[Archived] Transfer Talk Part 2

[Stuart]

These were the posts...

Personally I have a lot of respect for Kamy's opinion. Especially when it comes to matters involving transfers, Venkys or club matters.

Fasten your seat belts - said it was coming:

Northern Rover ‏@Northern_Rover · 7m7 minutes ago

Next up on the escalator out of Ewood Park is Rudy Gestede who is has nearly reached the top of the escalator out. 1/2.

Northern Rover ‏@Northern_Rover · 5m5 minutes ago

Jordan Rhodes and Ben Marshall have also stared their journeys on the escalator out but are someway off the top just yet. 2/2.

As has been already posted Cairney is having a medical with Fulham and expected to complete the deal very soon. Believe that the deal is in the region of £2.3 million with around another £1.5 million in add on's.

Watford will be making a serious bid for Gestede within the next few days, player is pushing for a move.

Ben Marshall is also likely to be subject to a bid from West Brom and Norwich, Derby also interested.

Jordan Rhodes agent is expecting a big bid from a club within the next week (no idea who it is).

My source in Pune has told me this week that the owners have approved the sale of any player as long as the sale is approved by Gary Bowyer.

As for incomings, O'Hara has a number of offers from a few clubs, including Rovers. Rovers also actively working on 2 other targets.

[Mercer]

Following a few points made by different posters, some observations that may help:

Last published accounts for Rovers (year ended 30 June 2014) showed that they had creditors of £98million which included £58million to VLL. Amounts owed to VLL were interest free with no fixed date for repayment. Conceivably, VLL could ask for either partial or full repayment either today or tomorrow; if this happened, almost certainly it would lead to insolvency. There were also £40million of other creditors to worry about. Almost certainly, the £98million will have grown by at least £20million leaving the club with creditors of £120million+. We also know that VLL issued a further £15million of share capital back in October 2014 (taking total issued share capital to £101million) which would have been then lent to Rovers to keep the football club afloat.

Rovers couldn't have just 'loaded losses' into 2013/14 to help the position in 2014/15. KPMG are Rovers' auditors and one of the 'big boys' and any attempt to move profit / losses around should have been rigorously challenged. Believe me, KPMG are in a different league and class to the likes of anyone on the Rovers' board.

[yoda]

Following a few points made by different posters, some observations that may help:

Last published accounts for Rovers (year ended 30 June 2014) showed that they had creditors of £98million which included £58million to VLL. Amounts owed to VLL were interest free with no fixed date for repayment. Conceivably, VLL could ask for either partial or full repayment either today or tomorrow; if this happened, almost certainly it would lead to insolvency. There were also £40million of other creditors to worry about. Almost certainly, the £98million will have grown by at least £20million leaving the club with creditors of £120million+. We also know that VLL issued a further £15million of share capital back in October 2014 which would have been then lent to Rovers to keep the football club afloat.

Rovers couldn't have just 'loaded losses' into 2013/14 to help the position in 2014/15. KPMG are Rovers' auditors and one of the 'big boys' and any attempt to move profit / losses around should have been rigorously challenged. Believe me, KPMG are in a different league and class to the likes of anyone on the Rovers' board.

The £120 million to creditors is actually themselves is it not i.e VLL.I think that is the only reason the auditors signed off the accounts as they covered it with the £143 million of paid up shares that they hold.

[Jock]

Some of our players have gone up in value but it's hard to tell by how much in real terms. The knew Sky TV deal has inflated the market. Venkys ownership has made us impotent.

[JBiz]

And what have we gained by selling him?

Will it improve the team - No

Will the fee make any difference to the FFP position - No

Will we sign a replacement of similar quality - No

Will we have any playmaker capable of getting his head up and playing a pass - No

Will it improve one of our rivals - Certainly it will.

Will the usual suspects get a cut- Don't doubt it for a minute.

You're more than welcome to that opinion, my post was trying to show a view based on what's happened rather than just a list of all the bad things that could happen.

How do you know that king money, this and Gestede sale won't get us out of embargo? How do you know that 10% of that cash can't be used to sign the next cairney/Gestede? How do you know that the people running the club are still conning the owners/fans?

I agree on the strengthening the rivals but why ignore the fact in my post that points out how much better off Fulham are, in terms of a financial position? We could turn it down but what if he wants to go? What if he does another inconsistent season for us?

[Al]

Following a few points made by different posters, some observations that may help:

Last published accounts for Rovers (year ended 30 June 2014) showed that they had creditors of £98million which included £58million to VLL. Amounts owed to VLL were interest free with no fixed date for repayment. Conceivably, VLL could ask for either partial or full repayment either today or tomorrow; if this happened, almost certainly it would lead to insolvency. There were also £40million of other creditors to worry about. Almost certainly, the £98million will have grown by at least £20million leaving the club with creditors of £120million+. We also know that VLL issued a further £15million of share capital back in October 2014 (taking total issued share capital to £101million) which would have been then lent to Rovers to keep the football club afloat.

Rovers couldn't have just 'loaded losses' into 2013/14 to help the position in 2014/15. KPMG are Rovers' auditors and one of the 'big boys' and any attempt to move profit / losses around should have been rigorously challenged. Believe me, KPMG are in a different league and class to the likes of anyone on the Rovers' board.

That is just wrong. It is a perfectly normal thing to reserve for future known losses in the accounts. In fact the auditors will and should insist on it. The contracts of Best, Robinson and Orr were certainly known losses and there is a good case for Rhodes wages to be included in there as well.

[Mercer]

The £120 million to creditors is actually themselves is it not i.e VLL.Iink that is the only reason the auditors signed off the accounts as they covered with the £143 million of paid up shares that they hold.

Sadly no.

As I said, as at June 2104, 'external' creditors totalled £40million and monies owed to VLL (Rovers' holding company) totalled £58million. VLL could demand repayment at any time and for all we know, the sale of players is to partially repay the monies owed to VLL. VLL although Rovers holding company, is a separate legal entity and does not need to do its subsidiary company any favours if it doesn't want to ! Many 'smaller' corporates, as opposed to the 'nationals' will often structure companies in a manner that manages damage limitation should the going get tough !

As regards the share capital, first VLL accounts for period to March 2012 showed an allotted share capital of £39million which would have been utilised to buy the Rovers and meet requirements re Rovers' bank finance at acquisition date. Since then, they have had to issue another £62million of share capital purely to keep the club afloat. The auditors signed off accounts with very strong caveats re Rovers' future ie dependent upon ongoing support from its parent company - sadly, there is no reassurance in this as VLL could turn round to Rovers at any time and wave bye bye.

That is just wrong. It is a perfectly normal thing to reserve for future known losses in the accounts. In fact the auditors will and should insist on it. The contracts of Best, Robinson and Orr were certainly known losses and there is a good case for Rhodes wages to be included in there as well.

You need to read my comments again.

Yes, known liabilities can be reserved for but not on a 'willy-nilly' basis ie Shelfy saying, 'let us increase our losses by £5 to £10 million this year in order to give us an edge for next year'. I have been both poacher and gamekeeper and can assure you that I know how the 'game' works.

[Al]

You're more than welcome to that opinion, my post was trying to show a view based on what's happened rather than just a list of all the bad things that WILL happen.

How do you know that king money, this and Gestede sale won't get us out of embargo?

I'LL JUST SAY - WHAT DO YOU THINK! - BE HONEST.

How do you know that 10% of that cash can't be used to sign the next cairney/Gestede?

BECAUSE THE TERMS OF THE EMBARGO SAY THAT NO TRANFER FEES CAN BE PAID.

How do you know that the people running the club are still conning the owners/fans?

I'LL ADMIT THAT IS JUST AN OPINION.

I agree on the strengthening the rivals but why ignore the fact in my post that points out how much better off Fulham are, in terms of a financial position?

WHAT CONCERN OF OURS IS FULHAM'S FINANCIAL POSITION.

We could turn it down but what if he wants to go? What if he does another inconsistent season for us?

THAT'S UP TO HIM BUT IT DOES HIM NO GOOD CAREER WISE TO ROT IN THE RESERVES. WE HAD HIM ON CONTRACT FOR TWO MORE YEARS.

[yoda]

Sadly no.

As I said, as at June 2104, 'external' creditors totalled £40million and monies owed to VLL (Rovers' holding company) totalled £58million. VLL could demand repayment at any time and for all we know, the sale of players is to partially repay the monies owed to VLL. VLL although Rovers holding company, is a separate legal entity and does not need to do its subsidiary company any favours if it so wished. Many 'smaller' corporates, as opposed to the 'nationals' will often structure companies in a manner that manages damage limitation should the going get tough !

As regards the share capital, first VLL accounts for period to March 2012 showed an allotted share capital of £39million which would have been utilised to buy the Rovers and meet requirements re Rovers' bank finance at acquisition date. Since then, they have had to issue another £62million of share capital purely to keep the club afloat. The auditors signed off accounts with very strong caveats re Rovers' future ie dependent upon ongoing support from its parent company - sadly, there is no reassurance in this as VLL could turn round to Rovers at any time and wave bye bye.

You need to read my comments again.

Yes, known liabilities can be reserved for but not on a 'willy-nilly' basis ie Shelfy saying, 'let us increase our losses by £5 to £10 million this year in order to give us an edge for next year'. I have been both poacher and gamekeeper and can assure you that I know how the 'game' works.

The RP04 listed at companies house dated 13/2/2015 shows £143 million of paid up shares in the name of Blackburn Rovers

[JBiz]

You're more than welcome to that opinion, my post was trying to show a view based on what's happened rather than just a list of all the bad things that WILL happen.

How do you know that king money, this and Gestede sale won't get us out of embargo?

I'LL JUST SAY - WHAT DO YOU THINK! - BE HONEST.

How do you know that 10% of that cash can't be used to sign the next cairney/Gestede?

BECAUSE THE TERMS OF THE EMBARGO SAY THAT NO TRANFER FEES CAN BE PAID.

How do you know that the people running the club are still conning the owners/fans?

I'LL ADMIT THAT IS JUST AN OPINION.

I agree on the strengthening the rivals but why ignore the fact in my post that points out how much better off Fulham are, in terms of a financial position?

WHAT CONCERN OF OURS IS FULHAM'S FINANCIAL POSITION.

We could turn it down but what if he wants to go? What if he does another inconsistent season for us?

THAT'S UP TO HIM BUT IT DOES HIM NO GOOD CAREER WISE TO ROT IN THE RESERVES. WE HAD HIM ON CONTRACT FOR TWO MORE YEARS.

If we get 10m and a further 10m was on last years bill extra, is it not conceivable that we could leave the embargo? Letting players rot in the reserves is not conducive to saving money- besides we've had enough of those down the years (and still have the "Best" one)

Fulhams financial position is massive when you consider just how rotten football is. For example they could have doubled his wages for all we know.

[Mercer]

The RP04 listed at companies house dated 13/2/2015 shows £143 million of paid up shares in the name of Blackburn Rovers

The RP04 listed at companies house dated 13/2/2015 shows £143 million of paid up shares in the name of Blackburn Rovers

So what ?

This is the same number as reported in the accounts for June 2014 which also showed a cumulative loss of £202million leaving a £57million deficit on shareholders' account.

The club is financially screwed.

[chaddyrovers]

Norwich have enquired about Rudy Gestede.

Source Sky Sports News

[RevidgeBlue]

Bottom line of all this is that GB obviously doesn't rate TC that highly or he wouldn't have kept shoving him out on the wing or sanctioned his sale. Time will tell if he is right but if TC has another season like the one he's just had then I wouldn't say we were strengthening a rival. Can you imagine if someone came in with a bid for "Lowey". He'd be given a new ten year index linked deal and life presidency of the Club, and the enquiring Club would be hounded out of town.

As regards the direction the Club is taking overall I do find it strange that there doesn't appear to have been an end of season summit with the manager yet. I was rather hoping that that was a sign the owners had lost patience with GB rather than the club.

[Al]

You need to read my comments again.

Yes, known liabilities can be reserved for but not on a 'willy-nilly' basis ie Shelfy saying, 'let us increase our losses by £5 to £10 million this year in order to give us an edge for next year'. I have been both poacher and gamekeeper and can assure you that I know how the 'game' works.

NO YOU NEED TO READ MINE.

THE RESERVES I SUGGESTED ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND SPECIFIC, NOT "WILLY NILLY", AND WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO REDUCE THE LOSSES IN THIS YEARS ACCOUNTS. DON'T TRY TO TELL ME HOW IT WORKS. I WAS AN ACCOUNTANT IN INDUSTRY ALL MY CAREER.

[yoda]

So what ?

This is the same number as reported in the accounts for June 2014 which also showed a cumulative loss of £202million leaving a £57million deficit on shareholders' account.

The club is financially screwed.

I know it is screwed, the point is it is the Raos that will lose the £143 million if they pull the plug, the debt to outside creditors was listed as £24 million in the last accounts

[RevidgeBlue]

I'll be amazed if Rhodes, Gestede and Marshall are still here for the Wolves game.

Pretty obvious Gestede won't be here I think as he is so keen to leave, and I'd drive Marshall anywhere he wanted for another 3.5m the way he performed for most of last season.

Not losing Rhodes is crucial then it's up to GB to show his mettle or otherwise by the quality of repacements he is able to bring in on a shoestring and by promoting the youngsters.

[den]

Norwich have enquired about Rudy Gestede.

Source Sky Sports News

That'll go down well Chaddy.

[Al]

If we get 10m and a further 10m was on last years bill extra, is it not conceivable that we could leave the embargo?

£3.5 MILL IS PEANUTS IN COMPARISON AND WOULD NOT MAKE OR BREAK AN EMBARGO RELEASE.

Letting players rot in the reserves is not conducive to saving money- besides we've had enough of those down the years (and still have the "Best" one)

YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT HE IS STUPID ENOUGH TO SACRIFICE HIS CAREER LIKE BEST HAS DONE. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS THAT STUPID.

Fulhams financial position is massive when you consider just how rotten football is. For example they could have doubled his wages for all we know.

WE OWNED HIS CONTRACT. FULHAM's RICHES ARE IRRELEVENT. IF YOU THINK THEY HAVE DOUBLED HIS WAGES YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.

[Athlete]

That'll go down well Chaddy.

he'll be gone next few days thats for sure....

I hope its keep Rhodes now at all costs

[martonrover]

Pretty obvious Gestede won't be here I think as he is so keen to leave, and I'd drive Marshall anywhere he wanted for another 3.5m the way he performed for most of last season.

Not losing Rhodes is crucial then it's up to GB to show his mettle or otherwise by the quality of repacements he is able to bring in on a shoestring and by promoting the youngsters.

To be fair to Marshall, he was another one who was moved around a lot.

[LDRover]

On reflection Bowyer may well try to keep Rhodes. Reason being that he may struggle to turn a profit on him whereas Gestede and Marshall will most certainly do that. More plus points with the Venks on that one.

Improving squad value rather than points on the board is king.

[Al]

Pretty obvious Gestede won't be here I think as he is so keen to leave, and I'd drive Marshall anywhere he wanted for another 3.5m the way he performed for most of last season.

Not losing Rhodes is crucial then it's up to GB to show his mettle or otherwise by the quality of repacements he is able to bring in on a shoestring and by promoting the youngsters.

Do you have a death wish too?

[Athlete]

On reflection Bowyer may well try to keep Rhodes. Reason being that he may struggle to turn a profit on him whereas Gestede and Marshall will most certainly do that. More plus points with the Venks on that one.

Improving squad value rather than points on the board is king.

running a side for profit not promotion

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

running a side for profit not promotion

Promotion represents the ultimate profit !

[Mercer]

I know it is screwed, the point is it is the Raos that will lose the £143 million if they pull the plug, the debt to outside creditors was listed as £24 million in the last accounts

Creds due < 1 year = £30.5m, Creds due > 1 year = £67.4m, Total creds £97.9m.

Amount due to parent company, as accounts, = £58.6m.

Therefore 'external' creds (outside group) = £97.9m-£58.6m=£39.3m.