Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[unsall]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

If its anything to do with FFP then why are they persisting with the claim we can't get Nyambe and Rothwell on new contracts?

All a bit pointless if we can't even extend players contracts isnt it?

For context this £16 million move is probably not far off what we could command for those out of contract were they on long term deals rather than leaving for nothing.

They can’t get Nyambe and Rothwell to sign simply because they don’t want to pay what the agents want.

Now unless you know what’s on the table, I certainly don’t, how can you possibly say if the agents are being greedy or Rovers not paying the going rate.

And regarding the news about the STC being sold, you’ve banged on for years saying why don’t we do what Derby and others have done to get more dosh in, as soon as we do it there’s a conspiracy theory going on.

Lets think with what the news said,that due to slight alterations on FFP  rules it just might be to get some cash injection into the club and who knows keep some of these players that are going out of contract.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, MCMC1875 said:

No sense in splitting Brockhall for that reason. 

Can't see why it matters if they've split it or not.

The same option is still there for the other half if needed.

[Rogerb]

Presumably the club is now paying rent for the use of the SCT which it no longer owns. Money which it previously didn't have to find. It won't be peanuts either.

[islander200]

37 minutes ago, arbitro said:

That makes so much sense to me as a layman. If Blackburn Rovers were put into administration then Brockhall would be exempt because Blackburn Rovers don't own it. Maybe the car parks at Ewood will go the same way.

But why would the owners put the club into admin.A debt of 141 million is owed to the venkys.The only other debt the club has is a 14 million bank overdraft.

There is no benefit in the owners putting us into administration.

They could have just sold the STC not set up another company sell the STC to themselves and make the accounts of the club 16 million better off 

[JHRover]

4 minutes ago, unsall said:

They can’t get Nyambe and Rothwell to sign simply because they don’t want to pay what the agents want.

Now unless you know what’s on the table, I certainly don’t, how can you possibly say if the agents are being greedy or Rovers not paying the going rate.

And regarding the news about the STC being sold, you’ve banged on for years saying why don’t we do what Derby and others have done to get more dosh in, as soon as we do it there’s a conspiracy theory going on.

Lets think with what the news said,that due to slight alterations on FFP  rules it just might be to get some cash injection into the club and who knows keep some of these players that are going out of contract.

 

I didn't say the agents or players were being greedy. None of us know.

My belief is that we haven't even offered them new terms. Venky taps are off.

Yes I said earlier I had supported such a scheme as a means of avoiding FFP trouble. If FFP is the reason behind this then ok, I expect to see us investing in new players soon.

I don't expect that to happen.

I cannot overlook the stunt they pulled earlier this year. Fair enough if you can but I don't believe in coincidences such as these.

 

[Miller11]

51 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I have to applaud you for being diligent and breaking this news first but I'm struggling to understand your stance on this.

1) Why does it matter if the assets of the new Company are included in any future sale 

and

2) Would you rather have the STC owned by a Company controlled by Venky's (as has been the case) or owned by a Company controlled by Venky's with an additional £16m in the bank?

 

1) That’s a big assumption. You clearly have more faith in Venky’s making decisions that benefit the club in the long term than I do.

2) I’d rather the clubs fixed assets remain so instead of being sold off to satisfy short term needs. With hindsight, if the entire purpose was to satisfy FFP requirements the whole escapade may not have been necessary anyway as we sold Armstrong a few weeks later. And black hole would be more appropriate than bank.

My stance… it’s typically short sighted. And it’s concerning, given the way the club has been mismanaged for over a decade. I have questions about whether this will impact our Cat one status too.

This is only out there as the Trust were looking into the possibility of reapplying for ACV status to be granted again. After the previous attempts to sell we thought it sensible, and with Waggott stating as part of his pitch that in the future it would provide facilities for community use, we felt there was a chance.

[Wheelton Blue]

16 minutes ago, MCMC1875 said:

Then why split it ?

Possibly because it gives them the same opportunity in the next FFP cycle.

ie 'sell' the STC to to beef up income in this cycle. Then 'sell' the Academy in the next cycle, if need be.

[neophox]

39 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Firstly that was 18 months ago. Blimey move on. 

The club has offered Nyambe, Lenihan and Rothwell new improve contracts. Why they haven't sign them but its coming to crunch time where its time they either sign them or sell them. 

Also Brereton has been offered a new improved deal.

[neophox]

Just now, neophox said:

soos

 

[islander200]

24 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Presumably the club is now paying rent for the use of the SCT which it no longer owns. Money which it previously didn't have to find. It won't be peanuts either.

The venkys own it still.Are they going to charge themselves a premium to rent it?

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

1) That’s a big assumption. You clearly have more faith in Venky’s making decisions that benefit the club in the long term than I do.

2) I’d rather the clubs fixed assets remain so instead of being sold off to satisfy short term needs. With hindsight, if the entire purpose was to satisfy FFP requirements the whole escapade may not have been necessary anyway as we sold Armstrong a few weeks later. And black hole would be more appropriate than bank.

My stance… it’s typically short sighted. And it’s concerning, given the way the club has been mismanaged for over a decade. I have questions about whether this will impact our Cat one status too.

This is only out there as the Trust were looking into the possibility of reapplying for ACV status to be granted again. After the previous attempts to sell we thought it sensible, and with Waggott stating as part of his pitch that in the future it would provide facilities for community use, we felt there was a chance.

Having made a quick enquiry I'm content at this stage to attribute this to creative accounting which is allowable for FFP purposes. Feel free to remind me of that statement if it proves to be incorrect.

Good point in your final paragraph about Waggott mentioning that any new facility would incorporate public use. My own personal view is that unlike Ewood Park the Club's training facility is private and should remain so and that Waggott's mention of this was a desperate attempt to make the scheme sound slightly more attractive to local residents.

[Wheelton Blue]

1 minute ago, MCMC1875 said:

Blimey. Continued managed decline. There're none so blind as those who cannot see. 

Get a grip.

You asked a question, so I gave a possible answer. That's not to say I believe it.

[Exiled in Toronto]

32 minutes ago, MCMC1875 said:

Then why split it ?

Because maybe they didn’t want to, or could afford to put £32 million in all at once.

[blondie]

The amount of paranoia on here is frightening.

It's a way of creating funds outside of FFP.

I would be more worried if they did nothing and allowed us to run the club on income generated by 9,000 fans.

Regardless of all the mistakes , ignorance, complacency and arrogance portrayed by our owners, in the cold light of day we are poorly supported. I don't disagree with people's personal motives for non-attendance, but FFP will always restrict our growth due to the lack of income.

[arbitro]

40 minutes ago, islander200 said:

But why would the owners put the club into admin.A debt of 141 million is owed to the venkys.The only other debt the club has is a 14 million bank overdraft.

There is no benefit in the owners putting us into administration.

They could have just sold the STC not set up another company sell the STC to themselves and make the accounts of the club 16 million better off 

The only benefit to them that I can see is that it would be to save the circa £15-20m they are putting in every year. That simply can't go on indefinitely can it?

On your second point it makes it even more mysterious to me.

[Herbie6590]

https://twitter.com/brfcsdotcom/status/1453428161287491595?s=21

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, den said:

They can only sell the STC once. That’s not a plan.

True…sticking plaster for a broken leg

[Tugayisgod]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Nothing to see here according to Nicko. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Tugayisgod

[matt83]

Without knowing anything about the ins and outs of FFP etc I only need to remember one thing. Everything the Venkys have done in over a decade has been to the detriment of rovers. I don’t know how or why but this will be no different. It’s just how they roll. 

[Crimpshrine]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

2) Would you rather have the STC owned by a Company controlled by Venky's (as has been the case) or owned by a Company controlled by Venky's with an additional £16m in the bank?

 

Net result is probably the same financially - it just prevents the need for VLL to pump the £16 million in directly. So the club won't be getting any extra cash - but it may help from a FFP point of view as the cash can be seen as income rather than direct funding.

 If the whole point of the sale was FFP oriented then why not buy all of Brockhall and utilise the loophole further ? It's seems that option is now gone.

I think they want this land to be kept separate from the ownership of the club - how much is it worth with 170 houses on it ? If VLL sell the club they can keep the land. There may be no indication they are selling but they have given themselves more options now.

Remember the golden rule - NEVER TRUST A VENKY 

 

[islander200]

20 minutes ago, arbitro said:

The only benefit to them that I can see is that it would be to save the circa £15-20m they are putting in every year. That simply can't go on indefinitely can it?

On your second point it makes it even more mysterious to me.

Then you try to sell the club not put it into admin.Or start selling a big player a season.We owe no money, the debt is entirely theirs with the exception of 14 million overdraft.

If we went admin they wouldnt be seeing that 140 million back, granted they wont ny selling the club either but there is just no benefit to them putting us into administration.

If the sale of the STC was about them clawing some of their money back they would have sold it to someone other than themselves.

I understand the suspicion and find it disrespectful to us that the club werent more open about it but it just looks to me that its being used as a way to get money into with owners now restricted in what they can put in to the clubs they own

[JHRover]

29 minutes ago, blondie said:

The amount of paranoia on here is frightening.

It's a way of creating funds outside of FFP.

I would be more worried if they did nothing and allowed us to run the club on income generated by 9,000 fans.

Regardless of all the mistakes , ignorance, complacency and arrogance portrayed by our owners, in the cold light of day we are poorly supported. I don't disagree with people's personal motives for non-attendance, but FFP will always restrict our growth due to the lack of income.

So why the secrecy? Why no announcement from the owners, CEO etc. at a fans forum meeting or on twitter to reassure concerns?

If it is a mechanism to overcome FFP then how come we slashed costs in the summer, sold Armstrong for £15 million and spent a couple of hundred grand on a full back from Lincoln and have failed to secure any senior players to new deals despite a critical need to do so? A £16.6 million boost to the accounts along with the Armstrong cash would surely put us in a great position to resolve the above?

They have created a situation where we have only 9000 fans turning up. You make it sound as though they are innocent powerless bystanders in that. Want more than 9000? Don't run the club like this and let Mowbray and Waggott continue. Appoint a commercial director. Get a kit manufacturer that delivers shirts to sell. 

They have created these problems. Maybe this is a way to overcome it. So what happens in another couple of years when there are no more assets to sell off and crowds have dwindled further/we are in League One due to a lack of investment?

[JHRover]

3 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Then you try to sell the club not put it into admin.Or start selling a big player a season.We owe no money, the debt is entirely theirs with the exception of 14 million overdraft.

We can't sell any big players if we can't keep them under contract. 

[Miller11]

52 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Having made a quick enquiry I'm content at this stage to attribute this to creative accounting which is allowable for FFP purposes. Feel free to remind me of that statement if it proves to be incorrect.

Good point in your final paragraph about Waggott mentioning that any new facility would incorporate public use. My own personal view is that unlike Ewood Park the Club's training facility is private and should remain so and that Waggott's mention of this was a desperate attempt to make the scheme sound slightly more attractive to local residents.

Just to add, I think you are absolutely right about the training ground, and Waggott’s comments. The ACV would’ve been an attempt to prevent anything like the housing development they proposed. I have no doubt they will revisit that at some point.

[Rogerb]

1 hour ago, islander200 said:

The venkys own it still.Are they going to charge themselves a premium to rent it?

Its a different company with a different board of directors. The club will be paying to use the asset.