[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[Paul]

It seems to me that some people see the slightest bit of criticism aimed towards the trust as an attack on Uncle Jack, thus the apparent vociferous defence we seem to get from the usual posters.

Of course the more realistic point of view is the usual posters understand the club cannot afford the debt. Answer these questions.

Rovers borrow £20m from the banks or the trust - it doesn't matter where - how will this debt be serviced and how will this debt be repaid?

Rovers spend £20m on perhaps 3 or 4 new players, probably paying around £1m in wages each. The club wage bill is, or so it says above, 85% of turnover. At what point do you suggest the wage bill should become 100% of turnover or perhaps more.

If people want to criticise the trust that's fine with me, criticise the Walkers if you wish, but don't do it without coming up with a realistic discussion about how Rovers can afford to take on such debt. It would be better for the club to lose the manager than to go bankrupt in the course of trying to keep him. Look at the cash situation. Do you want a football club to support or not?

[allanncd]

The trustees also own a low-cost airline Flybe they have been trying to flog without success for years and are probably battening down the hatches as rising oil prices and recession threaten to blow that business away - the boss of Ryanair predicted it would be one of the first low-cost airlines to go bust. The way they look at it why should they blow funds on a footballer at the expense of jobs for ordinary working people in the airline?

I imagine their Plan B for Rovers (plan A being a sale) is that the club gets relegated and downsizes to a point where they sell it for virtually nothing. The proceeds of player sales will cover any losses from not being able to cut the wage bill immediately from £35m to less than £15m as the TV money reduces to £11m and gate receipts reduce to diddly squat. If that is the scenario (and I can see no other) why do they not ask less for the club - whilst it is still a Prem club - in order to make a sale for more than they will otherwise get? Do the people at Rothschilds understand the football business as I imagine most of them follow rugger and other toffs pursuits?

[philipl]

No allanncd, that's not right.

The Trust took the decision to withdraw the sale of Flybe when it acquired BA Connect. Flybe is profitable and very cash generative but obviously that cash remains within the Flybe business.

There are two things to remember-

As well as making very generous provisions for the Rovers, Jack always wanted the club eventually to stand on its own two feet. With the massive increase of TV money, the Trustees have obviously looked at that side of Jack's wishes as well.

I might be wrong with this but the hurdle for incoming investors is the obligation to put more money into the club than the Trustees do, not the selling price. Perversely by reducing their rate of cash investment in the club, the Trustees possibly also reduce the investment into the club needed to be made by a purchaser.

So bazzanotsogreat could be getting his wish of a lower amount needed to acquire BRFC through the Trustees cutting the amount they give the club. The Trustees by the way are not dry as dust footie haters- they are apparently well bitten by the Rovers bug but not to the extent that their professional judgement could remotely be questioned.

[Damage]

Sell the club at a lower-price, ensuring that the discount on the value of the club is spent on investment

Ahh but thats the rub isnt it!?

Are the trust truly interseted in sale at discount? or Are the buyers prepared to divert the "discount" millions from profit to "operations"?

[Damage]

The Trustees by the way are not dry as dust footie haters- they are apparently well bitten by the Rovers bug but not to the extent that their professional judgement could remotely be questioned.

Is that through personal knowledge or a mate of a mate?

[RevidgeBlue]

Is that through personal knowledge or a mate of a mate?

Pure speculation as always.

[RevidgeBlue]

Of course the more realistic point of view is the usual posters understand the club cannot afford the debt. Answer these questions.

Rovers borrow £20m from the banks or the trust - it doesn't matter where - how will this debt be serviced and how will this debt be repaid?

Rovers spend £20m on perhaps 3 or 4 new players, probably paying around £1m in wages each. The club wage bill is, or so it says above, 85% of turnover. At what point do you suggest the wage bill should become 100% of turnover or perhaps more.

If people want to criticise the trust that's fine with me, criticise the Walkers if you wish, but don't do it without coming up with a realistic discussion about how Rovers can afford to take on such debt. It would be better for the club to lose the manager than to go bankrupt in the course of trying to keep him. Look at the cash situation. Do you want a football club to support or not?

Paul. can't really see how spending say 20m on players (with the cost spread over four or five years) would place the club in financial jeapordy.

I agree the wage bill has to be kept under some sort of control so you'd have to trim off some dead wood at the same time (Berner, Henchoz, Tugay and Mokoena spring instantly to mind and I'm sure there's quite a few more)

It just seems to be it took us 25 years and 120 m of Jack's money to finally get back into the top flight and it seems a shame to say the least that that might be in danger of just dribbling away due to lack of investment in the playing side.

[philipl]

I think that is an exageration RB.

What the real beef at the moment is why don't the Trustees kick-on for a CL spot whilst we are only 6 points away and many clubs who seemingly have resources have not got their act together.

Re the "deadwood", will the older two players you mention still be here next August? Does everybody agree with you that we should terminate Tugay's contract this January?

The Rovers have a squad with strength in depth- the strongest ever- everyone agreed that was the case last August. Why trim it now when that might be the quickest way to bring on the relegation we all fear? As it is two squad players who believe they should be starting rather than reserve and are disruptive are being cleared out if the club gets the prices it thinks this rather odd market will sustain.

As an aside, could it be that more of the new owners than were letting on were planning their Premiership adventure on a sea of easy to raise debt and the credit crunch has got bankers looking through the Prem glitz at the sand in the foundations?

[jny]

are you mad? terminate tugay's contract. He is easily the best passer, scores amazing fan-pleasing goals and wants to play for us until he is 40.

In fact when he does go i would like to see a testimonial for him, anyone else?

[deryck guyler's spoon]

are you mad? terminate tugay's contract. He is easily the best passer, scores amazing fan-pleasing goals and wants to play for us until he is 40.

In fact when he does go i would like to see a testimonial for him, anyone else?

Yep, I'm up for that.

The most technically gifted Rover since Duncan McKenzie.

[Paul Mellelieu]

Has anyone seen a better passer of the ball in a Rovers shirt?

[John]

Rev - Tugay = dead wood?

Get a grip mate.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Surely 'deadwood' means players who are at a club with hardly a sniff of first team activity, rather than "player I think is over the hill" or "player who I can't personally stand" if these latter two are (semi)regulars in the first team?

Only 'deadwood' we have at Rovers are Sonic, Encks and Berner. And even the latter I think might be stretching it if we actually want some degree of cover.

[Paul]

Paul. can't really see how spending say 20m on players (with the cost spread over four or five years) would place the club in financial jeapordy.

My view would be it isn't just £20m spread over 4-5 years. Firstly the debt has to be serviced somehow at perhaps 10%? I don't know what commercial rates are. Then there are the players wages and the associated costs of employment. Say four players over 4 years at £1m pa salary. That plus interest to service the debt would be £25m. Then the following season, and the one after and the one after, demands will come from whoever is manager, and the fans for further signings. It's a very dangerous treadmill. The big difference between rovers and other clubs is the match day income and we just don't seem to have the cash available.

As philip says one of Jack's intentions was the club would be self-sufficient. Currently Rovers make an operating profit and generate cash. The problem is this excludes transfer dealings and is why the club have to rely on employing a manager as astute as Hughes. he isn't daft, i'm sure he understands the dilema.

I agree the wage bill has to be kept under some sort of control so you'd have to trim off some dead wood at the same time (Berner, Henchoz, Tugay and Mokoena spring instantly to mind and I'm sure there's quite a few more)

Without Berner would we have got a point at City?

It just seems to be it took us 25 years and 120 m of Jack's money to finally get back into the top flight and it seems a shame to say the least that that might be in danger of just dribbling away due to lack of investment in the playing side.

The trustees see no IMMEDIATE need to invest in the club. Surely if the danger of releagtion reared its head they would see the need to invest? You and I are both old enough to remember what it was like before Jack's money. Surely spoending money we don't have on transfers is equally threatening to the club's future?

[American]

Paul. can't really see how spending say 20m on players (with the cost spread over four or five years) would place the club in financial jeapordy.

I agree the wage bill has to be kept under some sort of control so you'd have to trim off some dead wood at the same time (Berner, Henchoz, Tugay and Mokoena spring instantly to mind and I'm sure there's quite a few more)

It just seems to be it took us 25 years and 120 m of Jack's money to finally get back into the top flight and it seems a shame to say the least that that might be in danger of just dribbling away due to lack of investment in the playing side.

Don't you usually criticise Mr 6 when he says play the younger players? One added benefit to that is for the fringe positions (the 4-5 appearances a year players such as the first 2 above) the wage bill would be decreased.

One question: Are there any players who didn't play for us anymore we still paid last year?

[1864roverite]

Whatever value was on the club, todays result has wiped another 5million of it !

[Alex Rover]

Whatever value was on the club, todays result has wiped another 5million of it !

Oh come on, we're all disappointed with the result today but surely you're not being serious.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Of course the more realistic point of view is the usual posters understand the club cannot afford the debt. Answer these questions.

Rovers borrow £20m from the banks or the trust - it doesn't matter where - how will this debt be serviced and how will this debt be repaid?

Rovers spend £20m on perhaps 3 or 4 new players, probably paying around £1m in wages each. The club wage bill is, or so it says above, 85% of turnover. At what point do you suggest the wage bill should become 100% of turnover or perhaps more.

If people want to criticise the trust that's fine with me, criticise the Walkers if you wish, but don't do it without coming up with a realistic discussion about how Rovers can afford to take on such debt. It would be better for the club to lose the manager than to go bankrupt in the course of trying to keep him. Look at the cash situation. Do you want a football club to support or not?

Paul answer me this – have rovers just received an extra 10-15 million pounds in revenue; granted they have spent 1 million of this on season ticket cuts. Where has the rest of the extra revenue gone?

Aside from this years extra revenue the club can expect even larger increases in revenue from gains from the Asian television networks. At a conservative estimate Rovers will have an extra 20 million in revenue from what it had 18 months ago, come the summer.

P

aul the figures which you quote do not include the above discussed extra revenue

PhilipL you have changed your stance so many times in about three months its making my head spin

Firstly you claimed that we would spend big in January

Then you said Rovers as a business would become profitable with a few years

Then you mock people who say that we need new owners rapidly, as the trustees won’t give our excellent manager a workable transfer budget

Now you seem to be softening your position on the trustees; as posters jump on your opinion.

For someone that has so much inside informationthat you proclaim you have: you dont half change your opininon weekly it seems.

[Brfcrule1]

Hello all,

I have to say that I agree with what's been said also if you check the link below:

http://www.purelymancity.com/index.php/fea...ending-compares

seems as though we are one of the lowest spenders in the EPL 3rd lowest according to that and find it interesting that sparky is putting high prices on players but you can see why as he is not backed by the board with much money that is not a criticism on the walker trustees it's times like these that I wish jack was still alive we would be ok but the future has to be a takeover otherwise we will be left behind and from what has been the trustees are not going to back the manager but also one thing that has to be said if a premiership club is to do well they need a good club shop that has to be one of the reasons why this club has not had as much to spend in the trsfr market as it could have one thing they should look at is the fact that brighton and hove albion have a better club shop than our club I also can't understand at sports world in in london they are selling things live arsenal oven gloves,breakfast bowls,egg cups,dressing gowns,dog bowls,gym sacks now why can't we have some of those things? also did I not read that when sports world took over they were supposed to take over the rights to sell all the clubs merchandise? certainly seems as though none of what has been promised has actually been delivered

anyway hope the board reads these boards as something needs to be sorted out soon

Laters all

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Kind of brings it home realy?

[Paul]

Paul answer me this – have rovers just received an extra 10-15 million pounds in revenue; granted they have spent 1 million of this on season ticket cuts. Where has the rest of the extra revenue gone?

The trust are not putting £3m this year. The wage bill will increase by several millions in 07/08, perhaps as many as £10m because the club have spent the last two seasons securing most of the squad on improved contracts. We have not sold a significant player in this time (OK Bellamy excepted). How do we keep them? More money. Simple. Ten new players have been brought in to the club in the last two seasons, they all have to be paid the going rate.

So to directly answer your question. The TV money has gone the same way as all the rest of the TV money - into players wages or transfer fees.

Aside from this years extra revenue the club can expect even larger increases in revenue from gains from the Asian television networks. At a conservative estimate Rovers will have an extra 20 million in revenue from what it had 18 months ago, come the summer.

The only "extra" revenue figures one can take as accurate are the ones in the club accounts. Why should it be an extra £20m. Where is your real evidence for this?

I'm sorry Bazza, and I'm really not having a go at you, but it truely frustrates me when fans make these assumptions. I'm not sure what the additional TV revenue is but I think all PL clubs now get £30m? The media is so awash with figures it is difficult to know what is accurate. Making all these assumptions about the club gaining revenue ignores the fact we have spent much of it on retaining the players we have.

Paul the figures which you quote do not include the above discussed extra revenue

I don't think I quoted any figures. Your "extra revenue" only became available at the start of this season and exactly how much remains a question no one can really put a finger on. I used the example of borrowing £20m and asked how this would be serviced. The question still awaits an answer.

[BiggusLaddus]

I'm not sure what the additional TV revenue is but I think all PL clubs now get £30m? The media is so awash with figures it is difficult to know what is accurate. Making all these assumptions about the club gaining revenue ignores the fact we have spent much of it on retaining the players we have.

Bottom club gets £30m pro rata'd up to £50m for the champions.

Believe it was £25m-ish for the champions previously?

I know this is far from definitive but there should be a pretty big increase in turnover for us this season.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

The trust are not putting £3m this year. The wage bill will increase by several millions in 07/08, perhaps as many as £10m because the club have spent the last two seasons securing most of the squad on improved contracts. We have not sold a significant player in this time (OK Bellamy excepted). How do we keep them? More money. Simple. Ten new players have been brought in to the club in the last two seasons, they all have to be paid the going rate.

Im highly Highly sceptical as to your workings out. You say that 10million? is too apportioned to additional players wages this season. That equates to 15 members of our squad receiving a 15 k per week wage rise, which is simply ludicrous.

I doubt that any more than 2-3 million of the extra income will be spent on player/staff wages

So to directly answer your question. The TV money has gone the same way as all the rest of the TV money - into players wages or transfer fees.

The only "extra" revenue figures one can take as accurate are the ones in the club accounts. Why should it be an extra £20m. Where is your real evidence for this?

[

Paul if it truly frustrates you, then why don’t you raise these frustrations when the usual suspects proclamations on rover’s finances?

No I don’t know 100% what the re-structured TV deal is worth but after reading various sources some reliable some perhaps not we can assume that extra revenue can be valued somewhere between 10-15 million, with the caveat that this will carry on to increase in the next few years.

I'm sorry Bazza, and I'm really not having a go at you, but it truely frustrates me when fans make these assumptions. I'm not sure what the additional TV revenue is but I think all PL clubs now get £30m? The media is so awash with figures it is difficult to know what is accurate. Making all these assumptions about the club gaining revenue ignores the fact we have spent much of it on retaining the players we haveI don't think I quoted any figures. Your "extra revenue" only became available at the start of this season and exactly how much remains a question no one can really put a finger on. I used the example of borrowing £20m and asked how this would be serviced. The question still awaits an answer.

At a guess , with the talent of our manager I would say he needs an additional 8-10 million per season (wages/transfer money) to maintain a top 8/10 position, this is why we need a board that is prepared to release some of the extra income and perhaps match that figure (4-5 million). Which would still be amongst the bottom quartile of expenditure in the Prem. This should be financed by three means; a percentile of our additional income, very small bank loans ( 1-3 million per season) and outside investment 4-5 million per season perhaps. All small fry in com[arson to our mid-table / top 8 competitors.

Paul you bleat on about the level of investment the trust has made in the past. Yet if someone, whether the current /potential owner(s) do not make funds available for our excellent manager, then the trust’s past investment will be wasted as the club will be playing in the fizzy pop league. That’s how precarious I personally believe it is we invest in new/loaned players.

[stuwilky]

Would anyone be shocked if the wage bill rose by Paul's estimated £10m over two seasons? I must admit, Id be shocked if it DIDN'T go up by that amount between the accounts published last season 05/06 and those for this season - published in January 2009.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Would anyone be shocked if the wage bill rose by Paul's estimated £10m over two seasons? I must admit, Id be shocked if it DIDN'T go up by that amount between the accounts published last season 05/06 and those for this season - published in January 2009.

So you believe our overall wages will go up by 30% in 18 months?