Saving £500k a year set against an uncomfortable couple of hours every three months difficult decision.

Was just about to post the same thing. Interesting quotes from the article: So, we have already changed this summers plan and are now, apparently, in a transition period. We want to reduce the average age of the squad. Batth and Weimann were probably never really staying, especially as we re-signed Forshaw, if we are looking at younger players. Tronstad turns 30 next month, so I suspect there is little appetite from the club to sign him back up. As Brittain is on his way out (27) and replaced with a 23 year old, I suspect that the club are in no rush to sign Travis (27, 28 later this year) up either.

They certainly don't seem to want the money back as things stand. However, if they got into financial trouble, or sold the club, I certainly don't believe they would treat it as though it doesn't exist. Otherwise, they'd have written it off, as Jack used to do (pretty sure Wilsden is indeed remembering that correctly). They absolutely won't get it all back (not unless by some miracle they turned us back into a steady Prem club maybe), but I bet they'd try to extract as much of it as possible. Maybe even leave some on the club's back if sold on, with loan repayments arranged.

OK, fair enough in that respect - I know you have a better knowledge of all this than I do, but declaring shareholder loans rather than equity investment is really just for the tax advantages I would guess?. In reality I don't think the owners are expecting this money back or treating it as a debt. It's just money that was needed for running costs.. The club has no loan repayment plans as far as I know.

Recent post from the rovers account priming us for the fact that CB's replacement is already here.

Apologies, think I got mixed up with some other club. There's that much yo-yoing goes on from this league to the Championship, nearly everyone else seems to have done it at some point since we came down. They have however been in the playoffs twice since Venkys came, which we haven't done once since relegation.

If I remember correctly (and it’s sadly now so long ago) Jack periodically wrote off the loans he’d made. Fifteen years in and Venkys have never done the same.

Getting what they paid for us back would be child's play if they wrote off their debt to us. They could probably get double that if they were interested in entertaining bids. The money in the game has changed significantly. Crappy Derby County were bought for 33 million when in administration last year, but 55 million really as they also bought their stadium for 22 mill. There is a claim that Sheff W turned down 75 million dollars last month.

They are amongst the creditors on the club’s balance sheet.

I bet Suhail can't wait to appoint a new CEO so they can just wheel him out in these meetings instead.

Consultation meetings are open to all. The fans forum is not! This being a crucial part of the fan engagement rules set out by the EFL the FF let the club carry on at will. Its a known fact that Suhail and the club want to cut all ties and communications with fans.why?My point is in the past the FF have let this ride I hope the farcical way the club are going about setting up the 150 (135) anniversary celebrations are anything to go by was brought up.

To add to my last post, this is from the club’s last accounts:

Sheff Wed haven't been in the Prem since the year 2000!

Definitely agree on the last point, and it’s still boggles the brain how they passed that test. Pompey are a good example because of what they went through and what it took them a to get back to this level. I’m sure we’d both prefer watching Rovers fighting its way back but being directed and run by people who have a vested interest and care for the club? We’d all take any level of football I think, for a degree of pride and expectation of being well run, not an expectation of the next fuck up due to ignorance.

Hull and Sheff W haven't had a 15 year nightmare with little sign of ending. Hull have been in the Prem in that period. Yes, under different owners I believe, but that's the thing about awful owners, they usually burn out and leave. Ours stick around and the purgatory continues. Chances are, Hull and Sheff W will both get to the Prem again before we do, under new owners. Coventry used to be one of those cautionary tales of what could happen with other owners, look where they are now.

Nope, that’s a different figure. I’m referring to the money owed to group undertakings. Also, in addition, see the below from Venkys London accounts:

Originally, they paid the Walkers a total of £24m if I recall correctly plus taking on the external Bank overdraft of c£15m at the time. They're never getting any more than that unless we get promoted. The £200m or whatever it is is gone. The trick is finding someone who thinks they can turn us round and is willing to pay them something akin to what they paid for us with the remainder of the debt written off

As the person who has been writing up the Forum minutes for a long time I would be interested in knowing where it has been reported that the minutes are not an accurate account? This is what happens - I come home and write the minutes as best I can. Then they go to the club and some changes are made. Often these are very minor changes, sometimes more information might be added. Whilst occasionally I and the Chair might go back regarding these changes nearly always we are happy with the end result. It's important to note here that we may very well not be happy with what was said, but we are happy with the factual accuracy of what we were told. What the minutes can never be is a verbatim record of everything that everyone says during the meetings. That would be unreadable and provide no more clarity. What I think does happen is that the words on the minutes do not and I don't think can ever convey the full understanding of the level of debate. They are minutes, not a drama. Finally in the past we have sometimes been told some confidential things that I am not allowed to minute. John Williams in particular did it all the time. There was none of that last night.

£25m in wages per annum and turnover £21m tells everyone who needs to know, that this is only costing more and rising, year in year out. In the words of the Grand master Flash, "The longer you stay, the more you pay".

If you got promoted, your wage would automatically go up considerably, you would potentially be offered a bumper new contract. You would be expected to be relegated again but that promotion would also be great on your CV to get you future jobs. And worst case scenario, the club sacks you and you are left being paid out for the now increased contract that you have. It makes absolutely zero sense for any manager to not want and strive for promotion. They all do, some just dont have the competence.

Great to see some Swiss ramble in this thread

I am not debating the fact that Venky's fund the club and it has cost them a fortune but the accounts don't mention anything about debt. Just profit and loss.

No I don't - aside from Portsmouth following their financial collapse no comparable sized club in England has successfully gone into fan ownership. It doesn't work at this level or size of club. Note also that Portsmouth, despite 15,000+ a week turning up in Leagues One and Two, promptly ditched the idea and sold out to the Americans because they realised that to get back up to the top 2 divisions they needed external investment. It is relatively easy to find new owners yes - if you like I could name you dozens of examples across the top 3 leagues in England. No guarantees of success I accept, but there are plenty of options out there and I think we can probably agree that they'd struggle to beat Venkys in the 'unfit and improper' rankings even if they were awful.

We are victims of the sunk cost fallacy...