31 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Yes, if players are not with a new club by the time their contracts expire on 30th June, their old club pays their wage until the end of July or until the player signs up with a new club, whichever comes sooner

Even if the player has been offered a new contract on no worse terms ?

4 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Some people aren't half jumping to conclusions with this. 

He's been a championship regular for three years and he's only 23. He will have his fair share of suitors.

Yes, he will certainly have suitors - the question is whether he and his agent have significantly over-estimated the size of the financial offer that he can command.

8 minutes ago, Mercer said:

See Derby have completed the signing of Patrick Agyemang for an initial fee believed to be almost £6million, however, he will miss the first games as he needs hernia surgery!  Explodes the myth they have nowt to spend.  Whether they have enough left in the coffers for Brittain and/or Travis remains to be seen.

At least they are showing ambition and backing their feckin manager.

They showed a lot of ambition when Mel Morris owned them - too much as it turned out because it bankrupted them.

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Yes. He shouldn't have been able to buy the club outright.

That is a large part of why we're in the situation we're in now. 

Well, it's a point of view I suppose.

8 hours ago, Upside Down said:

Exactly, which is why we need to campaign for fundamental changes to the way our heritage is owned.

It should not be allowed that private entities own our culture.

I'm not too sure what you mean by "private entities" but on the face of it you seem to be saying that Jack Walker should not have been allowed to buy the club.

25 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I would imagine the Sky lawyers are already rubbing their hands if this happens. The greedy clubs won't be too pleased though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy0wpvqwdw9o

That's a big "if". The minister has already stated that the government are opposed so it will only pass with a big backbench rebellion.

11 minutes ago, roverandout said:

Birmingham signing ex celtic forward kyogo while we are searching around bottom of the barrel players.  Birmingham have rich owners but so do we yet their owners are ambitious.  

Birmingham's owners only previous experience of this division was 2 years ago when their dreadful decision making resulted in them being relegated.

1 hour ago, Ossydave said:

Hull spent about 27m last season, you just know this is going to get spun at some point saying this is why we don't go round spashing the cash, we don't want to end up like Hull.....

It's not spin to point out that many of the problems that arise at clubs result from owners putting clubs on an unsustainable cost base and are then unable to continue - that is pointed out in the explanation for the financial sustainability tests required in the forthcoming Football Governance legislation

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Was he a legend?

A one season legend - like Andy Crawford

5 minutes ago, TimmyJimmy said:

Why on earth would he say any of this stuff!? It's ridiculously naïve.  Why didn't his agent stop him.  He has to come back to Ewood this season, why get everybody's back up with stupid unnecessary comments like that.

He was a legend at our club and held in great regard by the fans now it turns out he gave us two fingers and told the club to do one. Don't know about you but I love rejection.  What kind of reaction does he anticipate?

If he aspires to get into coaching after his playing career is ended he's pissing on his chips with any return to us.

I defo would have given him real good round of applause when he came back to play against us but after treating us with such disrespect he'll get an earful.

Self centred and entitled like all the rest of the overpaid footballing pre Madonnas, absolutely no respect for those who make them as rich as they are.

Do one Sammy.

Come off it - he singlehandedly ensured we weren't relegated.

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Yep, bankruptcy is a disqualify event.

OK -Thanks

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

We can't though.

Per the rules we have to be able to do so.

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Surely it can't hinge solely on whether ( if it happens) they're found to have committed a Civil or Criminal offence?

By way of example Bankruptcy per se isn't a criminal offence but if any owner found themselves in that position, presumably that would suffice?

Not sure that bankruptcy would suffice for an existing owner provided a club was continuing to pay their way and could demonstrate that they could continue to do so.

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Blimey.

What sort of things are deemed serious enough to disqualify someone then?

It happens rarely. As we have seen at Reading there were problems over a period of years regarding non payment of wages and taxes before the owner was required to sell.

44 minutes ago, superniko said:

Found this one baffling….how are we bringing in less broadcasting revenue now compared to 2015 and 2016?

There is a ridiculous amount of matches televised these days and we appear to be none the better for it.

We were relegated from the Premier League in 2012. At the time parachute payments were paid to relegated clubs for the next 4 years so were still being received in 2015 and 2016.

1 hour ago, glen9mullan said:

We fully understand the legislation, have members who have been part of building the structure for the said legislation. 

Everything we do, we review the legal side and are extremely thorough and strategic to mitigate against the balls falling on the wrong side of the net.

The Coalition is made up of a lot of people, differing opinions/skill sets and does not stifle or prevent the group's involved carrying out their own objectives or remits. Individual group activities have not ceased or paused by being part of a collective panel.

Respecting each groups objectives and opinions has been paramount and remains top of the agenda in terms of how the Coalition operates.

Selling the club would be one outcome many desire.

However from a personal point of view stability, strong competent leadership at Board Level and the removal of those whose do the club harm is at the forefront of my mind.

We may get new owners and a continued circus entrusted with running the club.

We need to shut the circus down, and seek a hierarchy that functions with integrity , whilst are accountable for their actions.

If our current owners cannot implement the positive changes required for the club to rebuild then ultimately they need to go.

I'm a firm believer that we should never shut a door completely, but by the same sentiment, never be afraid to open a new one.

We need to eat the elephant piece by piece.

In terms of new owners one objective of the Coalition (baring in mind resource levels), is to make Rovers a credible purchase, developing what can be achieved,  how and utilising data and market research to increase the attractiveness to potential buyers/investors.

As I've tried to maintain throughout in my posts,  I'm trying to be as transparent as I can without literally handing on a plate to the club what our current activities are.

The club continues to ignore individual supporter group/ supporter emails, with them going unanswered regarding SLT engagement.

Whilst their generic response to the Coalition, was they'll speak to the Fans Forum in July.

The Coalition website is due to go live which has been worked on by a working group within the team and hopefully it can be another vehicle to communicate what's being done by all the volunteers involved.

 

I note your points about the supporter engagement with the club,  it's 100% been getting discussed weekly by the panel, at the moment the club has put a brick wall up.

 

 

Thank you for this. I think the club with its history and excellent Academy would attract potential purchasers without too much difficulty. The difficult issue would be negotiating a price.

39 minutes ago, lraC said:

Can I ask why you went to the trouble to read that and do you have any comments positive or negative to make on it?

Can you also let me know where I can find them?

Thanks in advance.

Google the words "Football Governance Bill House Of Commons Library" - and then go on to the link dated 23 April 2025. Scroll down that page to the words "Explanatory Notes" as of 27 March 2025. They run for 116 pages. For the purposes of what has been discussed on this thread I think you will find pages 40 to 52 the most relevant.

I was interested to see what is about to happen. My hunch is that fans are likely to be disappointed; I've seen comments on here about fans getting "more power" whereas that power is really limited to various heritage issues like club name or colour of shirts. I suspect it won't be too long before the Regulator is one of the most unpopular people in the country.

6 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Okay, let's try this another way....

Do you think the coalition are doing the right thing in getting the owners to sell, because the owners have done an awful job since they bought the club, or do you think the owners are doing a good job, so the coalition shouldn't bother getting the owners to sell?

I would like the owners to sell - and have done since they sacked Sam Allardyce.

1 minute ago, K-Hod said:

Do you not think they're doing the right thing at the moment?

Speaking to the MPs - yes. Again, I want them to work within the system - it's just worth pointing out that the one outstanding contribution made by a supporters group was when the Trust got an Asset Of Community Value order placed over Ewood Park. That was an example of people making sure they understood the law and working within the system.

As for the Coalition they've set themselves a very hard objective - advocating a sale by owners who have never shown an inclination to sell. I'm not personally able to see how they can achieve that - but Glen has made it clear that they will stay the right side of the law and that definitely is "the right thing".

2 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Literally nothing in my post said you were critical, either.

What I did say, as it clearly bears repeating: 'you seem determined not to get behind the coalition' and 'it's a shame you can't support these people'. 

Show them some support and that you're willing to get behind them, then I'll absolutely hold my hands up and acknowledge that.

I'm happy to show support for them in doing the right thing. I get behind them by making constructive proposals.

45 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Masher seems to fundamentally not understand that ‘the club’ is not acting in good faith.

Masher has made the effort to read the Parliamentary notes explaining the new legislation and understands that when it is enacted the club will have statutory obligations regarding fan engagement which they will have to fulfil whether they want to or not.

12 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

You seem determined not to get behind the coalition, which is made up of people trying to make things better for the club.

It's a shame you can't support these people, really.

Complete nonsense. Literally nothing in my post is critical of the Coalition.

Here are 2 constructive proposals for them.

The Bill provides for there to be regular meetings with a representative group of supporters :

1. The Coalition should approach the club for detail of how they envisage that representative group be constituted.

2. The Coalition should ask the club to state how many meetings a year they would regard as meeting the requirement that they are "regular".

That is what I mean by working within the system.

7 hours ago, Upside Down said:

It's great that MPs are onboard with this. It's a huge issue for the town.

The detrimental impact that venkys have had on the town both economically and in terms of our world wide representation are immense.

This is much much bigger than just a bunch of football fans complaining about a shit team. This needs government intervention to protect all football clubs, not just ours, and the community that surrounds them. This is our national cultural heritage we're talking about here. 

Long term I think a coalition of many fan groups of many clubs is needed to force change on this issue.

The Football Governance Bill is passing through Parliament and should be law by the end of next month. It is designed to provide the protection that you are looking for, as well as a system for fan engagement. I think the Coalition are going to have to work within this new system.

5 minutes ago, Mike E said:

You think £6.4m isn’t realistic? If we include events since those accounts were finalised, including the sacking of two managers and a DOF, as well as multiple backroom staff, and around £1.8-2m in agent fees alone, then I think we could hit that additional figure reasonably quickly.

I can remember two managers leaving of their own accord, with reportedly the club receiving compensation in each case. But who were the two who were sacked ?

1 minute ago, K-Hod said:

That will more likely include wages and other running costs, but don’t let that get in the way of an instant dismissal.

Per the 2024 accounts costs were £38.6m which includes non cash items like depreciation and amortisation of player contracts. To suggest that there will be millions of pounds on top of that as a budget flies in the face of what we know to be the case.