Transfer Window - COMPLETE. Where’s Gregg?

[roversfan99]

12 hours ago, islander200 said:

We don't need 8 or 9 signings.Trying to stretch our budget to that many players we will be signing dross.

4 permanent signing and a couple of loans.Dack fit to play a bigger part, Markanday fit  and Hedges who did ok in his last couple of games weren't available for us the majority of the last season.

If you read my first reply to you I said I would like experience but they have to be able to contribute for the length of their contract and plenty of players 27/28 have experience.

More often than not signing past it players has done f all for us.

8k a week is still money that could be used elsewhere rather than bringing in Hourihane who is finished at this level.

The chances of us getting promoted next season are slim to none so build for the next season.

My point is about where I perceive gaps to be in the squad, I think personally I outlined genuine areas whereby I feel that we are short, before considering the budget.

Obviously you then have to look at how best to utilise whatever budget we have, which none of us know, and how far that budget can stretch. The "9 Akpan's" line was hyperbole and in theory, that 7th and 8th signing could be loanees with the 9th being the sub keeper we need as an experienced freebie, so not much more on top.

We have also signed plenty of crap loans, plenty of crap big money signings and plenty of crap frees over the years, we can't rule out experienced players based on that basis. I stand by the fact that we need experience, whether that is a 28 year old or a 30/31 year old like Hourihane would have been, which is IMO definitely not too old. Obviously we don't want another Danny Murphy who is 35 and disinterested, but each player must be analysed on his individual merits.

I am also totally against the idea of writing off seasons, for all of the Brentford comparisons, do they have seasons whereby they don't actively intend to challenge? The process of turning over profits on assets and continuously improving needs to be constant, albeit it relies on the owners who have let us down on this basis in the past. We want a new manager to push us on and if we do have a reasonable budget then there is no reason not to hope for improvement on last season, not regression.

11 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I rather we went for someone like Cameron Brannagan or Callum Styles. Who we develop and improve. 

Why is it a "rather" situation? We need at least 2 midfielders with 3 going out, I suggested a more experienced option like Hourihane AND potentially someone of the age range of the players you mention whereby you bring in a potential asset AND get some much needed experience into the club.

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Those 4 players you mention aren't irreplaceable. We will sign players of similar ability or even better. 

 

 

What a statement that is, especially with such assertiveness.

2 hours ago, RoversClitheroe said:

@chaddyroversI'm not sure if we will sign better.

We've never ever replaced the quality of Martin Ollson, we've not replaced his quality or anything close since.

What's to say we'll find anything near the quality of Nyambe?

I am very skeptical of our ability to sign equal or better replacements for the outgoings, but I would say that Nyambe is probably the easiest of the departees to replace.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Just need to lose Diaz now for the icing on the Shit Cake.

Where's the financial backing for your new Manager Venkys?😠

[booth]

10 minutes ago, OsloRover said:

Long post warning..

I feel that many posters are not aware of the actual financial reality of the club.

The club must survive first and foremost, hence the focus on being a sustainable operation. In the short term, as long as Venkys are willing to fund the club's losses, being sustainable means to comply with the championship's profitability and sustainability rules, often called FFP.

To comply with said rules, clubs must run at a loss of no more than £45 million over any 3-year period. As an aside, be aware that a season or two in the PL during this period will dramatically increase this figure, giving clubs relegated from the PL another huge advantage ON TOP OF their parachute payments (which are counted as income) if they have owners with big wallets.

Looking at Rovers' accounts from the 20/21 season we had at the time a loss of approx £46.750.000 over 3 years, which is over the FFP limit. We can deduct spending for the academy, ladies team etc from this figure, which means we were within our £45m limit by some margin. There was also probably a significant covid-related deduction for which I don't know the details, maybe enough to make us compliant for 2020 but seemingly not for 2021. Hence we sold the training centre, which raised a £13m profit which is included in the losses mentioned. Obviously we can only sell the training centre once, so it's not really sustainable.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019

Losses                 6.6m           22m            18.2m

3Y FFP losses      46.75m        57m            38.8m 

When the 2022 accounts are filed the 2019 numbers are no longer relevant for FFP, so those 18.2m losses are wiped clean and replaced with whatever loss we have for 2022. The maximum loss for 2022 we can live with within FFP would be (45-22-6.6) = 16.4m. The Armstrong sale, the return of matchday crowds, and the siginficant cull of senior players on big wages last summer should all help the 2022 accounts so I don't expect any problems there.

Now this is where it gets interesting. 2022 accounting is done (although not published), so we have to focus on 2023 where we can wipe the terrible 2020 loss of 22m away, to be replaced with the 2023 accounts. What we know is that we have cleared around 70k/week off the wage budget with the players that have left this summer. We also expect a big sale with Brereton going. Unless we sign a lot of expensive players we could potentially be looking at actually turning a profit this year (we won't, because we'll sign players). Keep in mind that one good financial year helps the club comply with FFP for 3 years, not just one, and that money paid towards transfers are spread out over the length of the signed player's contract. As long as Venkys are happy to provide the maximum amount of financial backing that they can (and they have until now, make no mistake about it), we should indeed be looking at, in GB's words, "a healthy budget".

This is surely one reason to be optimistic. But the signings need to be right, we can not afford to take big losses on players. So I'd rather the club takes its sweet time getting recruitment right. We might not have an Armstrong or a Brereton to sell next year and we could easily be in the brown stuff again in a couple of years since our baseline operations are far from sustainable.

Note that if Venkys should withdraw their funding entirely, FFP requirements would go from a £45mill loss to a £15mill loss, and we would have to make drastic cuts across the board and probably not be able to sustain a championship level operation. I can't see this happening though as they would need to achieve PL status to have any hope of recouping their expenses.

FFP seems a ridiculous irony.

[phili]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

My point is about where I perceive gaps to be in the squad, I think personally I outlined genuine areas whereby I feel that we are short, before considering the budget.

Obviously you then have to look at how best to utilise whatever budget we have, which none of us know, and how far that budget can stretch. The "9 Akpan's" line was hyperbole and in theory, that 7th and 8th signing could be loanees with the 9th being the sub keeper we need as an experienced freebie, so not much more on top.

We have also signed plenty of crap loans, plenty of crap big money signings and plenty of crap frees over the years, we can't rule out experienced players based on that basis. I stand by the fact that we need experience, whether that is a 28 year old or a 30/31 year old like Hourihane would have been, which is IMO definitely not too old. Obviously we don't want another Danny Murphy who is 35 and disinterested, but each player must be analysed on his individual merits.

I am also totally against the idea of writing off seasons, for all of the Brentford comparisons, do they have seasons whereby they don't actively intend to challenge? The process of turning over profits on assets and continuously improving needs to be constant, albeit it relies on the owners who have let us down on this basis in the past. We want a new manager to push us on and if we do have a reasonable budget then there is no reason not to hope for improvement on last season, not regression.

Why is it a "rather" situation? We need at least 2 midfielders with 3 going out, I suggested a more experienced option like Hourihane AND potentially someone of the age range of the players you mention whereby you bring in a potential asset AND get some much needed experience into the club.

What a statement that is, especially with such assertiveness.

I am very skeptical of our ability to sign equal or better replacements for the outgoings, but I would say that Nyambe is probably the easiest of the departees to replace.

I don't think Nyambe will be that easy. We've spent 5 seasons trying to sign a competent left back and still haven't, I am not sure right back will be so easy.

[roversfan99]

QPR are trying to get Millwall right back Dan McNamara on a cheap deal as he has only one year left on his contract. I suspect not but I wonder if he would be of interest.

[rigger]

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

My point is about where I perceive gaps to be in the squad, I think personally I outlined genuine areas whereby I feel that we are short, before considering the budget.

Obviously you then have to look at how best to utilise whatever budget we have, which none of us know, and how far that budget can stretch. The "9 Akpan's" line was hyperbole and in theory, that 7th and 8th signing could be loanees with the 9th being the sub keeper we need as an experienced freebie, so not much more on top.

We have also signed plenty of crap loans, plenty of crap big money signings and plenty of crap frees over the years, we can't rule out experienced players based on that basis. I stand by the fact that we need experience, whether that is a 28 year old or a 30/31 year old like Hourihane would have been, which is IMO definitely not too old. Obviously we don't want another Danny Murphy who is 35 and disinterested, but each player must be analysed on his individual merits.

I am also totally against the idea of writing off seasons, for all of the Brentford comparisons, do they have seasons whereby they don't actively intend to challenge? The process of turning over profits on assets and continuously improving needs to be constant, albeit it relies on the owners who have let us down on this basis in the past. We want a new manager to push us on and if we do have a reasonable budget then there is no reason not to hope for improvement on last season, not regression.

Why is it a "rather" situation? We need at least 2 midfielders with 3 going out, I suggested a more experienced option like Hourihane AND potentially someone of the age range of the players you mention whereby you bring in a potential asset AND get some much needed experience into the club.

What a statement that is, especially with such assertiveness.

I am very skeptical of our ability to sign equal or better replacements for the outgoings, but I would say that Nyambe is probably the easiest of the departees to replace.

See now I would say Nyambe is the hardest to replace. Opinions Eh !

Edited July 7, 2022 by rigger

[Andy]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Patience, as usual, is in short supply on this MB.

Yes, we've lost some players. Yes, some clubs have made moves. But there are still plenty of deals that will be done and plenty of time for us to take part in them. 

No need to be too desperate now and judge things every 6 hours. 

+1,000

[K-Hod]

If we shouldn’t judge until the end of the window, or until we’ve played a few games- might as well shut the board down and let the mods have the rest of the summer off….

(Seriously though, that’s not happening, people with different opinions are just voicing theirs, some we agree with, some we don’t. Whatever next?)

[Tricky]

5 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Just need to lose Diaz now for the icing on the Shit Cake.

Where's the financial backing for your new Manager Venkys?😠

and Ayala, might as well keep raising some cash for them

on the second point, as the days go by im amazed he's come in

[JHRover]

16 minutes ago, OsloRover said:

Long post warning..

I feel that many posters are not aware of the actual financial reality of the club.

The club must survive first and foremost, hence the focus on being a sustainable operation. In the short term, as long as Venkys are willing to fund the club's losses, being sustainable means to comply with the championship's profitability and sustainability rules, often called FFP.

To comply with said rules, clubs must run at a loss of no more than £45 million over any 3-year period. As an aside, be aware that a season or two in the PL during this period will dramatically increase this figure, giving clubs relegated from the PL another huge advantage ON TOP OF their parachute payments (which are counted as income) if they have owners with big wallets.

Looking at Rovers' accounts from the 20/21 season we had at the time a loss of approx £46.750.000 over 3 years, which is over the FFP limit. We can deduct spending for the academy, ladies team etc from this figure, which means we were within our £45m limit by some margin. There was also probably a significant covid-related deduction for which I don't know the details, maybe enough to make us compliant for 2020 but seemingly not for 2021. Hence we sold the training centre, which raised a £13m profit which is included in the losses mentioned. Obviously we can only sell the training centre once, so it's not really sustainable.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019

Losses                 6.6m           22m            18.2m

3Y FFP losses      46.75m        57m            38.8m 

When the 2022 accounts are filed the 2019 numbers are no longer relevant for FFP, so those 18.2m losses are wiped clean and replaced with whatever loss we have for 2022. The maximum loss for 2022 we can live with within FFP would be (45-22-6.6) = 16.4m. The Armstrong sale, the return of matchday crowds, and the siginficant cull of senior players on big wages last summer should all help the 2022 accounts so I don't expect any problems there.

Now this is where it gets interesting. 2022 accounting is done (although not published), so we have to focus on 2023 where we can wipe the terrible 2020 loss of 22m away, to be replaced with the 2023 accounts. What we know is that we have cleared around 70k/week off the wage budget with the players that have left this summer. We also expect a big sale with Brereton going. Unless we sign a lot of expensive players we could potentially be looking at actually turning a profit this year (we won't, because we'll sign players). Keep in mind that one good financial year helps the club comply with FFP for 3 years, not just one, and that money paid towards transfers are spread out over the length of the signed player's contract. As long as Venkys are happy to provide the maximum amount of financial backing that they can (and they have until now, make no mistake about it), we should indeed be looking at, in GB's words, "a healthy budget".

This is surely one reason to be optimistic. But the signings need to be right, we can not afford to take big losses on players. So I'd rather the club takes its sweet time getting recruitment right. We might not have an Armstrong or a Brereton to sell next year and we could easily be in the brown stuff again in a couple of years since our baseline operations are far from sustainable.

Note that if Venkys should withdraw their funding entirely, FFP requirements would go from a £45mill loss to a £15mill loss, and we would have to make drastic cuts across the board and probably not be able to sustain a championship level operation. I can't see this happening though as they would need to achieve PL status to have any hope of recouping their expenses.

Middlesbrough lost £30 million last year alone.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/middlesbrough-fc-reveal-30m-losses-23433844

Yet despite that they haven't been sanctioned, haven't had a points deduction or embargo, and are now coming along paying wages to our academy products that allegedly we cannot compete with.

If FFP was the issue here they wouldn't be able to do that.

Now I know that comparison to other clubs isn't always popular on here, because none of us really know the details of what goes on elsewhere and we need to focus on ourselves. But I think it is very useful to point this out - it proves that those sort of losses we are accustomed to, along with higher ones in the case of Middlesbrough, can be sustained without the need for the slash and burn performance we're witnessing at Rovers.

Put simply Venkys don't want to put the money in, and will only be persuaded to do so if the manager goes to India to do it. If that doesn't happen it is "make do with what you have" whilst the middle men cut costs.

In comparison Steve Gibson, Peter Coates, Stephen Lansdown want to invest and want to improve their clubs and by an amazing miracle they have continued to do so without FFP issues.

Bristol City lost £38 million LAST year alone

Stoke City lost £56 million. Incredible figures which demonstrate the futility of rationalising what we have seen at Rovers.

This is our owners deciding to cut costs, not 3rd party rules forcing them.

[roversfan99]

Just now, phili said:

I don't think Nyambe will be that easy. We've spent 5 seasons trying to sign a competent left back and still haven't, I am not sure right back will be so easy.

I think it will be difficult on the cheap, don't get me wrong. One that I would say I have less than 50% confidence in finding an equal alternative! Just that a few of the others are to me even harder to replace.

Just now, rigger said:

See now I would say Nyambe is the hardest to replace. Opinions Eh !

Indeed!

I would say Lenihan is the biggest along with Brereton assuming the latter goes, our captain and our only real goalscorer from last season. Rothwell is fairly unique but quite inconsistent so him and Nyambe (who has limitations) are easier to replace in comparison but still difficult. Van Hecke is more difficult to replace than those 2 aswell if we include him, Khadra probably the least difficult of the 6.

[RoversClitheroe]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

QPR are trying to get Millwall right back Dan McNamara on a cheap deal as he has only one year left on his contract. I suspect not but I wonder if he would be of interest.

?! 

I'm confused say Nyambe is the easiest to replace then mention someone massively inferior to Ryan?

[phili]

19 minutes ago, OsloRover said:

Long post warning..

I feel that many posters are not aware of the actual financial reality of the club.

The club must survive first and foremost, hence the focus on being a sustainable operation. In the short term, as long as Venkys are willing to fund the club's losses, being sustainable means to comply with the championship's profitability and sustainability rules, often called FFP.

To comply with said rules, clubs must run at a loss of no more than £45 million over any 3-year period. As an aside, be aware that a season or two in the PL during this period will dramatically increase this figure, giving clubs relegated from the PL another huge advantage ON TOP OF their parachute payments (which are counted as income) if they have owners with big wallets.

Looking at Rovers' accounts from the 20/21 season we had at the time a loss of approx £46.750.000 over 3 years, which is over the FFP limit. We can deduct spending for the academy, ladies team etc from this figure, which means we were within our £45m limit by some margin. There was also probably a significant covid-related deduction for which I don't know the details, maybe enough to make us compliant for 2020 but seemingly not for 2021. Hence we sold the training centre, which raised a £13m profit which is included in the losses mentioned. Obviously we can only sell the training centre once, so it's not really sustainable.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019

Losses                 6.6m           22m            18.2m

3Y FFP losses      46.75m        57m            38.8m 

When the 2022 accounts are filed the 2019 numbers are no longer relevant for FFP, so those 18.2m losses are wiped clean and replaced with whatever loss we have for 2022. The maximum loss for 2022 we can live with within FFP would be (45-22-6.6) = 16.4m. The Armstrong sale, the return of matchday crowds, and the siginficant cull of senior players on big wages last summer should all help the 2022 accounts so I don't expect any problems there.

Now this is where it gets interesting. 2022 accounting is done (although not published), so we have to focus on 2023 where we can wipe the terrible 2020 loss of 22m away, to be replaced with the 2023 accounts. What we know is that we have cleared around 70k/week off the wage budget with the players that have left this summer. We also expect a big sale with Brereton going. Unless we sign a lot of expensive players we could potentially be looking at actually turning a profit this year (we won't, because we'll sign players). Keep in mind that one good financial year helps the club comply with FFP for 3 years, not just one, and that money paid towards transfers are spread out over the length of the signed player's contract. As long as Venkys are happy to provide the maximum amount of financial backing that they can (and they have until now, make no mistake about it), we should indeed be looking at, in GB's words, "a healthy budget".

This is surely one reason to be optimistic. But the signings need to be right, we can not afford to take big losses on players. So I'd rather the club takes its sweet time getting recruitment right. We might not have an Armstrong or a Brereton to sell next year and we could easily be in the brown stuff again in a couple of years since our baseline operations are far from sustainable.

Note that if Venkys should withdraw their funding entirely, FFP requirements would go from a £45mill loss to a £15mill loss, and we would have to make drastic cuts across the board and probably not be able to sustain a championship level operation. I can't see this happening though as they would need to achieve PL status to have any hope of recouping their expenses.

It's one of the reasons Championship clubs are not that interesting to investors, you can't actually spend any money once you take a club over.

The clubs of interest and likely to be sold are league one clubs such as MK Dons. Get them into the championship you can spend £45m in 2 seasons trying to gamble to get promoted to the premier League, if fail sell some players.

As pretty much all Championship clubs are owned by Billionaires, I am not sure why they haven't got together to scrap FfP, and allow them to go and sign players they want, build up interest and improve the TV deal. Just think of the interest in the Championship if we signed Ronaldo and Stoke signed Messi, the TV deals would be through the roof and all of the Football League would benefit.

As it is now no one can, the step up to premiership is to high and we get yoyo clubs as well as a 2tier championship.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Hi Mack said:

Waiting till the last week to do deals helps no one though. The players need to integrate. That’s why we start so slow. We basically use the first half a dozen games as preseason friendlies.

You have to understand the frustration of losing your better players and not have a whisper regarding replacements. 
 

its 3 weeks until kick off!! 3 weeks!!!

Of course I do, certainly not my first rodeo when it comes to Rovers and that issue. 

But 3 weeks is a long time in a transfer window and the season isn't decided in 3 weeks anyway. I'll judge the window when it is completed. 

[SuperBrfc]

49 minutes ago, PeteJD13 said:

I have serious reservations about the ability and will of some at the club to actually get deals over the time and spend money, i don't buy this narrative that there is some healthy budget, there will be more players like Cantwell and Ahmedhodzic that we will get linked with but won't get over the line, then it'll be back to the usual plugging the gaps with PL reject loans. The narrative will be look we tried, we cannot compete with massive clubs like Sheffield United ( a myth already being pushed by some on FB ). But we are all expected to back the team with season tickets, or as i saw on twitter shirts yesterday, if you don't buy a shirt you aren't a real fan, comments made by fans that don't actually attend!

My thoughts too. The two big problems here, for me, are swag and the conduit. If those two are being relied upon to 'seal the deal' then it's little wonder we have no new players in the building with the season only weeks away. They would still be dithering over which manager to appoint now, had Broughton not been found when he was.

Whatever plans Broughton and JDT have, any players they have in mind,  seemingly need to be given the thumbs up by this pair. Particularly by the conduit, from what we hear.

It's a joke setup which is holding the club back and lowering standards even further. The sad thing is, the propaganda is working with some fans lapping it up and the resulting "you ain't a proper fan" crap that follows.

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

?! 

I'm confused say Nyambe is the easiest to replace then mention someone massively inferior to Ryan?

I never said that I would personally sign him, just a suggestion of a player that seemingly will not cost too much.

MInd you, I have only seen him play a couple of times but he didn't appear as "massively inferior" to Nyambe and he was a regular part of a good defence at Millwall last season.

I feel like it is too easy to go to extremes regarding players abilities. Nyambe and Davenport are brilliant and Johnson absolutely shocking in your mind when the truth is that all 3 and many others fall within the middle of those extremes.

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Of course I do, certainly not my first rodeo when it comes to Rovers and that issue. 

But 3 weeks is a long time in a transfer window and the season isn't decided in 3 weeks anyway. I'll judge the window when it is completed. 

Just because Rovers have been sluggish in the past doesn't mean that people can't justifiably have concerns.

The season isn't decided in 3 weeks but it is valid to be concerned that we could potentially be under prepared and those 21 points available between the season opening and the window closing are as important as any others.

[Feed the Yak]

3 hours ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

I do find it curious that Wilder in particular has gone for Nyambe. He even expects his wider centre backs to contribute going forward, let alone his wing backs. 

Must think that he can get a tune out of him where Mowbray couldn't, but he strikes me as close to the opposite style of full back to what he would usually go for. 

Rcb could be his position within a back 5.

[islander200]

39 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

My point is about where I perceive gaps to be in the squad, I think personally I outlined genuine areas whereby I feel that we are short, before considering the budget.

Obviously you then have to look at how best to utilise whatever budget we have, which none of us know, and how far that budget can stretch. The "9 Akpan's" line was hyperbole and in theory, that 7th and 8th signing could be loanees with the 9th being the sub keeper we need as an experienced freebie, so not much more on top.

We have also signed plenty of crap loans, plenty of crap big money signings and plenty of crap frees over the years, we can't rule out experienced players based on that basis. I stand by the fact that we need experience, whether that is a 28 year old or a 30/31 year old like Hourihane would have been, which is IMO definitely not too old. Obviously we don't want another Danny Murphy who is 35 and disinterested, but each player must be analysed on his individual merits.

I am also totally against the idea of writing off seasons, for all of the Brentford comparisons, do they have seasons whereby they don't actively intend to challenge? The process of turning over profits on assets and continuously improving needs to be constant, albeit it relies on the owners who have let us down on this basis in the past. We want a new manager to push us on and if we do have a reasonable budget then there is no reason not to hope for improvement on last season, not regression.

Why is it a "rather" situation? We need at least 2 midfielders with 3 going out, I suggested a more experienced option like Hourihane AND potentially someone of the age range of the players you mention whereby you bring in a potential asset AND get some much needed experience into the club.

What a statement that is, especially with such assertiveness.

I am very skeptical of our ability to sign equal or better replacements for the outgoings, but I would say that Nyambe is probably the easiest of the departees to replace.

Again I said I'd like experience but it has to be the right player.To me Hourihane isn't what we should be targetting.He has gone to league one for a reason. 

You give loans back after a season so not comparable to giving a 30/31/32 year old a 2 year deal lm

Edited July 7, 2022 by islander200

[Exiled_Rover]

4 hours ago, JHRover said:

I didn't say they were irreplaceable.

But replacing them with as good or better with minimal money is going to be nigh on impossible.

As pointed out during the contract saga, if we couldn't pay Lenihan and Nyambe what they wanted how are we going to pay as good if not better?

And if it was so easy to do better for less cost then why aren't Middlesbrough doing that and saving themselves a heap of money?

We've been had. Hook line and sinker. And my alarm bells are ringing as to the involvement of our former manager in this saga.

I think they've both got to the point where they're frustrated with the contract offer from Rovers and have left.

We can easily afford both - especially if we're willing to fill the squad with Academy kids rather than expensive knackers like Downing and Johnson.

[Mike E]

Another delusion of mine:

We're actually hoping to loan Phil Jones and JPvH for next season.

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, PeteJD13 said:

I have serious reservations about the ability and will of some at the club to actually get deals over the time and spend money, i don't buy this narrative that there is some healthy budget, there will be more players like Cantwell and Ahmedhodzic that we will get linked with but won't get over the line, then it'll be back to the usual plugging the gaps with PL reject loans. The narrative will be look we tried, we cannot compete with massive clubs like Sheffield United ( a myth already being pushed by some on FB ). But we are all expected to back the team with season tickets, or as i saw on twitter shirts yesterday, if you don't buy a shirt you aren't a real fan, comments made by fans that don't actually attend!

Agreed

If points were awarded for excuses and hard luck stories we'd be in the PL by now.

Patterns have emerged here over the last 4-5 years. Every transfer window follows a similar trajectory and ends with us scurrying around for last minute loans and ending up short of where we wanted to be.

If there was real serious intent or investment it would get done. There isn't, they're just stringing us along. Looks like they did the same with the contract rebels too. Always jam tomorrow with this lot, never today.

[OsloRover]

44 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Middlesbrough lost £30 million last year alone.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/middlesbrough-fc-reveal-30m-losses-23433844

Yet despite that they haven't been sanctioned, haven't had a points deduction or embargo, and are now coming along paying wages to our academy products that allegedly we cannot compete with.

If FFP was the issue here they wouldn't be able to do that.

Now I know that comparison to other clubs isn't always popular on here, because none of us really know the details of what goes on elsewhere and we need to focus on ourselves. But I think it is very useful to point this out - it proves that those sort of losses we are accustomed to, along with higher ones in the case of Middlesbrough, can be sustained without the need for the slash and burn performance we're witnessing at Rovers.

Put simply Venkys don't want to put the money in, and will only be persuaded to do so if the manager goes to India to do it. If that doesn't happen it is "make do with what you have" whilst the middle men cut costs.

In comparison Steve Gibson, Peter Coates, Stephen Lansdown want to invest and want to improve their clubs and by an amazing miracle they have continued to do so without FFP issues.

Bristol City lost £38 million LAST year alone

Stoke City lost £56 million. Incredible figures which demonstrate the futility of rationalising what we have seen at Rovers.

This is our owners deciding to cut costs, not 3rd party rules forcing them.

I don't know exactly much leeway clubs are given as regards to covid, I think it is 5+5+2.5m for the three years. Some sources claim that the EFL are looking at a 4-year cycle for years affected by the pandemic instead of the usual 3.
Also remember that not all losses "count" (academy etc), so a few million over 45 should be ok.

I took a look at the three clubs, and as far as I can tell here's the deal:

Middlesbrough - borderline. Must improve in 2022.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 25m            30.5m          2m profit
3Y FFP losses      53.5m                  

Bristol City - ok for now but something must happen in 2022 (2019 profit wiped)

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 38m            10m             11m profit
3Y FFP losses      37m                  

Stoke City - different numbers floating around, have sold training ground AND stadium. Bad situation.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 5m            70m             15m
3Y FFP losses      90m

Note that selling stadiums is no longer allowed, so that is not an option for rovers.

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by OsloRover
bad calculus

[JHRover]

1 minute ago, OsloRover said:

I don't know exactly much leeway clubs are given as regards to covid, I think it is 5+5+2.5m for the three years. Some sources claim that the EFL are looking at a 4-year cycle for years affected by the pandemic instead of the usual 3.
Also remember that not all losses "count" (academy etc), so a few million over 45 should be ok.

I took a look at the three clubs, and as far as I can tell here's the deal:

Middlesbrough - borderline. Must improve in 2022.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 25m            30.5m          2m profit
3Y FFP losses      55.5m                  

Bristol City - ok for now but something must happen in 2022 (2019 profit wiped)

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 38m            10m             11m profit
3Y FFP losses      47m                  

Stoke City - different numbers floating around, have sold training ground AND stadium. Bad situation.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 5m            70m             15m
3Y FFP losses      90m

Note that selling stadiums is no longer allowed, so that is not an option for rovers.

 

The only important thing to take home is that none of those clubs, despite losing well over the maximum allowed under the rules, have been sanctioned in any shape or form.

Not interested in "something must happen" that sort of talk will caryr on until people forget about it or they get promoted and don't have an issue.

We are told that what we have seen at Rovers is something forced on us by the rules, and if we didn't act quickly we would face a terrible fate of sanctions. Doesn't happen elsewhere so why would it here?

[bluebruce]

6 minutes ago, OsloRover said:

I don't know exactly much leeway clubs are given as regards to covid, I think it is 5+5+2.5m for the three years. Some sources claim that the EFL are looking at a 4-year cycle for years affected by the pandemic instead of the usual 3.
Also remember that not all losses "count" (academy etc), so a few million over 45 should be ok.

I took a look at the three clubs, and as far as I can tell here's the deal:

Middlesbrough - borderline. Must improve in 2022.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 25m            30.5m          2m profit
3Y FFP losses      55.5m                  

Bristol City - ok for now but something must happen in 2022 (2019 profit wiped)

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 38m            10m             11m profit
3Y FFP losses      47m                  

Stoke City - different numbers floating around, have sold training ground AND stadium. Bad situation.

Season ended     2021           2020            2019
Losses                 5m            70m             15m
3Y FFP losses      90m

Note that selling stadiums is no longer allowed, so that is not an option for rovers.

 

Pretty sure the profits should be used to reduce the losses. Which would make it 53.5 mill for Boro and 37 mill for Bristol C.

[roversfan99]

Plus the % of which is eligible is unknown so it is impossible to calculate in this way.