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!!!!!!

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.