And now a goal for Weston (play starts from 2:34 below). Looking like a nice little loan for him to get some men's football with a flailing Kidderminster. I recognise the name but I don't recall much hype about him... Checking now, he did make our bench a few times this year. Played for England U-16s. Turns 20 in the summer. edit: updated the YT vid as the previous one went 'private' for some reason...

Think I saw that Walker's been dealing with an injury, but a quick perusal of Oldham's forum suggests he hasn't impressed much in his limited minutes. Don't think he's one to hold out much hope for anyway. Think his contract is done at the end of the year, so presumably he'll be off. Bloxham's lack of gametime is disappointing. It was mostly a function of our threadbare squad, but he did make our bench a number of times and JDT gave him a couple subs. Seems he was at least getting thrown on as a sub fairly regularly at Harrogate, but that seemed to stop and now not even making the bench. Can't find any word as to why. On the positive side: - Charlie Weston's had 4 starts + 1 sub since his loan to Kidderminster. Had a quick look on their forum and they seem to like him and are resigned to him not returning with their relegation to NLN. - Vale and Gent establishing themselves as starters at Motherwell is probably the best story of our loans. Their manager was recently quoted saying he'd love to have them back: Gent's played enough (League: 14 starts + 10 subs 1 goal 3 assists, and now firmly a starter, plus 2 starts and a goal in the Cup) that you'd have to figure he'll get a look as to whether he's ready to provide LB depth next year. We have our reasons to doubt Vale (League: 8 starts + 2 subs, 2 goals 2 assists, plus a goal in a Cup sub), but even if he's not in our plans, he may have at least shown he's worth a small fee for a lower league side? He's signed until 2025 + an option, so presumbly Eustace will get a look at him first.

A few notes after a skim amid some travel/work. Might give it a more detailed read later, but aside from the new language on the club as an ongoing concern... the actual numbers aren't surprising with the VLL accounts having already given a sneak peak. - As others have noted, this is only for 22-23, so this year's budget cuts won't show up yet. Easy to forget now, but with the additions of Szmodics, Hyam, and Brittain, a couple pricey loans, Dack/Ayala/BBD still around, there was generally decent financial support last year (setting aside the January fiasco...). Attendance improved a bit, had quite a few TV games, and the cup runs pushed up both turnover (to our highest since the end of parachute payments) and player costs. - I wouldn't get agitated about the £5.9m of max potential future add-on payments. That's only up from £5.3m last year and could apply to any player on the roster we picked up for a transfer (Szmodics, Hyam, Brittain, Pickering, Pears, Hedges, Gallagher, Wahlstedt, Telalovic, hell possibly even Academy pick-ups like JRC or Travis!) I'd imagine plenty of those transfers have promotion-related add-ons, for example, which is of course not a financial concern at the moment... May have an add-on for Szmodics' international caps, but that may not actually apply yet due to his caps only being friendlies so far! - Looks like Edun + Kaminski + Phillips was an initial £3.4m. That won't include add-ons... Stergiakis + Magloire and maybe loan fees and/or other add-ons (I'm not clear how those fit in to the figures!) netted £349k last year. - While 22-23 wasn't a 'sustainable' loss, with the previous Armstrong + STC sales, and now the Wharton sale, and accounting for other deductions, FFP simply isn't a concern/excuse at the moment... - Again had high interest income, I think due to the how the STC sale sat in our accounts, but swung back to net interest payments as the cost of the overdraft essentially doubled due to its rate being linked to the BoE rate. Don't mean to come off as making excuses/taking a rose tinted view, but the numbers for 22-23 are very much before things got dark...

New article in The Athletic: https://theathletic.com/5277307/2024/03/05/blackburn-rovers-gary-neville/ Don't think it adds anything new, but details how the Modi government's crackdown on the wealth transferring money out of the country links to Venky's purchasing Gary Neville's house for £7.4m in 2011 (there's your lede!). Summarising given the paywall: - Nothing new, but it details how £9m of Pune property has been seized by the govt so far based on 'unpaid tax and interest' on the investment in Neville's house. Venky's were allowed by the Delhi high court to pump in £26m in the summer and a further £11.5m in Nov (with equivalent amounts put in holding accounts), but a decision to allow more in Jan was delayed. Rovers provide boilerplate comment that the owners have assured them of their continued support, they hope to settle the matter soon, etc. No concern about staff wages not being paid. - Gives a general run-through of our past ~10 years, lack of signings of late, focus on youth, becoming a spot for young PL loans, etc. - Refers to signings and managerial appointments being run by both SW and GB, with input from the head coach. No mention of if that's changed in the past month or so... - GB/JDT hoped to add more Championship experience until Suhail informed them of the urgent budget changes. Example: GB/JDT were excited to sign Baath, with a deal verbally agreed, but were then told they could not sign anyone over 30. - Same thing happened with another unnamed target, so JDT offered to resign. Venky's, fans of JDT's coaching talent (albeit less appreciative of his public/private 'communications'), refused to accept his resignation. JDT felt his days were numbered, but was persuaded that if he kept the team in playoff contention, some more funds could be released for the Jan window. A loss of form followed a promising start; the Watford loss referred to as a 'killer' for morale. - The Athletic repeat their version of the McGuire saga (which Jackson's reporting partially refutes): initial deal nixed mid-flight, McGuire flew over anyway to secure a deal with Sheff Wed. That fell through, so his agent approached us about a loan. The "usual to-ing and fro-ing" occurred between GB, SW, Suhail, and Venky's before a ~£550k loan deal was agreed with a £5.5m purchase option. Deal and documents all signed, etc., but failed to click submit... Suggests we'll try to return for him in the summer. - Not the first time the recruitment team had agreed terms for a deal before there was 'ominous' silence from India and then word from Suhail that the deal could not go ahead. - JDT again offered to resign. Venky's said they'd accept subject to an agreement on terms. JDT "said to have made a financial 'sacrifice' to facilitate his departure" - Agent: McGuire was an extreme case, but there's an acceptance with all negotiations with Rovers that any agreement may be vetoed by Venky's. - Eustace's quick arrival was due to 'contingencies' being in place, as it was expected that JDT would leave in the summer. Refers to a wide, thorough recruitment process, variety of candidates interviewed. - Comment from Ian Herbert about the grim state of things after selling Wharton and JDT leaving, uncertainty about funding now tied to the whims of an Indian judge... Tim Farron can only highlight the Academy as a positive.

FYI, Jackson reported that GB said he'll do a post-transfer window interview during the international break, saying that he wanted to give Eustace some space before addressing it. (Not endorsing that btw, just saying FYI!) I really can't imagine how he'll try to spin it... if rumours are to be believed that GB's ultimately heading off (I've had a soft spot for GB's seeming competence, but I can't give a fuck anymore either way), it should be SW in the firing line, but he'll probably hide as long as he can. Might as well let GB take another bullet on his way out... Whatever the format of the interview, I only wish they'll be asked point blank 1) did A. Wharton push to be sold, 2) did we have to make that sale due to Venky's apparent inability to fund the club (and, as a follow-on if they claim FFP, run us through exactly how close we would have been to breaching FFP given budget cuts and also selling the likes of Kaminski and Phillips...) They may insist Wharton wanted to leave, it wasn't due to Venky's inability pump in more cash, FFP, blah blah blah, but might as well get them on record as lying (will at least get a partial answer to the latter when the accounts come out over a year from now...)

hahaha, Markanday a wily Hobbit amongst Ents there... nice to see some flashes from him (thought he was the only bright spark in that awful QPR loss)

Glad to see Ayari starting to show something. Didn't acquit himself well in that start against Cardiff, but I figure a smart club like Brighton will have had their reasons for bringing him in. Got some fire to him too, and seemingly unlucky with refs (I recall him getting some unjust fouls in his first or second appearance too...)

I think the wording in that article is still a bit confused, albeit it's a subtle difference. The rate that contracts are amortised, i.e., how the costs are booked in the accounts, still relates to the length of the player's contract. So, sign a player for a £10m and a 5-year contract, it's a £2m cost in the accounts for 5 years. This will show up under 'amortisation of intangible fixed assets' in the accounts. I think the general story with Derby is they got hit for choosing what amortisation periods suited them, which can be perfectly sound as far as GAAP goes (also see clubs taking impairments to bring forward the cost of bad transfers; there was a lot of that in Rovers' accounts back when we were negotiating our exit from FFP transfer embargoes in the mid-2010s...), but not for the sake of fiddling annual amortisation costs to game FFP. Chelsea is apparently staying within FFP despite spending £400m+ on transfers this year by using 8-year contracts to spread out the cost (while you book profits for sales today). That does also mean that Chelsea will still have a hefty amortisation bill for the next 8 years, and the 'booked profit' for selling any of those players in the next few years will be heavily reduced, but clearly those 8-year contracts aren't within the 'spirit' of FFP rules... The PL closed this 'loophole' by setting a maximum amortisation period of 5 years (contracts can still be longer than 5 years). (sidenote: the NHL had this issue when it implemented a salary cap years ago. Teams started signing older stars to 10+ year contracts, with the latter years at minimal salaries as the annual cap hit was averaged across the contract length. Teams fully knew the player would retire and get off the cap by claiming injury for those latter years. The NHL retrospectively punished a couple teams for that and now have a 7-8 year max contract rule... many of the folk running the NHL aren't too clever.) --- Accounting malarkey aside, I don't think that has any relation to the actual cashflows of a transfer. I haven't checked the regulations on this, but I can't imagine why there'd be restrictions on a club receiving a transfer fee 100% upfront versus spreading it out over X number of years. On top of that, clubs often 'factor' incoming transfer fees (https://www.ft.com/content/e47a43dc-2362-3780-a1e3-b17b06f2c165), taking loans on those receivables today. So, for Wharton, even if we've only received £6m so far from Crystal Palace, we can probably pretty easily secure a loan (with interest) for the remaining £12m (for the guaranteed fee; I imagine factoring for add-ons isn't so easy!) if we wanted to... tldr: I'm procrastinating from actual work

Aye. Suspect GB thus fed to Elliot that the initial McGuire deal was actually only £2.5m+, or whatever he reported. I'm sceptical of McGuire, but that's not an outrageous number for a young MLS striker (while the reports of the second deal rising to ~£6m are probably BS, or only if he hit major add-ons). Wasn't SW bragging to a supporter how he brought in Szmodics, rubbished the need for the DoF model, etc. essentially undermining GB? Ridiculously unprofessional. I imagine the idea of the model is the CEO stays out of the football minutiae and only handles the pursestrings, but SW's been in football long enough that he probably still thinks of himself as a 'football man' and jumped at an opportunity to take the reigns. It's often assumed SW and Mowbray were chummy, but this Athletic article from a couple years (undoubtedly sourcing Mowbray contacts resentful that no contract extension was coming) reported how their hirings were not linked, they didn't get on, and Mowbray resented SW's meddling in football matters, including scuppering the Rothwell sale, taking a more active role in recruitment after Harvey left, and mishandling the contract renewals (although that's probably linked to SW following strict financial marching orders from Venky's). I don't doubt that SW's had to deal with a lot of shit this year with the budget cut, but he's a relentless self-promoter. Hence he couldn't help himself in bragging about renovating a fucking bus (even if that was a legit 'small win') and paying creditors on time while everyone was concerned about the overall budget. He knew the owners were keen to hang on to JDT, so he publicly grovelled to assuage him ('no pressure', 'avoid relegation', etc.), which JDT mocked in response. It also took him until the summer to admit that he also may have had some culpability for the O'Brien fiasco... Avoiding/deflecting blame and overstating your accomplishments is often how mediocre BSers rise in the c-suite. This shit ultimately all comes from the top. In North American sports, fan ire is often directed at league commissioner, but they are simply a conduit for the league owners' wishes (for a TV analogy, think of Tom in Succession selling himself as a 'pain sponge'...). Seems the targets this year were 1) survive in the league amid the budget cuts (and sell Wharton if the courts keep holding up cash injections), 2) continue the development of the DoF model, and 3) hang on to JDT. Amid our poor run of form, whatever the fuck happened with McGuire, and JDT continuing to (justifiably) mouth off, SW saw an opportunity to undermine 2) and 3), while still hitting 1) and get his hands back on football matters.

And why weren't you fired...? (😉) I bet we don't even have the cashflow to fire anyone until the end of the season (hence all the apparent haggling over JDT's exit)...

Here's the article itself: https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24119456.latest-gregg-broughtons-blackburn-rovers-future/, as we should all support local journalism, etc etc... I listened to it while churning through some boring work in the late evening, so possible I mixed up the details there too!

Sorry, my wording conflated a couple things. Elliot's 'exclusive' report is that GB is staying (at least in the short term), and it's implied he knows that because he had a quick off-the-record chat with GB, presumably when he also found out GB will be doing an post-transfer window interview in a month's time. Elliot also went through his understanding of the McGuire saga (as I think he's already written before), including that the deal was not pulled mid-flight and that the numbers reported by The Athletic are too high. So, I guessed that he got these slightly more Rovers-friendly details from GB, but that's purely me guessing, and you're right that it doesn't chime with it being an 'off the record' chat.

A few tidbits from Elliot on that podcast. I think he's already written some of this, but more may be coming in future articles: - Who knows what story/side to believe, but he says he had an 'off-the-record' chat with GB. Elliot rubbishes the story of the initial McGuire deal being cancelled midflight, although reiterates Venky's did suddenly pull the funding for the deal. Says the initial deal was for ~£2.5m*. When Venky's pulled the plug, McGuire flew over anyway to negotiate with Sheff Wed. They couldn't come to an agreement, so his agent came back to GB about a loan-to-buy, with the buy cost increasing to ~£3.5m*. *I'm probably misremembering the exact figures. Main point is his sources (probably Rovers-linked) are insisting quotes of up to $7.5m are way off. - GB is staying, at least for the short-term, and was actively chatting with Eustace before/during/after the Stoke game. He'll be speaking to the media about the transfer window during/after the international break in March as he wants to give Eustace some breathing space first. Not sure if SW will speak. - Elliot didn't seem 100% sure, but he's under the impression Eustuce is a SW pick. Interestingly, he also suggests GB wasn't the one who picked out JDT (so maybe SW made the first contact with JDT?), but GB had a role in bringing him in/finalising it.

He said nothing of use, very generic comments but he did slip in that 50points is the target that is what he was brought in for. Get us to 50 points. Well you've got 15 games to get 14 points John. Looking at our fixtures that seems a huge challenge and big club was a strong chance of at least 1 point. His words not mine! Ha, reminds me that 51 points didn't do the job back in 16-17. Hell, we probably 'deserved' relegation that year all things considered, but yeesh was that harsh... Apparently Peterborough has the record for highest point total while still getting relegated at 54. Had a quick look and apparently ~43 is the average needed for staying up. We're on pace for 53 (current form of course a concern), QPR in 22nd is on pace for 43. Looks like Cifuentes has QPR back on track, but worth keeping in mind there's still a few shit teams between us and them. Should be doable... although I say that having missed last night's game... What's so ridiculous about our current predicament is suppose Eustace fails spectacularly and we get relegated (unlike Mowbray where we got relegated despite decent form under him - I don't mean to spark that debate!) I bet it'd still be up in the air whether we sack him as we wouldn't have the cash on hand to pay him off.

I think a PSA needs to be sent out about not giving any credence to sites like these 🙂 (Even need to be wary of the 'per week' values in FM, which may be reasonably close to reality in terms of footballers' 'basic' wage - fwiw, they have Dolan at £5k/week (https://www.fmscout.com/club/blackburn.html_) = but total salary costs will be much higher due to bonuses, sign-on fees, etc.)