Transfer Window - COMPLETE. Where’s Gregg?

[LDRover]

10 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Not sure how credible the source is, but...

 

Jesus Christ he is shite. 

[tomphil]

17 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The people saying "Venkys Out". Whilst they have been dreadful owners it's glib just to say Venkys Out without addressing who is going to take over, the terms that Venkys would demand on any sale, and the ability of the new owners to fund what still seem to be significant annual losses.

They are never going to ask for it back though from anyone because it's an almost total write off.

As daft as they are they know that much so it's not really a stick to wave at fans who still yearn for change.

[Gav]

3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Then don't put silly spin on it just tell it like it was.

I’m quoting John Williams, maybe you know better, but I doubt it.….

[roverstdt]

I actually Rate Dykes but I don't see the point if we have Gallagher who i rate higher. Would rather we stick Gallagher in that position and sign a Left back and Midfielder. 

[lraC]

23 minutes ago, roverandout said:

I've never understood why rovers haven't been targeted by billionaire shieks.  We have a top quality stadium, a great academy.  Potential to increase fanbase. A proud history. Did man city have a more glamorous history when their owners took over? Not really.  Rovers are a good catch 

Rovers are not for sale and I reckon that's at any price.

I have my theories on why, as I remain baffled as to why this is and why they seem to be losing money every year and a project they have zero interest in.

[Bbrovers2288]

Dykes no no no no no no

[tomphil]

Didn't we go down a similar pointless route with Jack Rodwell ?

Is the 'marquee' signing of Barcklay going to put 3 thousand on the gates ?

Is he going to be the final piece of a jigsaw that sees us promoted or in the play offs ?

All very unlikely and these kind of signings aren't about the club or team they are all about the players themselves it's just pissing money into other pockets again.  If you want to spend that amount in wages spend it on a top loan or two of people who you know will score goals.

[joey_big_nose]

3 minutes ago, roverstdt said:

I actually Rate Dykes but I don't see the point if we have Gallagher who i rate higher. Would rather we stick Gallagher in that position and sign a Left back and Midfielder. 

Main difference is Dykes can head a ball and physically win central aeriel duels whereas Gallagher can't.

[Miller11]

24 minutes ago, 47er said:

There are more ways to increase revenue than simply sell tickets. The "Ewood experience" has been the subject of many posts over the years and there are many aspects to that. Not pissing off your own fans for a start.

Glen Mullen has made several posts abut sponsorship opportunities that the Club hasn't followed up.

But, in the end, you have to admit that clubs with similar attendances to us have made it to the big league.

 

We definitely “Think small” these days.

Without wanting to go into too much depth and too off topic, Sunderland bring in millions through their Netflix documentary, as well as getting their brand out their to a global audience. One of the streaming services would have absolutely jumped at the chance to document the Brereton story, and apparently approaches were made to the club. Unfortunately our efforts to capitalise on his fairytale were running off a few dozen fruit of the loom t shirts to sell in the club shop and everything else was dismissed as “difficult”. Dack and his partner are already reality TV stars, I don’t watch the show so I don’t know how much he features, but you’d think there would be a way of bringing some of that audience to Ewood, even if only for one game.

I’m not crazy about either idea, but things like this are becoming more commonplace. No less palatable than the chicken advert.

[RoversClitheroe]

3 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

We definitely “Think small” these days.

Without wanting to go into too much depth and too off topic, Sunderland bring in millions through their Netflix documentary, as well as getting their brand out their to a global audience. One of the streaming services would have absolutely jumped at the chance to document the Brereton story, and apparently approaches were made to the club. Unfortunately our efforts to capitalise on his fairytale were running off a few dozen fruit of the loom t shirts to sell in the club shop and everything else was dismissed as “difficult”. Dack and his partner are already reality TV stars, I don’t watch the show so I don’t know how much he features, but you’d think there would be a way of bringing some of that audience to Ewood, even if only for one game.

I’m not crazy about either idea, but things like this are becoming more commonplace. No less palatable than the chicken advert.

They could have made fortunes with the BBD Chile stuff and sold rights around it.

Instead they stood still.

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, Gav said:

I’m quoting John Williams, maybe you know better, but I doubt it.….

Then lets see the quote....

What we do know is the money Jack put in to underwrite whatever costs there was and the 3 million annual donations after he passed aren't too different to what goes on now.

If Venkys were to so called buy 5 thousand season tickets now would it make much difference ?

I doubt it because there'd probably other implications that prevent it.

[rebelmswar]

6 minutes ago, lraC said:

Rovers are not for sale and I reckon that's at any price.

I have my theories on why, as I remain baffled as to why this is and why they seem to be losing money every year and a project they have zero interest in.

Tax write offs for the company. Just the purchase of the club alone would have given them millions in write offs for years. Then every year they can write off any loss and debt accrued against profit from the chicken business giving them a net gain.

[Exiled_Rover]

41 minutes ago, roverandout said:

I've never understood why rovers haven't been targeted by billionaire shieks.  We have a top quality stadium, a great academy.  Potential to increase fanbase. A proud history. Did man city have a more glamorous history when their owners took over? Not really.  Rovers are a good catch 

We're not, sadly. We're competing with too many teams in our catchment area.

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, rebelmswar said:

Tax write offs for the company. Just the purchase of the club alone would have given them millions in write offs for years. Then every year they can write off any loss and debt accrued against profit from the chicken business giving them a net gain.

Yep didn't someone once show the conglomerate accounts where it shows the club as an oversees 'asset' that needs funding.

So it is indeed just absorbing paper money and costing the owners themselves nothing it's just numbers on a balance sheet to them. The only time they'd have to worry about it is if the rest of the corporation suddenly lost its vast annual profits.

Then they'd drop us like a stone never mind all this pride bull shit that so called prevents them from doing so.

We are a drop in the corner of a multi billion Indian dollar ocean.

[lraC]

7 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

They could have made fortunes with the BBD Chile stuff and sold rights around it.

Instead they stood still.

No point in bringing unwanted attention to the owners and making a fool of yourself on TV such as the we are confused interview.

Plug away in the second tier and stay under that radar, as that way no awkward questions will be asked.

[Iceman]

1 hour ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

What happens if they ask for the money they are owed to be paid back ?

Then we  ask them to sell to a rich Arab for whatever is owed to them, and we move on. 

[Jimmy612]

Am I the only one who looks at our squad and worries that we have a huge lack of pace?  I barely see anyone run in behind the defence, when Brereton does he's usually offside.  We've never replaced Armstrong's pace.  Defences look really comfortable playing against us. 

Apparently Sammie is quick but I'm struggling to see what he brings to the table at all, frankly, pace or otherwise. 

I feel like we're so one-dimensional.... in fact, I'm starting to worry we might be 'none-dimensional'. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Jimmy612

[Iceman]

Just now, lraC said:

No point in bringing unwanted attention to the owners and making a fool of yourself on TV such as the we are confused interview.

Plug away in the second tier and stay under that radar, as that way no awkward questions will be asked.

Remember the Venkys Chicken ad? 😭😂

[G Somerset Rover]

QPR fans look to have the party poppers at the ready. Stay clear!

[Sweaty Gussets]

Nixon saying B/pool want £4m for Bowler. If we start a whip round we can bring him back on the coach tomorrow night. 

[phili]

5 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Yep didn't someone once show the conglomerate accounts where it shows the club as an oversees 'asset' that needs funding.

So it is indeed just absorbing paper money and costing the owners themselves nothing it's just numbers on a balance sheet to them. The only time they'd have to worry about it is if the rest of the corporation suddenly lost its vast annual profits.

Then they'd drop us like a stone never mind all this pride bull shit that so called prevents them from doing so.

We are a drop in the corner of a multi billion Indian dollar ocean.

Which is why they are happy for turnover to stay as it is as if it did increase they wouldn't be able to put  £20m a season into the club. They want what's best for their overall business.

If we were owned by someone who either couldn't put £20m a season in or wanted what was best for the club, then things would change very quickly.

[callumrovers]

1 minute ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Nixon saying B/pool want £4m for Bowler. If we start a whip round we can bring him back on the coach tomorrow night. 

Surely is we wanted him, we could afford him from Venkys special pot? I don’t think he would have any interest in coming here, not when he can wait until the end of the season and leave on a free to a prem team. 
 

Would love this, but it’s pie in the sky.

[Tugayisgod]

10 minutes ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

QPR fans look to have the party poppers at the ready. Stay clear!

Rather have Hirst than Dykes. At least there’s a bit of potential there

[tomphil]

1 minute ago, phili said:

Which is why they are happy for turnover to stay as it is as if it did increase they wouldn't be able to put  £20m a season into the club. They want what's best for their overall business.

If we were owned by someone who either couldn't put £20m a season in or wanted what was best for the club, then things would change very quickly.

This is exactly what i think they are comfortable nay actually need to lose a certain amount through the books per season.

When it's got to 25/30 million they've got worried in the past but never seem to bothered with 10/15 million.

Nixon described them seeing the club as a money pit when they were first rumoured to be buying it indicating they had spare money that needed channelling somewhere else. A Prem club was the ultimate advertising/accounting play thing and talk was of c5 million per window which brings us back to the 10 mill a year or so.

If the club had more or less paid for itself then they probably would've chucked in similar amounts per season for transfers. The associated greedy scum they brought with them had other ideas though.

[Sweaty Gussets]

4 minutes ago, callumrovers said:

Surely is we wanted him, we could afford him from Venkys special pot? I don’t think he would have any interest in coming here, not when he can wait until the end of the season and leave on a free to a prem team. 
 

Would love this, but it’s pie in the sky.

I'd love him here too but think we're well stocked in his position with Markanday and Hedges. Still have hope Markanday can have a big impact this  season. 

I fear without BBD there's no goals in the side. At the moment there's none with him playing.

We need a couple of goalscorers bringing in and/or hope Dack gets back to his best.