Interesting insight into the Newcastle game and the hand of Ped.

So our biggest gate this season will be less than the AVERAGE gate two seasons ago when it was 24,000. Forget about three seasons ago when it was 26,000.

On the official site, Hughes is reported as not wanting to have the fixture changed.

Winter basically says that big clubs influence who does and does not referee them. As a result, refs will favour them in order to protect their career. We clearly saw that with Poll at OT last week.

Jeff Winters' new books reveals undue influence yielded by the larger clubs. Amongst the examples he gives are him not being given a Manc game for two years after a particularly rumbustous match. Nice to read he actually preferred reffing Savage and Bellamy but hates the likes of Gary Neville and Dennis Bergkamp.

I have no idea. I am sure the Board will look at it on a case by case basis and I would imagine that Hughes has presented his targets and knows whom he can go after. It was instructive that talks opened with Tugay shortly after Petrov signed a new contract with Celtic with a £4m release clause. I would guess there would be more available if there is a sign that there is an upwards trend in home support. 18,000 Rovers supporters at Ewood tomorrow night would be a decent start- if the Mancs have sold their allocation will mean a 25,000+ gate.

Accy won 3-1 away at Exeter tonight. They are 11 points clear at the top of the Conference with a superior goal difference and a game in hand. Rovers had better get planning for Accy being back as a league club next season.

Wonderful preview. Great shame Wolves aren't even trying against the Mancs. I so much want to win this one...

No- read my posts.

The Rovers operate on a minimal cash balance given the extent of borrowings so the cash in hand was virtually unchanged. If you read through my report you will get the drift of what the club and Walker Trust is doing.

All very well in theory drog but if you accept that Sunderland are doomed and West Brom will get caught, you can say exactly the same about Boro, Pompey and Brum. One of them is going to go and Brum have two nightmare fixtures coming right up. If clubs like Newcastle, Villa or Fulham are to go down, 18th place will have over 40 points this season.

Looks like Sven is going to Germany with England- there's no fake sheikh part 3.

The Observer report rated Mokoena very highly. Danns was transferred and no forget about £14m to spend unless there is a very dramatic increase in gates. Something nobody has mentioned on this thread but which all the press has picked up on: - yesterday was a fantastic highly entertaining FA Cup tie - Reid was superb - Rovers more than held their own except for Zura having a bit of a 'mare. Hyslop pulled off two world class saves from Mokoena. I expect Mr Armchair will change his opinion when he's read the papers.

1) and 2) Investment. To be honest I don't see it. Were Dave Whelan younger and hadn't put his money into Wigan, then he would have been the obvious solution but he isn't. I guess it is a shame that two Rovers supporters made nine figure fortunes at the same time! It will need a Rovers supporter to do it and are there any passionate Rovers supporters on their way to making the sort of money the Walkers or Whelan made? The problem for an absolute outsider is that Blackburn as a town is so unfashionable. The Borough Council has completely failed to do anything substantial about the image of the place despite years of initiatives, having a Premiership football team and a world famous MP who is highly regarded everywhere except in Blackburn. The upside is that Rovers must be one of the very few clubs where after coming to an arrangement with the Walker Trust, every penny invested would go straight into development of an already very strong club with excellent physical infrastucture. To be optimistic, Rovers are a very attractive proposition compared with Pompey for instance where I suspect a lot of gains of questionable provenance are going straight down 'Arry's toilet and the guy is not going to get much fun out of it either. There is also the rarity factor- anyone wanting to have a Premiership play realistically has very few clubs to chose from. However, I doubt any would-be investors would clear the sort of probity hurdles I would expect the Walker Trustees would have to accept them. 3) Before the players' trading account, Rovers had organised themselves to be operationally profitable and no doubt budgeted for 22,000 average gates. Yet the Blackburn public have failed again and gates are down to 19,500 so the £1m operating profit is wiped out. Of course, that is probably being restored by getting rid of Thompson and Flitcroft from the wage bill. The players' trading account charges come from the amortisation of transfers and that hit must be substantially reduced given the slow down in transfer spending and the reduction in net book value of the playing staff. My guess would be a loss of £3m to £5m next year caused by the defection of another 2,500 fans, the League Cup not being as lucrative as the FA Cup and a further reduction in the number of Rovers games televised. Of course, were we to finish 6th then place prize money might haul us back to break-even. A lot depends on Bellamy's hamstrings. 4) I explained that the forgiveness could only equate transfer kitty to the extent that it creates borrowing headroom. The issue for the Rovers is how far are gates going to fall. At current rates, average attendances at Ewood will be back to 8,000 (a number they averaged for the best part of two decades not that long ago) by 2012/3. This is a horrific prospect but has to be faced given the slump from 26,000 to 19,500 has happened so quickly and has not been arrested by two semi-final appearances. Both the Walker Trust and a bank are going to seriously question the Rovers' ability to repay loans based on the club's fundamentals. Income derived from on-field performance (place-prize money) is unlikely to be bankable. If I were sitting in Jersey I would be getting heartily fed-up reading about falling gates at Ewood by now and not be predisposed to putting more money in if the town of Blackburn is not fully behind the only positive news story the town has got.

The BBC World Service asked for votes from its listeners for the next England Manager. Hiddink 50% Scolari 25% Allardyce 20% Pearce, Curbishley, Bruce, Jewel shared the remaining 5% and here's the funny thing- McClaren didn't get a single vote Anyone seen tomorrow's News of the World yet?

The cumulative loss through attendance reduction since 2002/3 is about £5m, not the annual loss. 22,000 average yielded about £6.2m excluding the FA Cup run, so 19,500 will yield about £5.5m this year whereas 26,000 would have earned the club about £7.5m (I am guessing there has been a skew away from the more expensive seats as well). Another way of looking at it is that every man woman and child in Blackburn was paying £60 a year to Blackburn Rovers in 2002/3 of which they are not paying £15 in 2005/6. However, they are still paying about £45 a head to go through the turnstiles for Premiership matches each year. Cup matches, commercial spending (memorabilia, replica shirts etc), Sky subscriptions, travel, food and beverage are all additional costs.

Review of Rovers’ Accounts year to 30 June 2005. The publication of Rovers’ results has been a muted affair compared with Chelsea announcing a £140m loss. Abramovich has now publicly declared losses of £270m in addition to the reported £130m all up cost of buying Chelsea- still £100m less than the reported development value of the Stamford Bridge! To the Rovers and my immediate reaction to this year’s accounts is that there are no big surprises- the numbers are what I suggested they would be a year ago. However, on closer examination there are lots of very pleasant little surprises all over the place which is a sign of an extremely well managed operation. First of all, we need to understand that running a Premiership football club in Blackburn is a fundamentally uneconomic proposition. What Rovers make in matchday income in a season is what Arsenal will take from two home games at the Emirates Stadium. Thankfully, unlike Arsenal and Manchester United, we don’t have hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt to service and repay so it will be many years (assuming that football remains in roughly its current format) before the massive disparity of earning power enjoyed by the Mancs and Arsenal really begins to squash us in the way that Abramovich has squashed them. Of course, another way of looking at the Rovers’ numbers is to say that we are fundamentally a lot bigger than traditional rivals like the lot t’other side of Accrington who can only marvel at an operation getting on for four times the size of their own cash strapped meagre existence. Rovers are a lot more secure in our current economic fundamentals than currently embarrassed giants such as Citeh or Newcastle and lets not forget Leeds who have to find a £15m reward payment to old creditors should they go up this summer. Everton’s accounts this time next year will make interesting reading for those of a sadistic nature which will prove a warning to anyone thinking the golden gates open on arriving at 4th in the Premiership. So let me guide you through the numbers. To save typing effort, numbers in (brackets) are the comparatives for the year to 30 June 2004. The first pleasant surprise is that turnover was up slightly despite the 2,000+ drop in average home gates to c22,000 last season. The total £41.3m (£40.8m) is made up of Matchday income £7.3m (£6.8m), Media payments- read Sky- £21.4m (£21.8m) and Commercial £12.4m (£12.2m). So the FA Cup semi-final achievement really pulled the club through financially to offset the attendance decline. The Commercial figure is highly commendable particularly as Sky deemed us a less attractive club to cover on TV bearing in mind that we came 15th in both seasons so our placement money was pretty equivalent. The next pleasant surprise is the club actually made an operating profit of £1m (loss of £1.4m in 2003/4) before the player trading was taken into account so although total wages remained constant at £31.3m in both years the, club is beginning to wash some of its face operationally. Within the £31.3m, the salaries of the two Executive Directors remained the same although with benefits they totalled to £352k (£347k). These figures will change next year with the Board restructuring including the addition of the Finance Director (I believe that is now a main board position). Staff numbers have been slightly trimmed to 231 (244) mainly through the loss of 9 in commercial- presumably the impact of the Sports World contract. Playing staff and management is 109 (110) so essentially unchanged. I am going to return to the players account but as expected, there was a dramatic drop in the cost of amortisation- the charge made for each player dividing the transfer fee paid by the length of contract- to £6.9m (£11.4m) but also the book profit on player sales (the difference between transfer fees received and the transfer fee paid less the total costs amortised over the time the player was with the club) also dropped to £1.4m (£7.7m). Presumably the homesick Scot damaged us there. With a modest decrease in net interest payments to £532k (£668k), the overall loss is almost identical to last year £5.0m (£5.1m). Now let’s look at the Balance Sheet before rounding off with some comments about the future outlook. The players’ net book value declined to £9.1m (£14.7m) which given the comparison in playing staff this last summer with the twilight of Souness just goes to show how misleading accounting values can be! If we ignore the impact of amortisation and look at the original transfer values, the players on the staff at 30 June 2004 had originally cost the Rovers £33.7m, transfer fees paid during the year totalled to £6.3m and the original transfer fees on players sold or retired were £12.3m giving an original cost value of the squad at 30 June 2005 of £27.6m. To help you understand how this works, the original cost figure will have dramatically dropped this January as the original transfer fees of Jansen £4.1m, Flitcroft £3.5m and Thompson £2.3m will be deducted. However all three players were fully amortised so the club will not show any loss on letting them go for free except for a small residual for the last six months of Thompson’s contract which will be more than compensated as an accounting loss by the actual cash saving in his wages. Interestingly, off balance sheet, the contingent liabilities for transfer fees (debts we don’t have now but could have dependent upon players or the club achieving certain targets or onward sale values) are £4.7m (£4.8m). I wonder if this figure also allows for the possible loss of the Newcastle VAT case? What I believe is clear is that the Rovers have derived no income from the Dahlin insurance case unless they have found a clever accounting way of spreading it over a number of years. Unlike contingent liabilities, contingent assets are not required to be reported so there is no way of telling if the Dahlin case is lost or still dragging on. The improvement in the club’s trading position is also reflected in marginal improvements in the balance sheet. Net current liabilities are down to £13.7m (£14.3m) and so is net debt at £27.7m (£29.8m). Within the balance sheet notes is one surprising and very welcome figure- especially considering how well appointed Ewood Park and Brockhall are but the club spent £738k last year on improving buildings and fixtures and fittings in addition to ordinary maintenance expenditure. This has to be a very positive sign and of course there was more expenditure this summer when Mark Hughes had the separation between the Academy and senior player facilities done away with. The really sexy stuff in these numbers is the significant financial restructuring which the club is quietly going through. The Walker Trust has again donated £3m. This figure does not change so if it were intended to bridge the gap between averaging gates of 26,000 and filling the 31,000 seat stadium, it now represents the difference between 19,500 warm bodies and a theoretical 24,500. Supplementing the £3m donation, the Walker Trust increased its interest free loan to the club to £17m (£14m) which when combined with the improvement of the club’s trading position meant there was a significant improvement in the bank loan to £10.8m (£16.1m). So the Walker Trust has put another £6m cash into the club. It is worth pointing out that the total investment by the Walkers in the club since Jack first bought a significant shareholding in 1991/2 has averaged £5m per year so in cash terms there clearly is no lessening of commitment by the Walker family and their Trust to Blackburn Rovers Football Club. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t go as far in today’s Premiership. Furthermore, there is an agenda item at the AGM to put into effect the pledge made last year to convert £14m of debt into equity. This forgiveness of the Trust’s previous non-interest bearing loan means that the net positive worth of the business will increase by £14m (before the current year’s trading performance) from its current £17.3m (£22.3m) in shareholders’ funds. Bearing in mind that the club has been running with book borrowings of £30m+, this means that the club’s debt will now stand at £3m Walker Trust, £10m bank debt plus £4m funding for Bellamy. In other words, considerable borrowing head room has been created if the Board chose to use it. Recurring player wage expenses are clearly being trimmed and the Board will use contract expiries in the summer to trim further (incidentally, I notice Amo is back on the long-term injury list). Therefore, I see no need not to believe Hughes and Williams when they say the issue for Rovers in the transfer market is finding the right players who are available. I guess John Williams at least, is mindful of the late ‘90s when the club found a lot of wrong players who were available and effectively blew £50m of Jack’s money on bad transfers and the consequent relegation. That experience alone will mean the Rovers’ hands will remain firmly in their pockets rather than bring in the likes of Earnshaw or Jeffers. As for my longer term prognosis, I refer you to the first post on this thread.

It's all a devious plot. Rovers are playing in Maroon next season.

Are we going to get feedback on the meeting or have I missed it?

Yes I do know and no its not.

Now seen them- it says the badges could be moved so don't vote on that basis. My reservation about home 1 and 2 are those blue side panels. When the players are in motion, they will look like they are wearing chunky blue and white stripes a la West Brom.

Looks like Savage will be OK after Wednesday's tunnel incident: here. Blind referees.

Nice interview! After scrolling past the violent neanderthals, I loved this comment: "that has to be wind up re Dailly?" They are quick those Hammers. This West Ham web site doesn't even know what round they are in. And they forgot to type in the team!

Are there supposed to be pictures next to the voting buttons?

Hopefully unlike the link above, this one actually opens. It is a rather good preview by a Hammer.