[Archived] How Come Our Club Is Only Worth 55 Million

[USRoverME]

Was teh tV deal already worth That much in 04/05? I thought the exploding TV revenue was more recent than that...

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Was teh tV deal already worth That much in 04/05? I thought the exploding TV revenue was more recent than that...

We areonly talking two ago arent we, ive been trying to track down the most recent set of figures for pompey ; but as yet have failed to do so. From what iver read so far in terms of turnover there is no-way they generate 13-16 million a year solely from matchday income

[speeeeeeedie]

I didn't know where to stick this so it's going here; Deloitte Rich List 2006/2007.

Real are No.1 with United at No.2.

The most telling statement for me is; "The stadium is a club's biggest asset and the majority of the Money League clubs are looking to complete stadium developments in the short and medium term. How can we ever do well if we only get 20,000 a week? Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and hope that the trust is prepared to bail us out for years to come.

[JAL]

If you read the reports at the beginning of the annual report you will see there is a lot of foresight and planning going on at Rovers.

The club's problem is one of multiplication-

Arsenal have a big, rich catchment area. 60,000 x £30 per seat= £1.8m per game

Portsmouth have a small stadium, rich catchment area 20,000 x £30= £0.6m per game

Newcastle have a relatively poor, big catchment area 50,000 x £15= £0.75m per game

Rovers have a small, poor catchment area 20,000 x £12 = £0.24m per game

Portsmouth philipl, is probably a richer area than Blackburn, but they struggle to sell 20k for a home crowd at £30 a piece. They'll pay it when they've got something to go for but not on your weekly average basis i know a few local Pompey fans who have been put off by the prices down there.

Next season i think we can all see we'll have to be paying a little bit more to watch Rovers at Ewood.

[Ozz]

Well the Nuckle Draggers down the A666 have a big game tonight, and look like selling out the ground.

But they are only charging £10 for adults and less for everyone else to see a UEFA cup game, much as we did against Leverkusen.

These examples show how fragile the potential gate revenue for small clubs like Bolton and Rovers is.

Link to BWFC Site.

[roverthemoon]

Good article by Jack Straw puts our club in perspective

[Hughesy]

Bolton are charging less than that.

Its £5 for adult ST, with option to buy another tikcet for £5.

Child accompanied by adult is £1

Under 21 and over 65 is £4

Well the Nuckle Draggers down the A666 have a big game tonight, and look like selling out the ground.

But they are only charging £10 for adults and less for everyone else to see a UEFA cup game, much as we did against Leverkusen.

These examples show how fragile the potential gate revenue for small clubs like Bolton and Rovers is.

Link to BWFC Site.

[joshbrfc]

we are only a small club, not going to be worth a huge amount and the reduced ticket prices.. e.t.c.

i would say 55 million sounds just about right.

[Hughesy]

Sheff Wednesday are the ones who are getting bought out by the Asian Businessmen for £15 million!! Looks like another one who couldn’t afford us!

[waggy]

intresting piece in the telewag

[Hughesy]

Tonight is the night they have the big interview with Williams about the club, takeovers, the trust etc

[RevidgeBlue]

There is also an exceedingly depressing two page article by John Williams on pages 18-19 attempting to explain our lack of activity in the transfer market.

The line is:

Turnover will be increased by 14m by the new TV deal, that becomes 11m because of the 3m we are not now getting from the Trustees, we made a loss of 3m in the last financial year, and we are paying 3m extra in wages reducing it to 5m.

Early exits from the Cups have resulted in a loss of a further 1m coming down to an operating profit of 4m which we are on target to make this operating year.

However it's claimed most of that money is needed to cover the overhang of transfer costs from the previous two years.

(Don't understand that argument at all unless no payments were made previously and all the installments suddenly fell due this season)

(As I understand it that analysis also of course conveniently requires the supporters ignorance of the fact that the 3m "loss" includes hypothetical amortisation of player's book values of 6-7m quid without which the "loss" would be a profit.)

JW claims that the Trustees have never said "we will never give you any more money" but I think reading the article as a whole it is clear that that is in reality the case in anticipation of an eventual sale.

There is of course mention that Jack eventually wanted the club to be self sufficient.

(I think the goal posts have shifted here as well. I know Jack wanted the club to be able to "wash it's face" on a day to day trading basis but it was surely never his intention the Trust should not give additional support.)

According to Williams the transition from trading club to selling club will also "inevitably" come one day unless we can find our next Jack.

The one bright note coming out of the interview was that there are apparently "three or four" different discussions going on with interested parties as regards a potential takeover albeit nothing to indicate a sale is imminent.

[waggy]

the last paragraph is intresting,the valuation off the players rose from £35 million to £60 million yet the club is worth £55 million

[RevidgeBlue]

intresting piece in the telewag

Can anyone assist with the TEN players we supposedly brought in during the relevant period?

Roberts, McCarthy (paid for by sale of Bellamy) Samba Dunn Berner Warnock..................

[Dunnfc]

Can anyone assist with the TEN players we supposedly brought in during the relevant period?

Roberts, McCarthy (paid for by sale of Bellamy) Samba Dunn Berner Warnock..................

Henchoz,Jeffers, Zenaba Francis.

[RevidgeBlue]

Henchoz,Jeffers, Zenaba Francis.

Ta. Who are/were the last two?

[JAL]

There is also an exceedingly depressing two page article by John Williams on pages 18-19 attempting to explain our lack of activity in the transfer market.

The line is:

Turnover will be increased by 14m by the new TV deal, that becomes 11m because of the 3m we are not now getting from the Trustees, we made a loss of 3m in the last financial year, and we are paying 3m extra in wages reducing it to 5m.

Early exits from the Cups have resulted in a loss of a further 1m coming down to an operating profit of 4m which we are on target to make this operating year.

However it's claimed most of that money is needed to cover the overhang of transfer costs from the previous two years.

(Don't understand that argument at all unless no payments were made previously and all the installments suddenly fell due this season)

(As I understand it that analysis also of course conveniently requires the supporters ignorance of the fact that the 3m "loss" includes hypothetical amortisation of player's book values of 6-7m quid without which the "loss" would be a profit.)

JW claims that the Trustees have never said "we will never give you any more money" but I think reading the article as a whole it is clear that that is in reality the case in anticipation of an eventual sale.

There is of course mention that Jack eventually wanted the club to be self sufficient.

(I think the goal posts have shifted here as well. I know Jack wanted the club to be able to "wash it's face" on a day to day trading basis but it was surely never his intention the Trust should not give additional support.)

According to Williams the transition from trading club to selling club will also "inevitably" come one day unless we can find our next Jack.

The one bright note coming out of the interview was that there are apparently "three or four" different discussions going on with interested parties as regards a potential takeover albeit nothing to indicate a sale is imminent.

This might seem a little odd and you may think it has nothing to do with above but now seems to be the time that our so called elected member of parliament ('black Jack') needs to bring some big quality businesses into the town to help. If ever Blackburn Rovers needed some quality support from the town now seems to be the moment.

[bellamy11]

Brown?

[Dunnfc]

Ta. Who are/were the last two?

Ooijer and Brown.

[Boz]

No surprises in anything included in the Williams/Neild article, all as surmised earlier and listed elsewhere on this board. Anyone with any resulting queries might look there first.

The only news worthy element is that as they speak today (I assume that this is 18.2.08) there are three of four different discussions with interested parties.

Following the trickle of information over the past six months concerning the desired disinvestment of the trust, I personally have been ruminating as to whether the trustees are in actual fact acting within their set instructions. Others too may now also be pondering this? Who might feel that they could challenge this view? The beneficiaries? Could BRFC be construed as thus? Would they want to challenge the trustees? I doubt it. Who else does this leave? 1. The Walker family, they ultimately let their wishes be known and hence the trustees actions now. 2. BRFC supporters? Well that might be an interest challenge, for a group to argue that they indirectly are beneficiaries.

[RevidgeBlue]

Following the trickle of information over the past six months concerning the desired disinvestment of the trust, I personally have been ruminating as to whether the trustees are in actual fact acting within their set instructions. Others too may now also be pondering this? Who might feel that they could challenge this view? The beneficiaries? Could BRFC be construed as thus? Would they want to challenge the trustees? I doubt it. Who else does this leave? 1. The Walker family, they ultimately let their wishes be known and hence the trustees actions now. 2. BRFC supporters? Well that might be an interest challenge, for a group to argue that they indirectly are beneficiaries.

I'm surmising but I suppose technically the challenge to the Trustees would have to come from

a) The Walker family if they felt the Trustees were not acting sufficiently in their interests.

B ) The Directors and /or shareholders of any of Jack's businesses if they felt the Trustees were not acting in their interests.

Extremely unlikely to happen in practice, a small shareholder isn't likely to have the funding required to mount a legal challenge, and Directors aren't going to want to risk huge salary packages and find themselves looking at a P45.

[den]

This will be the other article that Rev referred to.

There's quite a bit in there that he didn't mention. Well worth reading.

[RevidgeBlue]

This will be the other article that Rev referred to.

There's quite a bit in there that he didn't mention. Well worth reading.

Couldn't quote it all without it being completely unwieldy den, just tried to pick up on the most salient points.

Hadn't noticed JW's quote before but "Over-ambitious" is the last word I'd use to describe the club at the moment.

There's another point mentioned in the interview which has arisen recently people have generally failed to pick up on. Granted it's always been a deliberate and fairly ambitious policy of the Board/Trustees to pay a higher proportion of wages to turnover than strictly sensible to try and ensure Premier League status.

That surely only works however as long as there is a correspondingly healthy transfer budget. Paying an inflated wage bill without a workable transfer budget is completely incompatible and can surely only lead to a never ending upward spiral of wage increases for existing players and lead to little or no incentive for them to actually perform on the pitch over and above finishing 17th each season.

[den]

Couldn't quote it all without it being completely unwieldy den, just tried to pick up on the most salient points.

It wasn't a criticism Rev, just trying to point out to people that it's worth reading.

[American]

One interesting item in the interview is that we would have earned more money had we stayed in the UEFA Cup. Opposite of what some have suggested that it is a money losing proposition.