Thursday deadline.

[JBiz]

Just now, JHRover said:

Cardiff employed a manager we messed about and turned down. Their ability to appoint him or his ability in getting them promoted last season was nothing to do with them being based in a big city. Their attendances even last season were rarely any bigger than ours were when Bowyer was manager, and with the exception of the Madine signing in January they didn't spend much, so I'm not sure why we can't compete with them. Cardiff might be a big city, so is London, that doesn't make Brentford and Barnet bigger than us.

I'd hazard a guess that Villa, Derby, Wolves, Wednesday, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, probably Brighton, have all spent upwards of £20 million on new players over a 2-4 year period. Some were successful, some had parachute money, but not all.

Are Villa in serious financial trouble? Lets wait and see. I've read plenty of rumours and horror stories in the papers but last time I checked they still had a very good squad and manager and weren't under any sanctions.

I'm not sure why spending a few bob on new players suddenly means that the club is being badly run or is going to end up in a mess or revert back to the agency days. We keep hearing about Mowbray's new recruitment department and his honesty and sense in what he does so why would spending a few million change that? Lots of clubs are 'run properly' but spend considerable amounts on improving themselves or trying to.

I just think that there's a degree of Rovers hiding behind FFP rules here as an excuse to not invest more money. I'm not advocating being silly like Forest but sensible investment in line with other clubs. What those big spenders demonstrate though is it can be done without suffering sanctions.

Compare, not compete - as in their turnover will fall into a higher grade. Sponsors, corporate - and I don’t think they’ve the same noose of debt hung around their necks. Their average is around 20, which is way above our 16/17 one.

If anything - I think Cardiff are a good example of what can be achieved without spending that much at this level. I don’t think it’s a bad idea for Waggott/Mowbray to speak pragmatically about spending either, it certainly doesn’t help to say “we’ve a 50m warchest”... might appease fans, show some ambition but also puts a 0 on the end of every deal and contract.

We disagree on what we’d want the owners to do though, I honestly would prefer them to simply cover costs and stump up a modest investment every 12 months. Not start putting money in their advisors pockets again! 

[JHRover]

Just now, RoverCanada said:

I think you need to take a closer look at those clubs' accounts. Sheffield Wednesday and Wolves are certainly the current cases of teams that are at the threshold of FFP sanctions and ones to keep an eye on, with Villa perhaps trailing after them.

As I already pointed out, a few years of significant net sales by Forest have enabled them to just escape FFP sanctions last year and have given them significant headroom going forward. Also, as I said before, FFP is concerned about accounting losses, not cash losses. Hence, while Forest is set to spend £13m on Carvalho, supposehe signs a 4-year contract, that £13m is amortised so that it's a £3.25m expense this year and for the next three years. That appears to be part of how clubs gamble for promotion: spend a lot in 1-2 years and then amortise the costs over multiple years.

That's part of why Sheffield Wednesday is getting close to FFP trouble now as they had £6m in amortisation expenses last year. as their years of net expenditure is now catching up to them. It's also an issue for Aston Villa, who had £24m in amortisation costs last year.

The different treatment of sales and purchases is also what helps enable clubs to fairly quickly get out of FFP sanctions, as sales are booked in total when they occur. I assume that's part of how we got out of FFP sanctions fairly quickly despite losses of almost £80m over 13-15...

You also brought up administration before, which is not what FFP is really about (at least sanctions-wise)... Administration is a potential result of significant, FFP-flouting losses over time, but FFP-sanctions don't mean administration (if anything, they may save a team from itself in avoiding administration!) Transfer embargoes are the main threat, and I don't think that should be dismissed so lightly (remember our transfer embargo window...?)

Hence why I've repeatedly asked you to propose what amount of investment (and thus losses) do you want Venky's to incur now? Do you think they should look to lose £13m/year? Or even more so, and risk FFP sanctions?

I think it's an entirely reasonable argument to propose we spend a lot now that our losses in the past few years have been fairly low, giving us a fair amount of headroom under the £39m max losses over 3 years threshold for a couple years. However, if that's the case, I'm also curious whether you're also comfortable with our debts to Venky's climbing ever further (perhaps a more relevant question is whether Venky's is comfortable with that!)

So if its so simple for Forest to do then why can't we do it on a smaller scale? Say spend £6 million and spread it over 4 years?

You refer to net sales by Forest which enabled them to escape sanctions and given them headroom moving forward. They haven't sold anywhere near as much as we have over the last 4-5 years.

You say Wednesday are 'getting close' to trouble - 'getting close' means nothing - we were slapped with an embargo which lasted for several years so we were made to suffer despite slashing our wage bill and expenditure. No evidence that any of these other clubs are going to be made to suffer.

I know administration is a separate issue to FFP. I mentioned administration in the case of Villa because some newspapers have thrown it out there as a potential consequence of their failure this season, I was merely saying i'll believe that when I see it. I'm confident that won't happen.

I'm not proposing any particular amounts to spend. All I'm doing is pointing out that for all the references to FFP rules etc. 2 things stand out: 1) That nobody has been punished from it recently and 2) clubs e.g. Forest with no parachute cash are still able to spend massive amounts.

That tells me that if Rovers wanted to spend serious money (several million rather than loans and frees and a few hundred grand) then FFP rules would not prevent that.

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

26 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Although it is silly season, I can only suggest more productive uses of time than arguing with strangers on the internet....

When you put it like that...

[RevidgeBlue]

"An hour of Craig Conway running up and down working hard .......will at times be a better option than those flying wingers."

It really won't Tony - scratching around a bit with those comments I fear. 

[JBiz]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

"An hour of Craig Conway running up and down working hard .......will at times be a better option than those flying wingers."

It really won't Tony - scratching around a bit with those comments I fear. 

Away against teams that are very recently relegated, chock full of internationals and will likely see lots of the ball? I think someone like Craig is preferable to Chapman in those scenarios personally. Especially for the first 60/70 minutes.

Its not scratching around, it’s common sense.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Biz

[tomphil]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

"An hour of Craig Conway running up and down working hard .......will at times be a better option than those flying wingers."

It really won't Tony - scratching around a bit with those comments I fear. 

The major point here is he just hasn't got the legs for that anymore but I think anyone expecting him to hardly start a game is in for a shock.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Biz said:

Away against teams that are very recently relegated, chock full of internationals and will likely see lots of the ball? I think someone like Craig is preferable to Chapman in those scenarios personally. Especially for the first 60/70 minutes.

Its not scratching around, it’s common sense.

Have to disagree. Conway was dreadful for the vast majority of last season in terms of his overall play not just his non contribution in terms of assists and goals.

[RoverCanada]

11 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So if its so simple for Forest to do then why can't we do it on a smaller scale? Say spend £6 million and spread it over 4 years?

You refer to net sales by Forest which enabled them to escape sanctions and given them headroom moving forward. They haven't sold anywhere near as much as we have over the last 4-5 years.

You say Wednesday are 'getting close' to trouble - 'getting close' means nothing - we were slapped with an embargo which lasted for several years so we were made to suffer despite slashing our wage bill and expenditure. No evidence that any of these other clubs are going to be made to suffer.

I know administration is a separate issue to FFP. I mentioned administration in the case of Villa because some newspapers have thrown it out there as a potential consequence of their failure this season, I was merely saying i'll believe that when I see it. I'm confident that won't happen.

I'm not proposing any particular amounts to spend. All I'm doing is pointing out that for all the references to FFP rules etc. 2 things stand out: 1) That nobody has been punished from it recently and 2) clubs e.g. Forest with no parachute cash are still able to spend massive amounts.

That tells me that if Rovers wanted to spend serious money (several million rather than loans and frees and a few hundred grand) then FFP rules would not prevent that.

Our embargo lasted several years? Am I missing something? Venky's certainly turned off the taps on transfer expenditures for awhile, but that wasn't directly due to FFP...

Wednesday was fine for FFP in 16/17, but they've been projected to breach it in 17/18, hence one to keep an eye on... and if they breach in 17/18, they get hit with an embargo that lasts until they're back under the threshold... no FFP transfer embargo is likely to last that long as a few significant player sales will probably be enough in most caess, but I don't see it as something to be blase about.

We certainly could try spending £6m this year and spread it out, but you need to expand a bit on what kind of strategy you actually have in mind. Do we spend £6m every summer? Then our amortisation will eventually rise to £6m/year, which is a hefty expense when our turnover is only ~£15m. Or do we spend £6m this year and hope those purchases are clever enough to be all that we need to purchase for several years?

You roughly know our turnover and operating expenses, and now know how transfer expenditures are amortised. It shouldn't be too hard for you to do some arithmetic and propose what kind of wage structure and transfer expenditure you're hoping for going forward.

The short answer is yes, we could obviously spend a lot more than Waggott/Mowbray/Venky's have decided on and stay under FFP if they're only looking to spend maybe a couple million on transfers and keep our wage bill under £15m. But that would mean a lot more losses, which means potentially a lot more debt for Venky's (and we're ultimately at the whims of what they're willing/able to fund). I'm not saying you're wrong for proposing that but anyone arguing for that should also not then whine about how indebted we've become to Venky's (not suggesting you've been whining yourself, just in general)

Edited June 14, 2018 by RoverCanada

[JAL]

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Are people really holding off on buying a season ticket until someone signs? 

Genuine question 

I hope they are.

[JBiz]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Have to disagree. Conway was dreadful for the vast majority of last season in terms of his overall play not just his non contribution in terms of assists and goals.

When I saw Conway, I saw in aging but experienced winger in a physical league. Quite a few performances that echoed the team early doors - poor, but generally decent. Made one or two key contributions though, so dreadful for me is way too far - and since we currently operate with two widemen, with only CC on the books, I think a realistic backup contract for a good influence is basic squad management.

If it turns out we’ve a tiny pot to piss in, and he is first 11 choice on the basis we sign nobody else for both positions he plays, (reminding a few he covers both left and right) I’ll be equally disappointed. 

I anticipate we will sign a few atrackers though, to support DG and Dack. I’d prefer two out and out wide forwards as opposed to strikers shunted out wide, but adding Armstrong and Chapman would instantly put Craig on the fringes again, and I’m hoping we add a few more than that.

[JHRover]

Just now, RoverCanada said:

Our embargo lasted several years? Am I missing something? Venky's certainly turned off the taps on transfer expenditures for awhile, but that wasn't directly due to FFP...

Wednesday was fine for FFP in 16/17, but they've been projected to breach it in 17/18, hence one to keep an eye on... and if they breach in 17/18, they get hit with an embargo that lasts until they're back under the threshold... no FFP transfer embargo is likely to last that long as a few significant player sales will probably be enough in most caess, but I don't see it as something to be blase about.

We certainly could try spending £6m this year and spread it out, but you need to expand a bit on what kind of strategy you actually have in mind. Do we spend £6m every summer? Then our amortisation will eventually rise to £6m/year, which is a hefty expense when our turnover is only ~£15m. Or do we spend £6m this year and hope those purchases are clever enough to be all that we need to purchase for several years?

You roughly know our turnover and operating expenses, and now know how transfer expenditures are amortised. It shouldn't be too hard for you to do some arithmetic and propose what kind of wage structure and transfer expenditure you're hoping for going forward.

The short answer is yes, we could obviously spend a lot more than Waggott/Mowbray/Venky's have decided on and stay under FFP if they're only looking to spend maybe a couple million on transfers and keep our wage bill under £15m. But that would mean a lot more losses, which means potentially a lot more debt for Venky's (and we're ultimately at the whims of what they're willing/able to fund). I'm not saying you're wrong for proposing that but anyone arguing for that should also not then whine about how indebted we've become to Venky's (not suggesting you've been whining yourself, just in general)

I'm not actually proposing anything. It's up to Venkys what we do. All I'm doing is pointing out that there are ways and means of doing it consistently and getting away with it, as other clubs are proving, and I don't subscribe to the theory that it is because they get a few more on watching games than we do.

Whether that be Forest spending £13 million on one player, Derby, Wolves, Wednesday avoiding sanctions or Birmingham's owners sponsoring their training ground, there are ways of investing and not putting the club on course for disaster.

It frustrates me when our directors mention it in every interview as though it is a serious obstacle when it clearly isn't for everyone else.

[RevidgeBlue]

13 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So if its so simple for Forest to do then why can't we do it on a smaller scale? Say spend £6 million and spread it over 4 years?

You refer to net sales by Forest which enabled them to escape sanctions and given them headroom moving forward. They haven't sold anywhere near as much as we have over the last 4-5 years.

You say Wednesday are 'getting close' to trouble - 'getting close' means nothing - we were slapped with an embargo which lasted for several years so we were made to suffer despite slashing our wage bill and expenditure. No evidence that any of these other clubs are going to be made to suffer.

I know administration is a separate issue to FFP. I mentioned administration in the case of Villa because some newspapers have thrown it out there as a potential consequence of their failure this season, I was merely saying i'll believe that when I see it. I'm confident that won't happen.

I'm not proposing any particular amounts to spend. All I'm doing is pointing out that for all the references to FFP rules etc. 2 things stand out: 1) That nobody has been punished from it recently and 2) clubs e.g. Forest with no parachute cash are still able to spend massive amounts.

That tells me that if Rovers wanted to spend serious money (several million rather than loans and frees and a few hundred grand) then FFP rules would not prevent that.

Whilst I agree that the overall concept of FFP is fatally flawed and that it is not inconceivable that our owners might try to hide behind it you do seem to be rather obsessed with the subject.

I haven't studied the subject in detail like you seem to have done but the basic point that occurs to me is that the rule is you Can't exceed losses of a certain amount over a three year period therefore whilst it looks inevitable that Villa will fall foul of the rule eventually, They've only been in the Championship for two years so far so any sanctions aren't applicable yet. Similarly for Forest, if They've recently come out of embargo, presumably the 3 year cycle starts from scratch so you Can't complain about them spending £13m on a player per se.

If owners want to take a punt on reaching the riches of the Premier League and run the risk of sanctions if it fails that's up to them and not the League's fault. I think it's wrong though to suggest that sanctions aren't applied. They have been and massive fines were slapped upon QPR which are currently subject to legal challenge as far as I'm aware. Once again if a Court eventually rules against the League (as I hope they do) that's not their fault, they have tried to enforce their rules.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, gumboots said:

Increases the feelgood factor which is important. A decent signing might push one or 2 who are wondering whether to buy or not 

I'm not someone who needs to see signings before I'll commit to a ST and I rushed in to renew on the first morning buoyed with enthusiasm by the promotion.

That initial feel good factor is starting to wear off slightly though. I'm not so much concerned by the fact that there have been no incomings as it's still relatively early days. I would however have expected Dack and Lenihan to have been tied up on lucrative new deals as soon as the season ended. However as Jim correctly observed yesterday all we have is two new deals for the old codgers Conway and Graham.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

So negative. 

Conway is a squad player. He will start some games. 

I hope not for our sake.

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I hope not for our sake.

Why? 

[1864roverite]

I can’t understand why some on here are not employed as football managers such is the knowledge shown by some of our members.

Stop winding yourselves and other people up. It’s silly season and now the sun has gone in I expected more of a common sense approach. Truth is we are reading constant drivel, bickering and slagging and inane comments.

TM will sign players that complement our current squad. He will if it when he is ready NOT because of a whim and prayer of some supporters.

my view is stop beating yourselves up, wait and see what happens.

 

we are in good hands, we witnessed that last season. Until someone on here comes up with stuff from inside the club it’s all pure speculation and that’s all. Wait for BRFc to make an announcement and chill the Kean out!???

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Why? 

If he's starting games obviously we won't have signed anyone better. Not a pleasant thought.

[scotchrover]

 

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Why? 

Because he’s well passed it. I honestly think it’s a waste of our wage budget, especially with how tight it is. 

This has got to be one of the quietest summers that’s I can remember- I’ve given up checking the Blackburn Rovers News Now sight- it just feels like it’s the same few players being linked.

Although I’m not worried yet, without a few fresh faces, next season will be a battle again. One wonders what a signing might have done for season ticket figures too...

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

But roversfan99 I did tell you why I would keep Conway here a number of times but you aren't not willing to accept them. Experience and knowledge of this league and he came play a role either starting a game or coming off the bench to defend a lead for the last 20 minutes a game. 

Conway attitude, commitment, personality, professionalism is what we need in the squad and to keep players in check. Look at Bennett tweet to Dack about Conway to him. 

what happens if Bennett is out injured what then? 

I hope we do get Stoke or Swansea 1st game of the season tbh. 

Conway didn't offer any attacking threat. played in 24 games, scoring 2 goals and 3 assist. compare that to Bennett who played in 41 games, scoring 2 goals and 5 assists. So Conway did offer some attacking threat at least? 

I gave my opinion on giving Conway a new contract weeks before Mowbray even commented on the situation and what I would do, so why keep coming out with the same old tripe which you know isn't true. for some unknown reason you are unwilling to accept my opinion cos you either don't like it or don't agree with it

All these buzz words are just the same ones regurgitated by Mowbray and others to mask the fact that hes not offering anything ON THE PITCH anymore.

Experience and knowledge of this league, attitude, commitment, personality, professionalism - none of these are reasons to sign a player alone. If they were, wed sign back up the team that got promoted in 2001, they obviously had all of these in the promotion winning season. Keeping people in check is Mowbrays job, he shouldnt and am sure doesnt need to sign a player who doesnt offer anything on the pitch to do that, he should use his own man management skills, and rely on the many other experienced players we have who ARE contributing significantly on the pitch still.

The paragraph in bold is your only relevant argument. I would argue that them stats, in a far inferior league to the one we are going in to, are nowhere near good enough. Aging further, by 1 or even potentially 2 years, in a far better league, them stats are likely to go down even further.

Regarding Bennett, there are games in defensive midfield and right back amidst that, but I spent much of the season insisting that he needs to do far more in terms of offering an attacking threat, so you wont get any arguments from me there. But one wide man (Bennett has the advantage of being younger and being incredibly versatile) who isnt doing anywhere near enough going forward is more than enough.

And please stop going round saying "dont be negative" people are offering their opinions which are valid and constructive, not everything will be agreed with by anyone so please accept that as constantly bleating at supposed negativity (ie valid opinions) just makes it look like you dont have a valid point yourself which im sure you do.

[HowieFive0]

8 minutes ago, scotchrover said:

 

Because he’s well passed it. I honestly think it’s a waste of our wage budget, especially with how tight it is. 

This has got to be one of the quietest summers that’s I can remember- I’ve given up checking the Blackburn Rovers News Now sight- it just feels like it’s the same few players being linked.

Although I’m not worried yet, without a few fresh faces, next season will be a battle again. One wonders what a signing might have done for season ticket figures too...

We didnt make our first signing last summer til mid June..time yet .As for a signing influencing Season ticket sales ..i dont really think so!

[HowieFive0]

Just now, Ladyboys of Bank Top said:

It was a year ago today we made our first signing of last summer.

Then we re on schedule !

[AdamRochina]

Forrest just smashed there transfer record .. we have to get this window right otherwise we are going straight back down.. this season the champs at its strongest .. you look at all the teams in it and wonder who we will finish above this season.  Im feeling confident we can finish above Rotherham that's about it at the minute

[JacknOry]

It is quite funny the impatience - I was reading the Shrewsbury board a few days ago and they were moaning that they their new manager had not made a single signing within his first week of being there. Three days later he signed two in a day and they all loved him.

Well know things move slowly in Venkyland - Ill start to worry in a week or two.

[Mike E]

38 minutes ago, Ladyboys of Bank Top said:

It was a year ago today we made our first signing of last summer.

Anyone know what the earliest ever day is in which we have made a signing?

I think it was Chris Taylor in 2013. Club revealed he was signing on May 16th, although ofc it still didn't go through until July 1st.

[JacknOry]

Just now, Mike E said:

Anyone know what the earliest ever day is in which we have made a signing?

I think it was Chris Taylor in 2013. Club revealed he was signing on May 16th, although ofc it still didn't go through until July 1st.

Cant be bothered finding out lol