How many millions was that ? As I pointed out, parachute payment clubs have an advantage - you don't hold that against the manager and call them a fraud. Dalglish had a huge financial advantage managing us in the Second Division but had to rely on the play-offs to get promoted. Was he a "fraud" as well ?

2 promotions in a career of just over 3 seasons probably explain it.

Nothing there justifies the use of the word "fraud". Most teams who get promoted from the Championship have spent millions because the parachute payments system gives them that advantage - albeit often they will have raised millions in transfer fees through sales of their 2 or 3 best players. All the manager can do is get his team promoted, which is what Parker has done in his 2 seasons in the Championship. Good managers do get late wins - Paisley and Ferguson were masters at it.

How is Parker a "fraud" ?

Thanks. When you say 75%, is that just players or everybody ? With income around £17m that would imply wages are in the region of £12.75m which is around half of 2 years ago. Have they come down that much ? (Does "wages" include employers NI which is now 15.05% so if included takes out just over 13% of the limit )

Thanks for this. Do you have a link for the detail ? Is "wages" the bill for all employees at the club, or just the players ? Are any players exempt, eg those under 21 ? Is it monitored in real time and what are the sanctions for failure to comply ? Does turnover include profits/losses on transfers ? Looking at published accounts the last set of accounts to 2021 showed wages at £25.7m with the last set of accounts for a normal non COVID affected year to 2019 showing turnover of £16.7m which would have meant, with a 90% test, wages of £15m and, with a 70% test ,wages of £11.7m. Even if the owners could put in more money for transfers it's not going to be much help if the club are unable to buy more expensive players if their wages bust the limits.

What do you think is the minimum fee the club should accept ? What if we don't get an offer that matches that ? Supposing the player and his representatives have decided that they are happy to run down his contract in the belief that a signing on fee from a new club - say £5m or so - sets him up financially ?

Which clubs are left ? Supposing he decides he doesn't fancy any of them and will wait a year ? There is nothing we can do.

Dolan and Vale have pace ?

That's the point, isn't it. All the cards are in Brereton's hands. We can't afford to pay him the sort of wages that he might get in the future so he is best advised to hang on for another year and see the lay of the land then if there is nothing spectacular coming this year. The one thing to our advantage is that gives him every incentive to give 100% as that way he should maximise the offers that will come in the future.

To put the player in the same financial position it would have to be a lot more than £8k a week. I remember reading that overseas players in Turkey were paying tax at around only 14% which compares with income tax at a marginal rate of 45% in the UK plus NI.

A very interesting read and thanks to Glen for his hard work. In particular, I would like to congratulate him on being a big enough man to change his opinions on Steve Waggot as a consequence of the meeting rather than sticking to preconceived views.

I don't think drastic changes are needed. As a general point the game is as popular in this country as it has ever been in my lifetime. There probably is a case for trying to reduce the level of losses that clubs in the Championship accumulate in the attempt to be one of the 3 out of 24 clubs who make it to the Premier League. This will likely require some form of salary cap in the Championship but that is not going to be easy to implement.

You don't address the point that was made. Generally speaking, clubs in the Championship are losing a lot of money - not just the one owned by Venkys. If the "fans" get a majority stake ( and how is that achieved ? ) how will they be able to cover the current level of losses ? Given that Blackburn has one of the lowest levels of per capita income of any area in the country I would think that Rovers would be a club that would be competitively disadvantaged by what you are proposing.

I see. We seem to have been losing in the region of £15m + a year for the last few years. How will the fans find 51% of that ?

What does 51% mean ?

Yes, a solid Championship full back - but probably will never prove to be more than that, and in the modern game where full backs are expected to provide an attacking threat his limitations in that sphere will probably hold him back.

I haven't goaded anybody. One poster made a remark about "Waggot's minions" - a clearly divisive remark - and I called him out for it.

Celebrating a win. Wow ! What a terrible thing for a fan to do.

Pathetic from beginning to end.

So interested in Nyambe that they couldn't match the mighty Wigan's offer of a 1 year contract.

Who on earth are "Waggots minions " ? Why are you so determined to create divisions amongst Rovers fans ?

I think you underestimate the practical consequences of the huge gulf in income between those clubs who have parachute payments and those like ourselves who do not. In each of the last 4 seasons 2 of the promoted clubs have been in receipt of parachute payments and only 1 has not. Those that have not had parachute payments typically make significant use of loanees. Sheffield United used 7 loanees in total making 151 appearances, Leeds used 7 loanees making 168 appearances, and Forest used 6 loanees making 161 appearances - 5 of Forest's starting line up in the Play Off final were loanees. The exception were Brentford - they usually are the exception - who used just 3 loanees making 50 appearances. The reason is that without bringing in loanees clubs without parachute payments are not able to access players of the calibre required to win promotion. There is no way Forest's transfer budget last season would have enabled them to get players like Davis, Spence, Garner and Lowe. Therefore I think we have to accept that we will have to make significant use of the loan system. The challenge is to do it well.

The position I have set out is the correct legal position and was made in response to another poster who wanted to know the legal position. What goes on inside the owners' heads is anybody's guess. The size of the debt and the fact that the training ground is no longer owned by the club would complicate any sale to a new owner. Additionally, it is not clear if there is anybody out there who would be prepared to cover the current level of deficit of revenue compared to expenditure. - and that is before we get on to the question of signing new players with people on this thread demanding somewhere between 6 and 10 new players within the next few weeks as well as calling for the wage structure to be torn up ; at least one poster called for us to "break the bank" to sign a Bosnian centre back that only about 3 of us had heard of a fortnight ago. I think some people on here need to wake up.

The accounts state that the debt is interest free and has no fixed date for repayment. It does not appear to be secured on any of the remaining assets of the club. There will likely be something in the documents setting up the loan which provide for a period to pass before the creditors can demand repayment. If the debt cannot be repaid then the creditors can apply to have the club put in to administration. At the moment the club seems to be spending in the region of £15m to £20m a year more than the revenue that is generated. If there is no new owner prepared to buy the club then almost every player will have to be sold and the academy closed down. You only have to look at Derby to see what happens if an owner decides they have had enough of a loss making club.