17 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

So explain the £20m in share issues  put in the club every year to keep it going? What are the FFP rules regarding owner investment? 

I genuinely don't understand it anymore. 

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.

14 minutes ago, superniko said:

I thought facilities weren’t a factor in FFP? Sure that’s been stated before when talking about the Riverside. 

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.

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Venkys do. Nothing stopping them putting money in. 

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

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

Some of the terms of Jacks will were allegedly overturned in a Jersey court in order to sell the club.

Money talks, get the best lawyers, grease the right wheels and away you go. I don't think they'd be this far along if they weren't confident.

 

Sadly I agree...

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

They should sell some land in India instead. 

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

12 minutes ago, J*B said:

Covers a years loss of income due to a global pandemic 

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

Just now, bluebruce said:

Ok so, I'm not going to read the full plans. But I'm curious about them and others say they've read them. It barely seems to have been touched on through this discussion, which has centred over other issues around it, but I'd really like to know...

So sure, I'm being lazy, but could someone who has read the plans give some kind of breakdown of what facilities are proposed for the new site? Ideally contrasted to what facilities are already in place on the old site (or maybe yet another person may be able to give that).

I think it would be nice to have a sense of what actual facilities we stand to gain and which we stand to lose. I'm not really interested in how shiny the new building is, and only a little interested in players/staff per square metre. I'd much prefer to know the bread and butter to get a sense if it's an upgrade or a downgrade. Obviously with the regime's track record I expect a downgrade.

If someone is capable of giving that breakdown so there's something tangible to assess beyond the asset reduction and legacy debates, I'd be vastly appreciative.

I appreciate the plans may still be vague in some areas.

Lazy f*cker 🤣

Losing half the footprint, half the pitches, rebuild STC but no bigger than current one

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Maybe the indoor facilities will fall by the wayside. Mowbray recently said they dont train in them even when it leaves our pitch in ruins, so it fits the narrative to get rid to save the Venkys some rupees.

That’s not what the plans show

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 ?

6 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Very fair point. I would definitely like to know though, in your personal opinion... 

At what stage are the owners of the club able to make decisions that perhaps Jack Walker wouldn’t have made without being deemed disrespectful?

In 100 years time, would it still be a disrespectful move to merge the training centres (or another comparable club decision)?

Or are Jack’s wishes for you, and for others, ultimate now and final?

(Genuine questions, hope nobody will take offence).

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.
 

2 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

You can use ‘could’ because we’re all speculating over the benefits and drawbacks. You don’t know that it won’t be financially profitable for example. Your final question is what we all need the club to clearly answer and until then, it’s hard to make a definitive judgement.

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

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Would a pro be all the coaching staff from first team to under 18's working more closely together on the same training complex 

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

3 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I’m on the fence. Need to learn more about the proposed new STC. I have no doubt that our facilities are getting outdated but it doesn’t sound like the replacement will be significantly better, at least on paper. If the club benefits financially and we end up with a better facility then it’s obviously a no brainier but we need to see the finer details. 

In terms of Jack’s legacy, I think we need to be philosophical. Preserving Jack’s legacy shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to improve the facilities, similar to any suggestion to replace the riverside stand. They key is to fully understand how the club will benefit and right now, it’s not particularly clear. 

Obviously with this being Venkys, I don’t blame any supporters from fearing the worst. Right now, we need to establish the facts.

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. 

Just now, den said:

Could it be that Venkys are planning on getting out and grabbing what they can before they do?

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

1 minute ago, Proudtobeblue&white said:

My parent's worked at the former hospital, I grew up on Larkhill. The junior TC is based at the superb sports fields belonging to the hospital trust, for staff teams, two football pitches and a billiard like cricket field. No expense was spared at the hospital. The STC is on the site of former hospital wings that were demolished when Thatcher decided on care in the community. The facilities are excellent. This is simply to raise cash.....by whom.....?

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

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:
- Selling the land technically is financially beneficial but does it not technically devalue the club? Might need some more well knowledged opinion on that.

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.

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Of course. But at least sleep on it. 😉

I demand INSTANT results 😁

5 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

You're first post was supportive of the project. Questioned less than an hour later about the detail and you are sketchy to say the least, and have nothing positive to say. 

Forgive my scepticism. 

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.

Just now, JoeH said:

I feel like I have a right to be upset when my character is so aggressively attacked. But I think we'll leave that there given that the admins have dealt with the issue and made comment.

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.

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

BRFCS posted them on Twitter.

They’re actually in this thread 😉

Just now, Leonard Venkhater said:

The legacy word is particularly important in a Blackburn Rovers context, though, because it was Mme Desai's original vow to "respect Jack Walker's legacy" ...but....

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. 

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

And they’ll flat bat it away, obviously. 

I’d prefer real journalism that publishes the investigated story and then gives those involved the right to reply.
 

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