London blue Posted Tuesday at 18:54 Posted Tuesday at 18:54 7 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said: Per the 2024 accounts costs were £38.6m which includes non cash items like depreciation and amortisation of player contracts. To suggest that there will be millions of pounds on top of that as a budget flies in the face of what we know to be the case. So she's just over 10% off. I'm not sure that warrants questioning her sanity. Quote
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Mashed Potatoes Posted Tuesday at 18:58 Posted Tuesday at 18:58 5 minutes ago, Mike E said: You think £6.4m isn’t realistic? If we include events since those accounts were finalised, including the sacking of two managers and a DOF, as well as multiple backroom staff, and around £1.8-2m in agent fees alone, then I think we could hit that additional figure reasonably quickly. I can remember two managers leaving of their own accord, with reportedly the club receiving compensation in each case. But who were the two who were sacked ? Quote
Backroom Mike E Posted Tuesday at 19:58 Backroom Posted Tuesday at 19:58 58 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said: I can remember two managers leaving of their own accord, with reportedly the club receiving compensation in each case. But who were the two who were sacked ? Fair point actually. Although that does just remind me what a shitshow Venkys have reduced us to 😕 1 Quote
Backroom Mike E Posted Tuesday at 20:04 Backroom Posted Tuesday at 20:04 Now that I’ve paid attention to the source of the figures, could Rachel Dugdale have based her figure on the fact Venkys London Limited costs (year to 31/3/24) were £43 million? 1 Quote
Mattyblue Posted Tuesday at 20:05 Posted Tuesday at 20:05 We’ve sacked one manager in a decade. The rules of football don’t apply here. Quote
Brfcrule1 Posted yesterday at 06:05 Posted yesterday at 06:05 9 hours ago, Mike E said: Fair point actually. Although that does just remind me what a shitshow Venkys have reduced us to 😕 On 26/05/2025 at 09:20, chaddyrovers said: Speaking as someone who has no interest in women football or Rovers women football I think Rovers were wrong for the decision made but how they didnt communicated their decision properly to the players of the team was an utter disgraceful. People don't have interest in Women's football and then they judged it from that viewpoint Chris and you hit the nail on the head here it's not the fact the clubs been relegated it's how they've communicated it to the players it's just plain wrong imo when these clowns rocked up they promised to invest in every area of the club and that includes the women's team if the circumstances have changed & they no longer can do the decent thing & put the club up for sale Spot on Mike that's the biggest issue with this lot it's how they've run this club & ruined it 2 Quote
Mattyblue Posted yesterday at 08:08 Posted yesterday at 08:08 So voluntarily relegating the team is not the issue, just the fact they weren’t communicated with earlier that they no longer had a team or job? Quote
Mattyblue Posted yesterday at 14:17 Posted yesterday at 14:17 … make that a voluntary double relegation https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/june/04/club-update---blackburn-rovers-women/ Quote
wilsdenrover Posted yesterday at 14:27 Posted yesterday at 14:27 9 minutes ago, Mattyblue said: … make that a voluntary double relegation https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/june/04/club-update---blackburn-rovers-women/ We’ll be the best funded team in that tier right?? Coz they’re complaining about the increase in cost not what they have been paying right?? Quote
GHR Posted yesterday at 14:29 Posted yesterday at 14:29 11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said: … make that a voluntary double relegation https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/june/04/club-update---blackburn-rovers-women/ "Internal discussions with relevant club staff will now take place regarding the structure of the Women’s team going forward." In other words, what's the bare minimum we can get away with, minus about 10% on top. 2 Quote
arbitro Posted yesterday at 15:27 Posted yesterday at 15:27 The sponsor of the Rovers women, Dakota Biotech are apparently the business who offered to fund the running of the women's team. The company is owned by an ex Darrener and keen Rovers fan. 5 Quote
Exiled_Rover Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 3 hours ago, GHR said: "Internal discussions with relevant club staff will now take place regarding the structure of the Women’s team going forward." In other words, what's the bare minimum we can get away with, minus about 10% on top. The women would be mad to stay - I assume anyone good enough to play last year will be screaming bloody murder to get out of their Rovers contract. 4 Quote
Upside Down Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 1 hour ago, Exiled_Rover said: The women would be mad to stay - I assume anyone good enough to play last year will be screaming bloody murder to get out of their Rovers contract. So just like the men then. 3 Quote
wilsdenrover Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 10 minutes ago, Upside Down said: So just like the men then. Rovers, at the forefront of equality 😁😁 3 Quote
Exiled_Rover Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago 7 hours ago, Mattyblue said: … make that a voluntary double relegation https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/june/04/club-update---blackburn-rovers-women/ I wonder if we had to convince a league to accept us? We clearly have no intention on trying for promotion, so the league below was well within their rights to tell us to jog on. Quote
lraC Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago 10 hours ago, arbitro said: The sponsor of the Rovers women, Dakota Biotech are apparently the business who offered to fund the running of the women's team. The company is owned by an ex Darrener and keen Rovers fan. It’s a big own goal, by the club, as we already know. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet, is the current shirt sponsors, Watson Ramsbottom solicitors, were the ladies shirt sponsors, previously. Doing what they have, especially given the kind gesture by Dakota Biotech, could well have ruined a potential future men’s sponsor. It’s very short term thinking, by the club. I know Elton Ashworth, who negotiated the shirt deal with the club, is a big fan and it was the deal with the ladies shirt sponsorship, that led to the men’s deal, eventually. Perhaps the coalition, will bring this to the attention of the media and maybe, ask the owner of Dakota, to go on record, with his feelings on this being declined, with any reasons given, for it being rejected. 3 Quote
alex l Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 8 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said: I wonder if we had to convince a league to accept us? We clearly have no intention on trying for promotion, so the league below was well within their rights to tell us to jog on. Negotiated in line with the women's football league. Apparently in such an event, a relegation of at least 2 leagues has to occur. I suppose it avoids the scenario of the club finishing top the following season and being back in the same position i.e. not accepting/being able to comply with promotion. Quote
GHR Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago (edited) 17 hours ago, wilsdenrover said: Our Women's team starting Venky's reign of terror at the top table of English women's football and 15 years into it being in the same division as the second best team in Durham really does sum the whole wretched affair up. Edited 8 hours ago by GHR Sp. 6 Quote
Upside Down Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 1 hour ago, GHR said: Our Women's team starting Venky's reign of terror at the top table of English women's football and 15 years into it being in the same division as the second best team in Durham really does sum the whole wretched affair up. At least there's the massive derby clash against Chorley. Quote
Mattyblue Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago Few of those sound like 5 a side/pub quiz team names. 2 Quote
arbitro Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago In this whole sorry saga I wonder if they have got a ground to play their home matches on. Last season Ewood was used (I'm sure I read there was a financial inducement to do so) but I can't see it being used now given the status they have been dropped to. Hiring another ground can be expensive. I know that a few years ago it was £2k per match to use the LFA facility in Leyland. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it's something they hadn't thought of. 1 Quote
Exiled_Rover Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 33 minutes ago, Mattyblue said: Just send them up Pleasy. They'll just make them play behind closed doors at the training ground. Quote
Exiled_Rover Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 39 minutes ago, arbitro said: In this whole sorry saga I wonder if they have got a ground to play their home matches on. Last season Ewood was used (I'm sure I read there was a financial inducement to do so) but I can't see it being used now given the status they have been dropped to. Hiring another ground can be expensive. I know that a few years ago it was £2k per match to use the LFA facility in Leyland. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if it's something they hadn't thought of. Wait it only costs £2k to hire out that stadium for a match?! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.