Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Rovers Rumours & Speculation


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Broughtons main remit as far as i can see was to source and bring in young players to develop, get mins into and quickly increase in value. Forget the experienced signings and those paid a fee for there are plenty of pointers that they were already being lined up before GB arrived having been identified and the wheels put in motion with the previous mob.

Whether he played a part or not again i'll come back to his main reason for being brought in here, the identifying and recruiting of players to develop which is supposed to be his area of expertise.

Leo, Ennis and Tel are shockers and that side of it shows he really isn't up to the task, then throw in the 4 yr deal, the 800 grand fee etc and the alleged numbers he struck for McGuire, well it's no wonder hes been reeled in.

Yep, he seems well up for the "model" of developing players and flogging them on for a profit but even if you think that model is a good idea, Szmodics apart, none of his signings fall into that bracket.

Anyone could be lucky enough to inherit a generational talent like Wharton and turn a profit, but look at the total amount we've received as well for the 2 "crown jewels" Phillips and Wharton.

Absolutely pitiful.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Is it just me or are all the players who left on free transfers after the owners turned down cash offers for them all Mowbray signings?

 

Mowbray an Venus advising them to go elsewhere and get bigger money which of course would be larger because of being of frees with no fee.

Tossers the lot of them.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah because those huge mythical fees were just that and even more fantasy was the idea anything would be re-invested.

For the record Mowbray admitted he was telling them to go get more brass elsewhere the complete t##t.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just go back and find the stuff he was saying in the local media at the time it was pretty obvious he was hardly making much effort to keep them.

If he's saying that in public what's he saying to then in private, it was the usual shoulder shrugging oh well if they can't get more here they might as well go elsewhere it's a short career they have families, mortgages etc.

All amounts to the same thing.

Doesn't really matter anyway because the amounts we are talking about wouldn't have added up to the Wharton fee so coming in instalments as it all does it would have disappeared instantly into running costs as per. Selling BBD at his peak for 15 million plus might have had a different outcome but the rest of them Waggot would just have earned his own brownie points telling the owners they could put a bit less in.

So it probably wouldn't have made a great deal of difference knowing what we know now, budgets would be slashed anyway and only freed up wages allowed to be used.

That's the model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Nyambe and Lenihan weren't, they were already at the club before Mowbray

Were there offers for them though? 

There were reports of 3.5m for Rothwell, 8m for Diaz and 2m for Gallagher.

All offers refused.

Yet they jump at the chance to sell Adam Wharton, Kaminski and Phillips (although granted the low buy out was probably negotiated from his end) for pennies on the dollar.

Maybe it's nothing but I am always suspicious about what goes on at this place, and with good cause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Blackburn Rovers would cease to exist without Venky’s. Nice one Atko 🤦‍♂️

(Cheers for the rebuttal though, Herby).

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

A really good comeback to what Atkins said.

Even some ex-players have Stockholm Syndrome.

It's a pity the Mail didn't ask Sutton for his opinion. He would've been far more critical.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking to a mate of mine about it post the game. Me and him have always had very similar views on everything Rovers.

But not this. It was the greatest hits of ‘who’d buy us?’, ‘look at the gates’, ‘£20million’, ‘JDT has led us to this’, ‘let’s just give this new guy a chance to turn it round’

Any chance of mass protests, if there was ever any chance, has now gone with that cannily timed manager change.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

I always struggle with an article that starts by talking about Jack Walker and Kenny Dalglish. It in my opinion, alludes that as fans we expect to be at that level still, which we all know needs oil barons money these days.

We simply want owners that care, have a plan and a desire to improve the club. I'm glad Herbie corrected Atkins on the lazy anology that we would be staring down the barrel without Venkys.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Very happy you torpedoed Atkins pro Venky comment.

The comment:

"If you did a poll about Venky's, most supporters would want them out. The problem then is that someone would have to buy a football club which is in so much debt, so you've got to be careful what you wish for."

 

Isn't the "debt" just Venky's lending money to themselves?   It's absurd to think that the club would be sold without Venky's forgiving that debt.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blue and White Blues said:

The comment:

"If you did a poll about Venky's, most supporters would want them out. The problem then is that someone would have to buy a football club which is in so much debt, so you've got to be careful what you wish for."

 

Isn't the "debt" just Venky's lending money to themselves?   It's absurd to think that the club would be sold without Venky's forgiving that debt.  

That narrative needs to be sung loudly, which is a widely helf belief among both fans and media. That is, the idea that whoever would buy us would have to stump up £200m is a myth. The Rao's would have to absorb that figure (if indeed that often quoted figure is correct in the first place.) Happy to be corrected.

Edited by aletheia
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aletheia said:

That narrative needs to be sung loudly, which is a widely helf belief among both fans and media. That is, the idea that whoever would buy us would have to stump up £200m is a myth. The Rao's would have to absorb that figure (if indeed that often quoted figure is correct in the first place.) Happy to be corrected.

So what physical assets does the club actually own?   I've read that they did a financial slight of hand where the practice facility was sold and is leased back to the club.   I presume some other slice of the Rao empire now owns the practice facility?   Who owns Ewood?   As a business, revenue comes from ticket sales, television revenue, and sponsorships like Totally Wicked.   There's a bit of revenue from RoversTV subscriptions and RoversStore kit.   I'm trying to understand why anyone would buy the club since the payroll and operating cost is less than the revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.