I honestly don't know the exact accounting/ownership details, but the way it essentially works for Derby, for example, is Mel Morris owns both Derby County FC, and all the assets within that company, and a separate Company A. Derby FC sells Pride Park to Company A, they claim the difference in the sale value and its book value as an 'intangible' profit, and then Company A leases Pride Park back to Derby for an annual fee (hence the deal allows for a large, one-off increase in profits, which helps for the 3-year FFP window, but it actually increases Derby's year-to-year running costs!) (Derby is a particularly weird structure though as they've got a parent company with a bunch of subsidiaries within it...) Again, I don't know the detail here, but I'd guess for Rovers it would be Venky's London Limited (under which I believe Ewood Park is included as an asset?) selling Ewood Park to some other company that Venky's owns in the UK, then 'leasing' its use back to the football club for an annual fee. I don't know if Venky's has any other UK-based companies... but I suspect they could make it work somehow (or find an amenable 3rd-party). This obviously breaches the 'spirit' of FFP to some extent, but it is rather clever! (Happy to be corrected on any of the above!) My understanding is Venky's have already maxed out their commercial sponsorship with us. Hence why our commercial income has held study at about £5m/year despite relegation, declining attendance, etc. (While a club like Wigan, for example, saw its commercial income drop to about £1m recently). These things are watched for under FFP, so you can't just plow in £20m and claim it's all commercial sponsorship-related (hence why Man City's at risk at the moment, but there's of course reason to be cynical about how that will wrap up...). It would need to track the going rates for such sponsorship. Perhaps they could juice that up further by sticking a big Venky's sign on Ewood Park and renaming it the Venky's Chicken Coop or whatever... but again, that may not go down well with supporters

Oh how I wish the nomenclature for 'free transfers' was changed to something like a 'wages-only transfer' (and even then, there will still potentially be signing-on fees, agent fees, etc etc...) ? Do you think we should sell Ewood Park to Venky's, as Derby and Villa have done? This seems to be hinted at by some posters, but I'd be curious if anyone is 'brave' enough to explicitly advocate for that! Forest have had some pretty significant sales in recent years... they booked £25m in player trading profits in 2017 and 2018, and they've trimmed their wages recently too. You may be referring to their owner's loan write-offs, but those will likely be excluded from FPP (as was the case for QPR, hence their breach of FFP). Even then, their most recent accounts show Forest still has a decent amount of headroom under FFP after excluding the loan write-offs.

Surely the sticking point with Gallagher is his current contract. He's still signed until 2021 on a rumoured £25k/week. Gallagher won't be keen to sacrifice salary that he's due, but he's balancing that with a desire for first-team football. Does Southampton hold firm and insist on getting all of his wages off their books, plus a hefty transfer fee? Can they drum up other offers? Do they know (and do his suitors assume) that they cave last minute knowing they ultimately want Gallagher off their books? Maybe we offer Gallagher a lower wage at £15k/week, but add a sign on fee to partially compensate the drop in wages with some upfront money or we offer him longer term to give him long-term security... All these options can have FFP implications too as the way you structure it will alter what years the financial costs hit/when profits are realised. it's not hard to imagine how these dealings can get complicated. It'd be nice if we had "**** you" money to make inflated take it or leave it offers, but that's simply not where we're at... Just to add on Armstrong being an example where we successfully drove a hard bargain (an approach not without risk...), it's worth mentioning that only a week before his signing, Mowbray referred to Armstrong and Chapman as being 'D signings' that weren't at the top of our list: https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16389050.they-are-in-the-mix-rovers-boss-on-chapman-and-armstrong/ Of course managers talk **** when publicly talking about transfer dealings. It's all part of any negotiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_tHXTBlCCk Can view it here at about 0:53. Reckless tackle by Smallwood, though it was that odd one where he actually caught way more of Bennett than the Sheffield player... Can see why the ref went for a red, but probably deserved a yellow on closer review! (Just as an aside on Smallwood, it's worth noting he apparently was keen on long-term deal after our L1 promotion but was only offered a one-year extension. His deal expires after this coming year, so I doubt it'll be too difficult to at least loan him out to cut the wage bill if we find no takers. Hardly a crippling contract extension and seemed fair enough after an excellent L1 campaign but hard to see him making it into the squad much now.)

I like Raya as a shotstopper and I think he does have the potential to become a great keeper (let's hope we have a sell-on attached if he does go...), but while it may seem distasteful if he's scapegoated for our defensive woes, it's entirely plausible Mowbray concluded he had to go after discussing our defensive frailties with our defenders and coaches. While the defenders obviously have the incentive to pass the buck, perhaps they are right... A case where we as fans ultimately don't know what's going on in the dressing room, in training, communication on the pitch, etc. Who knows what the back 4 + keeper dynamic was like last year. Add on that we can get an okay fee for Raya as a young keeper with promise (which would be our first senior sale since Jason Steele!) and it may not be a bad bit of business, subject to whatever keeper we bring in to replace him. Like the Johnson signing. Adds some much needed metal to our midfield. I'm one of the apparent few who likes Evans, but I'm well-aware he's hardly a. Smallwood's a keener, but ultimately too slow at this level (think it's worth pointing out Mowbray apparently held to only giving Smallwood a 2-year deal despite Smallwood wanting longer. I suspect Smallwood either got a little too confident in himself after a great L1 campaign or maybe knew this was his chance for a payday... in fairness to him, he has also clearly enjoyed playing here). Travis may grow into it, but he's still young.

Haha, happy to hand off my usual hectoring about the relative importance of wages over transfer fees to Biz this time!

On your last sentence, I agree that we shouldn't automatically assume a top-6 PL team's u23s are better than ours, but it's probably fair to assume someone like Ejaria, with 27 Championship games, 14 SPL games, and 11 Europa League games under his belt, (and Reading fans appear to have liked him) is a step up on, say, Buckley (no offence to Buckley!). (Note I extend my thoughts below to all PL teams, not just the top 6...) Perhaps a distinction is needed between bringing in a loan who already has some pro experience versus someone completely raw. King (20 years old when we brought him in on loan), Cairney (21), Gestede (24, so pushing it age-wise...), and Reed (23) all arguably fall under this category, and were all relatively successful loans, no? (Palmer a noted exception! But that may have been more lack of opportunity, as he was justifiably stuck behind Dack, than lack of ability). Your other examples were very raw (and perhaps then cheaper...) Now, you obviously then need to debate on the merits of Ejaria's better ability to contribute this year versus someone like Buckley (keeping him as the counterfactual), the potential damage this could have on Buckley's development (assuming he is ready for Championship game time), the potential cost savings of bringing someone like Ejaria on loan (who we can quickly dump if he doesn't work out) versus spending a transfer fee and committing to a longer contract for another player (who may or may not work out), and the potential benefit of gaining an 'in' on him if he has a successful year with us and is keen to sign a permanent deal knowing he won't be getting in a PL team's lineup anytime soon, like Cairney or Gestede (or we deal with the disappointment of him subsequently being priced out of our budget, being recalled midseason, or subsequently earning PL game time, as was the case with Gallagher (21), Keane (21), and Lawrence (21), who did contribute while they were here, and may now be the case with Reed.) Is it just me or has this debate about signing young PL players on loan been perpetually going around in circles? The costs, risks, and potential benefits are all relatively clear... it's just a matter of ones own preference on squad building, cost management, etc. It's not an idea that should be immediately dismissed (nor should it be assumed to be a guaranteed way of getting a solid starting player for a year, but only as part of a mixed transfer strategy)

Regardless of your thoughts on whether Downing still has anything to offer (I'm mildly optimistic/indifferent), I think we can all agree the key detail is it's a 1-year contract. This will not be another Etuhu/Murphy-type deal... (Perhaps there's an unannounced option year in there, but presumably he'll have worked out as a signing if he hits the targets for an option year, a la Graham!) Mowbray seems to think we need additional veteran presence in the dressing room (plus replacing Conway), and presumably they have a good working relationship. Hard one to get too upset over as an initial signing.

He wasn't a 'designated player', who can earn up to $6 million+/~£90,000/wk (e.g. Michael Bradley on TFC. Rooney's on $2.8 million, or about £41,000/wk, at DC), but I think his $800k salary he would have required using 'target allocation money', so he was one of the higher earners for sure (about 6th on the team going by the 2018 numbers). MLS teams tend to have a few players making $2 million+, several in the $200-500k range, and then a bunch of younger/depth players stuck at $60/70k. (MLS finances may be more transparent in some respects, but all the salary allowances/restrictions/exceptions are a bit of a labyrinth!)

VdW was pretty mediocre when he played (not terrible... but struggled to fit into the coach's system), and then was cut loose to start the year after a bust up with the coaching staff. Definite attitude issues... Seems more interested in his business ventures than football nowadays. Was making the equivalent of £12,350/wk last year (MLS actually publishes all salary info!).

Quoting myself from another thread... "Ah, picking up on PriceOfFootball's tweet here: https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1108621602051289089?s=20, we've "entered transfer agreements amounting to net transfer fees payable of £7.6m" since these accounts. Hard to say whether that includes performance-based add-ons (apparently we potentially owe another £2.1m on purchases based on performance add-ons, but that may be for 17-18, so for the likes of Dack, Samuel, Bell, etc. but not including this years' additions) Let's say Armstrong was £1.75m, Rothwell and Davenport £400k. Maybe another £200k on Chapman, Lyons, Annesley, and Durrant (maybe the former three are too recent to be included), plus loan fees...? Doubt we've received much for outgoing loans. That suggests Brereton's initial cost was about £5.25m."

I may be mistaken, but I think our League One losses aren't included in the 3-year FFP calculations as League One and Two follow their own version of FFP ("SCMP"), which essentially says any losses are fine (for recently relegated clubs, as I think there is an exception made for contracts signed whilst above League One) as long as the owner covers it. (Oddly, and sadly for smaller L1 clubs, they don't seem to have considered the possibility for 'big spenders' with deep-pocketed owners, like Wolves, Rovers, and Sunderland, dropping down to L1 and spending like sailors...) At the very least, checking the EFL website, it doesn't clarify whether League One losses count in the 3-year FFP calculation, but it does point out that promotion-related payments are excluded, so any promotion-related costs from 17/18 are excluded from our £17m loss for FFP purposes (as is a certain amount of our academy expenditure). One thing to keep in mind for FFP is player profits can be booked immediately, while transfer fees are amortised over the years of the contract. So, if Brereton was £6m with a 3-year contract, his accounting cost is £2m for three years. Hence selling Dack (if it comes to that...) acts as an 'escape valve' for us FFP-wise given his original fee was so low (and will be well-amortised by now) so almost all of the fee (minus sell-ons to Gillingham, I suppose) would go to that year's finances. I don't think there's an urgency to sell Dack in the next year or two, but could very well be the case in a couple years' time (and by that point, if Dack's generally continued his form and we're still puttering around mid-table, we can probably expect him to be off anyway)

I find the Rothwell debate a bit odd. Mowbray pretty consistently used him as a sub right from the start. Overall, he made appearances in 37 of our 51 games this year. Clearly indicates Mowbray did value his talents to some extent, but simply didn't trust him over 90 minutes (think Chapman last year...). As he says in that interview in India, and he's consistently said so, he thinks Rothwell's positional awareness was lacking when he arrived, having been given too long a leash when he was at Oxford. Like everyone else, I thought Rothwell was excellent down the stretch and his late season rise was one of the highlights of the season, but I think there's been some selective memory about his pre-January appearances. Looking back at old game threads, he was often criticised for running into blind alleys, giving the ball away, etc., and I doubt you'll find specific praise of his defensive abilities (always a difficult area to judge). Fans weren't calling for his head of course, and it's important to keep in mind he was often subbed into games we were behind and looking for a goal, but his appearances certainly weren't universally praised. It's fair to argue Rothwell wasn't given a fair stretch of games to grow into a role, and he certainly has a creative spark we often lacked, but his early results were ultimately indifferent, and we're also largely blind to what Rothwell was showing in training, including whatever tactical training that he may have been lacking when he arrived. Cue jokes about Mowbray having any tactical nous himself... but my point is we only have a limited idea of what players are showing outside of games. Feel free to disagree with Mowbray's assessment of Rothwell's initial all-around abilities (and I would agree that he was ultimately late in incorporating him in the 1st team), but I don't think it's all that scandalous for Mowbray to suggest Rothwell was a work in progress (who we got for cheap!) that had developed enough by January that he could trust him. (Not directing this all at you K-Hod, btw. Just using your post as a jumping point!)

Yup. The general assumption/speculation is they kept Grealish on and willing breached FFP this year. Probably just gamesmanship that they won't admit major sales would be needed next year. Have to assume selling Grealish is a must if they don't go up, but then will be interesting to see how (and if) they are punished for their FFP transgressions this year! However, suppose they are given a one-year transfer embargo. If they can demonstrate they are FFP compliant going forward, with gradual wage cuts, other sales, and past transfer payments fading away, that may mean they do everything they can to keep the likes of Grealish on board knowing they have no hope of replacing him. (After the second half he's had, have to assume Grealish is even more keen on a PL move now). Parachute payments evaporating will hurt but they do have a much higher revenue base than most Championship clubs, so they can certainly keep a few very high earners on board. So may depend on how punitive the EFL is in their sanctions.

I'd be curious if you have a link on that... Both Swiss Ramble (https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1105375506868957184?lang=en) and Price of Football (http://priceoffootball.com/aston-villa-2017-18-finances-and-ffp-doctoring-the-tardis/) recently wrote on AV's 17-18 finances, neither mention anything about fresh investment 'restarting the cycle', other than commenting that the new owners could boost commercial revenue. SR projects them to miss the FFP target by £25m, so... the new owners prevented them from falling into administration, but I don't see how it impacts FFP. This was the last year of AV's parachute payments too, so hard to imagine they won't have to make some significant cuts in some capacity if they don't get promoted regardless. Their CEO's certainly consistently made noises about their confidence in meeting FFP, so could get interesting if they lose the final. If they get promoted, probably will descend into protracted negotiations with the EFL that will end in one of those relatively paltry fines, like Bournemouth. (I'll be cheering for Derby )

Haha, it certainly would be laughable if Waggott and Mowbray cite Charlton as getting massive home support these days... Sunderland will actually still be getting £14m in parachute payments next year haha (although likely still to be a bit of a financial basket case. Their 2018-19 accounts should prove interesting reading...). Certainly an oddly low Sunderland-Portsmouth attendance result yesterday. Lowest attendance of Sunderland's campaign, 6k less than the season average, and 14.5k less than when the same sides played only a month ago... Fans on the Sunderland forum seem confused about it too (though apparently was a great atmosphere).

It is a mildly interesting negotiation given that that we hold an option on a player we don't really want, yet may be wanted elsewhere. Could negotiate that we will pick up the option unless they send us £100k, or whatever. Doncaster may have a few quid to spend if they squeak through the playoffs and he seemed to be an automatic pick for them as they battled to the playoff spot. Probably ultimately depends on if there's any other prospective buyers for Downing to give us any sort of leverage over Doncaster, which may be doubtful (at least at any sort of price that would make picking up his option worthwhile as Downing appears to be a Championship/L1 tweener). May depend on his current wages too, as Downing may then want us to pick up the option to give him leverage on Doncaster wages-wise. Hardly a game changer for the budget, but a lower-revenue Championship club like ours should be looking to squeeze every asset of their worth. ...I did say it's only 'mildly' interesting.

It was only a brief quote, but I liked reading Graham a couple months back saying how he makes a point of roughing up the young CBs a bit in training to give them an idea of what they'll be up against in League play. The Championship is one hell of a trial by fire! We've got a decent CB pipeline at the moment in Magloire, Wharton, Platt, and Grayson. Have to think/hope one of them will come through. Although I suppose questions can be asked of all of them... perhaps Platt can be written off as playing National League North at 21 isn't too promising (I admittedly haven't seen him play though!). Next year may be make or break for Wharton. Seems to be getting mixed reviews at Bury. Had some bad luck with Lincoln bringing in Shackell after his loan was completed. Perhaps you'd hope he'd be on loan in League One or pushing for a place here, but I suppose he should be given some credit for battling for a spot with top League Two sides.

I assume you meant Bradford City (who also have Rovers Academy grad Anthony O'Connor! And Kilgallon only left them in late August), but the number of former Rovers at Blackpool is pretty funny: John O'Sullivan, Liam Feeney, Chris Taylor, Jay Spearing, Nathan Delfouneso, plus Terry McPhillips as manager. (They've also got Ben Heneghan who we apparently almost signed last year, I suspect this is a NW England agents thing!).

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/may/rovers-to-receive-fee-for-mahoney/ £425k initial fee, £100k for every 10 first-team appearances up to 50 (£500k), £250k if he makes an England appearance, and 20% of any profit on future sales. So up to about £1m if he becomes a Bournemouth regular, and a share of any future sale. Hard to really evaluate that fee right now. Seems he's been doing okay at Birmingham on loan, but he hasn't been an automatic starter there, and he didn't do much at a relegated Barnsley the year before. Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of Birmingham fans... We also sold Callum Wright to Leicester last year. Probably best to try and tie these assets down to long-term contracts (seems we've learned our lesson there with all the recent contracts), but I suppose our hands are tied in cases like Mahoney and Wright where they're keen on a Premier League move. (Taking a look, randomly Ben Williams, who we let go in 2017, has managed 14 appearances for Barnsley in League One this year... Good for him! Rare that a youngster who is outright released manages to recover like that!) I was a bit surprised at the start of the year when Mowbray seemed to cast doubt on continuing with the Academy, or at least brought up the question of whether that money could be better spent. Considering academy expenditure is largely exempt from FFP, it's somewhere our owners can still throw their financial muscle behind (and a sign of their commitment). The Academy did seem to have a pretty poorly timed dip in production a few years ago, but the emergence of the likes of Travis, Nyambe, and Lenihan, plus Fisher, Magloire, Wharton, Grayson, Buckley, Platt, Butterworth, and Rankin-Costello as promising prospects now all on the fringes, probably shifts the net value of the Academy back to positive, and Mowbray appears to be recognizing that. Picking up PL Academy castoffs is looking like a decent strategy too, as we'll have a much clearer path to first team football than the likes of Man U, Liverpool, Man City, etc. Includes Butterworth, Rankin-Costello, and Travis, Hart may be a miss there, and Davenport is still TBD (the latter of which I think has occasionally gotten some odd stick when he's been dealing with unfortunate injuries...). Nuttall sort of counts in this category too as a Man City castoff years ago...

? Championship clubs tend to lose money because of how much they spend on players... you may be thinking of how most post profits on player sales, but that's the money they are recouping on a depreciated asset (and hence have incurred the cost of that depreciation already, so those profits can be a bit illusory). Compared to 17/18, our £7.6m net outlay is more in the bottom half of the Championship... We're probably spending a decent chunk on wages, particularly relative to our turnover, but we are certainly not financial heavy hitters by any measure this year. Even if we've returned to wages of £35m (which I highly doubt!), which is what we were at back in 13/14 when we still had significant parachute payments, that would only place us maybe 8th-9th in the Championship.

We had losses of £1.5m in 15/16, £3.8m in 16/17, and £16.8m last year. So £22.1m, which was well within the £39m limit. We can incur £19m in losses this year without breaking FFP (although that would make keeping in line in 19/20 difficult!). Add that we can exclude maybe £3m of academy/community-related expenditures from the FFP calculation, and we're probably fine for FFP in the short-run, and a Dack sale is our 'ace in the hole' if need be. (Also not sure how League One and the Championship interact with FFP as League One has different rules...?) Will be interesting to see what our financial situation is this year. No real sales recently to top up losses... My guess/hunch is Venky's have begrudgingly accepted treating Rovers as a £13m/year punt on maybe getting Premier League football again someday. Obviously questions can be asked as to how committed/competent they are at doing so, but excluding this recent poor run, Mowbray and co. have had us running fairly competently for a couple years now.

Seems the lower other operating expenses charge in 16/17 was a one-off, as it was £10.7m in 15/16, £11.6m in 14/15, and £19.8m in 13/14. £8.9m last year was more 'back to normal' as part of a long-term downward trend (still rather high for a 2nd-3rd tier club, but that probably reflects the academy and the standard of our facilities). The 16-17 decline was already identified in last year's accounts as 'one-off charges to Venky's London Limited'. Seems just to be how they shuffled expenses between the two companies, for whatever reason. I suppose it would be half interesting to find out why.

Ah, picking up on PriceOfFootball's tweet here: https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1108621602051289089?s=20, we've "entered transfer agreements amounting to net transfer fees payable of £7.6m" since these accounts. Hard to say whether that includes performance-based add-ons (apparently we potentially owe another £2.1m on purchases based on performance add-ons, but that may be for 17-18, so for the likes of Dack, Samuel, Bell, etc. but not including this years' additions) Let's say Armstrong was £1.75m, Rothwell and Davenport £400k. Maybe another £200k on Chapman, Lyons, Annesley, and Durrant (maybe the former three are too recent to be included), plus loan fees...? Doubt we've received much for outgoing loans. That suggests Brereton's initial cost was about £5.25m. edit: PriceOfFootball also highlights director pay went up from £166k to £282k, but worth keeping in mind that's largely from adding a director... Per director compensation rose from £83k/year to £94k/year.

Ah, good recall. His quote was we're probably about "10th to 16th". Based on 17/18 wages, that would be a range of £19m-£31m. May be slightly higher this year with more parachute payments floating around. I'd be surprised if we're spending £30m, which we haven't seen since we were a parachute payment-receiving club. We were at £22m in 16/17, good for 14th in the Championship. So, comfortably 'bottom of mid-table', like the on-field product