[Archived] Transfer Talk

[blueboy3333]

As I said, the world has moved on from January.

The Raos will now realise that promotion is most likely a forlorn dream and the cash position is getting increasingly desperate.

That's not an argument because you've been predicting fianacial armageddon and the fire-sale of our best players for at least the last 4 tanser windows. The more things (apparently) change, the more they stay the same

[Pedro]

All I know is that there has been a Chicken Little attitude towards Rovers' sustainability and existence on these boards ever since I joined...I think approx. 4-5 years ago. What we were promised would happen every single summer (administration, league expulsion etc.) hasn't yet come to fruition.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are bleeding money and it can't go on for long, I just feel that some 'experts' use rumour and guesswork a little too much. One thing is for sure, when we were first told the Ewood sky was falling, we were actually (financially) a lot better off than we are now! I'm no expert but barring a promotion, the inevitable will happen sooner rather than later.

[Mercer]

That's not an argument because you've been predicting fianacial armageddon and the fire-sale of our best players for at least the last 4 tanser windows. The more things (apparently) change, the more they stay the same

Under 'normal' circumstances the scale of loss and debt was / is unsustainable. The Raos had one way out and that was promotion back to the PL. Now that promotion looks increasingly only a dream, something will almost certainly have to give.

Sadly, I think it will be financial Armageddon sooner or later.

I am 99% certain that the sale of Rovers will only be through Administration unless we miraculously find a way back to the PL.

[chaddyrovers]

Mercerman, you have said that Rhodes has been off for the past 4 transfer windows? Still hasn't happened.

You have predict financial melt down at Rovers for the past few seasons. Still hasn't happened. The Owners have financially back the club.

Gav, I heard Ian Battersby say the same thing.

[Athlete]

All I know is that there has been a Chicken Little attitude towards Rovers' sustainability and existence on these boards ever since I joined...I think approx. 4-5 years ago. What we were promised would happen every single summer (administration, league expulsion etc.) hasn't yet come to fruition.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are bleeding money and it can't go on for long, I just feel that some 'experts' use rumour and guesswork a little too much. One thing is for sure, when we were first told the Ewood sky was falling, we were actually (financially) a lot better off than we are now! I'm no expert but barring a promotion, the inevitable will happen sooner rather than later.

The darker that sky gets when it finally comes it will be harder to recover .

My personal view is unless we get promotion something will happen next summer as the parachute payments will be over.. I don't know what or how but just got that feeling...

[Stuart]

One might also ask which quality manager would risk his reputation coming to a club operating under a. the venkys and b. a transfer embargo?

It would be career suicide.

That's just backwards. Any manager coming in has a ready made excuse and their reputation is protecting by the very things you consider threats [since you joined Team GB that is - seriously, what did they do to you??]

[Mercer]

Mercerman, you have said that Rhodes has been off for the past 4 transfer windows? Still hasn't happened.

You have predict financial melt down at Rovers for the past few seasons. Still hasn't happened. The Owners have financially back the club.

Gav, I heard Ian Battersby say the same thing.

Chaddy, with respect to both you and Gav, I suggest you have misunderstood what Battersby said.

It's simple, it's all there in black and white in the audited accounts of both the holding company (VLL) and the subsidiary company (Rovers' football club).

[Gav]

Gav, as I have said on many occasions, it's irrelevant if debt is secured or unsecured.

The problem is if that debt can't be repaid as and when it becomes due it leads to insolvency.

In a nutshell, Rovers' accounts (football club accounts) for year ended June 2014 show:

• Rovers have creditors of £98million
  • £40million is 'external' debt including BOI
  • £58million is owed to parent company VLL - if the Raos get hacked off, Rovers could be history
• BOI reserve the right to take a debenture over Rovers' assets - if this happens, fasten your seatbelts as it would be lock, stock and barrel fixed and floating charges over Rovers' assets

.The land security in India that BOI hold could be for either one or both of the following

• To secure guarantees (for Rovers debt to BOI) provided from the Raos as individuals or from VHPL (Indian company regarded as controlling company of VLL) or indeed from both the Raos and VHPL
• To secure monies that the Raos have borrowed in order to increase issued share capital in VLL (keeps the football club afloat) which I understand has now increased from the £85million shown in accounts of VLL for year ended 31 March 2014 - this would be staggering if correct

I think a lot of fans are under a misapprehension that Venky's are taking all the hits and Rovers are mortgage free and risk free. Nothing could be further than reality.

In a normal default situation, the lender will pursue its monies, interest (including default penalties) and costs directly through the borrower (Rovers' football club). Only when all avenues have been exhausted with the borrower (ultimately at the end of administration or liquidation) will the lender look to enforce its third party guarantees (secured or otherwise).

Thanks for that Merce, it does put things into perspective if that's how the finances are structured, but I don't think they are as simple as you point out.

I've heard Ian and one of two others state that at this moment in time if the debt is called in, the club will not be liable for that debt. The only way the club could be impacted is if the debt is moved to the club or of Venkys go bust themselves and chicken farms, bentleys and football clubs have to be sold off.

Why would Ian go out of his way to say the debt isn't ours at the moment? He gains nothing from making such a statement?

[Stuart]

All I know is that there has been a Chicken Little attitude towards Rovers' sustainability and existence on these boards ever since I joined...I think approx. 4-5 years ago. What we were promised would happen every single summer (administration, league expulsion etc.) hasn't yet come to fruition.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are bleeding money and it can't go on for long, I just feel that some 'experts' use rumour and guesswork a little too much. One thing is for sure, when we were first told the Ewood sky was falling, we were actually (financially) a lot better off than we are now! I'm no expert but barring a promotion, the inevitable will happen sooner rather than later.

But the sky was falling, and continues to fall. Inevitable is the right word, and when it does happen those sneering that "predictions were premature" will be the first to have "seen it coming a mile off".

But I'm as sure as anything that something will need to change drastically before anything starts to improve at Rovers. Potting Kean stopped the rot. How temporary will depend on the next drastic change.

[JHRover]

Until rovers can sign anyone (out of embargo) selling both Rhodes and Gestede is suicide.

Regardless of debt, to sell the top players without being able to replace them would cause rovers to sink like a stone.

Keeping one or both players increases the chances of a cup run, promotion push or even a league title.

Yes recent history isn't very good but we need to believe there is a chance of something positive coming.

The club do need to sort out the turnover to expenses ratio but that can be achieved this year with new sponsorships and lower wages!

Losing Dunn, Robbo and who ever else goes lowers outgoings whilst new sponsorships increase incomings.

That will show FFP that we are compliant and this will go some way to rectifying our situation.

Selling anyone who is seen as vital to our promotion is futile and very short sighted!

This is exactly the point I have tried to make clear on numerous occasions. There is absolutely no point offloading the better players if we are unable to bring in equal or better replacements. For me, Rhodes, Gestede, Marshall and Cairney are our four 'prized assets'. They are the only four players we have that would fetch 'big' money and be actively sought after by rival Championship clubs.

The Gestede to the Premier League possibility is understandable, and I don't think anyone could complain or criticise if, as expected, that happens this summer. The question will be how stubborn Venkys are and how high a fee they get for him. We should be looking at the £7-8 million range, and one of the few positives to Venkys is that they will not sell off our assets on the cheap. If we can get £7-8 million cash for Gestede and replace him with a free or loan and the embargo isnt then lifted then serious questions should be asked of the Football League.

All our business in the last 2 years has been 'sensible'. Our biggest expenditure on one player I think was Marshall for about £1 million, we've paid off those on big contracts apart from Best, and according to the club have given out affordable contracts. It does sicken me that after 2 years of sensible business we're sat here with an embargo whilst clubs like Derby and Middlesbrough are able to go around offering millions of pounds to clubs (neither of which have got parachute money or player sales to help).

I'm getting a bit confused about how Leeds have suddenly managed to go from unacceptable losses and an embargo in January to now being able to spend money and are talking to Joey Barton about a contract. How have they managed to do that without selling players?

If Middlesbrough are to offer £6 million for Rhodes, then the first thing Rovers should do is laugh at them, the second thing they should do is contact the football league and demand a full detailed explanation of how a club like Middlesbrough, with their gates, are able to go around offering £6 million for players. It cannot be done without Premier League cash or player sales and still comply with FFP.

If, as expected, Gestede joins King through the exit door, it becomes even more important to keep Rhodes, Marshall and Cairney at the club. Its all well and good saying that we should sell Marshall and Cairney to Sheffield/Fulham at the right price, but then what? How do we replace them? Who with? Why are rival clubs wanting to buy these players? Does that not suggest we should be trying to keep them if other clubs wanting to improve want them?

I follow Nixon's comments on twitter from time to time. His mate Freedman is now at Forest, and as a result he will not have a bad word said against them. He was recently saying that there is no point whatsoever in Forest selling any of their best players because they can't replace them whilst under an embaro. By contrast the position he takes with Rovers, and has taken for the last few years, is that sooner or later the club will have to cash in on the likes of Rhodes simply to reduce the clubs losses, yet there is no evidence to suggest Venkys will do this or need to do this. He takes a different approach to the two clubs. Forest, because his mate works there, are able to keep losing money, are under no pressure to sell players, and the embargo is nothing but a minor inconvenience to work round. Meanwhile Rovers 'have' to sell to get their house in order. It doesn't add up.

[Mercer]

Thanks for that Merce, it does put things into perspective if that's how the finances are structured, but I don't think they are as simple as you point out.

I've heard Ian and one of two others state that at this moment in time if the debt is called in, the club will not be liable for that debt. The only way the club could be impacted is if the debt is moved to the club or of Venkys go bust themselves and chicken farms, bentleys and football clubs have to be sold off.

Why would Ian go out of his way to say the debt isn't ours at the moment? He gains nothing from making such a statement?

Gav, if the debt is called in, Rovers will be liable for every single penny of the £98million of creditors shown in their accounts at June 2014. If they weren't liable, it would not be shown in the accounts.

What Battersby might be referring to, and again I have said this on several occasions, is monies personally borrowed by the Raos from the BOI in order to issue further share capital in VLL (Rovers' holding company). This is one of two purposes the Indian land security could be for. The other purpose could be if the Raos personally and / or VHPL (Indian company) have guaranteed the BOI facilities made directly to Rovers (these are shown in the Rovers' accounts and BOI reserves the right to take a debenture over Rovers' assets) - should there be a default on those facilities, the lender (BOI) will pursue its monies, interest (including default penalties) and costs directly through the borrower (Rovers). Only when all avenues have been exhausted with the borrower (ultimately at the end of administration or liquidation) will the lender look to enforce its third party guarantees (secured or otherwise), in this case, the Indian land security.

[joey_big_nose]

Well we certainly can't fault you for detail or sticking to your guns Mercerman. I respect you for that.

Its just a shame that your wildly incorrect track record on a whole range of issues undermines the impact of your arguments.

[Mercer]

Well we certainly can't fault you for detail or sticking to your guns Mercerman. I respect you for that.

Its just a shame that your wildly incorrect track record on a whole range of issues undermines the impact of your arguments.

You need to differentiate between fact and speculation.

My comments on the finances are factual and there in black and white in the accounts for all to see - subject to their own personal levels of understanding.

All transfer stuff is speculation whether press or on this MB. What I will say is if Rovers keep both Rhodes and Gestede, the Raos will need to find another £25million to see us through next season which will take their hit to close on £150million.

[Gav]

Gav, if the debt is called in, Rovers will be liable for every single penny of the £98million of creditors shown in their accounts at June 2014. If they weren't liable, it would not be shown in the accounts.

What Battersby might be referring to, and again I have said this on several occasions, is monies personally borrowed by the Raos from the BOI in order to issue further share capital in VLL (Rovers' holding company). This is one of two purposes the Indian land security could be for. The other purpose could be if the Raos personally and / or VHPL (Indian company) have guaranteed the BOI facilities made directly to Rovers (these are shown in the Rovers' accounts and BOI reserves the right to take a debenture over Rovers' assets) - should there be a default on those facilities, the lender (BOI) will pursue its monies, interest (including default penalties) and costs directly through the borrower (Rovers). Only when all avenues have been exhausted with the borrower (ultimately at the end of administration or liquidation) will the lender look to enforce its third party guarantees (secured or otherwise), in this case, the Indian land security.

Again cheers for that.

I get what you're saying, I've always got it, if correct makes getting rid of this lot even more important in my book.

[chaddyrovers]

Chaddy, with respect to both you and Gav, I suggest you have misunderstood what Battersby said.

It's simple, it's all there in black and white in the audited accounts of both the holding company (VLL) and the subsidiary company (Rovers' football club).

Thanks Mercerman for the reply.

I pretty certain that I clearly understood what Ian Battersby said.

I will try to find the Interview where Battersby said this. if I find it, I will post it on BRFCS

Until rovers can sign anyone (out of embargo) selling both Rhodes and Gestede is suicide.

Regardless of debt, to sell the top players without being able to replace them would cause rovers to sink like a stone.

Keeping one or both players increases the chances of a cup run, promotion push or even a league title.

Yes recent history isn't very good but we need to believe there is a chance of something positive coming.

The club do need to sort out the turnover to expenses ratio but that can be achieved this year with new sponsorships and lower wages!

Losing Dunn, Robbo and who ever else goes lowers outgoings whilst new sponsorships increase incomings.

That will show FFP that we are compliant and this will go some way to rectifying our situation.

Selling anyone who is seen as vital to our promotion is futile and very short sighted!

I understand what you are saying.

but without selling Rhodes and Gestede we aren't never going to get out off this embargo.

but I can't see the owners selling key players on the cheap at all.

[Exiled in Toronto]

You need to differentiate between fact and speculation.

My comments on the finances are factual and there in black and white in the accounts for all to see - subject to their own personal levels of understanding.

All transfer stuff is speculation whether press or on this MB. What I will say is if Rovers keep both Rhodes and Gestede, the Raos will need to find another £25million to see us through next season which will take their hit to close on £150million.

No-one disagrees on the facts, only on the speculation as to what impact the facts will have on the owners behaviour. My speculation, based on the accounts, their past and present behaviour, and their apparent wealth, is that we will be having this same discussion in one and most likely two years time.

[JHRover]

Thanks Mercerman for the reply.

I pretty certain that I clearly understood what Ian Battersby said.

I will try to find the Interview where Battersby said this. if I find it, I will post it on BRFCS

I understand what you are saying.

but without selling Rhodes and Gestede we aren't never going to get out off this embargo.

but I can't see the owners selling key players on the cheap at all.

But 22 of the 24 clubs in our league havent got an embargo, and the vast majority haven't had to sell their best players to comply. Infact clubs like Derby and Middlesbrough have recently increased spending, whilst clubs like Sheffield Weds and Reading talk about splashing the cash following recent takeovers. Fulham spent £11 million on McCormack and have avoided an embargo whilst keeping him there. How?

Selling our assets is exactly what the powers that be want us to do. We should resist. Plus there's no guarantee that selling either will see the embargo lifted. Then what? It's League One time.

[Stuart]

I understand what you are saying.

but without selling Rhodes and Gestede we aren't never going to get out off this embargo.

but I can't see the owners selling key players on the cheap at all.

The only way we get out of the embargo is to sell all of our best players and never sign any decent players ever again. Not Championship standard anyway.

Because as soon as we do we go back under embargo again.

Let's say that we do sell them both. When would that then manifest itself as a lifting of the embargo? Would we be out of it in time to sign players again in January? Just at the time when player prices are at their highest point.

If so then there is no point yet. For me we need to hang on to our best players and get another manager in. Failing that, we may as well hang on to Rhodes and Gestede until January when we can get the best price for them.

[1arC]

One big thing to remember in all this, is the debenture that Mercerman mentions, that the Bank of India can place on the club. Assuming Venky's decide to stop funding the club at some point and they stop paying the Bank of India, I would expect that the debenture will be issued. This could then effectively mean, that the Bank force the sale of all the assets and will almost certainly have a shortfall. My degree of comfort was that Venky's will not want to lose the land. I guess they could pay the remainder of the debt to the Bank and keep the land. That would then effectively Bankrupt the club and the future existence would then be on a knife edge.

It is very scary stuff and the higher the debt becomes, the scarier it seems!

[Amo]

It is very scary stuff and the higher the debt becomes, the scarier it seems!

Don't be so alarmist and short-sighted. Everyone knows we can afford to wallow in the Championship for another ten years until Bowyer puts his promotion side together. Just ask Parson.

[chaddyrovers]

But 22 of the 24 clubs in our league havent got an embargo, and the vast majority haven't had to sell their best players to comply. Infact clubs like Derby and Middlesbrough have recently increased spending, whilst clubs like Sheffield Weds and Reading talk about splashing the cash following recent takeovers. Fulham spent £11 million on McCormack and have avoided an embargo whilst keeping him there. How?

Selling our assets is exactly what the powers that be want us to do. We should resist. Plus there's no guarantee that selling either will see the embargo lifted. Then what? It's League One time.

Fulham had just come down from the PL and had the money from the PL payments for getting relegation.

what are Derby, Boro paying for wages aswell.? and what are paying in wages?

The only way we get out of the embargo is to sell all of our best players and never sign any decent players ever again. Not Championship standard anyway.

Because as soon as we do we go back under embargo again.

Let's say that we do sell them both. When would that then manifest itself as a lifting of the embargo? Would we be out of it in time to sign players again in January? Just at the time when player prices are at their highest point.

If so then there is no point yet. For me we need to hang on to our best players and get another manager in. Failing that, we may as well hang on to Rhodes and Gestede until January when we can get the best price for them.

Stuart, this is why I wasn't in favour of FFP rules from the start. And I said this on here at the time. the rules suited Owners who don't want to spend their own money on the club.

I really do hope that QPR win their battle with FFP rules.

[1864roverite]

Lets be real, two goal scorers who plundered 41 goals between them last season WONT be sold for anything less than their real value.

If we as fans accept this scenario then the figures we can see coming in are nothing like as reported and certainly nothing like Mercerman has predicted.

Gestede will command a fee of no less than £6.5m

Rhodes will not leave for anything less than £10.5m

Who in gods earth would suggest a sale of Rhodes for £6m? Its ludicrous to have even printed that figure let alone say it. The man is a goal machine and even Venkys know that and they certainly know his real value.

so then, that my view like many others.

[chaddyrovers]

I suspect that 6 mil is what Boro can pay due to FFP rules.

[JHRover]

Fulham must have blown more than a quarter of their entire parachute money on the McCormack deal alone, which is more than we spent on Rhodes.

As far as I am aware Fulham haven't sold any players for big money and its safe to assume that they are paying McCormack, among others, very good money.

The crowds/gates argument doesnt stack up. Fulham aren't a well supported club and the few thousand more through the turnstiles they get doesn't make up the difference.

Now Fulham are throwing more money around (rumours about Cairney and other expensive signings).

The argument appears to be that the only chance we have of ever complying with FFP is by cashing in on our prized assets and being limited to cheap deals and bargains in future, yet clubs of a similar size and stature to ourselves, like Fulham and Middlesbrough, are able to throw money around despite spending big in recent years. They don't have to sell their best players to avoid the embargo so why should we?

Its a joke, but more importantly it shows that very few clubs have had to 'cash in' to comply with FFP.

[Pedro]

But the sky was falling, and continues to fall. Inevitable is the right word, and when it does happen those sneering that "predictions were premature" will be the first to have "seen it coming a mile off".

But I'm as sure as anything that something will need to change drastically before anything starts to improve at Rovers. Potting Kean stopped the rot. How temporary will depend on the next drastic change.

Don't get me wrong - I totally understand that things were really bad when we started discussing it. Just certain people liked to put themselves across as experts, insiders in fact and the timescale on certain events happening (as of now) are shown to be at the very least 4 years and millions of pounds of debt out.