[Archived] Chaos, Confusion And General Mismanagement

[Mattyblue]

In real life, I can't see many changing their views on him, he's far too toxic, but on this msg board? without doubt they'll re-emerge, most of the time on the wind-up.

[jim mk2]

They shouldn't have been here in the first place to make any decisions. We were told that the sale was being handled by top city advisors to find someone better able to carry on Jack's legacy than, err, the organisation specifically and solely responsible for carrying on Jack's legacy. If people want to get hung up about us being lied to, this was the mother of all whoppers. And none of these fine people noticed that the sleazebag magicing up oddball buyers with no discernable interest in or experience of football was the agent of the first team coach.

Plus your point is moot: if they had been sober, thoughtful businesspeople putting the best interests of the club first by keeping things as they were, they would never have been paraded in front of the grasping Trust by the Prince of Darkness.

Not sure what you are driving at here. I was challenging your view that the club's business model under the Trust was unsustainable.

[Rovermatt]

You're right PV re Kean, but as we've seen before a couple of wins will bring them back out the woodwork.

You surely can't mean a couple of wins in succession? Not really something Kean will ever have to deal with.

[bob fleming]

You surely can't mean a couple of wins in succession? Not really something Kean will ever have to deal with.

He had to deal with it last season. We won 2 on the bounce for the first time in his tenure. We then lost 8 out of 9 games and were relegated.

Still, I don't want to dwell on the negatives. This sort of statistic demands a fresh start in anyone's book. Preferably at another club.

[thenodrog]

"I too have noticed the number of people who, whilst professing to be anti-Kean and Venkys, suddenly feel new optimism, appearing on here."

GOLDFISH MEMORIES TO BLAME.

"It's worrying justhow easy it is to win some over to at least giving him 10 games or whatever. I was one of those who, when he first got the job, thought he deserved a chance to show us what he could do, "

PLEASE TELL ME ON WHAT BASIS YOU MADE THAT DECISION GUMBOOTS? LOGIC AND REASONING SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE ENTERED YOUR HEAD FOR EVEN A NANO SECOND.

Still, I don't want to dwell on the negatives. This sort of statistic demands a fresh start in anyone's book. Preferably at another club.

Fresh start indeed but for you, us, Kean, the slumdogs or any combination thereof Bob?

[Black Burn]

No one's saying we should give Steve Kean a chance, or at least I've never seen anyone actually saying that.

Even with the new signings, Kean should go. End of.

[bob fleming]

Fresh start indeed but for you, us, Kean, the slumdogs or any combination thereof Bob?

The latter two theno.

[den]

Not sure what you are driving at here. I was challenging your view that the club's business model under the Trust was unsustainable.

Miker has argued that point for a while. The truth though, is that JW and the trustees were in full control of the situation and had been for many years. They knew that the wage level was a bit higher than at most other clubs, but were happy with that. They believed that with a little annual adjustment they could control the clubs finances well enough. How do I know? JW told me.

Thing is - it worked and it worked very well. Allowing the higher wage-income ratio meant higher league placing and higher income.

[Ralfinho]

I will ALWAYS be anti Kean & Venky's!!!! Im 110% Rovers though.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Not sure what you are driving at here. I was challenging your view that the club's business model under the Trust was unsustainable.

My point was that it was the change in the Trust's attitude and intent for the club that upset the equilibrium. Once they entrusted our future to an agent, all bets were off imo. Anything could happen, and it did.

How many on here would have been happy and confident of the future if we had known at the time the sale was being brokered by Anderson?

[John]

Remember posting on here at the time a comment from a Man City fan who said JA would ruin our club.

[Miker]

Miker has argued that point for a while. The truth though, is that JW and the trustees were in full control of the situation and had been for many years. They knew that the wage level was a bit higher than at most other clubs, but were happy with that. They believed that with a little annual adjustment they could control the clubs finances well enough. How do I know? JW told me.

Thing is - it worked and it worked very well. Allowing the higher wage-income ratio meant higher league placing and higher income.

The key there is "little annual adjustment". The Trust weren't willing to provide that any more though were they? No one forced them to sell the club, but they weren't interested any more.

Otherwise I agree, it was more or less sustainable using that model. However, it would be foolish to assume that this business model was bullet proof. I honestly think we were lucky, very lucky, to get away with it for so many years.

You won't hear a bad word from me about our old directors or managers like Hughes and Allardyce. Tremendous respect for the job they managed to do at the club, which should never be underestimated. They were forced to work within severe limitations though, especially in the last few years. It is the main reason why I defended Sam so vehemently during his tenure here.

As for the future, I am happy with some of the decisions being made currently to try and get the club back into the Premier League. It's not about giving second chances, it is not down to me or anyone else whether we think the owners and manager can do the job. What's being done is better than nothing and it's been said by everyone before, if Kean were to be replaced I would be a lot more positive going into the new season, but he hasn't been, so not much more to say on that issue.

[Mattyblue]

We were 'very, very lucky' to get away with the Paul Ince debacle, if they'd have left it any later to pot him even Allardyce would have struggled to keep us up.

Apart form that, it wasn't down to luck, it was down to quality management on and off the pitch.

[Miker]

We were 'very, very lucky' to get away with the Paul Ince debacle, if they'd have left it any later to pot him even Allardyce would have struggled to keep us up.

Apart form that, it wasn't down to luck, it was down to quality management on and off the pitch.

Anything in business is a calculated risk, even if a decision is 90% sure to pay off, there's still that chance that it might not. Again, I can't fault their decisions, but we didn't have a self-sustainable model in place for the club (such as Arsenal for example) and we didn't have the money to act as a safety net (such as Man City), so it could have all fallen apart at any moment.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

I too have noticed the number of people who, whilst professing to be anti-Kean and Venkys, suddenly feel new optimism, appearing on here. It's worrying justhow easy it is to win some over to at least giving him 10 games or whatever. I was one of those who, when he first got the job, thought he deserved a chance to show us what he could do, but it soon became fiarly obvious that what he could do was take us down. He narrowly avoidedit the first time round and completed the task at the second attempt. There is zero chance he has learnt anything because he doesn't want to so if he gets 10 games at the start fo the season we will already be relegated. Why is that so hard for some to see?

Sorry this gumboots talking - haven't yet adjusted to the fact that my son keeps logging me out and himself in!

I think most of the ones seen as optimistic just know Kean isn't going anywhere so they're just trying to look at things a bit more positively because that's what they like to do. I'm sure everyone knows deep down that we will get nowhere with Kean apart from most likely League 1.

[Mattyblue]

The wages we paid were a calculated risk, JW stated as much. Not sure how that means we were 'very, very lucky'. Ince aside, JW ensured that highly competent managers were employed along with a competitive wage bill.

[Miker]

The wages we paid were a calculated risk, JW stated as much. Not sure how that means we were 'very, very lucky'. Ince aside, JW ensured that highly competent managers were employed along with a competitive wage bill.

I think maybe we have slightly different interpretations of risk and luck, so I'll just leave it at that because I'm not disagreeing with you. The margins are very thin though. It took Man City the last minute of extra time to turn a disastrous season into a dream come true.

[den]

The key there is "little annual adjustment". The Trust weren't willing to provide that any more though were they? No one forced them to sell the club, but they weren't interested any more.

The "annual adjustment" goes on at every club Miker. Wages vary and debt varies. Prior to Venky's taking over, the club had spent one season as a selling club in order to reduce the debt. That was under Sam when he had to take out quite a few millions worth of player value. JW had said after that season that we were a trading club again. That's not unique to rovers, every club in the land has to do that kind of thing. So...... overall debt was manageable, as was the wage level. If the trustees had been concerned that wages were too high, it was well within their control to reduce them. They were comfortable that they had that under control though. They were happy to run at that level. As JW said to me, "we have no-one to answer to. We have no shareholders wanting dividends and the only thing rovers exists for is to put as good a team on the park as possible". In other words, the wage levels were high compared to any other business, or compared to most other fotball clubs, but they were happy and contented that rovers could run this way. .... and that's the way they ran the club. Wage levels had been that way for a number of years, but to say that it was unsustainable is really falling for The Raos and Keans excuse, for allowing our best players to leave. IMO, they thought they could get away with running the club on younger, cheaper players, but it patently didn't work. Then and only then, when we were on our way down, did we hear this story that they had to sell our best players because the previous owners had run the club in a financially irresponsible way. Strange now that they appear to be raising wage levels in the Championship of all places.

[Exiled in Toronto]

but they were happy and contented that rovers could run this way. .... and that's the way they ran the club.

Until they decided they weren't and that they'd hire an agent find someone, anyone, to run it.

If it was so sustainable and everyone was so happy, why do you think they decided to bog off?

[Mattyblue]

Because they didn't give a ###### about BRFC and it wasn't making them any dosh?

[Kelbo]

The wages we paid were a calculated risk, JW stated as much. Not sure how that means we were 'very, very lucky'. Ince aside, JW ensured that highly competent managers were employed along with a competitive wage bill.

A calculated risk means quite simply that they based this on a league position of around 12/13th place, they did this and even bettered it!!

[Miker]

I feel like you guys are needlessly attaching negative connotations to the words "calculated risk" and "luck". JW knew what he was doing and he did it well, end of. It does not mean that the business model would remain sustainable forever, it is not a view that was influenced by the Raos but one I have held before I even knew of their existence, so all this talk about "buying into their excuses" is complete rubbish.

[den]

I feel like you guys are needlessly attaching negative connotations to the words "calculated risk" and "luck". JW knew what he was doing and he did it well, end of. It does not mean that the business model would remain sustainable forever, it is not a view that was influenced by the Raos but one I have held before I even knew of their existence, so all this talk about "buying into their excuses" is complete rubbish.

We had been operating with a higher wages/income ratio compared to some other clubs for years and were still doing so. You were the one saying it definitely wasn't sustainable.

[gumboots]

"It's worrying justhow easy it is to win some over to at least giving him 10 games or whatever. I was one of those who, when he first got the job, thought he deserved a chance to show us what he could do, "

PLEASE TELL ME ON WHAT BASIS YOU MADE THAT DECISION GUMBOOTS? LOGIC AND REASONING SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE ENTERED YOUR HEAD FOR EVEN A NANO SECOND.

Merely on the basis that I did not know anything at that stage to his detriment. When he was first given the job it was supposedly as a caretaker so I never for one moment entertained the thought that almost 2 years down the line we'd still be stuck with him. Naive perhaps but up to then I had never come across the Rao family and their friend Mr J Anderson and had had no indication of the devious nature of Kean. I've been in several jobs where quite unpromising people have actually turned out to be rather good at their job, but that was because they were prepared to listen and learn and work their way into the position they held, taking advice from those who knew what they were doing. Since Kean did none of this it wasn't long - perhaps when he was confirmed in the job - that I realised he was useless - didn't take long Gordon but I'm not yet quite the old cynic

[thenodrog]

You won't hear a bad word from me about our old directors or managers like Hughes and Allardyce. Tremendous respect for the job they managed to do at the club, which should never be underestimated. They were forced to work within severe limitations though, especially in the last few years. It is the main reason why I defended Sam so vehemently during his tenure here.

Their input and value was questioned by many at the time. Seems laughable now...... if it wasn't so bloody tragic.