[Archived] Grant Hanley

[awhom111]

Just out of interest I've collated the transfer ins and outs since 10/11

Obviously these figures are approx -

10/11 4m spent 3 m received

11/12 14m spent 36m received

12/13 14m spent 7m received

13/14 2m spent 1.5m received

14/15 1.5m spent 900k recieved

15/16 900k spent 21m recieved

Total 36.4m spent 69.4m recieved

Make of this what you will....

For reference, the accounts supply these figures for transfers in during those seasons:

10/11: 5.9m

11/12: 16.8m

12/13: 16.3m

13/14: 4.4m

14/15: 1.6m

There may be some fees other than transfers lumped in to those figures.

For what it's worth, the accounts also suggest that on the cash basis we essentially broke even on payments for transfers and receipts from transfers in the six seasons from 2009-2015. It is not clear what other things might be included in those figures as I would assume things like add ons from sales that we owe to other clubs would get added to cash paid. Obviously that will change for this past season.

[ABBEY]

Say what you want about the owners, id generally agree however they've not often sold prize assets on cheap and he's currently our best player!

and how much has gone back into strengthening?

Unless it actually happens Jock, let's not assume!

you moaned at me for posting one sentence replies!!!

[JBiz]

and how much has gone back into strengthening?

you moaned at me for posting one sentence replies!!!

Because you constantly do it, take whole threads back to the same topic of Venky hate. The irony is you don't realise many people agree but are sick to death of having it rammed down their throats.

Like for instance I already said that it wouldn't be reinvested and would go to plugging the ever increasing gap, but you ignore it for sake of getting a bit of an argument off me, and some Venky hate in, which is understandable but frustrating to have to repeat myself.

[Parsonblue]

As an international player, I can't imagine that Hanley wants to do anything but get away from Ewood. He is far too good for a struggling Championship club and I would expect more than one Premier League club to be interested in him. For his own career development he needs to be playing for club with more ambition than the Rovers.

[Stuart]

As an international player, I can't imagine that Hanley wants to do anything but get away from Ewood. He is far too good for a struggling Championship club and I would expect more than one Premier League club to be interested in him. For his own career development he needs to be playing for club with more ambition than the Rovers.

Sad but true.

[RevidgeBlue]

Are you kidding? That is not a fortune for a club like them. Believe me Rangers can afford Hanley and he wants to go there and they desperately need a centre half. He will be their other marquee signing this summer, mark my words.

Not so sure about that, I think you get 2.7m for winning the League in Scotland, which compared with the 100m you now get for finishing bottom of the Premiership shows the gulf between the 2nd Leagues.

Bearing in mind also Rangers haven't even been in the top League in Scotland for the last year or two.

[ABBEY]

Because you constantly do it, take whole threads back to the same topic of Venky hate. The irony is you don't realise many people agree but are sick to death of having it rammed down their throats.

Like for instance I already said that it wouldn't be reinvested and would go to plugging the ever increasing gap, but you ignore it for sake of getting a bit of an argument off me, and some Venky hate in, which is understandable but frustrating to have to repeat myself.

It needs ramming down throats . I will post Venkysout until they cluck off if you want venkys in posts then I t won't be from me .. Put me on ignore then .

VENKYSCUM OUT

[Athlete]

Not so sure about that, I think you get 2.7m for winning the League in Scotland, which compared with the 100m you now get for finishing bottom of the Premiership shows the gulf between the 2nd Leagues.

Bearing in mind also Rangers haven't even been in the top League in Scotland for the last year or two.

Rev unfortunately oldjamfan is 100% certain mate they can afford and will buy a central defender has Warburton has identified were he has to spend to compete in the spl

[Waggy76]

Quite right Abbey , Venkys Out !

Until that day dawns Blackburn Rovers are well and truly goosed !

[JBiz]

It needs ramming down throats . I will post Venkysout until they cluck off if you want venkys in posts then I t won't be from me .. Put me on ignore then .

VENKYSCUM OUT

Haha you call me mr opposite, I want you to post "Venkys in"? Leave it off, the way you say it's as if you think posting that here makes a difference to anything other than the sanity of those forced to read it. Ignoring doesn't work on prolific posters, ask Al why.

[LDRover]

Have to agree. If Rangers want him, they'll get him.

[MrT]

For reference, the accounts supply these figures for transfers in during those seasons:

10/11: 5.9m

11/12: 16.8m

12/13: 16.3m

13/14: 4.4m

14/15: 1.6m

There may be some fees other than transfers lumped in to those figures.

For what it's worth, the accounts also suggest that on the cash basis we essentially broke even on payments for transfers and receipts from transfers in the six seasons from 2009-2015. It is not clear what other things might be included in those figures as I would assume things like add ons from sales that we owe to other clubs would get added to cash paid. Obviously that will change for this past season.

Thanks for posting this, have to say though I thought I'd overestimated the fees paid.

13/14 we bought Marshall for 1m and Evans for 600k. So unless Marrow, Mahoney and Green cost 2.8m combined those numbers seem wrong.

14/15 we only made one cash signing and that was Duffy, I estimated this at 1.5 but I've seen figures ranging from 500k to 1.5m.

Edit in13/14 we brought Baptiste, Steele and Tunnicliffe on loan, that could be where the difference is!

Haven't looked at the others years yet but will do when I get an opportunity. 🔵⚪️

[RoverCanada]

Thanks for posting this, have to say though I thought I'd overestimated the fees paid.

13/14 we bought Marshall for 1m and Evans for 600k. So unless Marrow, Mahoney and Green cost 2.8m combined those numbers seem wrong.

14/15 we only made one cash signing and that was Duffy, I estimated this at 1.5 but I've seen figures ranging from 500k to 1.5m.

Edit in13/14 we brought Baptiste, Steele and Tunnicliffe on loan, that could be where the difference is!

Haven't looked at the others years yet but will do when I get an opportunity. ⚪️

Wouldn't 13/14 include the ~£1M spent on Cairney, Gestede, and Conway?

Probably only this last year's sell-off that truly makes us a net seller over these past 5-6 years.

Wages (and our numerous 'mutual consents') will ultimately dwarf transfer fees anyway. Best's fee was £3M, but he ultimately cost another £8M in wages. Repeat for Etuhu, Murphy, etc.

Looking back at our turnover and wage bills (http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Blackburn%20Rovers):

2007: turnover £43.3M, wages £36.7M (PL)

2008: turnover £56.4M, wage £39.7M (PL)

2009: turnover £50.9M, wages £46.1M (PL)

2010: turnover £57.8M, wages £47.4M (PL)

2011: turnover £57.6M, wages £49.9M (PL)

2012: turnover £54.2M, wages £50.0M (PL)

2013: turnover £26.4M, wages £36.6M (Championship)

2014: turnover £30.4M, wages £34.5M (Championship)

2015: turnover £22.4M, wages £26.9M (Championship)

So we lost £18.8M in our first three years in the Championship before other expenses, player amortisation, player impairment, depreciation, interest... It's not even just the exceptionally awful contracts like Best, Murphy, Etuhu (... and Rhodes, hehe...), but those £10k+ contracts for the likes of Hanley, Evans, Marshall, etc. add up too. There's a reason Birmingham apparantly has a £5k/week cap.

Those transfer fees can only plug so much and we were doing stupid s*** like paying agents £1.5M in the Rochina deal, £600k for those Portuguese youngsters...

We booked almost £20M for 'onerous contracts', 'impairment of player values', and 'exceptional items' in 2014. Those Goodwillies, Givets, Vukevics, etc. add up...

Take into account yearly turnover is now more like £10-15M without parachute payments...

[MrT]

Well spotted Rover Canada, that's another £1m accounted for, wow Cairney, Gestede and Conway for just 1m, that's some shrewd transfer business right there.

[Salgado Is Still A Hero]

Not so sure about that, I think you get 2.7m for winning the League in Scotland, which compared with the 100m you now get for finishing bottom of the Premiership shows the gulf between the 2nd Leagues.

Bearing in mind also Rangers haven't even been in the top League in Scotland for the last year or two.

They're a massive club and allegedly paying Barton's wages straight out of one of the director's pockets so I'm sure they'll find a way.

I would be surprised if he went to a C'ship club to be honest. I remember Crystal Palace were said to said to be interested not long ago and he's easily good enough to play in the Prem. In fact he was actually good for us next to Samba when we were still there.

[tomphil]

Wouldn't 13/14 include the ~£1M spent on Cairney, Gestede, and Conway?

Probably only this last year's sell-off that truly makes us a net seller over these past 5-6 years.

Wages (and our numerous 'mutual consents') will ultimately dwarf transfer fees anyway. Best's fee was £3M, but he ultimately cost another £8M in wages. Repeat for Etuhu, Murphy, etc.

Looking back at our turnover and wage bills (http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Blackburn%20Rovers):

2007: turnover £43.3M, wages £36.7M (PL)

2008: turnover £56.4M, wage £39.7M (PL)

2009: turnover £50.9M, wages £46.1M (PL)

2010: turnover £57.8M, wages £47.4M (PL)

2011: turnover £57.6M, wages £49.9M (PL)

2012: turnover £54.2M, wages £50.0M (PL)

2013: turnover £26.4M, wages £36.6M (Championship)

2014: turnover £30.4M, wages £34.5M (Championship)

2015: turnover £22.4M, wages £26.9M (Championship)

So we lost £18.8M in our first three years in the Championship before other expenses, player amortisation, player impairment, depreciation, interest... It's not even just the exceptionally awful contracts like Best, Murphy, Etuhu (... and Rhodes, hehe...), but those £10k+ contracts for the likes of Hanley, Evans, Marshall, etc. add up too. There's a reason Birmingham apparantly has a £5k/week cap.

Those transfer fees can only plug so much and we were doing stupid s*** like paying agents £1.5M in the Rochina deal, £600k for those Portuguese youngsters...

We booked almost £20M for 'onerous contracts', 'impairment of player values', and 'exceptional items' in 2014. Those Goodwillies, Givets, Vukevics, etc. add up...

Take into account yearly turnover is now more like £10-15M without parachute payments...

Transfer fees or a portion of them go straight out to 'investors' whilst the club gets run on debt in the long term, interest and instalments covered by constant sales. That was likely the plan all along.

Now we've hit the ceiling so huge cutbacks, run within the means and aim to produce and sell a group of players every few years to service the debt.

Who said they are daft ?

[Iceman]

Hanley might as well leave. Its not he can play for 90 mins every game, because we dont have any defenders on the bench. Unless we replace him with the reserve keeper

[RoverCanada]

Transfer fees or a portion of them go straight out to 'investors' whilst the club gets run on debt in the long term, interest and instalments covered by constant sales. That was likely the plan all along.

Now we've hit the ceiling so huge cutbacks, run within the means and aim to produce and sell a group of players every few years to service the debt.

Who said they are daft ?

Haha, I've noticed you get branded a Venky's fan on here now if you merely think they're a bunch of naive, incompetent, disrespectful, dolts, and instead need to delve into conspiracy theories and insidious motives. I have a hard time accepting they're now a bunch of shrewd financial conmen when they didn't even know relegation existed (and probably still don't realise we could be relegated again!) when they bought the club. Ah well, it's hardly worthwhile to 'defend' these idiots and Venky's hate is generally quite warranted.

[tomphil]

Haha, I've noticed you get branded a Venky's fan on here now if you merely think they're a bunch of naive, incompetent, disrespectful, dolts, and instead need to delve into conspiracy theories and insidious motives. I have a hard time accepting they're now a bunch of shrewd financial conmen when they didn't even know relegation existed (and probably still don't realise we could be relegated again!) when they bought the club. Ah well, it's hardly worthwhile to 'defend' these idiots and Venky's hate is generally quite warranted.

Not branding you a lover at all pal I'm just posting my take on it all, you've every right to post yours if it's what you believe. Carry on.

[RoverCanada]

Not branding you a lover at all pal I'm just posting my take on it all, you've every right to post yours if it's what you believe. Carry on.

Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent there that wasn't entirely directed at you. Just making a point that there isn't a chasm of difference between fans saying "we need Venky's out of here, they're a bunch of naive, negligent morons" and "we need Venky's out, they're a bunch of criminal, negligent morons" ...

I just tend to be suspicious when theories start to get more conspiratorial... It's an interesting thought, and perhaps part of what's going on with some of the agents that were messing us about at the start of Venky's reign (and probably still are to some extent), and who knows what exactly is going on with that Bank of India loan. Just thought it's worth pointing out we've had a lot of incomings too and this story that we've actually made millions on the transfer market simply isn't true until this past year. Now, how those incomings have been paid for, and where the fees from outgoings has gone... well, conspire away! But just thought it was worth pointing out that wages are a much bigger part of the story.

It'll be interesting to see how this year's sell-off is reported in next year's accounts...

[tomphil]

True but it gets put about like Venkys have stepped in a lent the club a 100 million interest free non repayable loan when really that isn't the case, or at least not how we arrived at that scenario.

Also on the sales basically covering the signings then again it might balance out on paper but how we arrived at that is again an entirely different story. For instance until we went down and there was little spree the balance for firmly in favour of the outgoings, a fact touched on by the interviewer when Singh was on tv and it looked an asset stripping exercise all the way. It helped lead us to relegation in fact and you have to seriously question why.

Outgoings v incomings almost balancing also adds weight to the theory of Vs putting nothing in the pot for transfers and the club generating it's own funds. There is of course wages and pay offs, again often created very suspiciously e.g Berg. But one and half seasons in the Prem and four seasons parachutes plus the clubs own incomings in Venkys time must add up to at least 100 million so surely that covers a lot of it.

A right mess.

[ABBEY]

Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent there that wasn't entirely directed at you. Just making a point that there isn't a chasm of difference between fans saying "we need Venky's out of here, they're a bunch of naive, negligent morons" and "we need Venky's out, they're a bunch of criminal, negligent morons" ...

I just tend to be suspicious when theories start to get more conspiratorial... It's an interesting thought, and perhaps part of what's going on with some of the agents that were messing us about at the start of Venky's reign (and probably still are to some extent), and who knows what exactly is going on with that Bank of India loan. Just thought it's worth pointing out we've had a lot of incomings too and this story that we've actually made millions on the transfer market simply isn't true until this past year. Now, how those incomings have been paid for, and where the fees from outgoings has gone... well, conspire away! But just thought it was worth pointing out that wages are a much bigger part of the story.

It'll be interesting to see how this year's sell-off is reported in next year's accounts...

yes or no answers please...

do you think dodgy or not dodgy?

do you think anything illegal (not fact just alleged) has happened with the V's?

naive or willing?

[1arC]

True but it gets put about like Venkys have stepped in a lent the club a 100 million interest free non repayable loan when really that isn't the case, or at least not how we arrived at that scenario.

Also on the sales basically covering the signings then again it might balance out on paper but how we arrived at that is again an entirely different story. For instance until we went down and there was little spree the balance for firmly in favour of the outgoings, a fact touched on by the interviewer when Singh was on tv and it looked an asset stripping exercise all the way. It helped lead us to relegation in fact and you have to seriously question why.

Outgoings v incomings almost balancing also adds weight to the theory of Vs putting nothing in the pot for transfers and the club generating it's own funds. There is of course wages and pay offs, again often created very suspiciously e.g Berg. But one and half seasons in the Prem and four seasons parachutes plus the clubs own incomings in Venkys time must add up to at least 100 million so surely that covers a lot of it.

A right mess.

Would you mind expanding on the comment that Venky's haven't lent the club £100 Million please? I am suspicious about the money generated from sales, and made a post to that effect a couple of weeks ago. The figures don't seem to add up, but no one so far has challenged them as far as I know.

[tomphil]

Would you mind expanding on the comment that Venky's haven't lent the club £100 Million please? I am suspicious about the money generated from sales, and made a post to that effect a couple of weeks ago. The figures don't seem to add up, but no one so far has challenged them as far as I know.

They probably have as on average wages etc have outweighed income by about 20 mill a season I suppose but it may well be debt which has funded it.

What I was getting at is the notion being put about in some quarters that they've bought the club then lent it 100 mill then it's all gone wrong and people should feel sorry for them. They've had to keep issuing share capital in VLL every year just to keep the whole thing going out of necessity really because of the way they've chosen to allow the club to be run.

Does everything that goes into VLL find it's way into the club anyway ? I agree when you look at it closely it doesn't seem to add up but the way it's done must benefit them somehow.

[1arC]

They probably have as on average wages etc have outweighed income by about 20 mill a season I suppose but it may well be debt which has funded it.

What I was getting at is the notion being put about in some quarters that they've bought the club then lent it 100 mill then it's all gone wrong and people should feel sorry for them. They've had to keep issuing share capital in VLL every year just to keep the whole thing going out of necessity really because of the way they've chosen to allow the club to be run.

Does everything that goes into VLL find it's way into the club anyway ? I agree when you look at it closely it doesn't seem to add up but the way it's done must benefit them somehow.

If the expenditure has out weighed the Income by £20 million per year, then yes over 5 years £100 million. Look closely at the transfers out though compared to the transfers in. I think you will find we have brought a lot more in and I for the life in me, cant see where £100 Million has been needed to be pumped in. Something does not add up.