Rovers and Covid

[Mattyblue]

‘Leave me out of the debate’ after you’ve just chucked in another ‘Aren’t Rovers fans horrible and/or generally crap’ grenade.

Some very odd posts emanating from the Rovers Trust recently...

[arbitro]

12 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

‘Leave me out of the debate’ after you’ve just chucked in another ‘Aren’t Rovers fans horrible and/or generally crap’ grenade.

Some very odd posts emanating from the Rovers Trust recently...

Stockholm syndrome?

[mhead]

What's wrong with...Long live the BBE and Riverside ?

East Lancashire has always been a bit over-pessimistic.

"Its not raining now ,but it soon will be"

[Mattyblue]

So we do get behind the side then, what you actually meant was that it’s just a bit quiet in your tartan rug and flask enclosure?

Maybe say that to start with...

[Stuart]

12 hours ago, philipl said:

And your list of buyers is....

Not this tired argument again.

We won’t be short of buyers, what we are short of is a seller.

Trouble is the longer it goes on the less likely it becomes.

[Mashed Potatoes]

7 hours ago, arbitro said:

Stockholm syndrome?

Or even Stockhausen.

[philipl]

Can we agree on the following?

1) If football grounds are open to a %age (probably under 50) of supporters, Rovers and Rovers' fans will be at a huge advantage compared with every other club in the Championship

2) Compared with the clubs Rovers are hopefully competing with for promotion, Rovers are less badly affected by Covid

3) Venky's are doing much less worse today than they were prior to appointing Tony Mowbray

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

On 05/10/2020 at 10:23, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Yeah, I'm aware how to read a chart thanks. That chart is revenue/expenditure so relates to 'no crowd' impact. 

Your assertion that Rovers will be 'far less affected' by having no fans in the ground than other clubs is not borne out by any evidence you've produced. 

It's the % of total revenue made up of matchday income that counts, not the amount of matchday income in £m.

For example, QPR, Bristol C and Brum will be less affected by loss of matchday income than us because it makes up a smaller % of their income. That can be applied to all the clubs with parachute payments too. So the premise of your argument is wrong. 

This isn't meant to come across as salty, just joining in the discussion?

 

1 hour ago, philipl said:

Can we agree on the following?

1) If football grounds are open to a %age (probably under 50) of supporters, Rovers and Rovers' fans will be at a huge advantage compared with every other club in the Championship

2) Compared with the clubs Rovers are hopefully competing with for promotion, Rovers are less badly affected by Covid

3) Venky's are doing much less worse today than they were prior to appointing Tony Mowbray

No, as explained previoulsy, which you ignored. 

[philipl]

1 hour ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

 

No, as explained previoulsy, which you ignored. 

I won't get into pantomime season but you will see I answered it.

Let's look at hard cash matchday income lost amongst clubs currently in the Championship likely to be pushing for promotion this season:

Norwich City £14m

Nottingham Forest £9m

Swansea City £7m

Bristol City £6m

Millwall £6m

Reading £5m

PNE £4m

Rovers £4m

Parachute payments are more than swallowed up by outsized wage bills incurred when in the Premier League.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

6 minutes ago, philipl said:

I won't get into pantomime season but you will see I answered it.

Let's look at hard cash matchday income lost amongst clubs currently in the Championship likely to be pushing for promotion this season:

Norwich City £14m

Nottingham Forest £9m

Swansea City £7m

Bristol City £6m

Millwall £6m

Reading £5m

PNE £4m

Rovers £4m

Parachute payments are more than swallowed up by outsized wage bills incurred when in the Premier League.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And again you're ignoring the % of total income those match day figures represent. Rovers are not at an advantage at all. 

[Vinjay]

If the club came out and said Covid could be an advantage they would be a laughing stock. Not to mention it would offend a lot of people.

As for intimidation. I think it's fair to say that at many clubs someone would have assaulted Kean long before he departed. On the other hand how many Championship venues are intimidating? Millwall aside and they will be first to admit you can't win promotion on that alone.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Vinjay

[philipl]

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

And again you're ignoring the % of total income those match day figures represent. Rovers are not at an advantage at all. 

Norwich City 41%

Nottingham Forest 38%

Millwall 33%

PNE 28%

Reading 25%

Rovers 23%

Bristol City 20%

Swansea City 10% (but the parachute payment is reduced this season so more like 20% now)

[philipl]

7 minutes ago, Vinjay said:

If the club came out and said Covid could be an advantage they would be a laughing stock. Not to mention it would offend a lot of people.

Of course.

Just as they would never say PNE are idiots for releasing Dolan.

Doesn't make it any less true.

Edited October 10, 2020 by philipl

[chaddyrovers]

14 hours ago, Stuart said:

Not this tired argument again.

We won’t be short of buyers, what we are short of is a seller.

Trouble is the longer it goes on the less likely it becomes.

Who is going to buy Rovers then Stuart in this current Financial climate? 

Look at how long it took Wigan to get a new owner and the players they sold off for peanuts. 

Any Rovers owners would have to fund the current debt and the debt occur each season. 

22 hours ago, philipl said:

tomphil wonder no more. There are oodles of evidence that 2+2= 4

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/venkys-denies-intent-to-sell-blackburn-rovers-g6kwfkbj9rfhttps://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/9362126.blackburn-rovers-owners-tell-qatar-oil-giant-dont-want-sell/

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/nov/14/venkys-interest-selling-blackburn-rovers

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2011/11/15/2758862/blackburn-rovers-owners-dismiss-reports-linking-club-with-qatari-

https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/blackburn-rovers-fc-up-for-sale/articleshow/31975419.cms

https://www.rugbytradedirectory.com/shock-takeover-bid-for-blackburn-rovers

Al-Khelaifi was previously linked with a move for Blackburn Rovers- https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/10322277/nasser-al-khelaifi-leeds-united-psg/

Thanks. I remember you posted the Qatar interest in buying the club in 2011. Think you did podcast with Kamy didnt you?

But I dont see many interest parties if the club was for sale now. Do you?

[Vinjay]

It does not explain why Al-Khelaifi (and his cousin at Malaga where FUP has killed any major ambition) didn't buy another English club. It also does not explain why the club wasn't sold to them in 2010 other than the Walkers might have tried to grasp more money out of them because of their evident wealth. Or for that matter considered them "too good" compared to people who didn't know what relegation was. Relegation scenarios clearly terrified the Walkers at that point (no wonder considering their influence over trustees staving the club) but once they were out of the way it wouldn't have posed a problem. Indeed I don't doubt for one moment they were cracking open the champagne in 2012.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Vinjay

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

15 minutes ago, philipl said:

Norwich City 41%

Nottingham Forest 38%

Millwall 33%

PNE 28%

Reading 25%

Rovers 23%

Bristol City 20%

Swansea City 10% (but the parachute payment is reduced this season so more like 20% now)

Got a link?

Norwich match day income will not be 41% of their total income considering they've just come down with massive parachute payments (at least £40m). If they are getting £14m in match day income (got a link to that?) that isn't 41% of total income. 

You've ignored other clubs who Rovers aren't better off than too like Brum and QPR. 

[philipl]

3 hours ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Got a link?

It is my post you posted back at me

Norwich match day income will not be 41% of their total income considering they've just come down with massive parachute payments (at least £40m). If they are getting £14m in match day income (got a link to that?) that isn't 41% of total income. 

These are the 2018/19 numbers from that post

You've ignored other clubs who Rovers aren't better off than too like Brum and QPR. 

I picked the clubs currently looking like being Rovers' promotion rivals amongst the ones with data. Both Brum and QPR lose more cash through not having gate receipts than Rovers do.

 

 

[philipl]

3 hours ago, Vinjay said:

It does not explain why Al-Khelaifi (and his cousin at Malaga where FUP has killed any major ambition) didn't buy another English club. It also does not explain why the club wasn't sold to them in 2010 other than the Walkers might have tried to grasp more money out of them because of their evident wealth. Or for that matter considered them "too good" compared to people who didn't know what relegation was. Relegation scenarios clearly terrified the Walkers at that point (no wonder considering their influence over trustees staving the club) but once they were out of the way it wouldn't have posed a problem. Indeed I don't doubt for one moment they were cracking open the champagne in 2012.

UEFA ruled out multiple club ownerships in different countries very shortly afterwards. In fact the rule would have forced the sale of one of PSG and Rovers (had Rovers stayed up) shortly after they bought us.

This rule doesnt apply below the top divisions so Forest can fart about the way they are doing.

Not in the public domain so don't ask for proof, but I believe the Walker family over-ruled the Trust and refused to sell Rovers to Qatar in 2008.

In 2008 the rift between the young Walkers and the Trustees was starting its journey to the Courts with the Trustees being accused of mismanagement and destroying wealth but that only became public knowledge through the 2014 Court hearing in which the young Walkers lost decisively.

In 2010, the Qataris had no intention of going back into English football having been twice rejected (Liverpool and Rovers) in a period of three months (August to October 2008) in what were by their standards pretty humiliating circumstances.

You also have to remember Qatar were awarded the 2022 World Cup on 2 December 2010. I hope Kamy won't mind me posting this but he rang me up after Blatter had opened the envelope to ask if I was watching it because three of the seven Qataris on stage in Zurich to receive the award from Blatter were people we had been negotiating with...

[chaddyrovers]

Thanks for sharing @philipl all this. 

Can I ask a couple of questions, 

1. Would why Walker family refused to sell Rovers to Qatar? if the Walker family want out?

2. This lawsuit Philipl? 

 

[philipl]

41 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Thanks for sharing @philipl all this. 

Can I ask a couple of questions, 

1. Would why Walker family refused to sell Rovers to Qatar? if the Walker family want out?

2. This lawsuit Philipl? 

 

Yes that.

When you have a falling out of that magnitude which was only resolved in public Court years later to the humiliation of all concerned, rationality goes out of the window. So I am not even beginning to speculate why.

Rovers were resented by part of the family but I believe the club was not the root cause of the ructions which lead to the Court case. I think that archived article does not contradict my view on this.

This much is common knowledge.

By 2006, Flybe (an airline created by Jack Walker) was doing so well and growing so quickly, the Trustees became inadvertently in breach of the Trust covenant. One asset - Flybe- had become worth more than the Trust was allowed to hold in any single asset as a proportion of total Trust assets. This was in the press at the time.

Privately this huge success destroyed  everything because it triggered a row over how to rebalance the excessive Flybe value, whether instead to grant the Trustees a waiver over the composition of assets, or whether the proceeds of a partial Flybe sale if forced by the family should be distributed to the family beneficiaries in cash. It degenerated into members of the family questioning the professionalism, competence and impartiality of the Trustees.

[tomphil]

6 hours ago, Vinjay said:

If the club came out and said Covid could be an advantage they would be a laughing stock. Not to mention it would offend a lot of people.

As for intimidation. I think it's fair to say that at many clubs someone would have assaulted Kean long before he departed. On the other hand how many Championship venues are intimidating? Millwall aside and they will be first to admit you can't win promotion on that alone.

Anywhere in the Champ can be intimidating when it's full or near and the fans are up for it.  Those who only go to the odd away games when Rovers are doing well and maybe the opposition are might find it intimidating.  When you go round regularly to run of the mill games/crowds nowhere really stands out.

Even Millwall although a handful of crowds are always more vocal than others. Derby, Boro and the like are only remotely up for it when they are doing well. Rest of the time it's quiet and sometimes sparse.

[darrenrover]

I wrote to the EFL several weeks ago to ask what the current situation was regarding FFP and credit where its due, I received a reply as follows:

"Proposals were approved in the close season by all Championship Clubs to amend Profit and Sustainability Regulations in order to address the impact that Covid-19 has had on Club finances and on all Clubs P&S results. Clubs will now report on a four year period that covers 2017/18 - 2020/21 instead of three years 2017/8 - 2019/20."

Make of that what you will but it appears to me that it just kicks the can down the road.

 

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

I wrote to the EFL several weeks ago to ask what the current situation was regarding FFP and credit where its due, I received a reply as follows:

"Proposals were approved in the close season by all Championship Clubs to amend Profit and Sustainability Regulations in order to address the impact that Covid-19 has had on Club finances and on all Clubs P&S results. Clubs will now report on a four year period that covers 2017/18 - 2020/21 instead of three years 2017/8 - 2019/20."

Make of that what you will but it appears to me that it just kicks the can down the road.

 

If I read that right the losses you are allowed (was it £39m per season over three years) will now cover four years ie approximately £10m per season.

[darrenrover]

33 minutes ago, arbitro said:

If I read that right the losses you are allowed (was it £39m per season over three years) will now cover four years ie approximately £10m per season.

That's a good point but would make matters even worse. I've written again to the EFL, thanked them for the reply and asked for further clarification.

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, darrenrover said:

That's a good point but would make matters even worse. I've written again to the EFL, thanked them for the reply and asked for further clarification.

What is interesting though Nick is that the email says these plans have been approved in the close season by the Championship clubs. I haven't seen any mention of this from any club or until now from the EFL.

Thanks for digging around with this. Maybe one for our local hacks to take up.