5 hours ago, Meesh said:

Google AdSense also pays per thousand ad impressions (views), I believe.

An ad-based revenue stream keeps the use of the website free of charge to everybody that uses it, and the ad revenues pay for the running costs of the website. Ads can be a pain for users, as seen here. There is actually a danger about relying on the ad model from a technical point of view, but I'd rather not divulge, and it would probably never occur.

The benefactor model, e.g. donations, can be unreliable. You might get a nice one-off donation, and maybe some sporadic minor donations, but it's not a regular stream to rely upon. It might work for some, but I don't think it is sustainable. I'm aware of one particular donor in times gone by that was given special dispensation on here, which I think is out of order. There was always a fear of losing that stream of income, which I suspect was more heavily relied upon back then, so I think there can be practical side-effects of relying on donations; namely, the influence they have over the website, and the elevation that they expect.

An alternative revenue model is freemium. There are zero adverts for all users. The basic (free) tier gives basic use of the website/service. A premium (paid) tier gives full use of the website and all its features. When I say "basic", that would mean losing much of the stuff taken for granted right now in order to encourage users to help fund the site through a premium subscription. As an example, £1 per month could give you access to the podcasts, allow you to post as much as you like, allow you to start new threads, access the non-football forums (although that's probably a punishment), and so on.

There are probably a lot more to the running costs than people realise. The forum software is top of the range. It isn't cheap to renew the licence, and free alternatives are quite nasty in comparison. The servers used require a bit of oomph. We're not talking about a £5 hosting package with GoDaddy, for example. There are also accountants to pay for. And who knows what other administrative costs.

Anyway, that's just how it is. Benefactors come and go. Technical ways of generating revenue change, particularly as Google tightens its grip on everybody's reliance upon them. I think there is something to freemium if ads are becoming a real issue on the web. Freemium still allows everybody to use the website for free in some capacity, and a small premium charge should give the website the income it needs. I don't know. Just my thoughts.

How did you hack into our last board meeting ? 😁 This virtually reads like the minutes...😆

41 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I just think you can maturely debate something without resorting to stuff like that. No need.

I submitted a considered reply to your article on Rovers Chat BTW in the interests of mature debate....but it hasn’t been published 🤨

4 hours ago, tomphil said:

Do they have to sign off the bill of sale though or can the CEO of Blackburn Rovers, the company the land belongs to not just do it ?

Depends what the Memo & Articles of Association say with regards to the CEO’s authority. I would suggest that in properly functioning board, the proposed transaction would be minuted at a board meeting & then the CEO would sign the necessary documentation as the sale is crystallised.
Whatever our doubts over Venky’s I struggle to conceive that this can be waved through by Waggott without them ever being aware, which suggests it has their stamp of approval.

1 hour ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

Some brilliant spin in there. I would be curious as to the FFP rules around training centres - especially academies. I.e can they  spend on the training ground without impacting ffp ? In which case it wouldn't necessarily need to be self funding.

Expenditure like this is allowable under FFP...

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

The gist is the owners haven't pitched this the club have - the club being Waggot, Mowbray & Venus....

They don't even know how much the new facility will cost and don't appear to have a guarantee from India to make up the difference. If that difference is too large what happens then ?  What's the next step in the grand plan, sell players to cover it ? Take it from the 1st team budget ?  Or just cut corners and downscale the refurb rendering it pointless in the first place ?

Bullshit of the highest order this is, they just want that stamp of building approval asap then get the money in and go from there by sounds of it.

No owner or director in their right mind would sign this off its been cooked up in the boot room at Ewood.

More worrying is do they actually legally need approval from India to push this through ?

The boards of BRFC (& presumably VLL) will have oversight...& ultimate accountability as they sign off the accounts. 

The Price of Football podcast is a fascinating listen...especially this segment (43 minutes in) many parallels between Coventry & Rovers...

https://overcast.fm/+UstefRZK4/42:57

Link here....stream at 11am on Sunday morning....will also be available as a podcast to download...

https://roversradio.co.uk/listen-live

20 hours ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Step 1 - Get a better manager. 

The end. 

I’d say the CEO also needs to be delivering a lot more to justify his salary 

I’ve just posted a reply which is awaiting moderation...incredibly high-risk strategy IMO.

Episode 2 of Sound of the Season, our podcast joint venture with Rovers Radio is out on at 11am on Sunday morning & yours truly looks back on the memorable promotion campaign of 1979/80 under the leadership of Howard Kendall.

A poor start, a great cup run and ultimately, glory in the league. Revisit the memories and the music - including tracks from The Police, Ian Dury, XTC & Peter Gabriel amongst others...

20 hours ago, Ianrally said:

Has it been deleted or am I just dumb and looking in the wrong place ?

I have no recollection of this...but I would be intrigued to reinstate it..l @StubbsUK another idea for the backlog ? 🤔

49 minutes ago, Gav said:

Can I ask, have you renewed your security certificates gents? 

I’ve seen ads in the past swamping user access due to expired certification. 

Apologies for sticking my nose in.

Thanks for the heads up...techies on it 👍🏻
@StubbsUK is I believe actively wrestling with Google...😳

33 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

I know it’s not your choice, just interested to why this site is now taking ads in a format that other sites have been doing for a long while - I.e. obviously not a blanket overnight change by Google

We don’t know what has prompted Google to make the change...phased rollout of a new strategy by them I presume ?

15 minutes ago, Gav said:

An example for anyone not seeing them. I’m not complaining, if this is the new normal that’s fine, anything to support the site is fine by me.

 

Thanks...they DO support the site, especially if folks click through but we are always considering options.

26 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Some other forums have presented ads like this for a while, any reason why brfcs has suddenly changed to mirror them?

It’s not our choice...Google just changed...we are trying to work out why/how & whether there is anything we can do about it...including potential Patreon type offerings...

Our techies are aware...it seems to be the way that Google are presenting their ads now.

As you rightly surmise, this effectively pays for the site so we need to be careful in making any changes that block them...unless you all fancy paying a monthly membership fee ? 🤔

@StubbsUK feel free to add some expertise to the thread...😁

13 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

What, never?

Open to gain information, closed to confirm the conclusion...so no, not never...but some say never say never...🤦‍♂️

21 hours ago, rigger said:

Is Mowbray satisfied with the results of him delegating training for dead ball situations. Both offensive and defensive.

Never ask a closed question...😉

It’s been said repeatedly on this thread but it bears repeating...do the thing that your “opponent” least wants you to do...

Waggott needs planning consent. Without it, everything else is moot.

Based on Friday’s video, the thing that Waggott fears most is objections from the residents. That is the most powerful tactic that can be deployed to prevent planning being approved. 

49 minutes ago, S8 & Blue said:

Just to reassure people thinking of visiting Sheffield that mushy peas ARE now available.

Couldn't live here otherwise.

 

Love Peas Hate Rovers

Give peas a chance

44 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

Me too, but what as I said I'm not sure what the options are for the club and I'm not sure anyone does.

The options are stark:

1. Cut your cloth accordingly - reduce outgoings to match income

2. Increase income to allow continued investment

3. Ask owners to invest to make good the shortfall

1 hour ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Sell Armstrong and raise similar capital to the land sale?

Yes, but players are current assets & can be more easily traded/replaced than training grounds...

9 minutes ago, lraC said:

After that, it’s a sale and rent back job. Similar to poor old Bury.

This is not going to end well. 

Precisely....I’ve worked on a number of sale & leaseback transactions in my career - businesses that need to unlock capital from their fixed assets in order to carry on trading. 
If the funds raised are then used to generate additional income then absolutely it could turn that business around.

Essentially therefore,  we are being asked to buy in to the premise that a smaller site, with fewer facilities (though possibly improved) will be better at producing young footballers - to save paying transfer fees & to sell on to generate income.

I’m sceptical...

9 hours ago, Southside Rover said:

These are business people, they aren't going to just accept 200 million losses and walk away are they? I'm not protecting their mistakes but if we were in business, got it wrong, inherited huge debts as a result, would we walk away or reevaluate and step back trust in who we see as capable, I know not an opinion shared to get stability and then build to get back to where it needs to be to recover those losses.

Clearly that takes time and might not ever get there but I don't know why anyone would walk away with a 200 million loss. 

 

They might choose to walk away with a £200m loss; simply because this is as good as it is likely to get. Pumping in c.£17m p.a. to keep the business ticking over is throwing even more money into a black hole.

The only positive way out for them is promotion & a sustained spell in the PL. No other scenario gives them their money back.