Valérien Ismaël: Blackburn Rovers Head Coach

[miqaayil]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I think it's more likely that the owners don't WANT to be relegated but that Pasha and Gestede (and Waggott when he was still here) pitched them this masterplan about how they could reduce the age of the squad with a view to selling players on, save a shitload of costs in terms of wages and STILL retain Championship status!

(Cue £ signs!)

In short the stooges have played Russian roulette with our Championship future and probably failed. The live bullet is about to go off.

I still dont think either that anyone has accounted properly for the loss of Championship TV Revenue if we go down plus all the other associated loss of revenue.  

The net position will be we'll be a lot worse off.

Sorry i do disagree ...the owner Mr Pasha and the Signboard Vs do want relegation .. as low this club will go ... then declare bankruptcy but not administration ...awaiting favourable climate in India for write off of SBI Loans....i hope i'm wrong but it's the only way everyone involves walks away unscathed ....

i pray to god i'm wrong but all i'm seeing is managed decline 

[Tomphil2]

8 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Is it possible that last time they hadn't put massive wage reduction clauses into players contracts for relegation to League one?

But that this time they have? 

Still have the loss of revenue to factor in, as you say

They had done on quite a few of them but we have to remember a lot of them were on big long contracts unlike now, allegedly.

They got rewarded with one year contract extensions on promotion which probably was part of the deal when exercising the reduction clauses so they didn't really lose out long term.

[Roverthechimp]

6 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Is it possible that last time they hadn't put massive wage reduction clauses into players contracts for relegation to League one?

But that this time they have? 

Still have the loss of revenue to factor in, as you say

Question is how many of the squad post summer 2026 will be on a "championship" wage even if we are still in the championship? Pears, Cantwell, Pickering, Wharton and maybe Carter (though historically own products have been on the lower end of the pay scales). We know who they are trying to shift through the door - add on transfer fees for Alebiosu and possibly Gudjohnsen (if he continues his scoring record) and suddenly the losses aren't so bad (maybe even a net profit if Adam Wharton gets a move and Alebiosu deal is structured with a fair amount up front)

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Tomphil2 said:

They had bounce back first time in mind last time though and even though wages dropped they were still double figure weekly pay for a lot of that squad.

Plus they spent a bit with promotion in mind.

The weekly wages of these players is no doubt in the main significantly less than last time and presuming they weren't going all out for an instant return there'd be a net transfer scenario rather than a minus one. That might well balance any initial shock to the losses column and depending on what they do with the academy after the first season costs could be pulled more in line with established lge 1 clubs.

A load more variables offer themselves up as well, bin the training ground and move everything to the academy to save rent. The academy would probably be bookmarked to provide most of the lge 1 playing squad moving forwards so that would need maintaining but not forking out for transfers and bigger wages balances that a bit.

Shelve work on the ground and pitch as standard required are lower plus areas of Ewood could be mothballed etc etc.

Scary stuff but Indian accountants thousands of miles away won't give a shit about all that.

Our annual wage bill at March 2025 was around £5 million more than it was in March 2017 so a reduction of £10 million would be needed to get to our last L1 wage levels.

This is clearly possible, maybe even likely, given the apparent aims of Pasha etc - but last time this still lead to the £16 million pound losses I mentioned earlier.

As you say,  ‘savings’ would have to be made elsewhere, none of which would be anything other than detrimental to the club (and the team).

Player sales may negate the need for some of these cuts but, other than Toth and Ryan, who could we realistic expect to get decent money for?

However many cuts they make, they’ll still be losing money - the only way for them to stop this is to sell the club.

One day I hope they’ll realise, and I hope it’s one day very very soon.

Edited to add:

Last time we went down match day income ‘only’ dropped by £500,000 - I suspect the drop would be far greater this time…

 

Edited 1 hour ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

Is it possible that last time they hadn't put massive wage reduction clauses into players contracts for relegation to League one?

But that this time they have? 

Still have the loss of revenue to factor in, as you say

Possibly, I’ve no idea what sort of % a player would agree to having in his contract though.

 

[Tomphil2]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Our annual wage bill at March 2025 was around £5 million more than it was in March 2017 so a reduction of £10 million would be needed to get to our last L1 wage levels.

This is clearly possible, maybe even likely, given the apparent aims of Pasha etc - but last time this still lead to the £16 million pound losses I mentioned earlier.

As you say,  ‘savings’ would have to be made elsewhere, none of which would be anything other than detrimental to the club (and the team).

Player sales may negate the need for some of these cuts but, other than Toth and Ryan, who could we realistic expect to get decent money for?

However many cuts they make, they’ll still be losing money - the only way for them to stop this is to sell the club.

One day I hope they’ll realise, and I hope it’s one day very very soon.

 

 

Problem is they haven't been bothered about losing money it's debatable that its served them some kind of purpose in their accounting process.

Seems now though that they want to lose less so the model is being tailored to that and will lead to league 1 eventually as i'm sure even they know.

So a lower cost lower loss future is on the cards.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Tomphil2 said:

Problem is they haven't been bothered about losing money it's debatable that its served them some kind of purpose in their accounting process.

Seems now though that they want to lose less so the model is being tailored to that and will lead to league 1 eventually as i'm sure even they know.

So a lower cost lower loss future is on the cards.

There’s either a reason it suits them or they are very very stupid.

I guess it could be both.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, miqaayil said:

Sorry i do disagree ...the owner Mr Pasha and the Signboard Vs do want relegation .. as low this club will go ... then declare bankruptcy but not administration ...awaiting favourable climate in India for write off of SBI Loans....i hope i'm wrong but it's the only way everyone involves walks away unscathed ....

i pray to god i'm wrong but all i'm seeing is managed decline 

Assuming you're right for a moment

1) When you say they'd walk away "unscathed" are you claiming the entire amount of their "investment" in the Club consists of borrowed money from BOI ?

2) What would constitute a "favourable climate"?

[lraC]

1 hour ago, miqaayil said:

Sorry i do disagree ...the owner Mr Pasha and the Signboard Vs do want relegation .. as low this club will go ... then declare bankruptcy but not administration ...awaiting favourable climate in India for write off of SBI Loans....i hope i'm wrong but it's the only way everyone involves walks away unscathed ....

i pray to god i'm wrong but all i'm seeing is managed decline 

Have you any evidence of this, or is it just your best guess?

[Tomphil2]

The problem i have with that scenario is a 100 million borrowing facility would have to surely be secured against something.

So they couldn't walk away without losing something unless it's secured against thousands of acres of scrubland.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Tomphil2 said:

The problem i have with that scenario is a 100 million borrowing facility would have to surely be secured against something.

So they couldn't walk away without losing something unless it's secured against thousands of acres of scrubland.

Which would need to be worth at least the 100 million or the bank wouldn’t have let them use it as security.

[lraC]

Imagine putting £500 per month into your ISA and ever year finding out it was worth less than a quarter of the amount you have put in.

Would you stick with it for 15 years or stop at some point, accepting you are investing in a dud.