Steve Waggott

[Upside Down]

8 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

Eh not falling out with you. Thats your opinion. I totally disagree with his salary too but my choice is to get behind team. That's my opinion.

Sorry, wasn't trying to argue but I don't see why pointing out these things should upset people who go. This should have been factored in when buying the tickets, as evidently you have.

[Cherry Blue]

13 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Sorry, wasn't trying to argue but I don't see why pointing out these things should upset people who go. This should have been factored in when buying the tickets, as evidently you have.

Why are you having another go at me with the "as evidently you have". I'm aware of the clubs finances. I don't like it. But like thousands of other I support the team. 

[Upside Down]

6 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

Why are you having another go at me with the "as evidently you have". I'm aware of the clubs finances. I don't like it. But like thousands of other I support the team. 

That's exactly what I just said, you've factored all of that into your decision to buy a ticket.

Not having a go. 👍

[Cherry Blue]

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

That's exactly what I just said, you've factored all of that into your decision to buy a ticket.

Not having a go. 👍

Well I can assure you I haven't . Its purely to support the team. We'll leave it there and agree to disagree.

[...]

41 minutes ago, Cherry Blue said:

Eh not falling out with you. Thats your opinion. I totally disagree with his salary too but my choice is to get behind team. That's my opinion.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

[ben_the_beast]

Happy to be corrected but haven't most always stated that Waggott is on circa 300k per year. 

If that figure is true and not just pulled out of thin air, his salary has almost doubled? The only logical reason I can think for that is the club moving from large annual losses to operating at a profit, and his salary is incentive driven? 

If true it's disgusting. He's motivated to hold the club back. I'll bet that feeds his reluctance around season ticket prices etc too. It'd be the first hard evidence of those in the hierarchy lining their own pockets at the clubs expense.

[JHRover]

2 hours ago, ben_the_beast said:

Happy to be corrected but haven't most always stated that Waggott is on circa 300k per year. 

If that figure is true and not just pulled out of thin air, his salary has almost doubled? The only logical reason I can think for that is the club moving from large annual losses to operating at a profit, and his salary is incentive driven? 

If true it's disgusting. He's motivated to hold the club back. I'll bet that feeds his reluctance around season ticket prices etc too. It'd be the first hard evidence of those in the hierarchy lining their own pockets at the clubs expense.

It has been declared in the annual accounts for the last 4-5 years that the highest paid director has been taking home over £300k a year. 

It is an assumption that the highest paid director is the Chief Executive. If it isn't and someone else is getting paid more than him this is even more concerning. 

Assuming Waggott is the highest paid director, which his title suggests he should be, then yes, there has been a massive increase in his remuneration particularly in the last year, jumping from just over £300k to well over £400k. A huge increase for someone doing the same job at a club in the same league.

This leads to the question of what he has done in the last year or so to justify such a substantial increase - the only logical conclusion is that he is being rewarded for performance and that directly correlates to the cuts and money brought in from player sales which has been massive and has essentially meant that the owners have avoided needing to transfer money from India.

It is only right to identify that if correct, and he is being paid more for saving the owners money, this directly conflicts with investment, improvement, growth, squad building, new contracts.

If we embark on serious investment in the stadium, squad, contracts this is potentially jeopardising his income. Conflict.

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Assuming Waggott is the highest paid director, which his title suggests he should be, then yes, there has been a massive increase in his remuneration particularly in the last year, jumping from just over £300k to well over £400k. A huge increase for someone doing the same job at a club in the same league.

who else can it be given that Pasha isn't a director on the Rovers accounts. It won't be Rob Coar. Most of the increase is in Pensions contributions isn't it? That is what people have been saying how it been paid. 

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

who else can it be given that Pasha isn't a director on the Rovers accounts. It won't be Rob Coar. Most of the increase is in Pensions contributions isn't it? That is what people have been saying how it been paid. 

I think it is pretty nailed on that it is Waggott, but maybe the groups who meet him, will question him on it.

As posted above, it is a major concern, if he is being paid on what he saves the owners, rather than what should be considered success at a football club, but as we have seen so often in recent years, results on the pitch are secondary. 

[47er]

With Sammy's £11m to appear in the next years financial statement and some of our best players to leave for nothing in the summer (bringing the wage bill down further) we could  make only a relatively small loss next year but what then?

Who could be sold to make up the £17m gap? And what division will we be in?

It is impossible to go on like this for much longer.

[chaddyrovers]

37 minutes ago, lraC said:

I think it is pretty nailed on that it is Waggott

It can't be anyone else

[RoverDom]

So now it all slots into place. Venkys keep half an eye on us from a far and see we're in and around top 6 so all is well. Meanwhile Pasha is a money man not a football fan and waggot is being incentivised based on financial performance so no incentive to splash the cash for a promotion push. 

He may be incentivised with a big bonus for promotion but that's too much of a risk for him. Realistically our only chance is the play offs which is a lottery so why spunk any potential bonus for financial performance based on a 25% shot at the PL? 

[JHRover]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

It can't be anyone else

It could be Gandhi Babu or Sreenivasa Rao.

I doubt anyone at Ewood has ever met or would recognise either of them but safe to assume both are on the payroll as executive directors.

Unlikely and unjustifiable if so, but it could be.

 

Edited March 5 by JHRover

[Andy]

So it's seemingly likely that Waggott has sacrificed our opportunity to get promoted for his own financial gain.

I'd like to say I'm surprised or shocked.

This must be addressed, at whichever fan forum comes next, no excuses.

[DE.]

Even if it is, nothing will come of it. Waggott will be sitting pretty until he retires. His only loyalty is to Venky's - and he must be doing as they desire, as otherwise he wouldn't still be here.

[Ghost7]

Waggott taking up half the transfer budget 🤣

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, Andy said:

So it's seemingly likely that Waggott has sacrificed our opportunity to get promoted for his own financial gain.

I'd like to say I'm surprised or shocked.

This must be addressed, at whichever fan forum comes next, no excuses.

He is an absolute waste of space, one of two deplorable lap dogs.

But any opportunity to get promoted being sacrificied is down to the owners, no one else, even the idiots they pay too much to carry out their objectives of (ironically in this case) solely minimising costs.

[Forever Blue]

On 04/03/2025 at 19:41, Upside Down said:

And people question why I don't go anymore...

Isn’t that because you live in New Zealand?

[Upside Down]

34 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Isn’t that because you live in New Zealand?

No.

I lived in Mill Hill before that and didn't go then.

[lraC]

5 hours ago, DE. said:

Even if it is, nothing will come of it. Waggott will be sitting pretty until he retires. His only loyalty is to Venky's - and he must be doing as they desire, as otherwise he wouldn't still be here.

His only loyalty, is to himself.

One very selfish individual.

[philipl]

You don't spend £400k a year to get a clapped out septuagenarian so so football agent.

[lraC]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

You don't spend £400k a year to get a clapped out septuagenarian so so football agent.

It’s just a common theme, from the very start. Find the bottom of the barrel, pay them loads of money and then spread the narrative of being badly advised.

There aren’t many left, but some are still falling for that one, as we heard on the radio, about a week ago. 

[ben_the_beast]

The more I've thought about this, the more I'm disgusted by it. It absolutely has to be a central message at the next fans forum and needs spreading far and wide. 

A very simple question / statement is required.

Given that the top director's salary has significantly increased (by approximately X%) according to the latest accounts, it seems logical to assume this rise is tied to financial performance rather than sporting success, particularly given the club's final league position relative to reported profits. Does this create a conflict of interest, as the club's primary decision-maker appears incentivized more by financial outcomes than by performance on the pitch?

[chaddyrovers]

20 hours ago, JHRover said:

It could be Gandhi Babu or Sreenivasa Rao.

I doubt anyone at Ewood has ever met or would recognise either of them but safe to assume both are on the payroll as executive directors.

Unlikely and unjustifiable if so, but it could be.

 

really? why would either take that extra sum of money in pension contributions? think about it

 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

All dipping their Paws into the Venky Honey Pot,the self preservation Society in full effect,THE perfect Gig.

They will not bite the Hand that so generously Feeds..yes Madame,no Madame,sell all the Silverware and invest sweet fook all Madame!