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!!!!!!

Obviously Waggott and Mowbray couldn't actually sell the training ground without the owners' consent. However as they tried to do exactly the same at Coventry it's fairly inconceivable that the original idea to sell the training ground here didn't come from them. Waggott also admitted in the LT he was the driving force behind the idea. God knows what they told the owners, however having tried and failed to pull off the same scheme twice at two different Clubs I think it's naive in the extreme to think they wouldn't be getting what they would consider to be some form of perfect legitimate benefit had the plans gone through in either case.

The "Club" isn't even in the Club's name is it? Isn't the overwhelming.ing majority of the Club's shares owned by Venky's Hatcheries London Ltd or whatever it's called?

I agree on that part of it, on the face of it it could be an incredibly positive development so I'm not entirely sure why we wouldn't publicise it. Didn't Derby get in some sort of trouble for trying to get round FFP by doing something with their training ground or am I imagining that? One further point occurs to me, is am I right in thinking the site is the one that can't be developed for housing? If it is, there'd be little point financially in the owners acquiring it with a view to a future sale.

Amen to that my friend.

"Owners of training ground STILL own training ground shocker!" As I mentioned above this could merely be an attempt to inject funds into the Club without breaching FFP. I do think we need detailed clarification and assurances on the matter though.

I'll be the first one to jump all over anything untoward regarding Brockhall and would need to know more but my first thought is - is there anything to see here? The site is still owned by one of Venky's Companies just as Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club is one of Venky's Companies given they own the Club. Can't remember exactly the date when Waggott's plans to flog the other site for housing were shelved but could it not be a case of the owners stepping in to thwart Mowbray and Waggott's grubby little scheme, inject some money into the Club during a pandemic without breaching FFP rules and prevent the sites from falling into actual 3rd party ownership? As long as the assets of this new Company would form part of a sale to any future owners should that arise I can't see any issue with it. People are always complaining that the owners should be more creative with their attempts to inject capital into the Club to circumvent FFP. My only reservation is that if this is what's happened you'd have thought that the Club would be shouting it from the rooftops. On the other hand maybe it's a bit of a grey area for FFP purposes and the Club want it to go slightly under the radar. Definitely something the Fans Forum should be quizzing Waggott on and getting a definitive answer on. If the cash injection means there is no longer a need to consider a sale to external parties of either site I would only view that as an incredibly positive thing.

In fact it's so bad he'll have "put up with it" for five and a bit seasons by the end of this one and only a few weeks ago his mate Swag was talking about hopping on a plane to India to sort out a new contract for Tony. Pull the other one Mick

Well the only opinion of mine that that load of old codswallop (not aimed at you WIR) has changed is that of Mccarthy. And not for the better. If things are that intolerable for Mowbray, why doesn't he just leave? Old pals act. Then again dinosaurs did use to roam the earth in packs.

No, but they employ Waggott and Mowbray to manage the football side of the Club on their behalf!!! Not too unreasonable is it? Mowbray made a decision he didn't want to upset the rest of the squad. And he also got us into FFP problems running a massively bloated squad full of dross like Bennett and Evans. It's not the owners withholding finance per se. Although yes, they should probably have noticed the situation and nipped it in the bud sooner. But then again , what are they paying Waggott and Mowbray for? It's up to them to keep us within FFP parameters and flag up any potential problems with the squad well before they happen giving the owners the option of what they then want to do.

No, by his own admission in that article it's partly because Mowbray is claiming he isn't prepared to sanction offering said players anything beyond a so called wage ceiling so as not to upset everyone else. I'm calling BS on that because again by his own admission they would have been prepared to completely ignore that in the case of Armstrong so the wage cap clearly isn't as inflexible as he is making out if they want to keep the player badly enough and it isn't the owners putting the block on it financially. Also I would wager the likes of Nyambe and Rothwell will be on an absolute fraction of the likes of Ayala, Gallagher and Dack so to assume that they would be after parity or something in excess of those players is nonsense imo. The only way in which I think you could say it was in any way the owners fault is by not sacking Waggott and Mowbray well before now. If you were Rothwell and 27 and potentially considering your last really big career move, would you really want to sign for a lame duck manager like Mowbray? Or if you were an outstanding talent like Nyambe and had been constantly shuttled in and out of the side by Mowbray behind inferior players, would you be busting a gut to re-sign for him either?

So where's this new contract for Lenihan that Waggott was apparently assuring everyone he was on the point of signing a couple of months ago? Surely he couldn't have been being economical with the truth?