Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

Certainly is but if we needed £16m to stave off FFP then it's purely a matter of time before we are hit with a ban and points deduction.

You do remember there was a pandemic?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

21 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

He may be off the message board for a bit longer due to a bereavement in the family.

Sorry to hear that.

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

Pretty much every club that has had FFP issues has had something to show for it at the end of the day.

Bournemouth - got promoted and stayed in the PL

Leicester - got promoted and stayed in the PL

QPR - got promoted then came back down

Sheffield Wed - 2x play off campaigns including narrowly losing in the final

Fulham - 2x promotions to the PL and looking like doing it again at a canter

Cardiff - 2x promotions to the PL

Reading - spent most of last season in the top 6 and also lost the play off final on pens a few years ago

Birmingham - probably the most similar to us in being a dysfunctional mess but they have spent reasonably heavily and I don't recall them ever bringing in the sort of money we have through sales

Derby - regular play off challengers including losing in 2 finals.

So all in all it goes to show that those who have had FFP issues - and remember we've had them twice whereas most of the above haven't - usually the offenders have some sort of success to show for it and their efforts. Some clubs have fallen short - Derby and Reading - showing that there is no guarantee breaking the rules leads to success - but they've a hell of a lot more to show for their offences than we have, where our greatest achievement has been bouncing back out of League One and being at best a mid-table side in the Championship.

Again none of this is necessary. The jokers running Rovers would love it if the gullible fans just believed that this is the only way of doing things - that the only way we can exist at this altitude is by way of massive losses, walking a FFP tightrope and that there is no alternative to this and Venkys.

Of course that is absolute nonsense, as many rival clubs prove the rules can be adhered to without plummeting, sanctions can be avoided with astute management, training grounds don't need taking out of club ownership, managers who fail to achieve targets can be sacked easily and quickly without the cost causing FFP problems.

Too many people in the fanbase can't see the wood for the trees and just accept the words of 'experts' or failures like Waggott without engaging their own brains and thoughts.

That is why it is so easy for them to continue to run the club in this way with little to no opposition or hassle. No surprises when the Telegraph immediately and without question trot out the 'club spokesman' line and get a 'finance expert' to tell us what is going on.

Who the hell is the 'club spokesman' and has this person got access to the owners? Would be useful to know. Is it Waggott hiding behind anonymity and if so why? Or is it someone else privy to the inner workings?

All of those clubs had to either cheat, find loop holes and a lot of them have paid for not being successful on the back of it. I’m not sure Derby and Sheffield Wednesday fans feel like they have or had something to show.

Yet the reason we’re in a similar boat is nothing to do with turnover, high wages or FFP, it’s because our fans “can't see the wood for the trees and just accept the words of 'experts' or failures like Waggott without engaging their own brains and thoughts.”
 

So despite the fact the club has spent £193 on wages for every £100 the club has earned since the Rao’s took over, it’s obviously the fans fault that they’ve been allowed to waste so much money.

That goes for Sheffield Wednesday fans too I guess, nothing to do with a hopeless agent infested owner - it’s just the “sooper” fans allowing them to get away with it.

 

[Ulrich]

25 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

We haven't "sold" it, that's exactly the point.

The owners couldn't inject any more money in by any other means without facing sanctions under the daft FFP rules.

This way, we avoid any FFP sanctions, the STC remains under Club ownership and isn't transferred to Persimmon Homes or Venus Property Developments or whatever and we should have far more wiggle room in January  and next summer now the Armstrong proceeds have been received as well.

We'll have to wait and see how well any available funds are utilised of course, personally I wouldn't want Mowbray spending (wasting) a penny of it but at face value it's a win win scenario for me compared to what could have happened.

And yes, I know we shouldn't have got to that situation in the first place but once it had already happened, it needed to be resolved.

But we have sold it Rev BRFC no longer owns it, venkys do. They may own us but if they sell the club?

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, Ulrich said:

But we have sold it Rev BRFC no longer owns it, venkys do. They may own us but if they sell the club?

Covenant still in place to prevent the site being used for anything other than a training facility for Blackburn, according to Sharpe at least.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

But we have sold it Rev BRFC no longer owns it, venkys do. They may own us but if they sell the club?

1st point, as you say, Venky's own BRFC so in reality there's no practical difference.

2nd point, if the Club were ever sold I would expect that the STC would also be included in the sale free of any incumbrances I.e. any outstanding mortgage.

This is the point that the Fans Forum/ Trust/any other interested party need clarification and reassurances on.

[Bigdoggsteel]

20 hours ago, den said:

Why would it? If/when Venkys leave, they could possibly want to recoup every penny they could. That piece of land is prime land with planning permission and would bring a lot of money.

I doubt it would be just that straightforward to knock and start building on. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

20 hours ago, tomphil said:

God knows but we'll just have to pray they've done it the right way. Not sure any club who has tried this has prospered on the back of it. 

If it was so straightforwards and made so much sense then loads would be at it.

The Raos haven't been successful in anything they've done here so far in a whole decade of trying. No reason to think this is anything other than a desperate act brought about through desperation rather than any great plan.

City have done it. It's pretty common. Just some owners don't have the money or are unwilling to do it. 

[Ulrich]

27 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

1st point, as you say, Venky's own BRFC so in reality there's no practical difference.

2nd point, if the Club were ever sold I would expect that the STC would also be included in the sale free of any incumbrances I.e. any outstanding mortgage.

This is the point that the Fans Forum/ Trust/any other interested party need clarification and reassurances on.

You are making assumptions, and assumptions are the mother of all.......

11 years of this crap and you think they will do the right thing? What on earth is that based on, previous actions? They will sell the club and keep it, build houses and make more money out of us.

[Ulrich]

36 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Covenant still in place to prevent the site being used for anything other than a training facility for Blackburn, according to Sharpe at least.

I bet they can get round it 👍 the fact they have done this should raise suspicious in that regard.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

2 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

You are making assumptions, and assumptions are the mother of all.......

11 years of this crap and you think they will do the right thing? What on earth is that based on, previous actions? They will sell the club and keep it, build houses and make more money out of us.

Make more money out of us ? There have been a number of people that jumped on the gravy train on the back of the club - but the owners are unlikely to ever show any profit out of Rovers.

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

They will sell the club and keep it, build houses and make more money out of us.

Glad to see you're not making any assumptions then!

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, islander200 said:

Tony Mowbray has not worked on a shoestring up until this summer.

Now do you think we were close to the ffp limit or do you still think it was "dreamnt up by the fans"

If I indeed have said that specific phrase, it has been massively taken out of context.

I have never suggested that I do not believe in FFP, that it is an ongoing restriction and consideration to us and indeed all clubs, and that we have obviously been close to the limit at certain points.

My stance all along was that I do not believe that more (ie a couple of million on a striker) of the Armstrong money couldn't possibly be spent and indeed the wage budget couldn't/can't be relaxed to slightly reduce the massive reduction on the wage bill to tie down key assets due to how close even post the Armstrong sale we are to FFP requirements. 

I stand by this for a number of reasons, firstly that it would imply that we was well over 10m prior to the Armstrong sale, which was never suggested, it has never been mentioned throughout a summer in which a hugely restricted budget was repeatedly discussed by the manager and CEO when asked about it. "We can't spend any more due to FFP" would have stopped that constantly asked question in its tracks. And less relevant, but I don't think that the FFP rules amidst the pandemic have been clarified anyway, as to whether they stand or will be relaxed in any way.

Calculations made including those by yourself and chaddy based on P&L figures did not change my opinion although you repeatedly keep trying to convince me otherwise. Those figures are historical, going up to 2020 when the accounts that will show the Armstrong sale are the ones for the year ending 2022. They also crucially include all expenses, a number of which do not qualify for FFP losses, therefore those figures can not be used and indeed adjusting for these would become practically impossible for us.

If by "now do you think" you mean following the news that ownership of our training facilities has been passed from the club directly to the owners is proof that my stance is ill advised, then I would disagree. The reason for this is still totally unknown, for me it is incredibly suspicious based on the untrustworthy reputation that the owners have built up during their tenure, that is an opinion but the actual reason is still to be communicated. Finance experts can speculate on why it might have been done, but no one knows until Venkys come out and say, which is probably unlikely. But even so, it has no bearing really on invalidating my stance. Firstly, wasn't it done a week before the year end accounts? If so, it isn't even in the same period as the Armstrong sale, the year in which our wage bill has been lowered and the one to which I criticised a lack of reinvestment.

[Crimpshrine]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

Covenant still in place to prevent the site being used for anything other than a training facility for Blackburn, according to Sharpe at least.

I'm not sure there is a covenant on the STC but there may be on the lower / academy area.

Remember there are already detailed plans for 170 houses and an application for planning permission on the STC land. When the original plans were halted Waggott said they would not be following up on the plans 'in their current form'.

I doubt they would have done all that prep work if building on the land was not a real possibility. And they also fought the ACV proposal. I'm still worried.

[islander200]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

If I indeed have said that specific phrase, it has been massively taken out of context.

I have never suggested that I do not believe in FFP, that it is an ongoing restriction and consideration to us and indeed all clubs, and that we have obviously been close to the limit at certain points.

My stance all along was that I do not believe that more (ie a couple of million on a striker) of the Armstrong money couldn't possibly be spent and indeed the wage budget couldn't/can't be relaxed to slightly reduce the massive reduction on the wage bill to tie down key assets due to how close even post the Armstrong sale we are to FFP requirements. 

I stand by this for a number of reasons, firstly that it would imply that we was well over 10m prior to the Armstrong sale, which was never suggested, it has never been mentioned throughout a summer in which a hugely restricted budget was repeatedly discussed by the manager and CEO when asked about it. "We can't spend any more due to FFP" would have stopped that constantly asked question in its tracks. And less relevant, but I don't think that the FFP rules amidst the pandemic have been clarified anyway, as to whether they stand or will be relaxed in any way.

Calculations made including those by yourself and chaddy based on P&L figures did not change my opinion although you repeatedly keep trying to convince me otherwise. Those figures are historical, going up to 2020 when the accounts that will show the Armstrong sale are the ones for the year ending 2022. They also crucially include all expenses, a number of which do not qualify for FFP losses, therefore those figures can not be used and indeed adjusting for these would become practically impossible for us.

If by "now do you think" you mean following the news that ownership of our training facilities has been passed from the club directly to the owners is proof that my stance is ill advised, then I would disagree. The reason for this is still totally unknown, for me it is incredibly suspicious based on the untrustworthy reputation that the owners have built up during their tenure, that is an opinion but the actual reason is still to be communicated. Finance experts can speculate on why it might have been done, but no one knows until Venkys come out and say, which is probably unlikely. But even so, it has no bearing really on invalidating my stance. Firstly, wasn't it done a week before the year end accounts? If so, it isn't even in the same period as the Armstrong sale, the year in which our wage bill has been lowered and the one to which I criticised a lack of reinvestment.

Well finance and ffp experts and the accounts alligned with the ffp regulations suggest the 16.6 milliom was needed as was the Armstrong money?If you have a better understanging off ffp and if you know the accounts to be wrong then fair enough but from everything in the public domain then we couldnt spend a decent amount this summer.

Why would they have done this with the training ground if it wasmt for the benefit of the books and even the Armstrong sale was with 2 weeks left of the window and it looked like there was a last ditch attempt to bring someone in Maja.

The accounts also show the owners have put in the max allowed over this period so they COUlDNT put in anymore money.

The proof will be in the pudding next summer when they are allowed to spend again.If competitive money isnt spent i will come back to you,say i got it wrong snd apologise.

They spent money bringing all these players in they didnt have a crystal ball that told them in the future Armstrong would be sold for 10 million profit.And in the past they have spent aswell, stopping when it comes to the end of the cycle.Already had a transfer ban due to failing FFP

I agree with a lot of what you post, but when it comes to this i disagree.They have spent money on the squad, no argument a lot of that was wasted and dead money,no argument that they have no interest and the way the club is run is a joke and no argument it is hard to see us progress with them in charge.

But they do spend money.

 

[islander200]

8 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I'm not sure there is a covenant on the STC but there may be on the lower / academy area.

Remember there are already detailed plans for 170 houses and an application for planning permission on the STC land. When the original plans were halted Waggott said they would not be following up on the plans 'in their current form'.

I doubt they would have done all that prep work if building on the land was not a real possibility. And they also fought the ACV proposal. I'm still worried.

Yeah but my question is what was stopping them from just keeping the STC as part of the club assetts and then selling it directly to a developer down the line?We couldnt have stopped that?So the worry would still be there

 

[arbitro]

4 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I'm not sure there is a covenant on the STC but there may be on the lower / academy area.

Remember there are already detailed plans for 170 houses and an application for planning permission on the STC land. When the original plans were halted Waggott said they would not be following up on the plans 'in their current form'.

I doubt they would have done all that prep work if building on the land was not a real possibility. And they also fought the ACV proposal. I'm still worried.

I was under that impression after the fiasco earlier this year that the STC was being sold for development. To support that it was the furore created by residents and supporters (with the excellent letter from Rev) that stopped this.

[islander200]

46 minutes ago, Ulrich said:

I bet they can get round it 👍 the fact they have done this should raise suspicious in that regard.

What would have stopped them just selling the STC directly to a developer down the line?

Why did they have to set up a new company ,inject 16.6 million into the club to use the site for housing?

[islander200]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

Pretty much every club that has had FFP issues has had something to show for it at the end of the day.

Bournemouth - got promoted and stayed in the PL

Leicester - got promoted and stayed in the PL

QPR - got promoted then came back down

Sheffield Wed - 2x play off campaigns including narrowly losing in the final

Fulham - 2x promotions to the PL and looking like doing it again at a canter

Cardiff - 2x promotions to the PL

Reading - spent most of last season in the top 6 and also lost the play off final on pens a few years ago

Birmingham - probably the most similar to us in being a dysfunctional mess but they have spent reasonably heavily and I don't recall them ever bringing in the sort of money we have through sales

Derby - regular play off challengers including losing in 2 finals.

So all in all it goes to show that those who have had FFP issues - and remember we've had them twice whereas most of the above haven't - usually the offenders have some sort of success to show for it and their efforts. Some clubs have fallen short - Derby and Reading - showing that there is no guarantee breaking the rules leads to success - but they've a hell of a lot more to show for their offences than we have, where our greatest achievement has been bouncing back out of League One and being at best a mid-table side in the Championship.

Again none of this is necessary. The jokers running Rovers would love it if the gullible fans just believed that this is the only way of doing things - that the only way we can exist at this altitude is by way of massive losses, walking a FFP tightrope and that there is no alternative to this and Venkys.

Of course that is absolute nonsense, as many rival clubs prove the rules can be adhered to without plummeting, sanctions can be avoided with astute management, training grounds don't need taking out of club ownership, managers who fail to achieve targets can be sacked easily and quickly without the cost causing FFP problems.

Too many people in the fanbase can't see the wood for the trees and just accept the words of 'experts' or failures like Waggott without engaging their own brains and thoughts.

That is why it is so easy for them to continue to run the club in this way with little to no opposition or hassle. No surprises when the Telegraph immediately and without question trot out the 'club spokesman' line and get a 'finance expert' to tell us what is going on.

Who the hell is the 'club spokesman' and has this person got access to the owners? Would be useful to know. Is it Waggott hiding behind anonymity and if so why? Or is it someone else privy to the inner workings?

How much did birmingham get for Bellingham?More than we got for Armstrong

[Crimpshrine]

1 minute ago, islander200 said:

Yeah but my question is what was stopping them from just keeping the STC as part of the club assetts and then selling it directly to a developer down the line?We couldnt have stopped that?So the worry would still be there

 

Buying the land does help with FFP so that is the benefit to the club in the short term.

The benefit to Venky's is that any future sale of the club would not necessarily include the STC land - if it looks like a development project is still a possibility. If that is the case, the land is worth much more than they paid for it and they may decide to sell to a developer later ( or sooner given the opportunity). 

Benefit for Waggott and Co is that if the development project resurfaces then it's out of their hands - he is CEO of Blackburn Rovers and has no say in the land sale as it is owned by a totally separate company.  Residents and supporters will have to complain to faceless people in India.

All this could be years in the future but I think Venky's are just covering all possibilities in their own favour and also getting some brownie points for avoiding FFP sanctions. 

 

 

 

 

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Well finance and ffp experts and the accounts alligned with the ffp regulations suggest the 16.6 milliom was needed as was the Armstrong money?If you have a better understanging off ffp and if you know the accounts to be wrong then fair enough but from everything in the public domain then we couldnt spend a decent amount this summer.

Why would they have done this with the training ground if it wasmt for the benefit of the books and even the Armstrong sale was with 2 weeks left of the window and it looked like there was a last ditch attempt to bring someone in Maja.

The accounts also show the owners have put in the max allowed over this period so they COUlDNT put in anymore money.

The proof will be in the pudding next summer when they are allowed to spend again.If competitive money isnt spent i will come back to you,say i got it wrong snd apologise.

They spent money bringing all these players in they didnt have a crystal ball that told them in the future Armstrong would be sold for 10 million profit.And in the past they have spent aswell, stopping when it comes to the end of the cycle.Already had a transfer ban due to failing FFP

I agree with a lot of what you post, but when it comes to this i disagree.They have spent money on the squad, no argument a lot of that was wasted and dead money,no argument that they have no interest and the way the club is run is a joke and no argument it is hard to see us progress with them in charge.

But they do spend money.

 

The things that you have put in bold are your opinions, assertions and assumptions, not facts, including FFP experts without our profit and sustainability calculation to hand making generalised statements about why this particular sort of thing MAY be done. My posts include my own, even spending or not spending next summer will neither prove nor disprove that we couldn't spend a penny more in the summer which is what I am contesting. 

My raised points include differing accounting periods to which these various profits, losses, sales, transfers of ownership etc relate to, the unknown percentage of which the losses shared contribute/are disqualified from FFP regulations, absolutely no public suggestion that FFP was the specific reason for the cut backs, the fact that the 2022 accounting year had only just begun when I wanted a bit of money to be spent, some of the reasoning behind my rationale, some of which you have not really addressed at all, some of which you have with your own opinions which I disagree with. The fact that we nearly got Maja on loan (which would cost albeit perhaps not the reinvestment level alone that I requested, a 2/3m striker and some new deals would suffice) alone proves that we aren't right on the line of projected FFP failure in my opinion, there is a semblance of flexibility for reinvestment which didn't materialise.

Our opinions are so different on this topic and I don't feel like you are directly addressing my specific stance at times so I suspect that it is easier to just agree to disagree.

[islander200]

2 hours ago, davulsukur said:

Certainly is but if we needed £16m to stave off FFP then it's purely a matter of time before we are hit with a ban and points deduction.

Not if we start being sensible and become a trading club.

We are likely to see a decent amount for Brererton.

They will spend again when allowed imo, some will be spent in the summer but im hoping there will be a proper plan this time but i wont hold my breath on that score

[RoversClitheroe]

Now we should have no problem giving Nyambe, Lenihan and Rothwell new contracts right? Or we going to being spending all of that extra money we've gained on replacing them?

[islander200]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The things that you have put in bold are your opinions, assertions and assumptions, not facts, including FFP experts without our profit and sustainability calculation to hand making generalised statements about why this particular sort of thing MAY be done. My posts include my own, even spending or not spending next summer will neither prove nor disprove that we couldn't spend a penny more in the summer which is what I am contesting. 

My raised points include differing accounting periods to which these various profits, losses, sales, transfers of ownership etc relate to, the unknown percentage of which the losses shared contribute/are disqualified from FFP regulations, absolutely no public suggestion that FFP was the specific reason for the cut backs, the fact that the 2022 accounting year had only just begun when I wanted a bit of money to be spent, some of the reasoning behind my rationale, some of which you have not really addressed at all, some of which you have with your own opinions which I disagree with. The fact that we nearly got Maja on loan (which would cost albeit perhaps not the reinvestment level alone that I requested, a 2/3m striker and some new deals would suffice) alone proves that we aren't right on the line of projected FFP failure in my opinion, there is a semblance of flexibility for reinvestment which didn't materialise.

Our opinions are so different on this topic and I don't feel like you are directly addressing my specific stance at times so I suspect that it is easier to just agree to disagree.

Bevause you make statement like the manager has been hamstrung by budgets when up until this summer he clearly hasnt!

You are right tho no point us going round in circles

[davulsukur]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You do remember there was a pandemic?

I try not too!

I thought clubs were "bailed out" (to an extent) with covering shortfalls caused by COVID?