January Transfer Window.

[booth]

2 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Unfair to lump Szmodics in with the other two. He has 3 goals and an assist in an injury plagued season.

He certainly wasn't first choice.

£1.8m plus add-ons was massively overpriced for a team without a pot to piss in and a lad whose game just seems to be running his socks off down blind alleys and produces the odd goal. He struggles to pass the ball so why he was picked to be part of Tomasson's journey I don't know.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Udinese are welcome to him🤣

He otherwise looks quite tidy on the ball. If ball-playing defenders are what JDT wants, then this guy would tick the box.

We're not getting him, though, are we? 🙄

[Tugayisgod]

2 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Udinese are welcome to him🤣

JPVH played for Brighton yesterday and was at fault for 2nd goal. Still have him back anytime as well 😃

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, J*B said:

All comes down to income and that’s Waggott’s department, not Broughtons. 

Not enough home fans because the pricing is unaffordable. 

Not enough being earned outside the ground because the ‘fanzone’ offering is terrible. 

Not enough being earned at the club shop because there’s no stock. 

Not enough being earned in the corporate offering because nobody wants to bring clients to a shoddy operation and a stadium in dire need of a refurb.

Marketing department don’t have the budget to do anything of worth - no links to Bilbao, no links to The English Game, not taken advantage of Brereton-Diaz mania. There’s not a single bit of this club the town can be excited about.

No income from player sales because Waggott put all expenditure, including player contracts, on hold during COVID… so they’re now all leaving for free.

We have a CEO who judges success on ‘did I have to ask the owners for anymore money than I said I would need’ rather than on field and local success. He’s not bothered as long as he can tick the box. No risk, no ambition, no outside the box thinking. 

JDT isn’t the problem. The players aren’t the problem. Broughton isn’t the problem. Waggott OUT should be sung from the Blackburn End but somehow they’ve managed to alienate the fan base that are willing to rock the boat and convince those that remain this is normal. 

When’s the next supporters consultation? I’m very close to assembling a team of people that can’t bear that man’s shit anymore. 

Waggott is rubbish, but you just overlook the main issue. All of that above income would still be incomparable to the money we could have made and thus reinvested had Venkys not prevented the sales of 2 players in the last 12 months that will now earn us no money.

[chaddyrovers]

17 minutes ago, goozburger said:

Unless Porteous is playing a risky game of hoping to have a blinder and give himself an extra strong card at the negotiating table.

Hibs 1-down, largely because Porteous failed to win his header. Watford can have him. 🙂

Not watching so can't on the game or his performance. 

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

No, we have left it too late. We should have sold him in the summer.

If he has agreed with Villarreal, they are letting Danjuma and maybe Jackson go so I would try and negotiate an early release for a fee.

no one met the asking price as we have already discussed and those offers were poor tbh. 

what happens if BBD didn't want to move on. Would you have force him out? 

I would keep him for the season and if we get the playoffs and chance of promotion this is been well worth it. Now you could argue selling him would give us a chance of signing of replacement if we can bring in the player we want and for the money we have plus depending on wages and that budget. 

[J*B]

6 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

I'm not defending him because I can't stand him either, but didn't he say ST receipts were highest since we got relegated? That's his remit achieved. 

And that’s just my point. An ambitious man prices the target at 20,000 ST holders at an affordable price. Waggott’s target is to take advantage of the 8,000 die hards that will pay whatever price because they can’t imagine a world where they don’t watch Rovers at Ewood. 

[Mattyblue]

As you all know I generally think the commercial operation is bloody shite. But I’ve been in the Premier Suite twice on match days fairly recently and think it certainly stands up to a lot of clubs offerings.

[Mattyblue]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Not watching so can't on the game or his performance. 

 

Anything else you currently aren’t watching you could tell us about? EastEnders omnibus? Miss Marple?

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Not watching so can't on the game or his performance. 

no one met the asking price as we have already discussed and those offers were poor tbh. 

what happens if BBD didn't want to move on. Would you have force him out? 

I would keep him for the season and if we get the playoffs and chance of promotion this is been well worth it. Now you could argue selling him would give us a chance of signing of replacement if we can bring in the player we want and for the money we have plus depending on wages and that budget. 

I would very much doubt that if Brereton had 2 contracts on the table from a top Division French club in European competition and Premier League club, both with big wage increased, that he would have turned them down.

Had we accepted the bids and he had rejected them, I would not be criticising the owners as I would accept that they tried to generate a fee to reinvest and it was out of their hands.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Tugayisgod said:

JPVH played for Brighton yesterday and was at fault for 2nd goal. Still have him back anytime as well 😃

I've given up hoping van Hecke will return to Rovers. If he's breaking into a Premier League side, even if it's on and off, then we can be counted out.

A commentator for the Hibs v Hearts game has said that Porteous is a "top player" that deserves "somebody consistent" beside him. I'd like to think Hyam is that man, but the fact that Porteous is playing several days after our bid (has been accepted?) tells me that he won't be coming here. It's probably that we've offered terms and his representatives are waiting for something better.

As with Ahmedhodžić, I suspect our wage offer is thoroughly disappointing to the player and their representatives. Agree or not with keeping a wage structure, we seem to struggle to attract the players we want when there is competition.

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

1 hour ago, ItsRoverZ said:

So looks like we have missed out on undav aswell as Porteous, few mumblings from baggie fans he's agreed a deal to go there 

Also the likely destination of O'Brien at Forest. Old manager now at WBA.

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

18 minutes ago, goozburger said:

I've given up hoping van Hecke will return to Rovers. If he's breaking into a Premier League side, even if it's on and off, then we can be counted out.

A commentator for the Hibs v Hearts game has said that Porteous is a "top player" that deserves "somebody consistent" beside him. I'd like to think Hyam is that man, but the fact that Porteous is playing several days after our bid (has been accepted?) tells me that he won't be coming here. It's probably that we've offered terms and his representatives are waiting for something better.

As with Ahmedhodžić, I suspect our wage offer is thoroughly disappointing to the player and their representatives. Agree or not with keeping a wage structure, we seem to struggle to attract the players we want when there is competition.

This.  And it seems to be any competition at all.  

The wage structure is the issue. 

[chaddyrovers]

4 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

The wage structure is the issue

There is new rules coming in about wages that clubs can only pay so much of their turnover on wages

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

This.  And it seems to be any competition at all.  

The wage structure is the issue. 

Although on today's evidence, I'd have to put Porteous as fifth choice behind Hyam, Wharton, Ayala, and Phillips! I won't be too fussed if we don't sign him. There's a reason he's only costing a few hundred £k, even if his contract is running out.

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

3 minutes ago, goozburger said:

Although on today's evidence, I'd have to put Porteous as fifth choice behind Hyam, Wharton, Ayala, and Phillips! I won't be too fussed if we don't sign him. There's a reason he's only costing a few hundred £k, even if his contract is running out.

TBF, I don't think you can judge players fairly, a week or 2 before a potential move.   Hedges being a decent example. 

[booth]

13 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

There is new rules coming in about wages that clubs can only pay so much of their turnover on wages

There's always new rules and clubs still struggle. No amount of rules will stop bad owners ruining football clubs, it'll just create more boundaries and penalties for problematic clubs.

Strict rules need to be enforced when clubs are purchased. Keep the dickheads out, you'll get better ran clubs and you won't need all these limitations.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

TBF, I don't think you can judge players fairly, a week or 2 before a potential move.   Hedges being a decent example. 

Of course. I did say "on today's evidence", but you're right.

[Tugayisgod]

11 minutes ago, booth said:

There's always new rules and clubs still struggle. No amount of rules will stop bad owners ruining football clubs, it'll just create more boundaries and penalties for problematic clubs.

Strict rules need to be enforced when clubs are purchased. Keep the dickheads out, you'll get better ran clubs and you won't need all these limitations.

True. Aren't Chelsea getting round FFP rules at the moment by offering these mega expensive new signings 7 and 8 year contracts so that the instalments are spread over a much longer period ? 

[had.e.nuff]

1 minute ago, Tugayisgod said:

True. Aren't Chelsea getting round FFP rules at the moment by offering these mega expensive new signings 7 and 8 year contracts so that the instalments are spread over a much longer period ? 

dont think its payments the are spread out its the losses on the player that are spread out . eg it you buy a player for 80 mil and give a 4 year contract you write off 20 mil a year as losses but over 8 year its 10mil a year its the losses that count to ffp

[Sparks Rover]

11 minutes ago, had.e.nuff said:

dont think its payments the are spread out its the losses on the player that are spread out . eg it you buy a player for 80 mil and give a 4 year contract you write off 20 mil a year as losses but over 8 year its 10mil a year its the losses that count to ffp

No it's not like that at all.

Every players fee is written down in the accounts over 3 years.  Doesn't matter how much you pay for him.  Once 3 years is over that player does not sit as an asset on the balance sheet. Bit like buying a machine for a business, it's value is amortised over its life.

[Herbie6590]

13 minutes ago, had.e.nuff said:

dont think its payments the are spread out its the losses on the player that are spread out . eg it you buy a player for 80 mil and give a 4 year contract you write off 20 mil a year as losses but over 8 year its 10mil a year its the losses that count to ffp

Correct…the fee is amortised over the duration of the contract. So long term deals are fine unless/until the player loses form & they want to/need to sell…then the P&L chickens come home to roost !

[Sparks Rover]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Correct…the fee is amortised over the duration of the contract. So long term deals are fine unless/until the player loses form & they want to/need to sell…then the P&L chickens come home to roost !

I was led to believe they were amortised over a set period no matter what.  That's why Mel Morris got done as they were taking them over a further year.....naughty

[Herbie6590]

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

No it's not like that at all.

Every players fee is written down in the accounts over 3 years.  Doesn't matter how much you pay for him.  Once 3 years is over that player does not sit as an asset on the balance sheet. Bit like buying a machine for a business, it's value is amortised over its life.

Not so. The fee paid is amortised over the duration of the contract.

[Sweaty Gussets]

Just now, Sparks Rover said:

No it's not like that at all.

Every players fee is written down in the accounts over 3 years.  Doesn't matter how much you pay for him.  Once 3 years is over that player does not sit as an asset on the balance sheet. Bit like buying a machine for a business, it's value is amortised over its life.

 

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Correct…the fee is amortised over the duration of the contract. So long term deals are fine unless/until the player loses form & they want to/need to sell…then the P&L chickens come home to roost !

[Herbie6590]

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

I was led to believe they were amortised over a set period no matter what.  That's why Mel Morris got done as they were taking them over a further year.....naughty

Mel Morris’s trick was to say (for example) a £10m player on a 3 year deal will be worth say £7m at the end of that deal so we’ll just take £1m p.a. into the P&L rather than the £3.3m every other club would !

Consequently, Derby’s FFP performance was enhanced..! 
 
Funnily enough every other club said “hang on a minute..” 😉