Agreed. I remember paying nearly £500 for a ticket in JWU in the early 2000's. John Williams was initially most resistant to the concept of lowering prices until the then Fans Forum challenged him on it. He hailed from Southampton and was pals with Southampton chairman Rupert Lowe and their view at that time was basically that the Club should be able to charge what they want and as a fan you should demonstrate your loyalty and support and pay it. Fast forward to today and the combination of a dreadful manager and CEO, average team, generally unpopular owners and prices raised since just before a pandemic have contributed to a perfect storm re attendances.

At least Mr Maguire has a broad handle on what's going on. The article tends to indicate any income counting towards FFP calculations had to be in before 1st of July and from memory Armstrong wasn't sold until some time after that. The loophole on selling your training ground back to yourself was also seemingly closing so it would appear that's all that's happened here.

Or, option 3, in that rather extreme and currently seemingly very unlikely scenario is that any future purchaser could utilise the money they've saved in not having to buy Brockhall towards the purchase of a new facility. Seems to me the owners are re-affirming their commitment to the Club and bedding in for the long haul rather than the opposite I.e. clearing the decks for a sale and/or administration scenario. What they have to do is start employing the right people to run and manage the Club. 28/10/21. Come back to this and quote me in future if I'm wrong.

Having made a quick enquiry I'm content at this stage to attribute this to creative accounting which is allowable for FFP purposes. Feel free to remind me of that statement if it proves to be incorrect. Good point in your final paragraph about Waggott mentioning that any new facility would incorporate public use. My own personal view is that unlike Ewood Park the Club's training facility is private and should remain so and that Waggott's mention of this was a desperate attempt to make the scheme sound slightly more attractive to local residents.

Can't see why it matters if they've split it or not. The same option is still there for the other half if needed.

2) Not as far as I could throw him. 3) Rightly not granted imo. It's a private facility. A public footpath which happens to run through part of the training ground is a bit different to having liberal access to the training centres and their facilities!

The owners wouldn't actually gain anything by transferring all or part of Brockhall to a different Company though would they? If they leave the STC out of any future sale they get correspondingly less money!

I hope that's the case anyway. Needs further clarification mind.

It's a private facility!

Devil's advocate mode on: The owners have confirmed their continuing commitment to the Club by pumping in a further £16m worth of funding and have shown for the first time that they are prepared to be creative in an attempt to get round FFP.

If this is the post you're on about...... 1) Can't see an issue with only part being transferred at this stage per se. The option is still there if we need a further injection of funds in the future over and above that permitted under FFP. 2) What shows it wasn't Waggott's decision? He admitted in the LT he was the driving force behind the original scheme. 3) I was not aware that Brockhall was ever the subject of an ACV application. I was under the impression it was generally accepted it could not be classed an ACV as it was a private facility. And so it should be. Can you just traipse through Liverpool or Manchester United's training ground at will? Plus any facility fot public use would be unlikely to meet Category 1 Academy requirements.

The option is still there if we need it.

1st part agree. 2nd part - there's £16m of them!

I have to applaud you for being diligent and breaking this news first but I'm struggling to understand your stance on this. 1) Why does it matter if the assets of the new Company are included in any future sale and 2) Would you rather have the STC owned by a Company controlled by Venky's (as has been the case) or owned by a Company controlled by Venky's with an additional £16m in the bank?

You're not getting it but it's not a trick question. Venky's own the Club and it's assets in their entirety already. (Apart from a handful of shares owned by individuals). The fact that technical ownership of the STC has switched to a different Company owned by exactly the same people is neither here nor there UNLESS the assets of the new Company weren't included in any future sale of the Club. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that would be the case but it is something which needs urgent clarification and assurances.

Banging my head against a brick wall here....... who own 99.9% of "Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Ltd" Exactly the same people who own the new Company!!!

Mowbray and Waggott aren't using that as an excuse are they? Probably because it's their fault we ran into FFP difficulties in the first place.

There's no evidence to suggest that whatsoever!!!

What are you talking about? "Rovers" don't own anything!!!

Great Post. Nice to see some balance being injected into the debate. It seems to me on first glance the owners are getting panned for trying to find creative ways of injecting funds into the Club without breaching FFP. *** *** Needs further clarification and investigation and I stand to be corrected should anything untoward come to light.

I note you've completely avoided my question of how do you explain away why they've tried and failed to do it before.

So how do you explain then the fact they tried, and failed, to do exactly the same thing without any plans for a new training facility (or even a site) at Coventry? Pure coincidence?

Why not?

All sounds fair enough in theory. The thing I'd want clarification on there is that the Club are only being charged a peppercorn rent.

They already own it!!!!!!