Mashed Potatoes

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.

It is loaded on the club, I'm afraid. The most recent published set of accounts - as at 30 June 2021- showed an amount of £130m owed by the club to Venkys London Limited.

It's worth pointing out that in addition to the numbers you quote you have to add on Employers National Insurance - now 15.05% - plus any premiums for insurance that the club take out for players wages if they get injured. That takes the annual cost for the £10k per week over £600k.

Based on his CV Broughton looks like a good appointment - his approach should fit well with a club that has to rely on its academy for players.

Unfortunately this is not just going to be a question of those making the decision identifying the right person but then convincing them to work for Venkys, whose standing is football is low. Good people usually have a choice of where they can work.

A good summary of Mowbray's time with us - broadly the same points per game return in the Championship as Bowyer and Lambert but arguably inherited a weaker position. Leaves the club better placed than when he joined.

Regarding Phillips isn't it the case that until his 17th birthday there is nothing the club can do to stop him leaving if he wants to - it just becomes a question of sorting out some kind of compensation. He is 17 on June 26.

Thank you for this. I am several hundred miles from Blackburn so am out of the loop but given that next season starts in just over 3 months time I would have expected that if the various works that were mooted were to be carried out then contracts would have been signed by now - yet there has not been a word. I think it looks like people have been put away. More generally, over the years practically none of the claimed inside information scoops that have appeared on here have been borne out by events. I think the reason is simply that every decision of significance is taken thousands of mile away in India - and nobody at Ewood Park really knows what is going to happen - let alone the people they are supposedly leaking to.

You told us that we could anticipate positive developments at the club in the summer. When do you think they will come and what will they be ?

Per their accounts Brentford's wage bill for last season was £41.44m. However that included costs of £11.95m in bonuses for achieving promotion to the Premier League. Take that away and they would be below the clubs you refer to.

To me it does need explaining so please could you do so. TV and media money for us was £8.91m and for Preston was £8.89m.

I think you are a bit harsh on the club's efforts regarding income from commercial sources. The accounts show commercial income of £4.79m; the most obviously comparable club to us for last year in terms of division, location and size of town would be Preston whose accounts show commercial income of just under £1.2m. Whilst no doubt there is always going to be room for improvement I would like someone to provide an example of a club whose accounts for last year show a demonstrably better performance in this area, taking in to account location and size of population. How does the club not have"proper sponsorship" ? We are in a time when corporate budgets are coming under considerable pressure from rising costs. Sadly that will lead to cutbacks in certain areas and I suspect that sponsorship and involvement with Championship level football clubs will be near the top of the list.

Seems hard to believe after Revidge Blue told us that there were going to be positive developments at the club over the summer.

Tremendous win in the circumstances. Credit to Tony Mowbray for what was clearly an inspirational half time team talk which coupled with the astute substitutions turned it around. Also to Sam Gallagher who thoroughly deserved his goal after his performance - I think that moment when he closed the keeper down set the tone for what happened.