB- Wigan are not above us because all Whelan's money is in debt and I believe neatly parcelled so he can exit with it if he gets a taker. Also, Wigan have not received any Whelan largesse for quite some time and this last year were massive net sellers. They are already a sell to survive club, Rovers are not.

I'd argue that them being net sellers last season was a part of the business plan. Some seasons they will be net sellers, and when they find the players to make an investment in, they'll spend the money.

And according to Williams, we now are a sell to survive club.

[Majiball]

No debate whatsoever to be had there. We need new ones. The Trustees would probably be the first to admit that.

I've long thought the same, but my views changed in the last year or so. I think we need to be smarter with the money we have. Spending 45M a year on wages is mental we do not need to spend all that on wages, cull a few of thye wasters from our squad and start spending it on areas that can make a big difference.

More coaches we have the smallest team in the league.

Complete re-vamp of the academy from top to toe.

Better scouting network.

We could easily do without Kish and Reid their wages would fund that easily since they are both on about 20K a week or £2million a year.

We're pissing our money against the wall at present.

[American]

I've long thought the same, but my views changed in the last year or so. I think we need to be smarter with the money we have. Spending 45M a year on wages is mental we do not need to spend all that on wages, cull a few of thye wasters from our squad and start spending it on areas that can make a big difference.

More coaches we have the smallest team in the league.

Complete re-vamp of the academy from top to toe.

Better scouting network.

We could easily do without Kish and Reid their wages would fund that easily since they are both on about 20K a week or £2million a year.

We're pissing our money against the wall at present.

Agree on the scouting and academy, but wage spending has more of a relevance to league position than transfer spending. I'd only argue that a club our size has to look at the age of the players we're spending these wages on. Once a player hits 32 or so, we shouldn't have them on big wages.