Jump to content

RoverCanada

Members
  • Content count

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About RoverCanada

  • Rank
    Premier League

Recent Profile Visitors

1,350 profile views
  1. Our embargo lasted several years? Am I missing something? Venky's certainly turned off the taps on transfer expenditures for awhile, but that wasn't directly due to FFP... Wednesday was fine for FFP in 16/17, but they've been projected to breach it in 17/18, hence one to keep an eye on... and if they breach in 17/18, they get hit with an embargo that lasts until they're back under the threshold... no FFP transfer embargo is likely to last that long as a few significant player sales will probably be enough in most caess, but I don't see it as something to be blase about. We certainly could try spending £6m this year and spread it out, but you need to expand a bit on what kind of strategy you actually have in mind. Do we spend £6m every summer? Then our amortisation will eventually rise to £6m/year, which is a hefty expense when our turnover is only ~£15m. Or do we spend £6m this year and hope those purchases are clever enough to be all that we need to purchase for several years? You roughly know our turnover and operating expenses, and now know how transfer expenditures are amortised. It shouldn't be too hard for you to do some arithmetic and propose what kind of wage structure and transfer expenditure you're hoping for going forward. The short answer is yes, we could obviously spend a lot more than Waggott/Mowbray/Venky's have decided on and stay under FFP if they're only looking to spend maybe a couple million on transfers and keep our wage bill under £15m. But that would mean a lot more losses, which means potentially a lot more debt for Venky's (and we're ultimately at the whims of what they're willing/able to fund). I'm not saying you're wrong for proposing that but anyone arguing for that should also not then whine about how indebted we've become to Venky's (not suggesting you've been whining yourself, just in general)
  2. I think you need to take a closer look at those clubs' accounts. Sheffield Wednesday and Wolves are certainly the current cases of teams that may be at the threshold of FFP sanctions and ones to keep an eye on, with Villa perhaps trailing after them. Forest, Leeds, and Derby, not so much. As I already pointed out, a few years of significant net sales by Forest have enabled them to just escape FFP sanctions last year and have given them significant headroom going forward. Also, as I said before, FFP is concerned about accounting losses, not cash losses. Hence, while Forest is set to spend £13m on Carvalho, supposehe signs a 4-year contract, that £13m is amortised so that it's a £3.25m expense this year and for the next three years. That appears to be part of how clubs gamble for promotion: spend a lot in 1-2 years and then amortise the costs over multiple years. That's part of why Sheffield Wednesday is getting close to FFP trouble now as they had £6m in amortisation expenses last year. as their years of net expenditure is now catching up to them. It's also an issue for Aston Villa, who had £24m in amortisation costs last year. The different treatment of sales and purchases is also what helps enable clubs to fairly quickly get out of FFP sanctions, as sales are booked in total when they occur. I assume that's part of how we got out of FFP sanctions fairly quickly despite losses of almost £80m over 13-15... You also brought up administration before, which is not what FFP is really about (at least sanctions-wise)... Administration is a potential result of significant, FFP-flouting losses over time, but FFP-sanctions don't mean administration (if anything, they may save a team from itself in avoiding administration!) Transfer embargoes are the main threat, and I don't think that should be dismissed so lightly (remember our transfer embargo window...?) Hence why I've repeatedly asked you to propose what amount of investment (and thus losses) do you want Venky's to incur now? Do you think they should look to lose £13m/year? Or even more so, and risk FFP sanctions? I think it's an entirely reasonable argument to propose we spend a lot now that our losses in the past few years have been fairly low, giving us a fair amount of headroom under the £39m max losses over 3 years threshold for a couple years. However, if that's the case, I'm also curious whether you're also comfortable with our debts to Venky's climbing ever further (perhaps a more relevant question is whether Venky's is comfortable with that!). It's a bit of a Catch 22... (This would be a rare case of a fan complaining that teams in the Championship aren't spending enough money!)
  3. Villa's potentially making some pretty drastic cuts this year... yes, something to keep an eye on... But they appear to be a case of gambling for a couple years with parachute payments and losing. I'm not sure why you're so confidant they won't be making such cuts. I think our embargo was only the summer window, no? Missing out on any transfer window is a pretty significant penalty. I wouldn't be so dismissive of the possibility given it's happened here before and in multiple other cases. (You're right about Bolton, my mistake mentioning them) Yes, Forest did just make a significant transfer splash, but that's after net transfer spend of -~£7m in 15-16 and -£11m in 16-17, and they sold Assombalonga for £15m this past year. They've cushioned their post-14-15 losses with player sales. FFP is over 3 years - they just squeezed under the FFP limit in 16-17 and that was largely due to the large losses in 14/15 - they've built up a fair amount of headroom for the next couple years. Forest's underlying revenue is about £5m more than us. Suppose they're willing to average £13m losses a year and stay just under FFP. If we're looking to only lose, say, £3m this year, that roughly gives them a £15m advantage over us (and maybe even more than that for the next couple years as they only had a loss of £4m in 16/17). Also, transfer purchases aren't booked entirely within the year they're incurred. They are amortised over the length of the contract, giving them further flexibility this year. Hence, lessening my original number, I was curious if you were advocating losses of, say, £10m-£13m/year, just staying under FFP, rather than the the single digit losses Venky's appears to only be comfortable with now. We only had an accounting loss of £5m over 15-16 and 16-17 due to our significant player sales. Barring whatever our League One losses were, we theoretically could spend quite a bit this year and stay within FFP. (and potentially even more so due to FFP allowing for excluding academy expenditures). But it obviously wouldn't be sustainable for multiple years. However, those advocating for that (and it's a fair proposal!) shouldn't then afterwards complain about how further indebted we'd become under Venky's...
  4. Setting aside what clubs have or haven't flouted FFP, out of curiosity, are you advocating for Venky's/Rovers to incur, say, £20m+ losses again, under the assumption that FFP is unenforceable/if we get promoted it doesn't matter/the resulting fines will be pithy? The latter may be true to an extent, but it is certainly a gamble... While the likes of QPR (still in the courts...), Bournemouth, maybe Wolves this past year, etc. have escaped with relatively light FFP sanctions, there have been quite a few transfer embargoes of varying severity (us, Bolton, Cardiff, Nottingham, Fulham). I think some can be a bit brazen in their hand-waving of FFP restrictions. (And the clubs you cite do have base turnovers of £25m+ compared to ~£15m for us, so even many non-parachute payment receiving clubs have a significant leg up on us)
  5. LT reporting that the option is appearance-based: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/16283240.Danny_Graham_signs_new_deal_to_stay_at_Rovers/?ref=mac Very sensible. As great as Graham was the last half of last year, you have to be a bit wary of his fitness going forward. Certainly glad he's back for the coming year at least!
  6. https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1003542814293143552 Thought I'd share that the ever excellent Swiss Ramble posted a Twitter thread covering Rovers' latest accounts. He does an excellent job of distilling club accounts into easy to digest charts and figures. Enjoy the always rather grim reading! (If there being a slight glimmer of hope now!)
  7. RoverCanada

    Venkys

    Well, even in our last year in the PL we weren't all that profitable, with a profit of £4m on the back of $14m profit in player sales. We actually lost £19m in 2010/11. As has been well-covered, we dropped out of the PL at the worst possible time. Our revenue then was only £54m compared to the lower PL clubs earning £120m these days. Parachute payments help, but they weren't as lucrative for us as they are now. (Off the top of my head, I think they were about £40m over 4 years for us, while the first year of parachute payments is currently £40m!) It all sounds like quite big money adding up the parachute money, player sales, etc., but you can easily tell the same story in the other direction adding up our outlays since 10/11. £245m in wages and salaries, £88m in other expenses. Intangible fixed asset trading has been a net loss of about £5m over those years. Accounting losses of about £115m. Perhaps there's a story to tell within those numbers and I'd of course be keen to read evidence of specific wrongdoing. I don't doubt there were overpayments to agents sprinkled throughout, Venky's stooges enjoying oversized salaries, etc. I'd have to listen to that BRFCS podcast again regarding the split between share capital Venky's has pumped in and debts, and how that adds up to over £200m... I recall the general story is that share capital is the most efficient way to cover ongoing expenses going forward rather than taking on further loans. Our interest payments have fallen accordingly recently. All I'm saying is given our specific circumstances and how common huge losses are across football, I'm personally not all that surprised by how much Venky's have ultimately had to pump into the club, whether in cash, share capital, or debt. While we're still a loss-maker, like pretty much every football club, all signs point to our cost structure finally being reset to a reasonable level (while still having relatively high expenses for a Championship/League One club due to Ewood, Brockhall, etc.). Hence, I suspect Venky's are perfectly happy to continue to hang on and incur losses that are manageable to them now (unlike the 12/13 - 13/14 £70m loss horrorshow), and maintain some perhaps vain hope that we'll scrape out a promotion some year.
  8. RoverCanada

    Venkys

    You mentioned in a previous that the sums had been done before and there's ultimately some unexplained hole somewhere in the accounts. Could you point me to the analysis you're referring to?
  9. RoverCanada

    Connor Mahoney's contract

    Is it normal or new policy for the exact terms of tribunal fees to be released like this? Makes you wonder what we got exactly for Josh King (which I've seen roughly reported as £1-£1.5m-ish?), as he would certainly be hitting performance/appearance-based clauses! £425k+ is pretty decent for Mahoney, particularly with hindsight at the season he just had. Wouldn't rule him out just yet anyway. edit: LT reported King's Bosman as an initial £1.5m, going up to £2m if clauses are met (I'd guess those clauses have been met!), but that was an agreement we reached with Bournemouth rather than being decided by a tribunal.
  10. It sounds like Wharton's been impressing with Lincoln City. He apparently went down with an injury at the end of the first leg of Lincoln's playoff, so hope he's okay. I'm struggling to find the link now, but I saw in an aggregation of ratings submitted by fans each game, Wharton was in their top 3 for the games he's played and it seems they're well aware he's a step above League 2. I suppose the question is do we keep him around as a backup CB or perhaps loan him to a League 1 club next year. The latter may make sense, particularly if we do sign another CB. Otherwise, he'll still likely be behind Mulgrew, Lenihan, and Downing, and Williams can serve as cover after that. edit: Found the player ratings link: https://lincoln.vitalfootball.co.uk/april-player-ratings-momentum-mid-rhondda-and-a-moment-in-time/ 3rd highest rating for April and 2nd highest for March.
  11. Our losses by season according to the latest accounts: 12/13: -£36.5m 13/14: -£42.1m 14/15: -£17.3m 15/16: -£1.5m 16/17: -£3.8m Not sure where he's getting his numbers from... Losses by FFP's standards may differ if it's looking at profit/loss before trading or there's some issue with Venky's capital infusions or commercial revenue contributions. We were under an embargo for the start of 15/16 and then got out of it, so you'd think only 15/16 onward would be applicable... Very odd.
  12. Even under the most pessimistic assumptions about our League One revenues, it's hard to imagine why we'd suddenly be heading to another transfer embargo if it's based on the max £39m losses over 3 years rule. I think we're pretty sure FFP isn't applicable to League One, so our losses this year shouldn't matter? Let's suppose they do. Assuming the most pessimistic numbers, our turnover this year was £2.5m matchday, £3m broadcast revenue, and £3m commercial: £8.5m. (I forget exactly, but I think it's mentioned in our accounts that £3.5m of our £5m commercial income is from Venky's, so I'd guess our commercial income can't have fallen that much). Let's assume Mowbray wasn't including staff wages in his £8.5m quote, so add £2m to that. High operating expenses of £11m. Net £1.5m spend on transfer fees: works out to a ~£15m loss at most. (Certainly gargantuan losses for League One!) 16/17 accounts had us at a loss of £3.8m, 15/16 a loss of £1.5m. So, shakily assuming our League One losses matter and being very pessimistic about our League One revenues, that's £20m of losses over three years. Well within the £39m limit... A few ways I could hazily imagine we're on our way to another transfer embargo: 1) Our losses before player trading in 15/16 and 16/17 were £15.5m and £13.6m. If FFP, for whatever reason, doesn't count transfer profits (I don't know the details), our underlying losses in the last three years have been more like £40-45m 2) Venky's have still had to regularly pump money into the club via share capital - perhaps some violation has arisen because of that? (No idea) 3) There's some way we've breached League One's rules. But it's well-established owner injections can be counted as turnover under the wage-to-turnover 60% restriction and there are other possible exemptions, so I can't imagine it's that... So I'd have to agree with other posters that this could only make sense if it was in a specific context of say "we can't spend £10m on transfer fees and £30m on wages next year or we'd be heading to a transfer embargo"...
  13. Haha, very much agreed on Alex Song... However, as a slight counterpoint, it's worth remembering that there is a bit of relative 'prestige' to the Championship. I just took a quick look and the average revenue per club is roughly similar to the top leagues in Japan, Mexico, and the Netherlands. (Our own revenue will be more like an average top division Danish or Portuguese side...) It's not a blot on the resume like League One could be considered by some players. Now, we're not going to be one of the high-rollers looking to steamroll the league into the Premier League like a Newcastle, Aston Villa, etc. and we'll have to spend wisely (signing potentially over-the-hill former stars on pricey contracts is thus probably a terrible idea), but there is a bit more room for, let's call it 'fanciful imagination' when discussing potential player targets compared to last summer!
  14. RoverCanada

    Tony's Transfer Record

    For the record, it's a 2-year contract https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2017/june/rovers-welcome-peter-whittingham/
×

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.