WATR (The Rovers Trust)

[lraC]

I obviously can't vouch for the accuracy of this article, but is does state Blackburn Rovers are set to pay their players £9,000 minimum wage.

It could be an increase of course, but does not say, Blackburn Rovers will continue to pay £9,000 so does suggest a change, which seems to be a cut rather than an increase.

Blackburn Rovers set to pay their women's players minimum wage - JOE.co.uk

[RoversClitheroe]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

I obviously can't vouch for the accuracy of this article, but is does state Blackburn Rovers are set to pay their players £9,000 minimum wage.

It could be an increase of course, but does not say, Blackburn Rovers will continue to pay £9,000 so does suggest a change, which seems to be a cut rather than an increase.

Blackburn Rovers set to pay their women's players minimum wage - JOE.co.uk

As I said.

No smoke without fire.

If it's new news then there must have been a change.

[arbitro]

53 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Pretty certain. The ex players speaking out has all stemmed from the Mail article, but most of their complaints appear to be around the way they were treated rather than the amount they were paid.

 

Which articles Carl? Would be good to have this info to discuss. The only one I can see is the Mail one and it doesn’t mention any reduction.

Also I haven’t seen any club statement, so rather than being muddied I think it’s just a complete lack of any info.

Looking at some of the names who have been let go I recognise a significant number of them as the better players I watched last season when I saw them play three times. At any football club the better players will always earn more. Clearly some of them are rightly disgusted at the way they are treated but my logic tells me it's about cost cutting, pure and simple.

It says in the Guardian article that the club refused to comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/03/blackburn-rovers-criticised-after-minimum-wage-reports-for-women

Edited July 4 by arbitro

[lraC]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Looking at some of the names who have been let go I recognise a significant number of them as the better players I watched last season when I saw them play three times. At any football club the better players will always earn more. Clearly some of them are rightly disgusted at the way they are treated but my logic tells me it's about cost cutting, pure and simple.

It says in the Guardian article that the club refused to comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/03/blackburn-rovers-criticised-after-minimum-wage-reports-for-women

I think the club refusing to comment on it paints a picture here. 

Hopefully given the backlash, they will reconsider.

[arbitro]

42 minutes ago, lraC said:

I think the club refusing to comment on it paints a picture here. 

Hopefully given the backlash, they will reconsider.

I think the damage has been done Carl. I wouldn't expect any of the released players to reconsider after the way they have been treated. Effectively the Rovers Women's team is going to have to be built from scratch and on buttons. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the manager and coaching staff aren't considering their futures.

[lraC]

12 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I think the damage has been done Carl. I wouldn't expect any of the released players to reconsider after the way they have been treated. Effectively the Rovers Women's team is going to have to be built from scratch and on buttons. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the manager and coaching staff aren't considering their futures.

I do agree and was meaning that the club reconsider their no comment stance, rather than reinstating any players they have let going.

Despite no clear announcement about a reduction in funding, it seems pretty clear that this is the case.

[Herbie6590]

14 hours ago, tomphil said:

End game or just another downscale ?

The theory of some that they are nudging us towards relegation on purpose is getting harder to ignore.

I doubt the objective is to “achieve” relegation. That makes zero sense for anyone. 
However, I firmly believe the principal objective now is “reduce the costs”.

It’s a side effect that the 2nd almost inevitably leads to the first if it becomes a sustained, repeated requirement season after season. 

I think that’s where we are.

[tomphil]

6 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I doubt the objective is to “achieve” relegation. That makes zero sense for anyone. 
However, I firmly believe the principal objective now is “reduce the costs”.

It’s a side effect that the 2nd almost inevitably leads to the first if it becomes a sustained, repeated requirement season after season. 

I think that’s where we are.

Yes they know the risks full well but continue down the road that very nearly lead there last season.

So if nothing is done to try and prevent it then what conclusions are to drawn ?

It's either 'can't' which means the problems are way deeper than anyone is admitting or it's 'won't' which leads us back to the theory it's being wilfully invited on.  We had an official change of direction two years ago and that went from one extreme to the other but the common theme remained no real investment. Now we've seen quotes of 'external problems' and 'direction of the club' so what do we draw from that ?

Because the recent new model is already scrapped and we know for sure the next change isn't to be start buying players for promotion.

So it's survive as long as possible on fresh air then sink unless someone throws a lifebelt in.

[J*B]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

I doubt the objective is to “achieve” relegation. That makes zero sense for anyone. 
However, I firmly believe the principal objective now is “reduce the costs”.

It’s a side effect that the 2nd almost inevitably leads to the first if it becomes a sustained, repeated requirement season after season. 

I think that’s where we are.

I think its managed decline. This might be wrong and you're the perfect person to tell me otherwise, so please do, but its my understanding that the asset in their group shows (correct me if I'm wrong) as a ~£200M asset. The fact that the £200M+ is money the owe themselves doesn't change that?

If so, I think they've totally given up on making any financial return on the club and totally given up on any on-field success and have now decided to try and get the club as cheap as possible to run to retain the asset at minimal cost. 

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, J*B said:

I think its managed decline. This might be wrong and you're the perfect person to tell me otherwise, so please do, but its my understand that the asset in their group shows (correct me if I'm wrong) as a ~£200M asset. The fact that the £200M+ is money the owe themselves doesn't change that?

If so, I think they've totally given up on making any financial return on the club and totally given up on any on-field success and have now decided to try and get the club as cheap as possible to run to retain the asset at minimal cost. 

Which will inevitably lead to relegation and they know that but aren't now prepared to try and avoid it, instead it'll be a complete restructure as an even lower cost running model.

I really don't think the 'remain in the championship to get better value for players' line means anything because of what it costs to maintain versus what return comes in once in a blue moon.

I'd say some of them down there would favour a scaled down academy and training ground all in one with the aim of producing lads good enough for a league 1 team and sell to championship clubs.  The cost/wage savings would be big enough to tempt that for a set of owners who cannot or will not fund beyond 5 million or so per season anymore.

We aren't getting rid of them unless they are forced.

[lraC]

1 hour ago, J*B said:

I think its managed decline. This might be wrong and you're the perfect person to tell me otherwise, so please do, but its my understanding that the asset in their group shows (correct me if I'm wrong) as a ~£200M asset. The fact that the £200M+ is money the owe themselves doesn't change that?

If so, I think they've totally given up on making any financial return on the club and totally given up on any on-field success and have now decided to try and get the club as cheap as possible to run to retain the asset at minimal cost. 

The interesting thing here is what they have told the court. They have stated that if they are prevented from sending further funds, then it means they can no longer protect their investment.

Hopefully the court and the Indian authorities will see through that and perhaps, the fact that they have stated that already and funded a bond that will be seized, if what they have stated is not correct could be their tipping point. 

They can hardly say they are protecting and investment, when all it does is swallow up the funds they put in and produce a negative return.

[tomphil]

I'm left wondering how much urgency the owners are now attaching to protecting their investment and trying to get their lawyers to get it sorted before the proverbial hits the fan.

As with everything in Venky world a snail moves faster and the Indian court takes the blame in the meantime.

Are the authorities playing hardball or are Venkys playing slow ball ?

Edited July 4 by tomphil

[Herbie6590]

@J*B  @tomphil  @IraC    

I think we are all saying broadly very similar things. 

The appetite has diminished. The mandate is "keep it ticking over with minimal parental support".  

By NOT selling they are avoiding having to write off value through the parent company accounts. It's like buying a stately home for £50m, spending £200m on it but at the end of that spending somehow not increasing the capital value of the property or visitor numbers. 

You still own the asset, but you may have in your head that it should be worth £250m but nobody will give you anything like that. As long as you carry on owning it, you don't have to confront the awful truth that you've just wasted >£200m of your money. 

Now if you have billions, you don't notice a loss of that scale perhaps ? 

 

I get the sense that they don't want to admit that they've cocked up - so they keep it, run it on a threadbare budget & never have to publicly swallow their pride ? 

 

[cesus]

27 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

@J*B  @tomphil  @IraC    

I think we are all saying broadly very similar things. 

The appetite has diminished. The mandate is "keep it ticking over with minimal parental support".  

By NOT selling they are avoiding having to write off value through the parent company accounts. It's like buying a stately home for £50m, spending £200m on it but at the end of that spending somehow not increasing the capital value of the property or visitor numbers. 

You still own the asset, but you may have in your head that it should be worth £250m but nobody will give you anything like that. As long as you carry on owning it, you don't have to confront the awful truth that you've just wasted >£200m of your money. 

Now if you have billions, you don't notice a loss of that scale perhaps ? 

 

I get the sense that they don't want to admit that they've cocked up - so they keep it, run it on a threadbare budget & never have to publicly swallow their pride ? 

 

Maybe you can answer a question I've long wondered about our ownership and the "debt", do the owners just service the debt like an overdraft? I mean say the "overdraft" is £200m, do they for the ease of maths just pay 5% annually/£10m of the total debt or have they literally handed over the whole £200m of their own money.

[tomphil]

8 minutes ago, cesus said:

Maybe you can answer a question I've long wondered about our ownership and the "debt", do the owners just service the debt like an overdraft? I mean say the "overdraft" is £200m, do they for the ease of maths just pay 5% annually/£10m of the total debt or have they literally handed over the whole £200m of their own money.

A poster on here is adamant that over in India there is a borrowing facility in the name of VLL and VH group just does as you say and annually services it.  Then every 4/5 years it needs paying down a bit hence sales and no re-investment, this facility is allegedly secured against land over there as  is most of the VH group borrowings.

Edited July 4 by tomphil

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, cesus said:

Maybe you can answer a question I've long wondered about our ownership and the "debt", do the owners just service the debt like an overdraft? I mean say the "overdraft" is £200m, do they for the ease of maths just pay 5% annually/£10m of the total debt or have they literally handed over the whole £200m of their own money.

The parent lends to its subsidiaries interest-free. Rovers aren’t paying for that debt (compared to Man Utd/Burnley for instance).

Separately & in parallel the V’s in India will fund their group working capital requirements holistically. If they don’t generate enough cash from their core operations &/or there are timing differences then they will borrow from their bankers. 
It’s also possible that they borrow to fund capital projects - this borrowing attracts interest clearly - but chargeable to the borrower (the Indian parent). 
 

It’s like parents lending money to kids FOC but having to take out an overdraft to fund the loan..!

[cesus]

26 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

The parent lends to its subsidiaries interest-free. Rovers aren’t paying for that debt (compared to Man Utd/Burnley for instance).

Separately & in parallel the V’s in India will fund their group working capital requirements holistically. If they don’t generate enough cash from their core operations &/or there are timing differences then they will borrow from their bankers. 
It’s also possible that they borrow to fund capital projects - this borrowing attracts interest clearly - but chargeable to the borrower (the Indian parent). 
 

It’s like parents lending money to kids FOC but having to take out an overdraft to fund the loan..!

Thanks for that 

[Upside Down]

The thing here is that just like with our relegation from the premier league, the things they're doing will obviously only lead to one outcome. So just like that relegation, this year's relegation will be 100% deliberate.

There's a number of things they could do. They could sort out their legal issues, which I believe are related to something far bigger than the unpaid tax on a house, they could find a way to get funding to the club or they could sell up and fuck off.

They choose to do none of these things and instead choose to downgrade the club and get us relegated.

I believe that whatever financial scam they were running, using the club as a vehicle for this, has been rumbled by the Indian government. They were deliberately downgrading things here from day one. They were also involved with this crowd back then as well:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/swiss-authorities-say-seized-documents-from-sports-agency-in-fifa-probe/bb951slsq

Don't you think it's a bit suspicious that the media take every chance they can to bend over backwards telling us how wonderful our glorious owners are and how we're oh so lucky to have them?

[tomphil]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's their dealings with that lot and their associates that they are most worried about being exposed to the public.  Showing how much they let themselves and the club be ripped off and possibly stuff that wasn't above board going on.

Maybe its been worth 20 mill a year to keep that from being given daylight.

[lraC]

8 hours ago, tomphil said:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's their dealings with that lot and their associates that they are most worried about being exposed to the public.  Showing how much they let themselves and the club be ripped off and possibly stuff that wasn't above board going on.

Maybe its been worth 20 mill a year to keep that from being given daylight.

Something keeps them coughing up and I have always held the opinion it is due to them having something hidden. 

[Herbie6590]

11 hours ago, Upside Down said:

The thing here is that just like with our relegation from the premier league, the things they're doing will obviously only lead to one outcome. So just like that relegation, this year's relegation will be 100% deliberate.

There's a number of things they could do. They could sort out their legal issues, which I believe are related to something far bigger than the unpaid tax on a house, they could find a way to get funding to the club or they could sell up and fuck off.

They choose to do none of these things and instead choose to downgrade the club and get us relegated.

I believe that whatever financial scam they were running, using the club as a vehicle for this, has been rumbled by the Indian government. They were deliberately downgrading things here from day one. They were also involved with this crowd back then as well:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/swiss-authorities-say-seized-documents-from-sports-agency-in-fifa-probe/bb951slsq

Don't you think it's a bit suspicious that the media take every chance they can to bend over backwards telling us how wonderful our glorious owners are and how we're oh so lucky to have them?

It’s not my experience that V’s get a universal easy ride in the media BTW. 

[ABBEY]

they don't? 

1 time only Andy bayes played into them .. sacked as a result

 

[lraC]

19 minutes ago, ABBEY said:

they don't? 

1 time only Andy bayes played into them .. sacked as a result

 

Sacked form where and what did he say?

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

It’s not my experience that V’s get a universal easy ride in the media BTW. 

Is that because whenever they interview you the bullshit that gets peddled gets put right?

Maybe not all media but generally when they get mentioned their absolute destruction of this club is glossed over at best. The majority of the stuff I see is from the like of that cretin McGuire telling us how fantastic they are.

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

Sacked form where and what did he say?

I think he means Any Cryer, when he went to town on them and kean in a front page article titled "Time to go Steve" maybe?

He didn't last long at the LET after that.

Imagine Elliot doing that, for me he is the absolute worst "reporter" the LET has ever had.