Jon Dahl Tomasson - no longer Sweden coach

[KentExile]

12 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Devil's advocate mode:

We spent £10m on players but sold better ones for £12m. So its almost exactly the same percentage.

Funny one that.

Who'd have thought that selling good players and bringing in inferior replacements wouldn't work for either Club?

Not to disagree with your post, I basically agree with what you have said.  But....

This summer it was the same %, However we have had multiple seasons preceding this one where we have offloaded Wharton, Szmodics, got the Raya money, and reinvested basically none of it.

Remember that incommings do not impact Rovers budget, our budget is for some reason set in stone and cannot be altered increased ever.  So if we are to take Rovers/Gestede/Pasha at face value (I know, I know), we have only spent that % this summer by pure coincidence, and our past transfer income vs expenditure does back that up

 

Edited as per Wilsden

Edited yesterday at 11:54 by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, KentExile said:

Not to disagree with your post, I basically agree with what you have said.  But....

This summer it was the same %, However we have had multiple seasons preceding this one where we have offloaded Wharton, Szmodics, got the Ray money, and reinvested basically none of it.

Remember that incommings do not impact Rovers budget, our budget is for some reason set in stone and cannot be altered ever.  So if we are to take Rovers/Gestede/Pasha at face value (I know, I know), we have only spent that % this summer by pure coincidence, and our past transfer income vs expenditure does back that up

I’m pretty certain it can be reduced.

[KentExile]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’m pretty certain it can be reduced.

Fair comment, I have edited my previous post

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Not to disagree with your post, I basically agree with what you have said.  But....

This summer it was the same %, However we have had multiple seasons preceding this one where we have offloaded Wharton, Szmodics, got the Raya money, and reinvested basically none of it.

Remember that incommings do not impact Rovers budget, our budget is for some reason set in stone and cannot be altered increased ever.  So if we are to take Rovers/Gestede/Pasha at face value (I know, I know), we have only spent that % this summer by pure coincidence, and our past transfer income vs expenditure does back that up

 

Edited as per Wilsden

Agreed.

Wasn't trying to defend them in any way.

That incoming transfer money vanished into the ether on running expenses like it never existed because at the time they seemed to begrudge providing a guarantee for any money sent over.

I suppose the acid test would be if we ever made a couple of really big sales in future (as unlikely as it seems at present) whether or not a substantial amount would be reinvested.

Seemingly not according to Gestede.

Which from a fan's point of view begs the question - what's the point of it all?

There isn't one.

[roversfan99]

47 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Agreed.

Wasn't trying to defend them in any way.

That incoming transfer money vanished into the ether on running expenses like it never existed because at the time they seemed to begrudge providing a guarantee for any money sent over.

I suppose the acid test would be if we ever made a couple of really big sales in future (as unlikely as it seems at present) whether or not a substantial amount would be reinvested.

Seemingly not according to Gestede.

Which from a fan's point of view begs the question - what's the point of it all?

There isn't one.

It wasnt because of the guarantee. Its an easy excuse.

They did the same with the Armstrong money.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It wasnt because of the guarantee. Its an easy excuse.

They did the same with the Armstrong money.

 

As I've said all along - they COULD have provided guarantees and similar levels of funding to previously - they just didnt want to.

[roversfan99]

19 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

As I've said all along - they COULD have provided guarantees and similar levels of funding to previously - they just didnt want to.

But again, they have very rarely willingly "pumped in" money, before, during or after the court case and need for a guarantee.

There has only been one year where they didnt need to put money in, but its an anomoly based on an academy graduate record sale, very atypical from what they usually HAVE to do just like all Championship owners and offset losses. Had Wharton not been who he was, they would still like every other year had to cover losses.

I feel like your historical desire to often deflect blame away from the owners and onto various individuals is perhaps based on a misunderstanding regarding the money they raise via share capital each year. You once said that Mowbray had wasted £100m of funding over 5 years which sums up this misunderstanding. 

[RevidgeBlue]

39 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I feel like your historical desire to often deflect blame away from the owners and onto various individuals is perhaps based on a misunderstanding regarding the money they raise via share capital each year. You once said that Mowbray had wasted £100m of funding over 5 years which sums up this misunderstanding. 

Don't be so patronising.

Im not misunderstanding anything nor did I ever say "Mowbray wasted £100m."

However whilst he was here they put funding into the Club to a higher level than now and to a much better level than JDT and Eustace had to get by on.

Whether the exact figure during Mowbray's tenure was 80, 90 or £100m is irrelevant. The support was greater than is available now and Mowbray wasted it on his road to nowhere and by handing out contracts like sweeties to players who didnt warrant it or who were past it whilst not extending the contracts of key players.

.

 

[roversfan99]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Don't be so patronising.

Im not misunderstanding anything nor did I ever say "Mowbray wasted £100m."

However whilst he was here they put funding into the Club to a higher level than now and to a much better level than JDT and Eustace had to get by on.

Whether the exact figure during Mowbray's tenure was 80, 90 or £100m is irrelevant. The support was greater than is available now and Mowbray wasted it on his road to nowhere and by handing out contracts like sweeties to players who didnt warrant it or who were past it whilst not extending the contracts of key players.

.

 

Championship clubs run at a loss. Therefore, owners have to offset those losses every year. Thats not to be confused with owners who put money in to improve the team.

Also, surely after what we have seen since, you now realise it wasnt Mowbray who wasnt willing to give suitable new contracts to key players.

They had that one season where we spent £10m but most summers we were scratching around. The last summer, we sold Armstrong and they turned the taps totally off. Its what they do regularly and thats my point. Lets stop pinning too much blame on individuals outside of Venkys/Suhail. Its been a consistent theme, and them offsetting losses shouldnt be seen as them pumping in money, its just a mandatory obligation. 

[chaddyrovers]

Could be interesting move by Norwich if JDT got that job. Could see Swansea being in for him. 

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

It wasnt because of the guarantee. Its an easy excuse.

They did the same with the Armstrong money.

 

The Armstrong sale and the STC sale was needed to avoid an transfer embargo cos we were well above the FFP limit

[davulsukur]

No idea what the state of the Norwich squad is like, whether it's really poor or Manning was just a dreadful manager. 

If the squad has enough quality, JDT should be able to come in and have a decent impact there.

The wheels fell off here but it was probably because the owners pulled the rug, rather than JDT's management.

If it's a poor squad, he's probably not the right man for the job.

[Waggy76]

50 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

No idea what the state of the Norwich squad is like, whether it's really poor or Manning was just a dreadful manager. 

If the squad has enough quality, JDT should be able to come in and have a decent impact there.

The wheels fell off here but it was probably because the owners pulled the rug, rather than JDT's management.

If it's a poor squad, he's probably not the right man for the job.

I cannot see, a team in the relegation zone in mid November , employing JDT! 

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Could be interesting move by Norwich if JDT got that job. Could see Swansea being in for him. 

The Armstrong sale and the STC sale was needed to avoid an transfer embargo cos we were well above the FFP limit

Youve certainly always been one to swallow everything you have been told by the club.

The point was that the owners have consistently failed to invest in the club and them doing what every Championship owner has to do and offset losses should not be confused with anything resembling ambition or a want to do better.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Youve certainly always been one to swallow everything you have been told by the club.

The point was that the owners have consistently failed to invest in the club and them doing what every Championship owner has to do and offset losses should not be confused with anything resembling ambition or a want to do better.

It was widely reported at times but let's not look for things that aren't there cos I need a whinge or a moan

We were massive over the FFP threshold https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19729186.blackburn-rovers-transfer-business-key-remaining-ffp-compliant/

 

[JHRover]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Could be interesting move by Norwich if JDT got that job. Could see Swansea being in for him. 

The Armstrong sale and the STC sale was needed to avoid an transfer embargo cos we were well above the FFP limit

Says who?

Lancashire Telegraph? They get their info (or did) from the club stooges, that was until they started to act like real reporters so the club cut them off as they weren't toeing the party line. 

And why has nobody else needed to sell prime real estate and players for over £10 million to avoid such embargos?

Edited 21 hours ago by JHRover

[chaddyrovers]

4 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Says who?

Lancashire Telegraph? They get their info (or did) from the club stooges, that was until they started to act like real reporters so the club cut them off as they weren't toeing the party line. 

And why has nobody else needed to sell prime real estate and players for over £10 million to avoid such embargos?

Look at finances JH. We were way off FFP threshold but of course you go on your soap box and it didnt fit your opinions

[JHRover]

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Look at finances JH. We were way off FFP threshold but of course you go on your soap box and it didnt fit your opinions

I'd have thought even you would have dropped the old FFP excuse by now Chaddy. 

It has been nothing more than a convenient excuse used to explain a lack of interest/investment from the owners. The last 4-5 years have (if anyone needed it) provided proof that our problems are nothing to do with FFP, and probably never have been. 

Fortunately for those who hold BRFC hostage a shiny new excuse came along just in time - the Indian legal action. Now that one is wearing off they've just given up altogether and are effectively admitting that the owners just don't want to invest, not that they can't. 

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I'd have thought even you would have dropped the old FFP excuse by now Chaddy. 

It has been nothing more than a convenient excuse used to explain a lack of interest/investment from the owners. The last 4-5 years have (if anyone needed it) provided proof that our problems are nothing to do with FFP, and probably never have been. 

Fortunately for those who hold BRFC hostage a shiny new excuse came along just in time - the Indian legal action. Now that one is wearing off they've just given up altogether and are effectively admitting that the owners just don't want to invest, not that they can't. 

Its clear and obvious that we would fail FFP meaning an embargo. 

But no.point contining another boring debate going on about something that happy 4 years ago. 

[roversfan99]

Again, Armstrong was just an example. Point being, very rarely have they actively invested into the team, even under Mowbray, and investing for the purpose of ambition and trying to do our best shouldnt be confused with offsetting losses every year by raising share capital as every owner at this level is obliged to do to cover expenses being higher than income, notably even an aggressively slashed wage bill.

It must be much easier though swallowing everything the club says without questioning. Why at that point where we so far off FFP limits? Was we so far off that we couldnt spend ANY of the Armstrong proceeds. 

[Rogerb]

The last time we were under embargo the wage ceiling was £10k per week for any free transfer or loan. That was ten years ago. Presumably the imposed wage ceiling has increased in the meantime.

We might be better off under embargo for the quality of player we could attract without spending any fees on transfers on European projects on low wages.

[Tomphil2]

17 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Again, Armstrong was just an example. Point being, very rarely have they actively invested into the team, even under Mowbray, and investing for the purpose of ambition and trying to do our best shouldnt be confused with offsetting losses every year by raising share capital as every owner at this level is obliged to do to cover expenses being higher than income, notably even an aggressively slashed wage bill.

It must be much easier though swallowing everything the club says without questioning. Why at that point where we so far off FFP limits? Was we so far off that we couldnt spend ANY of the Armstrong proceeds. 

They did invest in the early days of Mowbray, circa 15 million over a couple of years in AA, Gallagher and Brereton which was significant for a club like us.

They also allowed a lower mid table wage budget for a while and didn't force any sales.  I'm sure JDT and Eustace would've been in heaven comparatively to what they were dealt.

Problem is they stopped that backing then a season or two later began the cutbacks. Perhaps if they'd continued it he'd have had a bit more success but at the same time perhaps they weren't impressed with the money spent on Gallagher and BB and what they saw in return on the pitch.

No doubt various sets of advisers at play again offering conflicting solutions.

It was said on here a few years ago by the stats man who used to post that the feeling was why spend that money and wages to finish just in the top ten when you can spend less and finish midtable.

Clearly showing the complete lack of ambition years ago so no surprise we are where we are now.

As you say paying the running costs is just part of the ownership requirements for most in this league. We aren't special case scenario as some like to pretend both inside Ewood and in the fanbase.

 

[Wheelton Blue]

Interesting article here about Notlob.

Since taking over, their owners/investors have invested 10m per annum.....at a League 1 club getting 20k+ gates.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/25606467.bolton-wanderers-chairman-reveals-60m-investment-club/

[wilsdenrover]

3 hours ago, Rogerb said:

The last time we were under embargo the wage ceiling was £10k per week for any free transfer or loan. That was ten years ago. Presumably the imposed wage ceiling has increased in the meantime.

We might be better off under embargo for the quality of player we could attract without spending any fees on transfers on European projects on low wages.

This is decided on a case by case basis.

The rumour was Sheffield Wednesday were/are restricted to £7,000 per week.

Edited 46 minutes ago by wilsdenrover

[Rogerb]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

This is decided on a case by case basis.

The rumour was Sheffield Wednesday were/are restricted to £7,000 per week.

Maybe not then.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Tomphil2 said:

They did invest in the early days of Mowbray, circa 15 million over a couple of years in AA, Gallagher and Brereton which was significant for a club like us.

They also allowed a lower mid table wage budget for a while and didn't force any sales.  I'm sure JDT and Eustace would've been in heaven comparatively to what they were dealt.

Problem is they stopped that backing then a season or two later began the cutbacks. Perhaps if they'd continued it he'd have had a bit more success but at the same time perhaps they weren't impressed with the money spent on Gallagher and BB and what they saw in return on the pitch.

No doubt various sets of advisers at play again offering conflicting solutions.

It was said on here a few years ago by the stats man who used to post that the feeling was why spend that money and wages to finish just in the top ten when you can spend less and finish midtable.

Clearly showing the complete lack of ambition years ago so no surprise we are where we are now.

As you say paying the running costs is just part of the ownership requirements for most in this league. We aren't special case scenario as some like to pretend both inside Ewood and in the fanbase.

 

The £10m summer was the one where they showed a bit of intent but important to note that the squad 2 years prior had totally been gutted of anyone remotely valuable. In between was a summer when we spent a small amount and were at League 1 level. I feel like expectations rose well beyond what a club would expect based on the overall resources spent across the squad. Was significant for us but on top of those 2 previous seasons, was only enough to remove us from the relegation picture really.

The Gallagher signing the summer after obviously was still investment but mainly covered by the Raya sale.

Then again, they just lost interest. There were a couple of summers of no spending, no major sales, then the summer in which we sold Armstrong and reinvested nothing. Tiny bit of intent ahead of Tomasson's first season then again a really aggressive attempt to cut back.