Club Revenue Generators

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, JHRover said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2018/july/efl-statement-afc-bournemouth/?utm_source=Direct

Another pay-off on the quiet of just £4.7 million. Not bad in exchange for 4 seasons in the Premier League bringing in hundreds of millions.

Not bad business for the EFL either who have now raked in nearly £10 million from Leicester and Bournemouth whilst boxing off a potential headache and embarrassment. Wolves will no doubt be next in a couple of years.

Laughable again.

I wonder how much our embargo actually costed us in terms of lost opportunity!

[tomphil]

25 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Laughable again.

I wonder how much our embargo actually costed us in terms of lost opportunity!

It cost a lot in terms of opportunity to add quality to what we had although going back to the time i'm not sure we were actually going anywhere ?

In fact it was known it was coming long before by the suits and almost welcomed with open arms, loads of overpaid crap STILL got foisted onto the books whilst others got paid off, moved on. The team matured a bit then the sales began, it was an odd one our embargo it really was as we were still allowed to pay up to 10k pwk, it was almost like a great opportunity if your footballs version of a horse trader lurking in the background !!

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, tomphil said:

It cost a lot in terms of opportunity to add quality to what we had although going back to the time i'm not sure we were actually going anywhere ?

In fact it was known it was coming long before by the suits and almost welcomed with open arms, loads of overpaid crap STILL got foisted onto the books whilst others got paid off, moved on. The team matured a bit then the sales began, it was an odd one our embargo it really was as we were still allowed to pay up to 10k pwk, it was almost like a great opportunity if your footballs version of a horse trader lurking in the background !!

Quite. We seemed to be an exception. I am not sure the intention ever was for us to go anywhere either and I tend to think FFP was used as a shield...

I remember an article a few years ago in the Guardian, I think. It made the troubling point that FFP would have prevented a Jack Walker but allowed for "Poultrygeist"..

[JHRover]

48 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Quite. We seemed to be an exception. I am not sure the intention ever was for us to go anywhere either and I tend to think FFP was used as a shield...

I remember an article a few years ago in the Guardian, I think. It made the troubling point that FFP would have prevented a Jack Walker but allowed for "Poultrygeist"..

Think with laughable outcomes like with Bournemouth today and the QPR saga it is becoming clear that FFP rules doesn't prevent anything from happening if the determination to do it is there.

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, JHRover said:

Think with laughable outcomes like with Bournemouth today and the QPR saga it is becoming clear that FFP rules doesn't prevent anything from happening if the determination to do it is there.

Trouble is I think recent voting might have brought in or be about to bring in consequences like point deductions...which would have scuppered "little" Bournemouth etc

[AllRoverAsia]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2018/july/efl-statement-afc-bournemouth/?utm_source=Direct

Another pay-off on the quiet of just £4.7 million. Not bad in exchange for 4 seasons in the Premier League bringing in hundreds of millions.

Not bad business for the EFL either who have now raked in nearly £10 million from Leicester and Bournemouth whilst boxing off a potential headache and embarrassment. Wolves will no doubt be next in a couple of years.

Pure and simple corruption by those who make the rules, interpet them and then sit in judgement.

Makes me puke up.

We, naturally, given who owns us and who our senior 'board', for want of a better word, management was chickened out and messed it up.

I also believe a real challenge for promotion back to the PL was not on the agenda at that time so yes FFP was a shield to hide behind.

Like Tophill intimates the 10k pw on frees being the game giveaway.

Edited July 5, 2018 by AllRoverAsia

[pk1875]

On ‎04‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 13:23, Bigdoggsteel said:

Is there any football stadium where this is actually possible? 20-30 min queue at most stadiums I have been at. 

I think the contactless payments and multi pour pumps being introduced will help with this a lot.

[Bigdoggsteel]

8 minutes ago, pk1875 said:

I think the contactless payments and multi pour pumps being introduced will help with this a lot.

Contactless payments is a must in this day and age. People should have their money ready too. Every second counts at half-time! 

Can you bring beer to your seat in Ewood these days? You can at all Ireland rugby matches, but only some friendly games in the football. Football fans aren't trusted to handle their liquor, maybe with good reason. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Mattyblue]

No and it is one of the daftest rules in football.

Doesn't stop folk from drinking, they just stay in the concourse. Nip to the toilet on say, the hour mark, and it is heaving down there...

[tomphil]

Certain stands or certain areas of stands it should be relaxed in this day and age when a visit to some grounds is like a visit to the theatre or cinema with everyone sitting quietly munching snacks, sipping drinks and ogling their phones.

[JacknOry]

Agree, daft rule, fans neck two/three pints really quickly (which obviously gets you more drunk a lot quicker) before going back to their seats with 30 mins to go.

[Bigdoggsteel]

4 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Agree, daft rule, fans neck two/three pints really quickly (which obviously gets you more drunk a lot quicker) before going back to their seats with 30 mins to go.

I regularly see young lads getting carried out of Ireland games after doing stuff like that. 

A pint or 2 per half, sitting in your seat should be allowed. Draconian, but I just wonder would some ruin it for others? I remember watching the final game last season v Oxford and when those @#/? ran on, some of them looked like extremely well oiled machines and not in a good way 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Mattyblue]

The pubs were rammed from the morning onwards - it was hot too, so by 5pm...

[Reedy You're A Star]

Rugby fans mange to have a beer in their seats without being dickheads. Quite sure football fans would be fine too, just need the namby pamby health and safety exec to grow a pair and let adults adult.

[Stuart]

5 minutes ago, BiggusMickus said:

Rugby fans mange to have a beer in their seats without being dickheads. Quite sure football fans would be fine too, just need the namby pamby health and safety exec to grow a pair and let adults adult.

Agree but it’s never going to happen. No-one deals with individuals who oversteps the mark any more they just ban everyone doing everything.

Nanny state.

[Stuart]

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/august/rovers-link-up-with-ainsworth-jewellers/

Peter Jackson pulled out? Or do we have two competing jewellers now sponsoring us?

If PJtJ is no longer involved it’ll be strange not to hear “Peter Jackson’s Man of the Match” at games.

[Pedro]

On 05/07/2018 at 14:40, pk1875 said:

I think the contactless payments and multi pour pumps being introduced will help with this a lot.

They should have those 'Ghostbusters type men who walk around like at gigs. They would pay for themselves 100x over.

[Vinjay]

On 05/07/2018 at 10:52, Leonard Venkhater said:

Quite. We seemed to be an exception. I am not sure the intention ever was for us to go anywhere either and I tend to think FFP was used as a shield...

I remember an article a few years ago in the Guardian, I think. It made the troubling point that FFP would have prevented a Jack Walker but allowed for "Poultrygeist"..

It's a slap in the face to Jack's memory and how anyone can support it on here is ridiculous. Hypothetically if the sanctions were points reductions (2017 would be the best example perhaps) I don't care if it made a difference between relegation and survival. Or for that matter 6th place and 7th that's less important to me than defending a rule that states Jack Walker's actions were unfair. It's a disgrace and even if clubs are punished inconsistently I refuse to highlight this as any justification for enforcement. I'll never compromise on this view and shouldn't be expected to do so. It's as black and white as it gets. If Jack had won more League titles in the 90's then United would have pushed for the rule sooner. Of course some may feel the fanbase could have been doubled or tripled with more success but we won't know will we? Of course the club didn't help itself after Jack died marketing outreach wise in many ways.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Vinjay17

[roversfan2001]

9 hours ago, Vinjay17 said:

It's a slap in the face to Jack's memory and how anyone can support it on here is ridiculous. Hypothetically if the sanctions were points reductions (2017 would be the best example perhaps) I don't care if it made a difference between relegation and survival. Or for that matter 6th place and 7th that's less important to me than defending a rule that states Jack Walker's actions were unfair. It's a disgrace and even if clubs are punished inconsistently I refuse to highlight this as any justification for enforcement. I'll never compromise on this view and shouldn't be expected to do so. It's as black and white as it gets. If Jack had won more League titles in the 90's then United would have pushed for the rule sooner. Of course some may feel the fanbase could have been doubled or tripled with more success but we won't know will we? Of course the club didn't help itself after Jack died marketing outreach wise in many ways.

So you'd rather see us splash the cash and then go down because of it, than spend within our means and stay up? Wow.

[perthblue02]

9 hours ago, Vinjay17 said:

It's a slap in the face to Jack's memory and how anyone can support it on here is ridiculous. Hypothetically if the sanctions were points reductions (2017 would be the best example perhaps) I don't care if it made a difference between relegation and survival. Or for that matter 6th place and 7th that's less important to me than defending a rule that states Jack Walker's actions were unfair. It's a disgrace and even if clubs are punished inconsistently I refuse to highlight this as any justification for enforcement. I'll never compromise on this view and shouldn't be expected to do so. It's as black and white as it gets. If Jack had won more League titles in the 90's then United would have pushed for the rule sooner. Of course some may feel the fanbase could have been doubled or tripled with more success but we won't know will we? Of course the club didn't help itself after Jack died marketing outreach wise in many ways.

Whilst I agree that FFP is a joke , you always use the slap in the face to Jacks memory which dilutes any argument from you considering that  going off trophy hunting and supporting another club is a bigger insult to Jacks memory than anything else in my opinion.

 

[Vinjay]

3 hours ago, roversfan2001 said:

So you'd rather see us splash the cash and then go down because of it, than spend within our means and stay up? Wow.

If it's a rich benefactor, etc then you can absorb the risks. Some people seem to feel as if Jack was putting the club at risk. That's not true at all it's not like he would have gone nuts and spent 200 million in one go once Abramovich, etc became involved in English football. Most likely he would have forseen a trend (as I did) and looked to sell. It's possible he may have tried to keep the club but without the sheer weight of restrictions that the trustees imposed. That's not putting a club at risk. All elements of industry carry some level of risk what UEFA are doing is catering to United, etc and their whims. The real problem is if Tv deals, etc completely collapse but football continues to be a cash cow at the highest level. The EPL rights continue to rise even if they peak does that mean the bottom is going to hit essentially? Sky are not ITV Digital. If something happened to Sky then BT or someone else would pick up the pieces certainly at EPL level. 

3 hours ago, perthblue02 said:

Whilst I agree that FFP is a joke , you always use the slap in the face to Jacks memory which dilutes any argument from you considering that  going off trophy hunting and supporting another club is a bigger insult to Jacks memory than anything else in my opinion.

 

It's strange how you ignore some things (like my feelings on who was behind Maddox Ltd and just to note I'm referring to some PMs myself and Perth exchanged not that Anderson thread) but my words are suddenly seized upon in other circumstances. Then if I try to explain or "justify" it's ignored. Who's the one who called out his family/trustees most? Hardly anyone else said a thing they are the main catalyst for all those bad feelings which developed. I'm not claiming to be perfect (and I've done some regrettable things but people have limits) but you're making more out of it than the reality really was. FUP, etc are more important issues than me I just happen to be one of the most outspoken against it. After what happened to WBA under Williams, etc you can scrap that nonsense argument about guaranteed survival. Even if the WFIT had spent a bit more that wouldn't have been guaranteed either. Hence why a takeover would still have been the way forward (and what I believe Jack would have wanted because only the best was enough) but with a process more intensive than one that led to the club being sold to people who didn't know relegation existed. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by Vinjay17

[Mike E]

On 10/08/2018 at 16:28, Stuart said:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/august/rovers-link-up-with-ainsworth-jewellers/

Peter Jackson pulled out? Or do we have two competing jewellers now sponsoring us?

If PJtJ is no longer involved it’ll be strange not to hear “Peter Jackson’s Man of the Match” at games.

I'm glad, never trusted Peter Jackson again after some family jewellery was buggered about with while in the care of one of his stores.

Ainsworth's are a good little local jeweller.

[Mattyblue]

It was still announced as Peter Jackson’s MoM from what I heard...

[Vinjay]

37 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I'm glad, never trusted Peter Jackson again after some family jewellery was buggered about with while in the care of one of his stores.

Ainsworth's are a good little local jeweller.

...but are they smaller in terms of market than Peter Jackson's? There's nothing good about "little local sponsors" though they might regard that as patronising anyway. I never liked that WEC Group banner on DE either it summed up much of what was wrong with the club's outlook. Of course the club was in the PL then so there should have been a wider range of prominent potential sponsors than there is now. Why hand jewellery over to some store for safekeeping anyway was it damaged or in need of repairs? Buy a safe perhaps. It's not comparable to putting money in banks, etc either.

Perhaps Ainsworth's just offered more money and the club took it. So Peter Jackson pulled out considering it's a competitor and all. Could be as black and white simple as that. I'm not sure such sponsors have a contract anyway so to speak other than purchasing rights for a set period. I don't know if there's a renewal window or "first rights" but I'm sure most people who want to sponsor the club aren't going to be turned down. Would it really matter to the club having 2 jewellers as sponsors even if you could argue it's better to have as wide a range of companies as possible?

Couldn't the club actually pay someone far more nationally prominent to act as MOTM sponsor and keep it silent? For appearances though I can understand that would be rather embarrassing if it leaked out. Still I've always thought that it might be worth having more prominent sponsors even if you offer them cheaper deals, etc but I guess at Championship level it's better to grab the money where you can get it. The club's local mentality didn't help but people wouldn't listen when this was mentioned. I know the TIME shirts were popular but CIS (those shirts were popular as well and the 97-98 one in particular being my personal no 1) were more national and quite a lucrative deal when signed in 1996. TIME were more local as were Crown Paints who should never have been as prominent to sponsor the shirt. They sponsored Liverpool once yeah but that was 1980's advertising standards.

I think there's a place for regional sponsors even at the most globally centred clubs but the key word is "place" isn't it?

Edited August 12, 2018 by Vinjay17

[Mike E]

I think there's definitely a certain appeal of having a few (or even many) local sponsors, because it brings revenue to Blackburn through advertising them nationally.

Ainsworth's being a small business might chime better with the regional fanbase too, especially with community relations with the club being ripped to shreds since 2010.

I quite like the idea because the club's own MOTM award is only really heard in the ground. Why promote a national brand locally?