The money V’s put in is literally to pay the bills. An internal overdraft if you will. The FFP calculation restricts what owners can put in. If they put more in than the FFP calculation we are in embargo, fine, points deduction territory.

That’s the point...V’s could if they wanted invest to do this...the fact that they aren’t but instead are realising the latent value of that land will generate a profit which helps our FFP calculation. Its not what JW had in mind.

I hate to say it...but FFP...this helps our FFP...

Sadly I agree...

The club doesn’t own land in India....the balance sheet being managed here is the club’s...

Exactly this...to pretend it’s anything about a new improved facility is frankly implausible.

Lazy f*cker 🤣 Losing half the footprint, half the pitches, rebuild STC but no bigger than current one

That’s not what the plans show

1. Rebuild the Riverside 2. Refurb/renew the rest of Ewood & it’s environs 3. Invest in the ladies team 4. Buy a Brexit busting feeder club in RoI 5. Appoint a sales & marketing director 6. Appoint someone to run merchandising & licensing 7. Appoint a fan liaison officer charged with building bridges with the community 8. Give away Rovers shirts to every new born child in BwD (Google Atalanta) 9. Give Rovers shirts to every 10 year old child in BwD (Google Accrington Stanley) 10. Design innovative fan membership schemes to encourage attendance 11. Issue a Fan Charter that says the club will run on ethical grounds - e.g. no gambling sponsorship, no vaping sponsorships - actively pursue commercial partnerships that are ethical/green 12. Change the floodlights to LED panels to allow pre-match entertainment options & demonstrate our green credentials I just came up with those off the top of my head (yes, we know...they’re lame...) but there are folks out there that can do this stuff, that want the best for their club. What we have is distant, remote owners and one of the lamest executive boards I’ve ever seen at Ewood. Over to you...😉

If Venky’s wanted to make a statement, they could upgrade/refurbish Ewood/Brockhall with their own cash with no FFP implications. This strikes me as Waggott coming up with a wizard wheeze to improve cash flow. Is he targeted on that metric I wonder ?

When Venky’s build on (metaphorically...not literally) Jack’s legacy then they can be said to be taking the club forward. There is not one single objective metric of import that is better now than the day they took over. If they were selling Brockhall entirely to build a bigger facility in another location as they recognised the importance of growing your own talent and each pitch was say, to have undersoil heating or be on rollers (like at Spurs stadium) to ensure that we always had a pitch available to use, then I think the fans would be more forgiving of that kind of proposal. Again...this is not progress....this is cash raising because of Covid.

If it’s NOT financially profitable why on earth would we be entertaining the proposal ?

As has been pointed out...only 1 minute commute between the two...let’s buy some golf buggies instead 😉

This whole “outdated facilities” thing...three quarters of Ewood Park is the same age as Brockhall...should we knock that down ? I was fortunate enough to be given a tour of the STC a couple of years ago, unless they’ve gone downhill bloody quickly, they were pretty impressive to the untrained eye I can assure you.

It’s a possibility but it’s rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic unless there is hidden oil reserves at the JTC.

I suspect you are correct. No income for 12 months....this is a proxy for matchday revenues that have been lost.

It changes the nature of the balance sheet - converts a fixed asset (land & buildings) into a current asset (cash) & if sold at more than book value generates a profit.

I demand INSTANT results 😁

If constructive debate & exploration of different perspectives changes someone’s mind...isn’t that a good thing ?

Rovers main assets that could easily be liquidated are the players. Next is probably Brockhall though that is, as we are seeing, more complicated and time-consuming. Redundancies typically aren’t cash flow positive for some months in any event - especially if the staff made redundant have been in post a number of years. In the context of Rovers, the wage Bill of the entire admin staff is but a blip when compared to the players...or Waggott’s for that matter. Businesses rarely shrink to greatness...sometimes they sell off non-core operations to focus on the main one & that turns it around...but once you start selling fixed assets then it’s a hard cycle to break.

Please...let’s keep the debate on the facts of the proposal not personal slurs... I keep saying it....this is a cash raising exercise to mitigate Covid income deficit...it’s blindingly obvious. Realising the impact such a proposal will have on the fanbase, a positive spin is being wheeled out by the club. Many are taking it at face value, others (myself very much included) can see it for what it is. In my professional capacity I have seen numerous instances of businesses struggling with cash flow having to make difficult decisions regarding asset sales.

They’re actually in this thread 😉

Yes, I agree...what I’m saying is park that...because I simply don’t see how less is more on a purely logical, cold hard fact basis. The legacy aspect is reason enough for me, but for those with whom it doesn’t resonate all I seek is a logical argument as to why less is better, because I don’t get it.

FWIW the legacy aspect is emotional & frankly probably means more to older supporters...park that, let’s just consider the facts for a second... 1. Smaller site - how is that better ? It introduces a constraint that isn’t present today 2. Fewer pitches - how is that better ? See above... (True, we might save on some fertiliser, grass seed and labour costs but that is truly small beer in the overall running costs 3. More players using a new STC that by the club’s admission will be no bigger than the current one - how is that better ? Will this make it easier or harder to attract talent ? Will it threaten or improve our comparative stance when parents bring their kids to the club ? This deal is to raise cash....that is self-evident...I just wish they’d be up front about it & not try to spin it as a progressive move. It is just like schools having to sell playing fields to keep solvent. You can do it once...but what do you do next ? I should try this with Mrs H...”I’ve sold our house love and next week we move to a new state of the art flat...”

But asking them to reveal what they know up front is a sensible tactic as anything uncovered thereafter confirms that they were being dishonest...