2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[joey_big_nose]

2 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

The club has no debt to the owners.

The only money the club needs to pay to the owners ( via a subsidiary) is rent on the training ground.  

The money they have spent over the last 15 years are simply running costs, not investments. 

Well the money Venky's advance us does appear on the balance sheet as debt... £147.8M and counting. Obviously there is no way we can pay it back. But it is there in black and white (and highlighted in my yellow).

 

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/blackburn-rovers-finances-202324

[JBiz]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Technically, (as with Jack) aren't the amounts that have been run up long term loans to the owners with no realistic expectation they'll ever be repaid?

Unless of course we got promoted and stayed there for a number of years.

One of the reasons people have said they won’t entertain a sale is they want some money back. 

[Crimpshrine]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

The club has plenty of debt to the owners - £134 million in the last set of accounts. 

Whether they’ll get even a penny of that back is an entirely different thing. 

Are you referring to the share allotments?   There is no loan agreement saying anything needs to be paid back

[joey_big_nose]

1 minute ago, JBiz said:

One of the reasons people have said they won’t entertain a sale is they want some money back. 

We are victims of the sunk cost fallacy...

[JHRover]

20 minutes ago, JBiz said:

You don’t think being fan owned is a sensible proposition but you think a sensible response is “do what everyone else has done and just get better owners”.

The way you make it sound, it should be easy to sort, crack on.

No I don't - aside from Portsmouth following their financial collapse no comparable sized club in England has successfully gone into fan ownership. It doesn't work at this level or size of club.

Note also that Portsmouth, despite 15,000+ a week turning up in Leagues One and Two, promptly ditched the idea and sold out to the Americans because they realised that to get back up to the top 2 divisions they needed external investment. 

It is relatively easy to find new owners yes - if you like I could name you dozens of examples across the top 3 leagues in England. No guarantees of success I accept, but there are plenty of options out there and I think we can probably agree that they'd struggle to beat Venkys in the 'unfit and improper' rankings even if they were awful. 

[Crimpshrine]

8 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Well the money Venky's advance us does appear on the balance sheet as debt... £147.8M and counting. Obviously there is no way we can pay it back. But it is there in black and white (and highlighted in my yellow).

 

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/blackburn-rovers-finances-202324

I am not debating the fact that Venky's fund the club and it has cost them a fortune but the accounts don't mention anything about debt. Just profit and loss. 

[JBiz]

8 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Well the money Venky's advance us does appear on the balance sheet as debt... £147.8M and counting. Obviously there is no way we can pay it back. But it is there in black and white (and highlighted in my yellow).

 

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/blackburn-rovers-finances-202324

Great to see some Swiss ramble in this thread

[roversfan99]

47 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The risk of "going for it" is that you might get promoted then instantly relegated and sacked I suppose.

Easier and a lot less hassle in the long run to plod on indefinitely in the lower reaches of the Championship with no pressure or expectations of success on you.

If you got promoted, your wage would automatically go up considerably, you would potentially be offered a bumper new contract. You would be expected to be relegated again but that promotion would also be great on your CV to get you future jobs. And worst case scenario, the club sacks you and you are left being paid out for the now increased contract that you have. 

It makes absolutely zero sense for any manager to not want and strive for promotion. They all do, some just dont have the competence.

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

We are victims of the sunk cost fallacy...

£25m in wages per annum and turnover £21m tells everyone who needs to know, that this is only costing more and rising, year in year out.

In the words of the Grand master Flash, "The longer you stay, the more you pay".

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, JBiz said:

One of the reasons people have said they won’t entertain a sale is they want some money back. 

Originally, they paid the Walkers a total of £24m if I recall correctly plus taking on the external  Bank overdraft of c£15m at the time.

They're never getting any more than that unless we get promoted. The £200m or whatever it is is gone. The trick is finding someone who thinks they can turn us round and is willing to pay them something akin to what they paid for us with the remainder of the debt written off 

[wilsdenrover]

12 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

Are you referring to the share allotments?   There is no loan agreement saying anything needs to be paid back

Nope, that’s a different figure.

I’m referring to the money owed to group undertakings.

Also, in addition, see the below from Venkys London accounts:

[bluebruce]

37 minutes ago, Emerald Isle Rover said:

Not everyone 

hull and sheff w fans would argue otherwise 

Hull and Sheff W haven't had a 15 year nightmare with little sign of ending. Hull have been in the Prem in that period. Yes, under different owners I believe, but that's the thing about awful owners, they usually burn out and leave. Ours stick around and the purgatory continues. Chances are, Hull and Sheff W will both get to the Prem again before we do, under new owners.

Coventry used to be one of those cautionary tales of what could happen with other owners, look where they are now.

Edited 21 hours ago by bluebruce

[JBiz]

6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

No I don't - aside from Portsmouth following their financial collapse no comparable sized club in England has successfully gone into fan ownership. It doesn't work at this level or size of club.

Note also that Portsmouth, despite 15,000+ a week turning up in Leagues One and Two, promptly ditched the idea and sold out to the Americans because they realised that to get back up to the top 2 divisions they needed external investment. 

It is relatively easy to find new owners yes - if you like I could name you dozens of examples across the top 3 leagues in England. No guarantees of success I accept, but there are plenty of options out there and I think we can probably agree that they'd struggle to beat Venkys in the 'unfit and improper' rankings even if they were awful. 

Definitely agree on the last point, and it’s still boggles the brain how they passed that test.

Pompey are a good example because of what they went through and what it took them a to get back to this level. I’m sure we’d both prefer watching Rovers fighting its way back but being directed and run by people who have a vested interest and care for the club? 

We’d all take any level of football I think, for a degree of pride and expectation of being well run, not an expectation of the next fuck up due to ignorance.

[MarkBRFC]

3 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Hull and Sheff W haven't had a 15 year nightmare with little sign of ending. Both of them have been in the Prem in that period.

Sheff Wed haven't been in the Prem since the year 2000!

[wilsdenrover]

To add to my last post, this is from the club’s last accounts:

[wilsdenrover]

15 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I am not debating the fact that Venky's fund the club and it has cost them a fortune but the accounts don't mention anything about debt. Just profit and loss. 

They are amongst the creditors on the club’s balance sheet.

[bluebruce]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Originally, they paid the Walkers a total of £24m if I recall correctly plus taking on the external  Bank overdraft of c£15m at the time.

They're never getting any more than that unless we get promoted. The £200m or whatever it is is gone. The trick is finding someone who thinks they can turn us round and is willing to pay them something akin to what they paid for us with the remainder of the debt written off 

Getting what they paid for us back would be child's play if they wrote off their debt to us. They could probably get double that if they were interested in entertaining bids. The money in the game has changed significantly.

Crappy Derby County were bought for 33 million when in administration last year, but 55 million really as they also bought their stadium for 22 mill. There is a claim that Sheff W turned down 75 million dollars last month.

[wilsdenrover]

30 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Technically, (as with Jack) aren't the amounts that have been run up long term loans to the owners with no realistic expectation they'll ever be repaid?

Unless of course we got promoted and stayed there for a number of years.

Edit: Wilesden beat me to it.

If I remember correctly (and it’s sadly now so long ago) Jack periodically wrote off the loans he’d made.

Fifteen years in and Venkys have never done the same. 

Edited 21 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[bluebruce]

8 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Sheff Wed haven't been in the Prem since the year 2000!

Apologies, think I got mixed up with some other club. There's that much yo-yoing goes on from this league to the Championship, nearly everyone else seems to have done it at some point since we came down. They have however been in the playoffs twice since Venkys came, which we haven't done once since relegation.

Edited 21 hours ago by bluebruce

[London blue]

Recent post from the rovers account priming us for the fact that CB's replacement is already here.

[Crimpshrine]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Nope, that’s a different figure.

I’m referring to the money owed to group undertakings.

Also, in addition, see the below from Venkys London accounts:

OK, fair enough in that respect - I know you have a better knowledge of all this than I do, but declaring shareholder loans rather than equity investment is really just for the tax advantages I would guess?. In reality I don't think the owners are expecting this money back or treating it as a debt. It's just money that was needed for running costs.. The club has no loan repayment plans as far as I know.

[bluebruce]

4 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

OK, fair enough in that respect - I know you have a better knowledge of all this than I do, but declaring shareholder loans rather than equity investment is really just for the tax advantages I would guess?. In reality I don't think the owners are expecting this money back or treating it as a debt. It's just money that was needed for running costs.. The club has no loan repayment plans as far as I know.

They certainly don't seem to want the money back as things stand. However, if they got into financial trouble, or sold the club, I certainly don't believe they would treat it as though it doesn't exist.

Otherwise, they'd have written it off, as Jack used to do (pretty sure Wilsden is indeed remembering that correctly).

They absolutely won't get it all back (not unless by some miracle they turned us back into a steady Prem club maybe), but I bet they'd try to extract as much of it as possible. Maybe even leave some on the club's back if sold on, with loan repayments arranged.

Edited 21 hours ago by bluebruce

[davulsukur]

4 minutes ago, London blue said:

Recent post from the rovers account priming us for the fact that CB's replacement is already here.

Was just about to post the same thing. Interesting quotes from the article:

Quote

 “I think you can see clearly in the transfer market, we are in a transition. We didn’t expect to do that this summer, but now it’s time."

So, we have already changed this summers plan and are now, apparently, in a transition period.

Quote

 “So we are reducing the (average) age of the player. We have a clear profile of player we want – young, very athletic, very able to get that intensity and technically to be able to give us some possibility with the ball."

We want to reduce the average age of the squad.

Batth and Weimann were probably never really staying, especially as we re-signed Forshaw, if we are looking at younger players.

Tronstad turns 30 next month, so I suspect there is little appetite from the club to sign him back up.

As Brittain is on his way out (27) and replaced with a 23 year old, I suspect that the club are in no rush to sign Travis (27, 28 later this year) up either.

[MarkBRFC]

3 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

I suspect that the club are in no rush to sign Travis (27, 28 later this year) up either.

I suspect that Baradji was to be signed as a Travis replacement, much like Alebiosu has been signed to replace Brittain.

Traveres is Tronstad's replacement.

Edited 21 hours ago by MarkBRFC

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

OK, fair enough in that respect - I know you have a better knowledge of all this than I do, but declaring shareholder loans rather than equity investment is really just for the tax advantages I would guess?. In reality I don't think the owners are expecting this money back or treating it as a debt. It's just money that was needed for running costs.. The club has no loan repayment plans as far as I know.

The owner’s words (within Venky London’s accounts) suggest they hope one day to get it back. 

The owner’s actions (ever since they darkened our door) will almost certainly ensure they won’t.