Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Miller11]

We’ve also got a show today at 1pm

https://roversradio.co.uk/listen-live

Plenty of talk about Waggott.

 

It was recorded before Mowbray’s Coventry address, which seems to have overtaken “I have a dream” but narrowly trails to “we shall fight on the beaches” in the list of greatest ever speeches... so not as “positive” as some would like.

 

Right, I’m off back to Twitter to argue with people who believe winning the Premier League was the worst thing the club ever did. Honestly.

 

 

[Paul Mellelieu]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Because the plans have been published that shows reduced pitches, no floodlights, classrooms etc - putting at risk Cat 1.

If you haven’t bothered to look, fair enough, but blind optimism on the word of Steve fecking Waggott?

 

I've had a look, and the read the responses and have been involved, in a tangental way, in similar schemes, where funds have to be realised to build something new.  I'd also like to hear a detailed account of how the scheme will work from the club.  That doesn't amount to blind optimism - far from it actually.  There is of course an underlying issue here, which is how do fans expect the club to carry on spending on the ground, players and so on, without raising money.  We are, if I understand correctly, £250m in the red.  And I don't have much time for Waggott and co.  So we are in a very precarious position due to Venkys, but right now, I'm not sure what our options are.  

[Mattyblue]

And we ‘need something new’ because?

[Paul Mellelieu]

2 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

People do this all the the time when they downsize their houses to free up equity. But you can only do it once & it’s called downsizing for a reason. 
Once it is gone it is gone & JW put those covenants in for a reason. Not addressing this point is disingenuous at best.

Most people "right-size", that is move to a property of a similar size with the facilities they want at their stage in life,  but that's another argument....  I'm not sure what the point is that I've missed and I admit that I may not have understood the argument, but to assume bad faith isn't right. 

[Paul Mellelieu]

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

And we ‘need something new’ because?

I'm all ears on that one.  

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

9 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

 So we are in a very precarious position due to Venkys, but right now, I'm not sure what our options are.  

Sell Armstrong and raise similar capital to the land sale?

[JHRover]

38 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

There is of course an underlying issue here, which is how do fans expect the club to carry on spending on the ground, players and so on, without raising money.  We are, if I understand correctly, £250m in the red.  And I don't have much time for Waggott and co.  So we are in a very precarious position due to Venkys, but right now, I'm not sure what our options are.  

Our Match Sponsor today is the Rovers Community Trust. They are also the Sponsors of the Family Stand and took the advertising space the club tried selling on the Jack Walker stand windows when the ground was shut.

Here is the problem. Commercial and corporate development is non existent, to the extent we are relying on the Community Trust to sponsor the club. 

It is embarrassing.

But that's what happens when you neglect this important part of the club and treat fans and partners with contempt.

Get rid of Waggott and pay a top drawer Commercial director to increase income.

[lraC]

4 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

People do this all the the time when they downsize their houses to free up equity. But you can only do it once & it’s called downsizing for a reason. 
Once it is gone it is gone & JW put those covenants in for a reason. Not addressing this point is disingenuous at best.

After that, it’s a sale and rent back job. Similar to poor old Bury.

This is not going to end well. 

[Herbie6590]

9 minutes ago, lraC said:

After that, it’s a sale and rent back job. Similar to poor old Bury.

This is not going to end well. 

Precisely....I’ve worked on a number of sale & leaseback transactions in my career - businesses that need to unlock capital from their fixed assets in order to carry on trading. 
If the funds raised are then used to generate additional income then absolutely it could turn that business around.

Essentially therefore,  we are being asked to buy in to the premise that a smaller site, with fewer facilities (though possibly improved) will be better at producing young footballers - to save paying transfer fees & to sell on to generate income.

I’m sceptical...

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Sell Armstrong and raise similar capital to the land sale?

Yes, but players are current assets & can be more easily traded/replaced than training grounds...

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

 

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Yes, but players are current assets & can be more easily traded/replaced than training grounds...

Which is why it's better than selling a fixed asset. 

[Roving Mick]

Other fishy goings on at Brockhall

Something Fishy Going On At Rovers

[Paul Mellelieu]

12 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Precisely....I’ve worked on a number of sale & leaseback transactions in my career - businesses that need to unlock capital from their fixed assets in order to carry on trading. 
If the funds raised are then used to generate additional income then absolutely it could turn that business around.

Essentially therefore,  we are being asked to buy in to the premise that a smaller site, with fewer facilities (though possibly improved) will be better at producing young footballers - to save paying transfer fees & to sell on to generate income.

I’m sceptical...

Me too, but what as I said I'm not sure what the options are for the club and I'm not sure anyone does.

[Herbie6590]

44 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

Me too, but what as I said I'm not sure what the options are for the club and I'm not sure anyone does.

The options are stark:

1. Cut your cloth accordingly - reduce outgoings to match income

2. Increase income to allow continued investment

3. Ask owners to invest to make good the shortfall

[tomphil]

Main issue at Rovers is how income disappears down the black hole. That's understandable with the running costs but this kind of scheme is dangerous. Get PP then sell land then suddenly find there isn't enough to do the intended because something else suddenly needs attention.

So the lands gone, most of the money is gone and there's no state of the art facility just a spruce up job. Then the word will be it's had to be postponed until we get to the Prem or sell someone for 50 mill.

Very shaky ground this kind of thing at this moment in time, what if there are more lockdowns in future years ?

Edited February 27, 2021 by tomphil

[darrenrover]

3 hours ago, renrag said:

Just carefully listened again to the interview and it’s pretty obvious that every question and answer was rehearsed. I don’t know about being a timber merchant, he must have timber for a brain if he expects anyone to swallow that rubbish

'nuff said! pillock!

Salmay, Dalmay, Adomay!  Nothing works!

Edited February 27, 2021 by darrenrover

[Paul Mellelieu]

16 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

The options are stark:

1. Cut your cloth accordingly - reduce outgoings to match income

2. Increase income to allow continued investment

3. Ask owners to invest to make good the shortfall

I assume our financial strategy is a mixture of the three, but done badly.

[darrenrover]

1 minute ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

I assume our financial strategy is a mixture of the three, but done badly.

I disagree, I think the strategy has been to sufficiently piss people off to ensure dwindling numbers and less dissenting voices cometh the day.

Well we're fooking BLACKBURN ROVERS, so do one!!

[darrenrover]

3 hours ago, Miller11 said:

The below from Rich Sharpe suggests that there is an acceptance of this state of purgatory for a long time to come. Surely the best way to address the day to day costs is to increase revenue into the club. Obviously having a proper crack at promotion would be the best way, but increasing commercial activity would also help... another part of Waggott’s remit he’s completely failed to deliver on.

It's bollocks.

The reason why supporters have been targeted over the past number of years is an attempt to reduce the numbers and in so doing, the number of dissenting voices cometh 'd' day!

They must think we are all bloody thick.

[Miller11]

1 minute ago, darrenrover said:

It's bollocks.

The reason why supporters have been targeted over the past number of years is an attempt to reduce the numbers and in so doing, the number of dissenting voices cometh 'd' day!

They must think we are all bloody thick.

Milk the hardcore and make no attempts to reengage or grow the fanbase has been Waggott’s tactic from day one.

[darrenrover]

Just now, Miller11 said:

Milk the hardcore and make no attempts to reengage or grow the fanbase has been Waggott’s tactic from day one.

Guess what my frigging personal mantra with a passion is?

[RevidgeBlue]

8 hours ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

We are, if I understand correctly, £250m in the red.  And I don't have much time for Waggott and co.  So we are in a very precarious position due to Venkys, but right now, I'm not sure what our options are.  

Don't waste further money on a training facility that would involve losing pitches jeapordises Cat 1 status, and which quite simply isn't needed?

[RevidgeBlue]

4 hours ago, Miller11 said:

Milk the hardcore and make no attempts to reengage or grow the fanbase has been Waggott’s tactic from day one.

Very dangerous bloke to have around given his involvement at Coventry.

[Gav]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Very dangerous bloke to have around given his involvement at Coventry.

Not as dangerous as the owners who put him in post, they’re the real villains of the piece.

The Welcoming Venkys back thread should be taking a hammering.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

Not as dangerous as the owners who put him in post, they’re the real villains of the piece.

The Welcoming Venkys back thread should be taking a hammering.

Mowbray was the one who recommended him for the role thereby making himself virtually bombproof.

The owners are the ones who shouldn't have been taken in (yet again) by this clear conflict of interest.