islander200

We are terribly run with absent owners and a sub standard Ceo and poor manager. Those clubs you mention dont spend what we do and their fan base hasnt been destroyed by their owners. Its their fault but its reality we couldnt/cant spend and its reality the club needed an injection of cash that the owners couldnt directly put in

I think we will see some of it. Forgetting this summer,the previous seasons we brought in Armstrong, Gallagher and Brererton for decent fees.It could be argued they were purely bought with potential profit in mind. But then you also have the likes of Ayala,Johnson and Holtby.Players who were on wages higher than our wage ceiling prior to comimg here and we would have had to pay some sort of signing on fee to get them in the door.These players are ageing and had no resale value

If the STC had been sold for housing then that money would have gone into the club like the 16.6 million has. Why didnt they just sell the STC to someone else rather than themselves and pocket the cash? Would a housing development on the land in question have made a serious dent in the losses they have made so far? I agree this should have been discussed with the fans and a statement should have been put out when this deal was done, but if it had been we still would be discussing it the same way as we are now suspiciously which i totally understand and am not criticising anyone with that view

The manager still makes recommendations over who gets a new deal.Im not suggesting he crunches the numbers. My point is offers should have been made to the players with two years left last summer.If a deal couldnt be done then you look to move them on and replace them. Not let their contracts run down and then moan about it when they only have a year left and hold all the cards. Who else other than Mowbray would have recommended lenghty deals for Smallwood and Bennett?

So what should we have done to avoid sanctions? The STC has been sold from one hand to the other.They have sold it to themselves. The 16.6 has gone into the club to prevent us being sanctioned. If they one day decide to piss off and sell the club there is nothing stopping them from including the STC as part of the deal. I am totally on board and agree it is through their mismanagent that we have got to this point.But if we didnt do something about getting money into the club we could have faced a point deduction and a transfer ban which almost certainly would have led to relegation. When they were discussing selling it for housing last season it stands to reason that money would have been injected into the club, it wouldnt have been lining their own pockets

The Armstrong money couldnt be spent due to FFP.Until we lose the spend in the ffp calculations from our first season back in the championship then we are extremely limited in what we can spend. The 16.6 million was injected before the Armstrong deal was even done and we still cant spend. Before this summer plenty had been spent/wasted and only Raya for 3 million and Nuttall were sold on from first team. Agree with your earlier post ,they should sell but been no hint they are willing to do that

I dont blame the fans who dont go, i still go myself but attended protests im not happy with how the club is run and want them out. However i dont think we can moan at the owners for not spending money and throw our toys out of the pram when no money is spent or we struggle to offer high enough wages when FFP simply wont allow it. I think its legitimate to moan at how the club is run and how the money was spent but dont think we can complain over the money they put in,its sufficient and we are still close to the limit with FFP. I get the suspicions over this training ground fiasco but the club needed money at least something is being done about it.Unless the money a housing project would bring in would make a serious dent in the losses the owners have built up i domt find it plausable that its some underhand way of clawing some cash back. If the deal had gone ahead last year and the housing development went ahead that money would have been injected into the club like the 16.6 million was.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19677234.comply-ffp---blackburn-rovers-sold-brockhall-training-base/ Financial experts opinion the sale was done purely to comply with FFP

We tried to bring in Maja.Im not saying it will be loads but some money will be spent imo Do you know for a fact the club aint trying to get these players to sign new contracts? Im not clued up enough to say for definite but as far as im aware,this summer we lose the money we spent from our first season back in the championship from ffp calculations so it will allow a little leeway to spend in next summer. The club couldnt spend money the window just gone

Our owners are over in india and id be surprised if they take much interest in what is happening over here unless absolute neccessity.I dont see how he can get lucrative deals for some but none for others.In agreement this summer funding has been cut back but you dont let your players get to one year left. There was enough money wasted last summer to have at least got Nyambe done. Offers on contracts should have been pushed harder by the manager and if they didnt sign them or the owners wouldnt pay them what they wanted then you recommend that they be sold and get as much as you can and replace them.Lenihen would have got a few quid with 2 years left. Venkys are not footballing people.Mowbray repeatedly said he had told the owners his "plan" that we are on a "journey" etc

Its a fair point.How much could a potential property deal fetch for the owners? I expect a big number because throughout their time the losses havent seemed to bother them, and agreed pauses in spending but they have still spent a reasonable amount and supported a wage bill our income couldnt. These guys are minted so what you are suggesting could be right but it would have to be a large number for me to find that more plausable. I think if the sale of the training ground/,property deal had gone ahead , similar money would have been injected into the club ensuring ffp compliance and a small portion reinvested. Im not in agreement with the way they are going about things and agree the secrecy and no communication with the fans is suspious

So what about all the other clubs that did this?Derby ,Sheffield Wednesday ,Villa,Reading etc? I didnt see any of them doing what your stating.If it wasnt to help with accounting or for the owners to be able to spend a few extra quid on the the playing side why did their owners do it. Of course an injection of 16.6 million helps our cause with FFP and it takes away that excuse.Im not saying multi millions but some money will be spent either in january or next summer

Have they set their future stall out though?Can any of us really know that?Im not saying it definitely isnt the case but... It isnt the first time they have halted spending and made cut backs only for to then back the playing side reasonably well. This wage ceiling didnt always exist we were paying Rhodes 35k a week at one point. I just dont see why they wouldnt just sell the STC rather than what they have done. The cutbacks were necessary we couldnt keep running our wagebill at that level,when our income just cant support it.Yeah its the fault of the owners and Waggotbetc totally agree with that, there is not enough effort put into getting income into the club but its the reality we find ourselves in and i just dont see how we couldnt have been on brink with FFP. With the Armstrong sale and this money being injected into the club i now do expect money to be reinvested in to the squad hopefully another manager spending it

Then you try to sell the club not put it into admin.Or start selling a big player a season.We owe no money, the debt is entirely theirs with the exception of 14 million overdraft. If we went admin they wouldnt be seeing that 140 million back, granted they wont ny selling the club either but there is just no benefit to them putting us into administration. If the sale of the STC was about them clawing some of their money back they would have sold it to someone other than themselves. I understand the suspicion and find it disrespectful to us that the club werent more open about it but it just looks to me that its being used as a way to get money into with owners now restricted in what they can put in to the clubs they own

The venkys own it still.Are they going to charge themselves a premium to rent it?

But why would the owners put the club into admin.A debt of 141 million is owed to the venkys.The only other debt the club has is a 14 million bank overdraft. There is no benefit in the owners putting us into administration. They could have just sold the STC not set up another company sell the STC to themselves and make the accounts of the club 16 million better off

The telegraph article suggests we have met the accounting deadline

Why would they sell it to another company they have set up and then sell it to someone else? Surely if the plan was to sell it then they would do just that.Not set up a new company and sell it to themselves. Of course has to be suspicion with everything thats gone on but what reason would they have for doing it this way?They own the football club they could have just sold it off

Yeah a senior training ground valued at 16.6 million that cant be used for housing? In all fairness the value of the STC is nothing when they are already carrying a debt of 141 million. Of course it goes without saying that there should be suspicion but id have to disagree that administration is in their thoughts.Not one single inkling that they have been looking to sell the club, surely that would be considered and the club put on the market before administration is entertained.

Can i ask and its a genuine question as im not that clued up on this.Isnt the majority of our debt owed to the owners? How much debt do we have that isnt owed to them? Recent examples of clubs going to admin, the majority of their debt was owed to figures outside the club, taxman,loans etc which resulted in their owners being unable/unwilling to pay the debt off and continue to pay the the wages

Derby did and Sheffield Wednesday but i think the issue the efl had with it was that Derby/Wednesday overvalued it and it was sold for much more than its worth.Thats what my memory is telling me anyway, could ne wrong.

He effectively signed on for 3 years so i dont think he would be turning down 4 over worries about moving to another country like you suggested

Or he signed what the club offered. He signed a 2 year with extension of a year in the clubs favour i dont think he would have been turning down guaranteed wages for an extra year.

My point with Pears is yeah he will be most likely be on low wages but find it suspicous that a player whose family are close with the manager gets a 4 year contract, yet everyone else we sign or renew gets a 2 year deal with a year extension in clubs favour. Im not disputing the owners are a shit show, i dont think a change of management will make everything better.I just think Mowbray, Waggott and the others running the club on the owners behalf deserve part of the blame for the contract situation and should be rightly criticised for it .

We brought in another young goalkeeper last season aswell, who we paid a small fee for.Pears doesnt look championship standard a point Neil Warnock made when he sold him to us. When was the last time Ayala played 30 games in the Championship?Lucrative deal with no resale value.Im not disputing his talent, quality defender but his injury issues aint something new and he cant be relied upon. If id a choice last summer of tieing down Nyambe or bringing in Ayala i would have chosen a new deal for Nyambe. It isnt just on the owners plain and simple. I dont believe Mowbray and Waggott were trying to sort these contracts last summer.Mowbray was under delusions he had built a top 6 squad. They are given a playing budget and they use it how they see fit. Like bringing in 11 players last summer, about 4 contributed anything ,Kaminski,Harwood Bellis, Elliot and Dolan.